we know what we are

[larvatus]

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini propound the following analogy in their letter to the TLS Editor:

Our difficulty with Darwin is very like our difficulty with our stockbroker. He says the way to succeed on the market is to buy low and sell high, and we believe him. But since he won’t tell us how to buy low and sell high, his advice does us no good. Likewise, Darwin thinks that the traits that are selected-for are the ones that cause fitness; but he doesn’t say how the kinds of variables that his theory envisages as selectors could interact with phenotypes in ways that distinguish causes of fitness from their confounds. This problem can’t be solved by just stipulating that the traits that are selected for are the fitness-enhancing traits; that, as one said in the 1960s, isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.

Matthew Cobb, a contributor to the evolutionist advocacy blog owned and operated by Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D and a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, fancies himself to have made short work of this argument. But misunderstanding the analogy between evolving through natural selection and succeeding on the market by buying low and selling high is a clear symptom of being out of one’s mind in the following, precisely defined sense:

1. Natural selection is said to be responsible for evolving all functions of living organisms.
2. The mind counts among the functions of some living organisms.
3. The mind of some living organisms is capable of making intensional distinctions such as the one between being renate and being cordate, or the one between being an even prime number and being equal to the positive square root of four.
4. Natural selection is incapable of making intensional distinctions.
5. Natural selection cannot evolve the capacity to make intensional distinctions.
6. Some minds have functions that cannot have evolved through natural selection.
7. Some functions of living organisms cannot have evolved through natural selection.

At this point, to echo Sir Winston Churchill, we know exactly what you are as a living organism; we are just haggling about something that determines your price.

Crossposted to larvatus, philosophy, and real_philosophy.

Comments

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

Natural selection cannot evolve any capacity that it cannot distinguish from every other capacity.

Why natural selection can't evolve improved ability to understand other minds ?

Also, sexual selection can favour features that confer no survival advantage, like peacock's tail.


I seem to remember, that you used to favour Penrose's argument based on Godel's theorem. What is its status ? I began to read Pinker's "How the Mind Works", where he claims that it is "debunked". Bennet's book "Why evolution is true" seemed to me more thoughtful, but he, too, seems to me too enthusiastic about "Strong AI". One would think that the continuing failure of AI research to produce something with the "intellect" of a common household cockroach ought to have given him a pause...