RE: The biological goal of the human mind

Matthew Horning wrote:

>Since the nature of life is that it survives, is it not a necessary
>conclusion that the goal of the species is to survive?

This may seem like a very minor if not pedantic point, but it's actually 
quite important to most evolutionary biologists: we don't see species or 
life itself or genes as having a goal. Terms like "goal" imply 
intentionality or design. Although a minority of biologists in this century 
believe in intentionality/design (e.g., deChardin -- who not surprisingly 
was an ANTHROpologist -- and Monod) the core paradigm within the discipline 
is that evolution should be described in terms of differential reproduction.

Many biologists today focus on genes (or clusters of genes) -- as opposed to 
whole organisms or species -- as the level at natural selection takes place. 
Biologists disagree on the extent to which differential reproduction of 
genes is continuous or pulsatile.

Ironically, Richard Dawkins, one of the popularizers of sociobiology, has 
been one of the clearest exponents of "the blind watchmaker" paradigm (the 
non-intentionality of differential reproduction of genes). It is very 
interesting that Jay has not mentioned him in the discussion at all, since 
Dawkins' notion of "memes" -- gene-like concept units that use brains to 
reproduce differentially -- has generated considerable attention in popular 
discussions of social knowledge and behavior.

[Of course, Dawkins theory -- first articulated in the final chapter of *The 
Selfish Gene* -- can be criticized as idealist and functionalist. But at 
least for a sociobiologist, it could offer some mediation between genes and 
culture.]

John Everett Till


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com