|
ANNOTATION:
Yes and no, I think
I agree with you that Darwinian theory is more based on cultural
biases than the other way around - it is a mechanical worldview
that fits well with the desire among many to believe they are
mere victims of outer circumstances, with no role in creating them.
Much science itself is based on the idea that we can and should separate
ourselves from the things we study. Unconventional researchers like
Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey (following the lead of LSB Leakey) challenged
this view by becoming involved with the subjects of their study
to the point where they could see from the inside. We too are involved
in experiencing reality, and we need to study our own surface and
deeper experience levels more, and recognize that this is also
the realm of science.
I disagree on the point of evolution's circularity, although I
think I get your point. Many paths are repeated to a degree (perhaps
not perfectly) and many similar adaptive "solutions" appear in
different settings. These seem fairly explainable in terms of
convergent evolution due to surrounding conditions, or limitations on
evolutionary changes due to phylogenic factors. Gould argues
circularity, certainly, claiming that there is no higher forms,
just differences in complexity. He claims that the appearance of
directionality is due only to the fact that change is possible in
only one direction - toward the more complex, and that catastrophic
events reset evolution to less complex origins. So this is a
directionality, but in Gould's mind not directed by anything other
than what directions are available.
I think there is room here for truly directed evolution, because
if we believe that organisms can have some role in determining
their behavior (even a slight one), i.e., if organisms have some
faculty for having an idea about their function, then this will
manifest itself through the course of evolution by its affect on
selective forces. This, I argue, can lead to a cumulative self-selection,
and that would create intentional pathways in evolution as a result
of self-perceived function (life strategy, behavior, decisions, etc.).
Hence I think Gould is wrong, that there are intentional pathways in evolution,
but I don't think these are cosmicly ordained, which I susspect is the
main thing Gould and others want to discredit, but they go too far and
try to discredit all creativity.
Copyright© 1997 Principia Cybernetica -
Referencing this page
|
|
|
