
Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’? - not_that_noob
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/can-evolution-have-a-higher-purpose.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
======
roywiggins
Both the Intelligent Alien and Simulation ideas just push the question of
'purpose' up a level. Sure, the aliens may have a purpose, but if they are
themselves a cosmological purposeless accident then by extension it's arguable
that so are we.

~~~
estefan
> Both the Intelligent Alien and Simulation ideas just push the question of
> 'purpose' up a level

They do, but while the 'kid in his garage running the simulation' may have no
purpose, I guess the article author is suggesting that in a simulation our
'purpose' is to let the experiment play out and entertain this transcendental
'kid'.

~~~
cortesoft
Right, but what gives the purpose created by the garage-kid any sway? What
gives garage-kid the authority to set my purpose? Creating something doesn't
automatically mean our purpose is what the creator says it is; I think most
people don't subscribe to the belief that kids should always do whatever their
parents think is important once they are adults.

So in the end, what does it mean if the garage-kid created us to entertain
him? Am I bound by that purpose? Does it somehow give my life more meaning?

~~~
roywiggins
Even worse, what if the purpose is malignant. What if we're part of a
intradimensional torture device, or something? That seems even worse than
purposelessness. Or we're all in Rick Sanchez's pocket universe spaceship
battery.

------
Florin_Andrei
Well, if time is somehow "leaky", if the barrier between future and present is
not absolutely, 100% impenetrable, then it's quite a distinct possibility that
a future superintelligence would meddle into the affairs of its own past,
perhaps with the goal of enabling its own existence.

Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is not
perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly delineated
(QM). Of course, there is a long way from these suggestions to time travel -
but the thing is, you don't need time travel in the pop-sci sense. All you
need is a "leak" of some interactions, however tenuous, from the distant
future into the present. You only need to manipulate the states of a tiny
number of particles in the brains and/or chromosomes of various creatures,
affecting the wave functions of a few atoms and then allowing the effects to
play out from there.

To be sure, this is very highly speculative, and I'm not suggesting this is
what is actually happening. I'm just saying - if this, then that. Or, to put
it in clearer terms, the conditions are:

1\. Time is ever so slightly "leaky".

2\. A vast, extraordinarily powerful superintelligence will emerge in the
future, or humanity will in effect be that for all practical purposes.

It would be essentially the equivalent of God leaving biologic evolution and
human progress mostly to their own devices, but once in a while putting his
thumb on those respective scales. In this scenario, evolution would be a
bipolar process: powered by the usual push of genetics, natural selection, etc
at the bottom, but also informed by the pull of a future ideal at the top.

Going much further, kickstarting life, or even triggering the beginning of
this Universe could also be targets of interest for manipulation.

~~~
wyager
> Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is
> not perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly
> delineated (QM)

Neither QM nor GR admit retrocausality. Even interactions that look time-
inverted still don't let you send information back in time.

I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that QM says anything is not "clearly
delineated". Uncertainty relations in QM are less interesting statements than
most people seem to think. It's not a matter of nature being inexact or
something, it's just the fact that most physical operators don't share the
same eigenstates. E.g. You wouldn't say a standing wave is "moving at x m/s"
(because it's standing still), while on the other hand you wouldn't say "the
wavelength of this point is k" (because points don't have wavelengths). But
standing waves have wavelengths and point particles have velocities. Nothing
in this description suggests to me that nature itself is inexact. It might be,
but vanilla QM doesn't require it to be.

------
milesf
Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but
anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk
religion"?

Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow's questions like "why am I/we here?",
"what is the meaning of life" and other big life questions are common among
all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation
| aliens may have seeded life on earth | evolution has a purpose) yet outright
reject any religious discussion?

~~~
cortesoft
In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be
'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being
either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it.

So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any
religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would
demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the answer is almost always
nothing. At that point, what is the use of discussion?

~~~
milesf
"the answer is almost always nothing"

That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to
answer many of the questions that are raised.

~~~
sago
> Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are
> raised

With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you
misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical
institutions.

Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied
practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals
with epistemology, natural philosophy, hermeneutics, and other areas only when
they can be used to support the doctrine. It is pretty much the opposite of
rational inquiry, because it explicitly begins with the conclusion and seeks
arguments to justify it. It is, in practice, an example of the parent comment:
what falsification of the doctrine would an apologist accept? There would
always be another argument, another apologia to bolster the claim.

[Source: theological degrees and was an evangelical apologist for 20 years.
Books such as Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century,
Crossway, 2010; Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994;
and much of the rest of IVP's output.]

~~~
milesf
One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the
parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.

~~~
sago
Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to,
and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel
establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as
per the original comment.

~~~
milesf
Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?

~~~
sago
Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that
they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to
defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is
correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original
comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that
apologetics operates that way.

~~~
milesf
Well, I'm 47 now and have had the open challenge since 1990 that if anyone can
show me that the Bible is not what it purports to be, then I will have to
renounce my faith and search elsewhere. I think that qualifies as an honest
attempt :)

I'm also not convinced that falsification is the be-all, end-all to deriving
meaning. I think it's a very useful tool, but it has its flaws.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree that Christian Apologetics is
merely about defending Christian doctrine. It does that, but it does so by
encompassing historical, reasoned, and evidential bases. Is it proof? No. Is
it a body of evidence that people can examine and decide for themselves if the
message is plausible? Most certainly yes.

~~~
ozy
That is a challenge ;) I am not sure what you think the bible is though. But
here are a few things.

The bible predicts the earth is set on pillars (Job). But it is not.

The bible says man was made in gods image, etc. So it is really surprising we
can find fossil records from monkeys to humans, and find lots of Neanderthals
and Denisovans.

Jesus never heals any mentally handicapped people, as a matter of fact, they
seem to be left out of the bible. But he does drive out demons. Is that god
misdiagnosing people?

The bible shows us two places where the religion changes: 2 Kings when Jeshua
finds an "old scroll" and Jesus bringing a new message. Actually when you look
deeper there are at least 5 different god views in the bible, I challenge you
to find them.

Imagine the god is like Kim Jong il (North Korea), could it be the bible is
propaganda? It is more a bend then truth? How would you know the difference?
(Go watch some German, or North Korean propaganda, then you know how that
feels.) I can safely say, you are a better person than god, since you have
certainly killed fewer innocent people. So all that love, that perfectness and
goodness, propaganda ... I bet god never has to take a shit either.

~~~
milesf
Nothing new. Let me up the challenge for you. All of the stuff you've said
here and more can be better represented at
[http://bibviz.com/](http://bibviz.com/)

There are great answers to your questions above and more, but in my experience
those questions are usually not asked in earnest because once I've given an
answer more questions are thrown at me.

Let me pick out the last question I asked in earnest before becoming a
Christian. There were many before it, but this was the last one I had:

[http://bibviz.com/how-did-judas-die-sab.html](http://bibviz.com/how-did-
judas-die-sab.html)

This is what's called a paradox. It appears to be a contradiction. A
reasonable explanation that resolves the paradox is Judas hung himself and
died. The body decomposed, fell on the rocks and his bowels gushed out. This
is reasonable because in the following verse it explains why the property is
called "The field of Blood".

So what do you think? Is that reasonable? If I fork that website, I would turn
the red line indicating a contradiction to blue, meaning that there is a
reasonable explanation.

Virtually every argument I've even been thrown I've been able to find an
answer, but most people don't even know the questions little alone the
answers.

~~~
ozy
I am not so sure if your example is of the same level. My questions were more
at how can you "anchor" the bible.

Broadly speaking, I think people can be somewhere on the following line:

1\. The bible is the perfect word of the creator

2\. The bible is inspired by a god

3\. The bible is bronze/iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs.

But let me know how you think, I would guess you are somewhere between 1 or 2,
but perhaps you would want to word it differently?

When the bible talks about a soul, heaven, hell, judgement, angels, demons.
How can we know that that is reliable? The only parts of the bible we can test
for reliability is when it talks about things in our reality. But where it
does, it shows a very naive view of reality. How then can we conclude its view
of the spiritual world is any better?

~~~
milesf
It's is the most published book in human history, with over 6 billion copies.
It outsells every book every year (sorry New York Times). The answers are
there, in particular have a look at the archaeological & prophetic evidences.

The question "how can we know that the Bible is reliable?" is an excellent
question. As for Christianity, the Bible itself explains how to kill it: 1
Corinthians 15:14 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless
and so is your faith."

So all you have to do is explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many
have accepted the challenge and failed. I failed. I couldn't do it.

~~~
ozy
Going back to my line,

> archaeological & prophetic evidences

Nothing that somehow moves away from 3: humans writing down their myths and
beliefs. The bible talks about an exodus of 1 million jews from Egypt, zero
evidence. The bible prophesied the destruction of Damascus, still here. The
drying up of the Nile, didn't happen. The biblical reason for why Nineveh was
destroyed is different from the archaeological reason.

The one prophecy (Ezechiel) might be argued is Israel becoming a nation again
in 1948. But it requires quite a bit of handwaving. The chance of something
happening to Israel that fits some prophecy is high, by the amount and
vagueness of those.

> with over 6 billion copies

So by your measure, the quran also has answers, it is number 2 book by far.

> explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Humans writing down myths, a very simple explanation. I would suggest you read
how one of the first martyr explains it to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). But it is
not about explanations. It is about knowledge. Many things might be true, but
we will never be able to know those things.

No body no crime. But also the positive version, no receipt no reimbursement.
Nobody can disproof the resurrection. But nobody can proof it either. Therefor
we cannot know.

~~~
milesf
I don't understand your point about the death of Stephen (which I just
happened to be reading in my devotional time this past week) in Acts 7. Could
you elaborate?

I respect a person's right to believe whatever they want. All I ask is they
respect my right to believe whatever I want. I used to believe the Bible was a
collection of myths as well. If you want to believe that, that's certainly
your right.

But I don't buy it. Not after reading the entire narrative, which IMHO
currently is best done through the Read Scripture app for iPhone/Android
([http://readscripture.org/](http://readscripture.org/)). Not after I made an
honest attempt to explain away the resurrection.

So just to be clear, do you think Jesus Christ was a myth, or that His death
and resurrection was a myth?

~~~
ozy
How does Stephen proof that Jesus rose from the dead? And why does that
evidence convince (or not) the Sanhedrin? Remember this is not long after it
all happened and these are the same men who asked Pilatus for Jesus his
execution.

People are free to belief what they want. But people behave according to their
beliefs. And sometimes when people think they know the truth, they feel
justified in limiting other people their freedoms. More so if they think the
creator of the universe agrees, and others are sinners.

So I look for that "liberal" spark in believers. You clearly have it, and that
number is growing, but many christians do not. Many others who belief in
unknowable and invisible things are even worse. (Non religious people can also
lack it.)

As for what I believe:

Was Jesus a real person existed, likely. Did he rise from the dead, no. Was
his message misunderstood, yes. Part of Jesus his message was, it is not about
what you do, but why you do it. It is about your heart. An eternity in heaven
or hell are exactly the wrong motivation.

I think Jesus meant humanity can go much further if we all follow the golden
rule, and are less biased towards foreigners and outcasts. More grace more
forgiveness, less judgement. When two or more people cooperate in that way,
they can do more. That is the holy spirit, not some supernatural force. And
that will bring the "kingdom of heaven" here on earth.

It might not feel like it, but we are getting closer to that. How many lepers
did god heal? 50 total? Science has healed 5 million.

Only after our thinkers had the "liberal" spark, and were less bound by the
dogma of religion, did we finally start to make strides into removing human
suffering.

People forget, but in the time of Jesus, over 50% of children died before they
were 15. In the rich areas of this world, it is less then 0.2%, in our poorest
countries, it is less then 10%.

~~~
milesf
I'm thoroughly confused by what you're saying, Ozy. I agree as well that Jesus
of Nazareth existed, but the evidence I have examined and gone over and over
many times points to a different Jesus than the one you're describing.

Here's a summary of the evidence I'm talking about. Tell me what you think:
[http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The-
Resu...](http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The-
Resurrection.pdf)

~~~
ozy
> Here's a summary of the evidence I'm talking about.

And that is our disagreement, my bar for evidence is a lot higher. Literally
the doc itself says: "the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the
most wicked [..] hoaxes [..] or it is the most remarkable fact of history." If
we had proof, it could be only one thing, not two things.

And we can rule out one of the two, because we have no evidence of anything
supernatural and no indication that people can come back from the dead. (If
you can proof either, you can collect a million dollars at the JREF.)

So we would need to go with option number one. And how unlikely is that
option? I mean people have died for Marxism. Clearly Jesus his teachings were
a good message that people thought was important, even at high personal cost.
And willing to bend the truth for and exaggerate quite a bit. All very normal
human behaviour.

Back to Stephen. He did not even try to convince the Sanhedrin. He could have
made is story legitimate with proof: remember when Jesus died and the temple
veil was torn in half? Remember the sudden darkness? Remember the dead walking
in the city? Remember that despite the Roman guards, the grave was empty? See
how we can heal the sick and so could Jesus. But he doesn't, because it
wouldn't convince the Sanhedrin, because it did not happen.

When it comes to the supernatural, we have no grounding, we cannot evaluate
the difference between people writing down myths, vs a god spreading
misleading propaganda, vs a loving god that you wish to belief in.

If belief gives you comfort and perspective in life, good, go for it. But in
Saudi Arabia, people kill each other for not wearing headscarfs. And their
proof for their beliefs is as good as yours. Namely ungrounded and still at 3:
all explained by iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs.

And even if there is a supernatural, the biblical descriptions of it are as
accurate as when it describes the earth resting on pillars.

Thanks you for the discussion. If you have any questions or think I was
inaccurate, please let me know. If you have proof, please show me by winning
the JREF price. Barring proof, I would suggest you read the bible but cut out
anything supernatural. It is still a nice message.

Plus just ceasing to exist when you die after having tried to live well is not
so bad. Probably preferable to an eternity with a god who, by his own
admission, has committed genocide and has no respect for human rights or
humane treatment of prisoners.

~~~
milesf
There is a difference between proof and evidence. It's important to
distinguish the two.

Ozy, if you're interested I'd be willing to keep corresponding with you. Drop
me an email at immortal@coderpath.com

I'll leave you with an old apocryphal story that I hope drives the point home
that matter how much we achieve as human beings, it will never be enough:

\--------

A scientist approaches God, and says to Him, "Look, God, we don't need you
anymore. Nowadays, we can do all sorts of things that used to be considered
miraculous. We can transplant organs, giving new life to a dying man, we can
cure almost any disease, and we can even clone animals. It won't be long, and
we'll be able to clone humans, too. So, I'm sorry, but you are just outdated".

God listens patiently to the scientist and says, "I can see that you believe
you don't need me, and I understand. However, I love you, and I don't want to
see you make a big mistake, so why don't we make sure? I say we should have a
man-making contest, just to be sure."

The scientist replies, "I'll take that challenge".

So, God says, "Ok, let's do it the way I did it in the old days, with Adam and
Eve". The scientists says, "No problem", and reaches down to scoop up a
handful of dirt.

"Whoa, hold on there a minute", God says. "You get your OWN dirt".

\-----

:)

~~~
ozy
If you think I misused evidence or proof, or switched them, please show me
where and why and what difference it makes. But It would be easier if you
engage with the content of the argument. I apply something I call maximum
grace, that is, interpret the arguments in the best possible way for the
other.

I have shown you why I think there is basically no reason to move the needle
from 3: people writing down myths. You seem to disagree, but have not
commented on Stephens defense. Or for instance what makes you think god is
loving and good, seeing how he admits to genocide and cruel and unusual
(eternal) punishment. I am really interested in your thoughts here. Why do you
think the needle moves up?

In the other comment you said "you probably don't believe me, but it's because
He lives I can face tomorrow". And I know many people fall back to nihilism if
they contemplate the thought god does not exist. I think though in day to day
it does not work that way, people cope just fine. But for me, when I think
about the christian god, I just replace it with the best of humanity, and the
best society has to offer, that we can all try to strife for.

~~~
milesf
Drop me an email (immortal@coderpath.com) and I'll continue this with you :)
Although we disagree, I think you've been very civil towards me. I appreciate
that.

You've made some points that I need to chew on for a bit, which means I don't
have a response for you just yet. I'm not fully understanding your points
about Stephen, so I need to flesh it out a bit more until I at least get the
gist of what you're saying. I prefer an inductive form of learning and
reasoning, which takes time and effort. Hacker News is a great way to start
conversations, but it's terrible for continuing them (this thread will
eventually lock and not permit further comments).

Hope to hear from you (and anyone else who is reading this and would like to
chat about the top of Maslow's hierarchy (which, by the way, he later
criticized his own views and added a 6th's peak. Of course, we being sensible
beings, we added a seventh at the very bottom: Wifi :D )) email me
immortal@coderpath.com

------
DougN7
I've always thought the 'living in a simulation' scenario and creationism are
pretty much the same thing, if the person that started the simulation felt
some sort of rules ought to be followed (for the longevity of the simulation,
or whatever reason they might have). That doesn't seem like a stretch - we do
that with the Sim games, and we're hardly brilliant.

~~~
ozy
If we are living in a simulation, it is a simulation of atoms, or quantum
fields, or perhaps something deeper behind that. That got started with
enormous energy in the form of hot dense quark gluon plasma. From there the
rest follows.

It is not a simulation of humans.

We have zero indication there are rules at a higher level than the quantum or
gravity. Like rules on what you ought to do in the bedroom.

Also earth nor humans were created by intelligence, just like how mineral
crystals or fjords are not created by intelligence.

Hence we must conclude that bronze/iron age religions and maybe living in a
simulator are not the same thing.

For the rest of this question of a creator, we cannot know, anybody claiming
to know anything beyond "perhaps" or "maybe" is a fool, or will win a nobel
price. By lack of the latter the rest of us will assume the first.

~~~
DougN7
You're taking some mighty large liberties defining what our simulation is, and
how it started. A simulation can begin with any state, including a hundred
years ago with already written books and simulated Big Bang background
radiation.

There is no difference.

~~~
ozy
Beings that find themselves in a universe that was created a minute ago but
looks old, would be correct when they conclude it looks old. Anything else is
unknowable and can not be used to further any theories.

Especially when such ideas are grounded in bronze age thinking.

"There is no difference." Indeed, if god exists or not, there is no difference
...

~~~
DougN7
Well, there is no difference now. If someone has a big power button, or wants
to inject things into the simulation later, or hold a final judgement, that
will definitely matter. Not that we can stop it from happening either way. But
perhaps we can please the Sim master...?

~~~
ozy
If we could have knowledge of such things, maybe.

But what if it turns out this is a simulation by some extremist party, who
want to see how to stack people against each other using religion? In that
case we would owe it to the people there in the real world that we don't ...

Plus you can rest assured that that the sim master himself lives in a
simulated universe, somebody else will hold his big button. Buttons all the
way down.

From the pit of unknowable things, people can dredge up any coherent story.
They might believe it themselves or convince others. Fine when it offers some
kind of solace or perspective on life. Not fine when it costs people their
freedom or their live.

------
empath75
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&v=HxTnqKuNygE)

Counterpoint.

------
ozy
If compute power is the only thing that matters, we do not live in a
simulation. The best computer we can hope to build in the future will only
have a minute fraction of the compute power of reality. Simulating reality on
that computer will either be a tiny reality, or a much lower fidelity reality.

If you find yourself alive, likely you live where there is the most compute
power, therefor, base reality.

Especially since we have zero indicators that any part of our reality is
"fake".

Think about a character in the Sims, it would never be able to understand the
mechanism by which its arm moves, if it understood its world completely.
Because those movements are part of the simulator, not part of the simulated
world. Arm movement is not an emergent effect.

Our reality however is based on atoms. Or quantum fields if you want to go
deeper. And maybe some kind of cellular automata behind that.

If evolution had a purpose, we can detect an upwards line in complexity, and
we must conclude it is unlikely we humans are the end station. Probably we
will create self replicating intelligent machines that can colonize space.
Emotional meat bags are not very suitable ...

~~~
hathawsh
Reality in the universe one level up could be different in such a way that it
is more conducive to creation of virtual universes. Our idea of reality could
be a mere shadow of what others think of as reality.

~~~
ozy
From our universe, and simulations we can create, and simulations in there,
etc. it holds.

It is interesting to think that an outside universe could be so different it
does not hold going up to base reality. But that implies that logic, math, and
computability, are different there. That is not very likely, though ultimately
unknowable to us.

Literally "a mere shadow of what others think of as reality" implies that that
universe has a lot more compute. Therefor with much higher probability you
would have evolved directly in their universe, on some tiny pinhead, or in a
corner of their universe, not in a simulation they create, no matter how many
they create.

------
tyrannoflorist
Hah. I generally respect Robert Wright, but man you can set your watch to him
taking time to shit on Stephen Jay Gould in whatever he writes.

------
socmag
Well duh.

Yes I realize that comment seems "trite"

What is it that the genome is doing. Look around and see how it is expressing
itself.

I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins recently after he went a bit nuts on the whole
atheism thing. Not because of the atheism thing but because it distracted him
from what he was really about.

The genome is expressing itself, and it is way more than selfish. That thing
is regression analysis to a large power. Constantly calculating minimal cost
to self preservation and better versions of itself. We can learn a lot.

Personally I think its whole purpose is to build its own God. And the next God
and the next... and it is doing it.

(I am a "classical" atheist)

Down votes or up votes, please explain.

~~~
posterboy
>That thing is regression analysis to a large power. Constantly calculating
minimal cost to self preservation and better versions of itself

Edited:

That doesn't sound very articulate, hence doubtful. Your interpretation is
just that, recognizing already known patterns. Does that relate to the
evolutionary "purpose" from the title? The implicit idea of order ("better")
is largely based on the temporal succession of what, as far as I can tell, is
indistinguishable from randomness, because it relies on random mutation and
other genetic variation moduli. What existential property this really
optimizes for is open.

The crux is, existence itself is hardly a logical property. I mean, "exist to
exist" really is not a new revelation. It's philosophically akin to "I think
therefore I am", but trivially speaking, that's just the pattern recognition
at work.

~~~
socmag
It's highly rational.

Reduce Entropy. Period

~~~
posterboy
Doesn't mean you should write your comment by the same principle.

Reducing entropy by growing more complex seems counterintuitive. I don't see
rationality in the chaos. I don't even see what your "It" is. Attribution of
rational reason to an "it" seems like a short cut leading to a domain error.

Ultimately this leads to discussion about free will and what not, for which a
short-lived discussion does indeed not seem to be the right format.

~~~
socmag
Well Hacker News is definitely not the medium for this discussion, I'll grant
you that.

It's not clear to me where is a better choice.

Could go for phys.org or stackoverflow I guess, but equally inane.

Nobody likes to talk about metaphysics, which is what this is really about I
guess. For good reason I suppose.

Then again, before Darwin and Einstein, everything was very clear.

Right now very rational people are looking into string theory, pilot wave
theory, simulated universes and a heck of a lot more.

Meanwhile, we are attempting to build self driving cars, automated systems
that tempt us to buy crap we don't need and reduce the planet to a winner
takes all philosophy. Nothing about that seems "Human"

Entertain me on why the universe isn't trying to build its own god. Happy to
take the discussion elsewhere.

~~~
posterboy
I am not going to entertain you on that. Nevermind I can't tell how serious
you are because written text loses a lot of context, I'm just not going to
tempt you when you introduced the whole idea saying you are tired of atheist
arguments. Let's say I am a skeptic and if you make extraordinary claims, they
better had been convincing.

I'll give you that "exist to exist", or an autonym god, for lack of a better
word, seems to be a logical fix-point, which is notable given the name Y
Combinator. At that point I want to quote wikipedia, which would mean I am out
of my waters and shouldn't be baiting for someone to correct my ad-hoc
interpretation.

All that to say, this argument is trite indeed.

------
projektir
I very much believe evolution has a higher purpose. Nothing alive would exist
if it didn't. It's not nice, though... [1]

Unfortunately, whether it's just physics, a simulation, or aliens, it's bad
news in every case, and I don't see myself relating to the view that evolution
is beautiful or has any interest whatsoever in moral progress anytime soon.

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-
everythi...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everything-
else-2/)

------
goldesel
Mckenna shares thoughts on the nature of time, novetly, consciousness and how
we are rapidly evolving technologically as a species at a rate thosands of
times faster than any living organism through the power of our imagination,
creativity and inventions:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnjsoBF5Ay0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnjsoBF5Ay0)

------
tokenadult
The response from Jerry Coyne, a professor of biology who has literally
written the book about evolution, is definitive.

[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/robert-w...](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/robert-
wright-in-the-nyt-evolution-could-have-a-higher-purpose/)

------
awinter-py
higher purpose = species survival over individual survival.

That's why genomes have features in place which, for individuals, can suck --
senescence and cancer being the top 2.

See also conatus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus),
a philosophical property whereby a thing tends to improve.

~~~
wyager
Your wiki link ("conatus") suffers from selection bias. We're only likely to
see things that are stable.

~~~
awinter-py
Stable systems get beaten by their competitors.

It's systems/species that are organized to improve which will tend to survive.

------
danielam
Lots of muddled thinking, but some good points and a good start. There are a
couple of things in particular that I think are interesting and worth drawing
attention to. None of these are religious ideas per se; they are
philosophical.

The first is the the idea of telos. Telos in the philosophical sense refers to
that toward which something is ordered. It is frequently misunderstood as
something identical with conscious intent, but it has nothing to do with such
intent per se, only with what may be called the causal structure of a thing.
For example, when I say that a heart is ordered toward pumping blood through
the circulatory system, I am not speaking of conscious purposes. I am speaking
of the way in which the heart is structured and the way it functions and to
what end it functions. Indeed, without telos, we could not explain efficient
causality. We could not explain why hearts tend to pump blood instead of, say,
materializing elephants or playing the Dies Irae of Mozart's requiem. Even
biologists who strive to suppress talk of telos inevitably resort to
teleological language like "function". Sometimes such terminology is dismissed
as only metaphorical, but such dismissals are flippant and do not pass closer
examination. After all, if a term is metaphorical, then you have to ask what
the metaphor stands for. Deny teleological language and biology ceases to make
sense.

The reason teleology has been a difficult thing to digest has largely to do
with the mechanistic turn in philosophy that has seeped deeply into ideas
about science. Notice how popular debates between atheistic, materialist
proponents and theistic, dualist opponents of evolution typically center on
the probability of something as complex as life arising without a mind to have
caused it. Paley's ghost haunts the discussion. The reason is that both the
opponents and proponents of evolution in these debates hold to a mechanistic,
Cartesian metaphysics where teleology is conceived of as extrinsically imposed
by a divine intellect and now something intrinsic to things in themselves. Of
course, the proponent will deny the divine intellect, just as he will deny the
immaterial Cartesian mind, but he will not have not escaped the metaphysics
altogether. This metaphysics has causes a proliferation of problems in
philosophy that admit no solutions.

However, it is a mistake to think that this metaphysics is the old contender.
There is a small but vibrant revival of Aristotelean metaphysics under way and
with it comes a "revival" of teleology.

~~~
danielam
Sorry, had to run. Errata:

"The first is the idea of telos."

"conceived of as extrinsically imposed by a divine intellect and not something
intrinsic to things"

"he will not have escaped"

"This metaphysics has caused a proliferation"

"this metaphysics is the only contender"

------
not_that_noob
What if we're just a school science experiment for a higher intelligence? Like
some kid's ant farm, where we are the ants!

~~~
not_that_noob
Why the downvote? If life & intelligence could be the result as the article
states of an alien advanced life-form, then to them we're like a little ant
colony they have set in motion. In that context, maybe we're not even that
special - maybe we're just a small experiment in someone's educational
experience.

------
psadri
What we call "evolution" is simply the bias towards survival present in self
replication.

The bias is present because the genomes that did not exhibit it died out in
competition with the ones that did.

The fact that we as humans feel it so profoundly is a testament to the
complexity that can emerge from a simple process given enough time.

------
fiatjaf
By definition, shouldn't any process have its ends present in potentia at its
beginning?

------
hacker_9
Betteridge's law of headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can
be answered by the word 'no'.

~~~
sageikosa
Agreed. Evolution doesn't even have a purpose, let alone a higher one. Also,
fusion doesn't have a purpose, nor does gravity.

~~~
gus_massa
Also agree.

This is a disguised theological idea. I guess some weak version, where god is
not in charge of moving each atom, god only makes some initial setup and give
a purpose to everything. Replacing god with aliens doesn't make it scientific
or more sensible.

This is the power of the Ockham's razor. Just assume no god and no aliens and
not whatever. How far can you get with this? Is there an experiment where the
no god/alien/whaterver hypothesis fails?

~~~
projektir
I don't see how it's a disguised theological idea, yet you're turning it into
one and then arguing against that. It's an argument for a process being
treated as an agent even if it's blind. The disagreement there is more
philosophical (I currently don't know why most people seem to believe that
blind agency is not valid, I imagine it's related to beliefs in free will at
some level) and not at all theological, at least, from my perspective.

If anything, gods were likely created to make various observed processes more
understandable by giving them agency without going through a bunch of
philosophical hoops. I would say that's very reasonable. A lot more reasonable
than pretending that the process does nothing and poises no danger.

------
canadian_voter
We're a zoo for a higher intelligence? Joke is on them, reality is a
simulation! Turtles.

