The chicken and the egg

Fri Jul 21, 2006


GARY. C. MOORE:
Dear Richard,
My comments below have the same point as when I debate Jud's comments about determinism when it begins to verge on metaphysics. I think the same problem is at the base of each view, that is, an implied plan, direction, purpose, implied in both of ya'll's language I object to. I consider this way of thinking a theological corruption. I have always stated I am an opponent of *progressive* evolution, that is, that evolution has a design and its design is to achieve better and better developments of species whereas I insist evolution can only scientifically be conceived as the results of pure accident. There is a *better* aspect involved but that is the ability to survive LONGER in a very specific niche in and very specific time and place, and that that situation can change in an instant, making the *better* suddenly into the *worst* OR it may be such a niche that the *improvement* lasts seemingly for millions of years. On the one hand, there may be *improvements* through further accidents of the *better* species in that niche's time and space – OR maybe in certain spaces it has ceased to be *better* but *worse*. If those spaces, geographical environments, spread, then the time of the
*better* species also decreases. But this is also pure accidents effecting genetic *mistakes*, sometimes beneficial, but much, much more of the time not so. That the result is *beneficial* does not mean there was a plan designing such a result. It is as much of a mistake as a two headed calf. And the twoo headed calves are much more numerous. It is only the aspect of paleontological biology and zoology that stretches over immense periods of time compacted for human convenience into a humanistic historical point of view where relatively quick changes are the average norm does the concept of a *plan* to evolution even become possible. And, in that point of view, it is entirely fictitious.

RICHARD:
A hen is only an eggs way of making another egg. Samuel Butler One can look upon this quote as simply a cute aphorism, but it is far deeper than that.

GARY.C. MOORE:
I would agree with this in a wholly literal fashion. The *way* can either be viewed from the point of view of the hen or the point of view of the egg, both fictitious representations. Neither has greater value than the other since both evaluative points of view logically cancel each other out. Evaluation has no place in evolution.

RICHARD: Contained in the DNA of the egg is the blueprint for future life, right down to the shape of the hen's beak and the color of her plumage. GARY.C. MOORE: A *blueprint* necessarily implies a *design*, a *design* necessarily implies a *designer*. This has been the basic watchmaker argument for the existence of God since time immemorial. It cannot be a 8blueprint* but rather the accidental fitting of atoms and molecules according to the only material possibilities of their fitting together purely mechanically and BLINDLY, any *success* only occurring over great periods of time. I understand that this is probably what you mean, but your language encourages a mind set in exactly the opposite direction – and Jud would be perfectly justified in saying *mind set* does exactly the same thing. But I ALSO cannot think of a better term right at the moment because, just like you, anything that pops into my mind also implies design in human terms which, when *human* is removed automatically
*God* can be inserted. I cannot escape it either. Only by presenting the problem caqn it be worked on and – possibly only – solved. A solution is NOT necessarily at hand.

That we optimistically assume a solution probably is nearby brings up another false implication – hope! It is as in 'hope, faith, and charity'. We see a better future in the progress of evolution. We see a better future in the progress of technology. Both statements are hopelessly incompetent. *Incompetent* I say literally. There is no logical
*way* to make such deductions. They are pure emotional evaluations. They cannot ACCOMPLISH what they say. They are INCOMPETENT to achieve that benevolent aim. Only scientists themselves, through their own individual endeavors and abilities, can *hope* the accomplishment of a benevolent end OF EXCLUSIVELY THEIR VERY SPECIFIC AND HIGHLY LIMITED EBDEAVOR meant only, initially, to apply within a highly delimited and circumscribed field of observation – that is, piece by piece, part by part – NO OVERALL GRAND ENDEAVOR! If there actually is such, IT IS A PURELY ACCIDENTAL HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE CONSIDERING ALL PRECRIBING SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE TOTAL CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSE. In other words, realistically, we have an EXTREMELY limited point of view in a universe of unknown qualities and quantities. You can only see what is before you.

2a] * First principles. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its causal nature?*

Book VII, 2 - *Your principles are living principles. How else can they become lifeless, except the images which tally with them be extinguished? And with you it lies to rekindle them constantly. 'I am able to think as I ought about this; if, then. I am able, why am I troubled? Things outside my understanding are nothing at all in regard to my understanding.' Master this, and you stand upright. To come back to life is in your power; look once more at things as once you did, for herein to come back to life consists.* pg. 56

Book VIII, 2 - *On the occasion of each act, ask yourself: 'How is this related to me? Shall I repent of it? But a little while and I am dead and all things are taken away. What more do I require . . . ?* pg. 68

Ibid, 11 - *What is it by itself in its own constitution, what is its substance or substrate, what its causal element, what its function in the world and how long a time does it persist?* pg. 70

Ibid, 49 - *Do not say more to yourself than the initial impressions report . . . In this way then abide always by the first impressions and add nothing of your own from within, and that's an end of it; or rather one thought you may add, as one who is acquainted with every change and chance of the world.* pp. 76-7

Preachy I know, but I think in the main approach true.

RICHARD: Indeed, even her sense of time is carried on a specific gene,

GARY.C. MOORE: This is an incredibly interesting idea you need to develop much further!

RICHARD: and her propensity for various kinds of behavior - but most of all her ability to make another egg.

GARY.C. MOORE: But exactly the same can be said for the egg's point of view.

RICHARD: When I referred to *survival* this is what I was talking about; life urges life, endlessly, and all that any organism does is geared toward that urging.

GARY.C. MOORE: Not *urges* in the sense of *aims*, I understand you mean that, but some kind of *desire* - HOW TO DEFINE SUCH?????? - but what you say is confirmed by what the scientists have found as an unaimed*? Certainly undersigned *motivation* everpresent in humanlike frontal lobes and, in other animals, the same thing somewhere else – WHICH OF COURSE IMPLIES A CUMULATIVE EFFECT AS THE BRAIN GROWS LARGER AND MORE COMPLEX!!!!! I had never thought of this before. The  *motivations* can, of course, be in conflict, EVEN necessarily so. But this is fascinating!

Must go. I have NOT finished reading the rest of your letter! Ciao, Gary

RICHARD: If one applies this rule to humans, they get confused by what appears to be our diverse activities that seem unrelated to this kind of survival urging. However I am not at all sure such activities are whimsical sideshows, even though we may believe they are. The sex act among humans does not take very long. Courtship, nowadays often taking place in a matter of hours takes up a very small amount of the participants time, the rest of the time is taken up by either fun, work or sleep - or indolence. A sociologist would be hard pressed to argue that the life of a human was devoted entirely to procreation, but there is another angle for a related argument. I have maintained that all organisms require some or all of sustenance, shelter and defense, in addition to procreation. However these are not mutually exclusive, and certainly, procreation is not possible without the presence of the other three; they can be considered as necessary adjuncts to procreation. As for humans and the myriad activities that seem to have no relationship to any of these, I wonder....

Regards, Richard