Evolution and Design

EVOLUTION AND DESIGN
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
NATURAL AND CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION
TOWARD A Theoretical and Applied Metaphysics
ANIL MITRA PHD, © Horizons Enterprises 1987, 2ND ED. 1999, REV. 2004

Home | Contents | cONTACT

Some retrospective comments, September 2007

This essay was written in the period autumn 1986 to spring 1987, over twenty years ago. The idea—a range of ideas—had been percolating for a while. I had become familiar with the basic ideas of Darwin’s theory of evolution it about 1961, continued to maintain an interest in it, and found it capable of shedding light on many aspects of the world. I had come to seek, among other goals, to found a metaphysics from the basic ideas—perhaps in analogy to the manner in which Karl Popper, in the Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934, and other writings had found some foundation for epistemology in evolutionary ideas. Naturally, there was no thought that the actual evolution of the universe is that of a living organism, evolving in the way in which organisms evolve—individual organisms do not evolve. Rather, it is the species and, perhaps, other collections that evolve by variation of factors of inheritance and selection of adapted variations

This work is deficient in many respects. The primary deficit is that while the ideas of evolution are employed to explain cosmological variety, there is no explicit formulation of a metaphysics of objects but only an implicit metaphysics of process which acts in the world

The world is not taken to be material in principle but material things form the bulk of the cosmological variety considered in this essay. Even if the world is not all matter, this is not a bad idea because the introduction of non-material objects is often an excuse to not be concerned with explanation or theory at all. The problem with an absence of explanation is not that what is written is invalid but that it is accessible at most to privileged persons and is accepted by others without understanding. There is also a deficit in the idea of materialism but it is not that the universe is not made of matter. It is, rather, the idea that what we know matter to be, i.e. our concept of matter, is final and universal. It is entirely conceivable and perhaps even likely that any ‘final’ physical theory of matter shall be quite different from the present theories. A second deficiency, then, is not in making any mistake of materialism but in tacitly excluding cosmological variety at the outset of investigation. A similar deficiency revealed by my recent thought—e.g., in Journey in Being—is that while process explanation is useful it is by no means the only or the most powerful explanation. Some philosophers insist on explanation that transcends both time and object, preferring these kinds and their explanatory aspects to fall out of, e.g., a metaphysics that is not based in temporal or material nature. That objective is achieved in Journey in Being and the reader is reviewed to that essay for the development itself

The present work has further deficiencies and these include (1) organization and style and (2) content that is often in the form of rough notes

After writing this essay, I became dissatisfied with its approach, its effective basis in materialism and temporality. Years before writing this essay, I had been a materialist—the result of an education in science and engineering. The subsequent years and the thought involved in writing this essay cured me of that but provided no real substitute. In about 1990, I explicitly set out to find an alternative. In the process, my background in science and mathematics, years of reading and reflection, the writing of this essay were extremely useful but not fully adequate—I continued to read, to reflect and to write

I turned to the idea of the absolute—in a metaphysical rather than in any formally religious sense

I considered idealism. In contrast to the typical modern materialist, I found that there is no essential distinction between idealism and materialism unless the nature of mind and matter are taken to be very specific. If some very specific notions of mind and matter are adopted and if it is thought that matter is nothing but the notion adopted and that mind is nothing but its notion, then idealism and materialism are both absurd from the contrary point of view. What is more, mind is not atoms, not buildings, not the cosmos in the standard view and therefore, idealism is absurd (on the assumed view of mind and matter.) Further, while materialism is not patently absurd, it becomes impossible to see how mind could arise in the material world. However, if the notions of mind and matter are not regarded as final, and not regarded in the ‘nothing but’ sense, then there is no reason that the universe can be seen, equivalently, as mind andor matter. That is, the concepts of mind and matter may converge. Perhaps, more accurately, while the sense of the concepts may remain different, the ranges of reference will converge

I studied consciousness—I was initially motivated by John Searle’s essay, The Mystery of Consciousness, that appeared in the New York Review of Books in 1995. I read Searle’s The Rediscovery of Mind published in 1992. I was impressed by the thought of many writers in the field, especially that of Searle, but I was not persuaded by Searle’s commitment to evolution and atomism as a basis of—an understanding of—all being

I wrote a number of essays—see essays on being and essays on mind. In the process, I sharpened my conceptions of a number of fundamental ideas including being, mind, matter, consciousness, substance, and read much including the writing of Heidegger and Wittgenstein

Starting around 1997 till 2002, I had been thinking that the void, i.e. nothingness, might form the basis of a metaphysics. It was a somewhat mystical position. Even hard nosed scientists will agree that mysticism is acceptable as inspiration though not of proof. However, it was not entirely mystical for, even in fundamental physical science, it is known that the emergence of a cosmos from the void does not violate the principles of physics when the positive energy of matter cancels the negative energy of the gravitational field. I was also encouraged by some reflections of Heidegger and Robert Nozick. (I was disappointed to find nothing of worth regarding metaphysics in the thought of Sartre.) However, I was unable to prove the equivalence of the void and the universe and I did not get very far with use of the idea as a working hypothesis

However, in 2002, I saw how to show the equivalence of the void and all being. I had been trying to show that the—known—world is equivalent to the void. The key idea of 2002 was to focus on the void, its properties, rather than, first, on the universe. This was the essential idea that made it possible to show the equivalence of the void and all being and, encouraged by this development, was able, incrementally over the five years since 2002, to develop the ultimate metaphysics of Journey in Being and its implications for the theory of objects, for logic and meaning, for mind, for cosmology and for a study of the human world

It seems that the new development is infinitely advanced beyond where I was at the completion of the present essay on evolution and design. Yet this essay remains of interest to me primarily as a way station in the journey to the present and especially as a source of ideas, later much refined, on the emergence of mind and the capacities of mind from a state that does not—appear to—involve mind and, more generally, as a source of ideas on the equivalence of manifest being from the void state. The essay is also of interest in that it is my first system—it attempts to be systematic and it attempts to write down, to formulate, a comprehensive set of categories of kinds of being

OUTLINE

CONTENTS

PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

Page Numbering

Section and Paragraph Numbering

1 INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, STRUCTURE

EVOLUTION AND DESIGN - LEVELS AND RELATIONS - ORIGINS OF OBJECTIVES

1.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF DESIGN

1.1.1 Four Levels of Design

1.1.1.1 Level I - Problem solving and objective design

1.1.1.2 Level II - Social and human process

1.1.1.3 Level III - Evolutionary design

1.1.1.4 Level IV - Design is evolution

1.2 OBJECTIVES FOR THIS WORK

1.2.1 FORMAL STATEMENT

1.2.1.1 Objective 1 - Design as fundamental in society and universe

1.2.1.1.1 Idea A - Practical and objective design

1.2.1.1.2 Idea B - Social process as design

1.2.1.1.3 Idea C - Evolution in design

1.2.1.1.4 Idea D - General evolution

1.2.1.2 Objective 2 - Use of design

1.2.1.3 Objective 3 - Design as universal process

1.2.2 DISCUSSION AND FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

1.2.2.1 Objective 1 - objective design

1.2.2.1.1 Idea A - Objective design is a fundamental human and social process

1.2.2.1.2 Idea B: Objective design generalizes to social process

1.2.2.1.3 Idea C - Evolution in Design

1.2.2.1.4 Idea D - General Evolution

1.2.2.2 Objective 2 - Use of Design

1.2.2.3 Objective 3 - Design As Universal Process

1.3 BASIC THESES AND POSTULATES

1.3.1 There is a human motive to the universal

1.3.2 This resolution requires vision

1.3.3 DESIGN, AS PROBLEM SOLVING IS AN ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY AT ALL LEVELS

1.3.4 objective design must include holistic values

1.3.5 Generalization of the basic design leads to more inclusive and universal processes

1.3.6 The idea evolution = design [Level IV] universalizes and hierarchizes design

1.4 OUTLINE

1.4.1 LOGIC OF THE ORDER

1.4.2 COMPLETENESS

1.4.3 WHERE ARE THE OBJECTIVES TREATED?

1.4.3.1 Objective 1

1.4.3.2 Objective 2

1.4.3.3 Objective 3

2 EVOLUTION AND HISTORY

2.1 REASONS TO STUDY EVOLUTION

2.1.1 As the universal process of unfolding reality

2.1.2 To show levels of understanding:

2.1.2.1 [A] Knowledge As Static

2.1.2.2 [B] Knowledge as evolving

2.1.2.3 [C] Knowledge As An Element Of Evolution

2.1.2.4 [D] Evolution Of The Processes Of Knowledge

2.1.3 To establish “the” dimensions of being

2.1.4 Provides learning for design

2.1.5 To study my own life

2.1.6 To understand relation of universal to human Being

2.1.7 Relation to objectives of the present work

2.1.8 Provides insight into culture and human institutions

2.1.9 As a foundation for design

2.1.9.1 [1] Design is within evolution

2.1.9.2 [2] Design is analogous to evolution

2.1.9.3 [3] Design is part of evolution

2.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF EVOLUTION

2.2.1 Origins, continuation and destination of all entities in our physical and speculative universes

2.2.2 Processes of evolution are not different than ordinary processes

2.2.3 Evolution need not be distinguished from or equated with creation, guidance, or destruction

2.2.4 Time and space evolve

2.2.5 Universal processes

2.2.6 Evolution does refer to specific set of mechanisms or theories

2.2.7 Evolution is not a social or political program

2.2.8 Evolution is not a philosophical program

2.2.9 Evolution includes emergence of order by natural processes

2.2.9.1 Is not essential

2.2.9.2 Mechanisms includes:

2.3 ABSTRACT EVOLUTION WITH EXAMPLES

2.3.1 Special

2.3.2 Linguistic / symbolic

2.3.3 Mathematical - a special case of the symbolic

2.3.4 Computer

2.3.5 Mechanistic

2.4 HISTORY

2.4.1 Purpose of the section

2.4.2 Meaning of History

2.5 ORGANIC ACCOUNTS OF CREATION, GUIDANCE AND DESTRUCTION

PREFACE

DISCUSSION

2.5.1 Reasons for studying organic accounts of creation, guidance and destruction

2.5.1.1 [1] As archetypes of origins

2.5.1.2 [2] As archetypes of psyche

2.5.1.3 [3] Continuity with the past

2.5.1.4 [4] Some functions are still valid

2.5.1.5 [5] Organic knowledge of human origins

2.5.1.6 [6] Symbolic-organic knowledge is valuable

2.5.1.7 [7] If science should decay

2.5.1.8 [8] Insight organic knowledge

2.5.2 Function

2.5.3 Sources

2.5.4 Types

2.5.4.1 [1] Creation

2.5.4.2 [2] Continuance

2.5.4.3 [3] Dissolution

2.6 SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNTS OF EVOLUTION

INTRODUCTION:

2.6.1 Reasons for studying systematic accounts

2.6.1.1 [1] Centering

2.6.1.2 [2] The Study Itself is Part of Human Evolution

2.6.1.3 [3] As a Source of Knowledge and Its Systematization

2.6.1.4 [4] Knowledge for Design

2.6.1.5 [5] Learning about the processes and meanings of design

2.6.1.6 [6]. A continuation of the organic accounts discussion of evolution

2.6.1.7 [7] Centering Humankind in Nature

2.6.1.8 [8] As a Framework for a Unified Concept of Evolution

2.6.2 General comments on evolution and mechanisms

2.6.3 Universal evolution

2.6.4 Cosmological evolution. Known and speculative universe

2.6.5 Evolution of the phenomenal and physical objects of the known universe

2.6.6 Geophysical evolution

2.6.7 Geochemical evolution

2.6.8 Biological Evolution

2.6.8.1 Relation of biology and biological evolution to science and general evolution

2.6.8.1.1 Objectives of Science

2.6.8.1.2 Discovery and Method in Science

2.6.8.1.3 Special Features of Biology

2.6.8.1.4 The Problem of Teleology

2.6.8.1.5 Special Features of Life

2.6.8.1.6 Reduction in Biology

2.6.8.1.6.1 Constitutive Reductionism

2.6.8.1.6.2 Explanatory Reductionism

2.6.8.1.6.3 Theory Reductionism

2.6.8.1.7 Conceptual Structure of Biology

2.6.8.1.8 Philosophy of Biology

2.6.8.1.9 Some Principles of a Basis for Philosophy of Biology

2.6.8.1.10 Biology and Human Thought

2.6.8.1.11 Biology and Human Values

2.6.8.1.12 Philosophical Implications of Darwin's Theories

2.6.8.2 Theoretical and Empirical Problems of Biological Evolution

2.6.8.2.1 [1] Outline of the Course of Evolution - Evolution and Descent of the Major Biological Types

2.6.8.2.1.1 A Four-Kingdom Scheme based On the Notion of Common Tree-Like Descent

2.6.8.2.1.2 A Three Level, Five Kingdom Scheme based On Descent, Morphology and Ecology

2.6.8.2.2 [2] Provision of Evidence:

2.6.8.2.3 [3] Methodological Problems

2.6.8.3 Outline Treatment of the Problems

2.6.8.3.1 Darwin's Theory and it's Five Strands

2.6.8.3.2 Early Criticisms of Darwin's Theory

2.6.8.3.3 Darwin's Responses

2.6.8.3.4 An Outline of the Theory of Evolution

2.6.8.3.4.1 [1] Variation

2.6.8.3.4.2 [2] Selection

2.6.8.3.4.3 [3] The Synthetic Theory of Evolution