What, exactly, is trying to survive, and why?

[idea]

Sorry for the late replies!! Crazy schedule this week...

Interesting questions. I am 50 years old. I am not the same person I was 50 years ago. I have progressed. Materially, it is unlikely that more than 1/10 of 1% of the original matter that was part of me at birth is still part of me. Would you say I have not survived this 50 years?

Survival means different things for an individual, a lineage, a species, or a line. But the essence of survival is noting more than 'not dead yet!'

yes "note dead yet" ... a few cells die, hair and fingernails die, the physical pieces of it fall away and are replaced... but there is something constant inside that persists . As someone who is religious, I would call the thing that persists a spirit, but I am not sure what someone who is not religious would call it.

The mountain that survives is the one that wasn't reduced to a valley. The valley that survives is the one that wasn't reduced to a flood plain. The flood plain that survives is the one that wasn't turned into a beach. The beach that survives is the one that wasn't washed away.

So you agree that being changed into something else is not survival? I guess that comes back to the original question - in life, evolution changes one thing into something else, and it confuses me as to why someone would call this survival.

I don't see any 'trying to progress' in any of this, until we reach the sentient being.

You see progression within sentient beings, but not within non-sentient entities? Interesting.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

 

[idea]

Survival is not what is important, passing one's gametes on and having one's offspring out reproduce their conspecifics ... that's what counts.

Is it more socially impressive to you if you meet someone with a lot of kids, or if you meet someone with only one or two kids who have made something of their life? Progression seems to be more important than reproduction for us humans at least.... How many kids do you have? Is having kids the point of life in your opinion?

 

[idea]

DNA 'survives' in some senses but it isn't clear from your post which sense you mean. I would use the word survival literally when speaking of an individual life. If I were speaking of the survival of a culture, species, ideology, the word survival would be figurative. DNA falls into the second camp I would think.

culture, species, ideology, these too evolve - they change into something else, they don't remain intact - they don't survive. DNA only "figuratively" survives? interesting word you have chosen... "figurative".

- abiogenesis and evolution can adequately explain replication and modification by natural selection.
- none of this requires any 'intention' to survive
- therefore : the 'intention' to survive is, within this theoretical framework, an evolved psychological property,an 'emergent property', not a cause, not a mystical quality of DNA, and ipso facto - not the 'purpose of nature'.

intention or no intention, I don't see any "survival" going on at all.

 

[idea]

Wow - quite a long reply apophenia!

- abiogenesis and evolution can adequately explain replication and modification by natural selection.
- none of this requires any 'intention' to survive
- therefore : the 'intention' to survive is, within this theoretical framework, an evolved psychological property,an 'emergent property', not a cause, not a mystical quality of DNA, and ipso facto - not the 'purpose of nature'.

So - if it is not about survival, what in your opinion is the 'purpose of nature'?

Nor does much of life "want" anything. Plants and bacteria, to name a few examples, don't "want" to survive, it's just what they do.

Perhaps not all life "wants" something (although it seems trees might "want" sunlight/water ,etc.) but there are some types of life that do "want" things... Don't you want anything? I think you'll agree that at least for some life forms, "wanting" is part of the equation. "Want" precedes reproduction as an example.

Living, reproducing, etc. is simply the result of chemical processes ...

Chemical processes are reproducible - following constant atomic interaction potentials - chemical processes do not lead to new and evolved structures, they lead to repeatable structures. Iron, copper - they have the same microstructure now that they had billions of years ago. No one expects this microstructure to change with time.

example constants
CODATA Values of the Fundamental Constants

Chemistry is constant.... evolution is not. It seems there is something more than chemistry going on.

 

[idea]

They have survived by changing.

I think it's more accurate to say we have progressed through changing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure you will reach reliable conclusions by insisting so much in seeing volition (a conscient will) in nature.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Sorry for the late replies!! Crazy schedule this week...



yes "note dead yet" ... a few cells die, hair and fingernails die, the physical pieces of it fall away and are replaced... but there is something constant inside that persists . As someone who is religious, I would call the thing that persists a spirit, but I am not sure what someone who is not religious would call it.



So you agree that being changed into something else is not survival? I guess that comes back to the original question - in life, evolution changes one thing into something else, and it confuses me as to why someone would call this survival.

Not exactly. There is survival in one sense, not in another. The 'thread' survives. The 'state' changes. If I build a fire using bundled grass, and through the night I begin using small sticks of oak, then it begins to rain so I have to move my fire under an overhang, so I take one piece of burning oak and move it, and get some cedar burning; then a few hours later the fire is still burning, hasn't it 'survived?' Yet it is not the same. The fire of bundled grass has not survived. The fire in the open has not survived, etc. But 'the fire' has survived.

You see progression within sentient beings, but not within non-sentient entities? Interesting.

I think that's a fair assessment of my view. But the progression is entirely subjective. It has meaning only in context of goals. So my life is meaningless except when viewed through my eyes or the eyes of my loved ones and friends. In a vacuum, in context of the universe, I am a speck of dust and insignificant. But in terms of my wants, desires, and goals, I make progress. In terms of my families lives, I make progress.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

You are welcome.

 

[HiEv]

So - if it is not about survival, what in your opinion is the 'purpose of nature'?

There is no evidence that nature has any "purpose" at all. Nature is simply nature.

Perhaps not all life "wants" something (although it seems trees might "want" sunlight/water ,etc.) but there are some types of life that do "want" things... Don't you want anything? I think you'll agree that at least for some life forms, "wanting" is part of the equation.

Well, obviously I agree that some things do want things. That's why I said, "Nor does much of life 'want'". What I'm pointing out that, by mass and by number, the vast majority of life simply doesn't have the brainpower to want anything.

And no, trees don't "want" sunlight, water, etc.. Sure, they need those things and they've evolved in ways that tend to make them more able to get those resources, but there is no "will" which is "wanting" anything here except in the most metaphorical of senses.

"Want" precedes reproduction as an example.

In humans, sure, but it's a terrible error of anthropomorphism to think that bacteria or plants "want" to reproduce.

"Want", as you and I normally mean the concept, is a product of the brain. Plants, bacteria, fungi, and the like don't have brains, therefore can't possibly want anything.

Chemical processes are reproducible - following constant atomic interaction potentials - chemical processes do not lead to new and evolved structures,

That's a demonstrably false claim. One merely need investigate the processes by which DNA reproduces and evolves and you will discover that these processes are 100% chemistry/physics.

You're asserting that some sort of magic is necessary here, yet all of the millions of scientists who understand chemistry and biology clearly disagree with you here.

they lead to repeatable structures.

DNA is a repeatable structure which, along with ribosomes and spare amino acids, can self-reproduce and evolve.

Iron, copper - they have the same microstructure now that they had billions of years ago. No one expects this microstructure to change with time.

You keep using the word "microstructure", but the way you use it demonstrates that you clearly don't understand what that word means. A microstructure is defined as the structure of a prepared surface or thin foil of material as revealed by a microscope above 25× magnification (source: Wikipedia). Microstructures are different all the time due to the impurities and various possible atomic configurations. Yes, there are limited combinations and nobody expects those combinations to change, but this in no way negates anything related to how DNA works or argues against evolution in any way.

All you're doing is demonstrating that you know a few science words, but not what they really mean or imply.

example constants
CODATA Values of the Fundamental Constants

This is completely irrelevant to anything you're arguing.

The fact that some things in nature are constants does not mean that everything in nature is constant, if that's what you're arguing. (If it's not what you're arguing, then I have no clue what your point is here.)

Chemistry is constant.... evolution is not. It seems there is something more than chemistry going on.

Completely wrong. Chemistry works in a consistent way, but that way does allow for evolution. All you've done here is assert that there is something more than chemistry going on, but chemists and biologists who actually understand this subject far better than you disagree. Are you claiming to know something that they don't? If so, where is your evidence?

That said, evolution is constant in that it will continue to happen as long as life exists.

 

[Sapiens]

Is it more socially impressive to you if you meet someone with a lot of kids, or if you meet someone with only one or two kids who have made something of their life? Progression seems to be more important than reproduction for us humans at least.... How many kids do you have? Is having kids the point of life in your opinion?

That's not what I said, the number of kids is not the issue, one offspring only, each generation, that always reproduces is likely more effective.

I have two children.

 

[Yerda]

DNA only "figuratively" survives?

Well, yes. It isn't alive. It can't die.

 

[apophenia]

So - if it is not about survival, what in your opinion is the 'purpose of nature'?

There is no overall purpose of nature, IMO.

Certainly not within the scientific world view.

I don't believe there is a spiritual purpose either.

We just have this situation.

Perhaps not all life "wants" something (although it seems trees might "want" sunlight/water ,etc.) but there are some types of life that do "want" things... Don't you want anything? I think you'll agree that at least for some life forms, "wanting" is part of the equation. "Want" precedes reproduction as an example.

And here's a thought - those with a stronger 'urge' to replicate tend to replicate more ! So that urge is naturally selected. Not because it is 'valuable' or 'intended'. The term urge is used loosely. Creatures with a stronger libido will be naturally selected.

Chemistry is constant.... evolution is not. It seems there is something more than chemistry going on.

I think all the behavior we observe can be accounted for by abiogenesis/evoilution. That is not to say that I am convinced that this is the whole picture. Or even the 'correct' picture.

And just because a theory maps nicely with observations, doesn't ever prove anything - except that you have a theory which consistently gets the result you want .

Serendipitous isomorphic mapping My phrase for the day

 

[Sapiens]

... And here's a thought - those with a stronger 'urge' to replicate tend to replicate more ! So that urge is naturally selected. Not because it is 'valuable' or 'intended'. The term urge is used loosely. Creatures with a stronger libido will be naturally selected.

You need to look into the difference between R-strategy and K-strategy.

 

[apophenia]

You need to look into the difference between R-strategy and K-strategy.

Thank you so much. I go fishing and education finds me

One of the most profound books I have ever read is 'Sociobiology : The New Synthesis' by E.O.Wilson.

When I say read - I owned it for many years and would often dip in as an interested layman. Most of the text contained lots of maths which I am not trained to understand. Nevertheless ... wow.

The final chapter - wherein he names 'ambivalence' as a characterising feature of human psychology - was both readable and deeply insightful.

If you would like to comment further re my post, and the relevance of R and K strategies, I'd would love to read your post.

 

[apophenia]

intention or no intention, I don't see any "survival" going on at all.

Rock and Roll lives

Relationships survive, if by survive you mean persist through time.

DNA is nothing if not relationships.

And whether you are mystic or epiphenomonologist (phew ...) it is the relationships which are experienced.

 

[HiEv]

And here's a thought - those with a stronger 'urge' to replicate tend to replicate more ! So that urge is naturally selected. Not because it is 'valuable' or 'intended'. The term urge is used loosely. Creatures with a stronger libido will be naturally selected.

Not necessarily. If a species reproduces too much it can wipe out the food supply and doom the entire group.

A better strategy would be to reproduce just a tiny bit more than would be necessary to survive off the available food supply and to cover the rates of pre-reproduction deaths.

Evolution is a delicate balancing act that 99.999+% of all species that have ever lived have failed at. We're the offspring of those lucky few that managed it.

 

[apophenia]

And here's a thought - those with a stronger 'urge' to replicate tend to replicate more ! So that urge may be naturally selected within a species *. Not because it is 'valuable' or 'intended'.

*I realise that I phrased this badly, so I've reworded and added the bolded phrase to clarify

Not necessarily. If a species reproduces too much it can wipe out the food supply and doom the entire group.

Yes. Various kinds of extinctions occur. So I don't get the 'not necessarily' part.

The scenario you describe, a local extinction, doesn't contradict the idea I suggested. The selection was taking place prior to the extinction, as is always the case..

A better strategy would be to reproduce just a tiny bit more than would be necessary to survive off the available food supply and to cover the rates of pre-reproduction deaths.

But there is no Evolutionary Committee designing strategies.

Only the process. That isn't 'designed'. It isn't a strategy, because that implies intent. There is nothing in replication or evolution which is intentional. Intention is happening at a different level, and is usually considered to be part of the 'emergent property' of consciousness.

How creatures with this property,if such it is, fare compared to others ostensibly lacking it, is hypothetical at this point.

Most of the living biomass on this planet is tiny. Very few would attribute 'intention' or 'strategy' to microbes and nanobes etc. Yet they seem most likely to 'outsurvive' the big-and-complicated species with emergent properties of a psychological kind.

Evolution is a delicate balancing act that 99.999+% of all species that have ever lived have failed at. We're the offspring of those lucky few that managed it.

I have to question the idea of 'failed' here.

There is a chaos of biological and environmental processes. Species emerge and disappear.

There is no success or failure.

 

[HiEv]

Yes. Various kinds of extinctions occur. So I don't get the 'not necessarily' part.

By "not necessarily" I meant that the strategy you discussed could work in some scenarios, but not in others.

The scenario you describe, a local extinction, doesn't contradict the idea I suggested. The selection was taking place prior to the extinction, as is always the case..

Yes it does. You were suggesting that a stronger urge to replicate will necessarily be naturally selected for. I was attempting to point out that that's not always the case. Having many offspring could be naturally selected against in some situations.

But there is no Evolutionary Committee designing strategies.

No duh. I was talking about the strategy resulting resulting from those genes. I wasn't saying anything intentionally came up with the strategy or decided to use those genes.

Only the process. That isn't 'designed'. It isn't a strategy, because that implies intent.

I agree that it wasn't designed, however I disagree that a strategy requires intent.

Evolution stumbles upon strategies all the time. There is no "design" or "intent" creating those strategies, however if the strategy works, it will tend to be selected for.

Imagine a game where different players randomly selected rules for their pieces to follow. Those rules would be that piece's "strategy". The strategy may or may not work, since it was selected randomly, but those pieces which ended up with better strategies would do better in the game. See what I mean?

How creatures with this property,if such it is, fare compared to others ostensibly lacking it, is hypothetical at this point.

"This property" is what I call a "strategy".

Most of the living biomass on this planet is tiny. Very few would attribute 'intention' or 'strategy' to microbes and nanobes etc.

You're demonstrably wrong here. Scientific papers quite frequently discuss the strategies of microbes (see link). They aren't claiming that the strategies were "designed" or created by intent, merely that the strategies are the end product of how the microbe evolved.

(Also, nanobes may not be a form of life, so bringing them up here is a bit of a red herring.)

I have to question the idea of 'failed' here.

There is a chaos of biological and environmental processes. Species emerge and disappear.

There is no success or failure.

By "failed" I mean, "failed to survive", i.e. gone extinct. There certainly is plenty of failure in that respect.

 

[idea]

Relationships survive, if by survive you mean persist through time.

DNA is nothing if not relationships.

And whether you are mystic or epiphenomonologist (phew ...) it is the relationships which are experienced.

I'll agree that relationships produce something of the eternal. As someone who embraces the spiritual (not mystic) side of life, relationships are the point of it all. "Don't steal, don't lie, don't commit adultery, ... love one another" - It's all about how to treat one another, it's all about relationships.

Synergy - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts - infinite creative potential within this, and it is a result of relationships.

DNA is a record of our relationships? interesting, although I think it goes beyond DNA.

There is a chaos of biological and environmental processes. Species emerge and disappear.

There is no success or failure.

... There is no survival.

 

[idea]

If I build a fire using bundled grass, and through the night I begin using small sticks of oak, then it begins to rain so I have to move my fire under an overhang, so I take one piece of burning oak and move it, and get some cedar burning; then a few hours later the fire is still burning, hasn't it 'survived?' Yet it is not the same. The fire of bundled grass has not survived. The fire in the open has not survived, etc. But 'the fire' has survived.I think that's a fair assessment of my view.

I love that analogy. So, what is the fire of life that survives? I think it's more than information, I think it's intelligence.

But the progression is entirely subjective. It has meaning only in context of goals. So my life is meaningless except when viewed through my eyes or the eyes of my loved ones and friends. In a vacuum, in context of the universe, I am a speck of dust and insignificant. But in terms of my wants, desires, and goals, I make progress. In terms of my families lives, I make progress. You are welcome.

There is nothing wrong with something being subjective in my opinion. Personal opinions & points of view, feelings and beliefs - these are all real entities. To pretend that feelings are not real, that they do not count for anything is to discount any meaning or purpose in life? Meaning is a product of relationships with one another? I can agree with that.

How much genealogy have you done? Everyone has a very large family... plus there is that 6.6 degrees of separation...

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I love that analogy. So, what is the fire of life that survives? I think it's more than information, I think it's intelligence.

Not all life is intelligent. Wouldn't that preclude intelligence being the fire of life that survives? I don't know if we can say it is anything but continued existence. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. So at some level EVERYTHING SURVIVES FOREVER. I will not survive this century, but some memory of me may, perhaps. But all of the matter that has every made me will be around in some form.

Maybe survival is just a concept we find useful to describe something that was, and is; rather than something that was, and is no longer.