Featured Purpose and function

I have often heard believers claim only their view provides "Purpose", with a capital "P". I have not heard a clear explanation of what that purpose is?

To me, evolution leads to increased life forms, diversity, resilience - each new generation of living organisms stronger and more adept than the previous. From bacteria and extremophiles to humans and space exploration - evolution's Purpose is to fill the universe with life.

Life
noun

1. 1.
   the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Our purpose, the purpose of life, is to be alive, and sustain all other life, to fill the universe with life.

 

I agree with your definitions of those two words. To me, 'function' requires no agent, intent, will, etc. whereas 'purpose' does... unless we are talking about an agent needing to exist to define function in the first place. But that's not a road I wish to travel down... lol.

And keenly you have noticed how these two words are used in religious or philosophical discussions, so I will use them here for that end as well

For me, I believe that 'helpful' mutations and natural selection occur as a function of evolution, but I do not think they have purpose, as evolution is not an agent and has no goal. There is no purpose to evolution at all, not even the continuation of life (from my perspective that is based on my current education). The continuation of life is just a byproduct of natural processes occuring enough times that it eventually works in (what we would identify as) "our favor".

Hopefully my reply gives you a little bit of what you wanted to see here! And thank you for another great thread. I'm hoping to see a lot of replies, too

 

I was thinking about this as I was walking the dog a few minutes ago. Well I think it's the same or similar topic. There's a butterfly here that lays its eggs on my citrus trees and the grubs look like bird poop which is obviously for camouflage. But how does something like that evolve? I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to think that a creator would have done that on purpose even though I'm a confirmed atheist. Or maybe I just haven't come across a creator God I find to be a reasonable explanation.

Hopefully I'm on topic and not derailing your thread.

 

I think life is an agent, evolution a function for the agent.

Inorganic materials evolve too - rocks crumble, settle, form layers, churn deep in the earth - the diversity of elements themselves evolved from simpler beginnings.

Not all life has a mind, aware? Id, ego, self-awareness - there is an agent it seems, which puts a capital "P" to it all I think.

 

I disagree, evolution has a clear goal.

"A goal is an objective or target that someone is trying to reach or achieve. Goal is also the end point of a race or something that a player is trying to put an object into as part of a game. Goal has other senses as a noun. A goal is an aim or objective that you work toward with effort and determination."

Goal: survival, but more than just survive, increase in numbers, expand.

It's not random, there is direction, layers of fossils which become more complex, more resilient, stronger. Intent, direction, goals - to fill the universe with life, a beautiful inspirational thing.

 

I like the definitions in the OP too. And please note, an item with a function may or may not have a purpose. A function is usually obvious. A purpose may not be so obvious. And since saying that an object has a function is not denying that it has a purpose I tend to favor that term in a discussion. Once someone claims that something has a purpose that person has taken on a burden of proof.

 

I also find camouflage, especially camouflage that includes behavior changes such as imitating the shaking of a leaf, or the swaying of seaweed, to be boggling... even as someone who doesn't believe it was an intentional result of the evolutionary process or the work of another entity. I understand the actual mechanism behind it, though. Mutations in the appearance of the animal lead to a variation of the color or pattern. That color or pattern was less likely to be found and eaten, so those genes had the chance to be passed on when that organism lived longer and could breed more, or compete better. Eventually the majority of that species had pigment camouflage. As for the behavioral camouflage, it could be innate behaviors that are genetic with or without combination with active cognition; i.e animals like Tiarinia cornigera (a species of crab with cryptic camouflage) will cover itself with more seaweed on top of its preexisting camouflage when predation risk is high. They are actively choosing to camouflage themselves further. So, to what extent a camouflaged species is aware of its own camouflage is highly variable. It's very underexplored.

I do not think another force or agent guided them to developing camouflage in the first place, though. And it's unlikely that most animals are familiar with the concept of evolution either, so it's very unlikely that animals made mating choices based on which one looked the most like a stick, with the intention of their future generation looking like sticks... So, in the end, I believe that camouflage has the function of increasing the animals' chances of survival, but I do not believe evolution did it "on purpose". However, some animals may (or definitely do) camouflage themselves on purpose, and some likely assign purpose or function to it, as their own completely natural agents.

But yes... despite the fact that I understand/believe all this, I find camouflage to be trippy.

 

It is very hard for people not to anthropomorphize things. To understand events we sometimes use that tool to help us. Unfortunately it can be very misleading at times. Evolution is merely a process. It cannot care. It cannot plan ahead. Evolution is merely based upon what works. When it comes to camouflage one needs to realize that being harder to see makes it more likely that a potential prey survives and passes on its genes more likely. It starts out very simple, but since competition always exists there is an unconscious selection for better and better camouflage. No intelligence necessary.

 

Nope! Sorry now they are written in stone forever.

Okay, maybe not. There is nothing wrong with being flexible and saying maybe we will change this a bit. If someone makes a particular case I can change my mind.

 

It isn't mindless- you and I are communicating with our own minds, which were created by our parents and have evolved through life's experiences. We are self-aware, our ability to think is real, our ability to set goals, invent, progress, our legacy - leave the world better than we found it and all that.

Hive minds vs individuals - both exist, some prefer group think, others are more independent.. hive of bees worshipping their queen, the solo bear who enjoys honey.

We think, some have their own mind, diverse views ensure survival - come what may, some version of life will survive.

Mass, energy, information, mind - the mind, another substance within the universe.

Length contraction/relativity - it is all the same, all connected. No God, no Savior, no heaven or hell, all connected, the same laws, energy turns into mass then back to energy. Mind turns from one state to another too. Reincarnation might be a good way to put it?

 

Yes, we have minds. But that does not necessarily mean that a hive mind exists. That is the sort of claim that would require evidence.

 

I think this is a position that could be supported from a spiritual perspective, not is not supported by science currently.

The current understanding we have about evolution is that it is a process, rather than a force. "Evolution" is a description for the 'process of change as a consequence of competitive pressures for survival and reproduction'. Evolution is a process driven by many things, but not necessarily a goal. In humans, there is on the average about 0.0015 beneficial mutations per individual per generation and about 1.5 harmful mutations. That means that a mutation is 1000x more likely to be a detriment to the animal than a benefit. Mutations that have no effect on the animal occur even more frequently. So, advancement is not the goal, but rather the result of many, many chances for something to "go right" over the course of several million years.

Also, animals have the drive to reproduce (not evolution itself) because it was a trait most likely to be passed on. If an animal evolved to have no sex/reproductive-drive, it would not reproduce, and so that animal would die without passing on its genes. If an animal had no fear of predation, no drive to drink water, no drive to eat, no drive to X, Y, or Z.... that animal would die, and again, would not pass on its genes. So the continuation and advancement of life is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And this is the beauty of natural selection! It's a bit difficult to swallow, but currently we have no real evidence that there is an agency behind it.

But if evidence arises, it will of course be considered.

I hope this made sense!

 

Yes, even a humble biologist who's taken multiple classes on evolution (maybe I'm referring to myself here, not so humbly... ) struggles to discard anthropomorphism... curses!