Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA19063 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:51:20 GMT Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:48:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200011162248.OAA15527@mail15.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [209.240.220.203] From: "Scott Chase" <hemidactylus@my-deja.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Tests show a human side to chimps Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:47:54 +0000
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Tests show a human side to chimps
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:47:14PM -0800, Scott Chase wrote:
>> >From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
>
(snip)
>
Scott:
>
>> I guess evolutionary biologists must ask pretty silly darn questions then
>> or I've learned a different connotation for how versus why than everyone
>> else here.
>>
>> The study of evolution as an historical process involves the asking of why
>> questions. The study of physiology or molecular biology or developmental
>> biology for the most part is concerned with how questions. Ernst Mayr (an
>> evolutionary biologist with interests in philosophy) has written on this
>> proximate (how) versus ultimate (why) dichotomy.
>
Robin:
>
>"Ultimate", yes. "Real" why questions are teleological: to ask why
>something occurred is to ask for what purpose it was done, which only
>makes sense when we're using the intentional stance: when we're supposing
>there was a do-er with a purpose. Or to put it another way, why questions
>are an example of the intentional stance.
>
My main intention was merely to show that someone squarely within the evolutionary camp (ie- Ernst Mayr) has written on the asking of "why" versus "how" questions. I don't think one could ascribe intentionality to Mayr's views on "why" questions or the problem of ultimate causes.
I'll need to re-read Mayr on this, but if intentionality overlaps with teleonomy in any way then there's teleology in a nutshell. For Mayr, if I'm not mistaken, the seeming goal directedness of organisms derives from possession of a genetic or somatic program and goal-directedness does not extend to evolution itself. The programs (probably a poorly chosen word) themselves resulted from evolutionary factors such as selection though. Unfortunately this takes the conversation into the problems with teleological language which I don't really feel like getting into, but since Mayr has also written on teleology I suggest his books _This is Biology_ or _Toward New Philosophy of Biology_.
In a nutshell teleonomy refers to apparent goal directedness of behavior or development of an embryo and NOT something inherent in evolution itself (such as espoused by orthogenetic theorists and such).
Before Darwin "why" questions may have had a theological flavo(u)r* or were concerned with intelligent design (eg- Paley), but now these ultimate questions can be answered by means of evolutionary explanations. Mayr is a selectionist, so he'd probably prefer selection and adaptation as explanations for apparent design in organisms (designoid *sensu* St. Dawkins ;-)).
*- alternative spelling for the Brits such as Vincent poised ready for invasion of an indecisive U.S. Take New Jersey please.
>
>(Or perhaps the design stance,
>but that depends upon the intentional stance.) Now, the application
>of the intentional stance to evolution is something about which much
>has been written, but I think there's a fairly general concensus that,
>though it is obviously very tempting, in fact why questions in this
>context are best viewed as disguised how questions. Eg: why did we evolve
>such big brains?
>
If I understand Mayr's scheme correctly one could ask "how" (as in genetically influenced mechanisms) do big human brains develop as they do from humble and relatively simple and general origins of the ectodermally derived anterior portion of the neural tube, where OTOH one could also ask "why" these large brains have evolved (ie- what ways could selection be brought into the picture and what the phylogenetic history of this organ was before our species evolved or how it compares to other extant related organisms within respective ecological contexts).
These approaches are probably tied together when one appreciates that evolution merely involves shifts in the development of organisms.
>
>Translation: what about big brains, in the context in
>which they evolved, was adaptive. OK, that's "what" rather than "how",
>but you know what I mean. I hope?
>
>
I think Mayr has a different category of "what" in the sense of classification or description.
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Before you buy.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 16 2000 - 22:53:43 GMT