Re: From AAT to Wittgenstein? Skip it!

Gerrit Hanenburg (
Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:47:54 GMT (H. M. Hubey) wrote:

>Change is neutral. Neither Evolve nor Devolve is. Easy.

Evolve and devolve are just cumulative change. Easy.

>Yes, they're just words but we should at least agree on
>some meanings and definitions.

>On any planet on which life can evolve, there will probably
>always be beings which will reach the state of science in
>which they can begin to tinker with their own evolution and
>begin to direct the evolution of the macro-ecology of the
>planet, as we are about to do right now.

Probably allways? Between the first replicator and the "scientist" is so
much contingency that the former may never again lead to the latter.
The fact that it happend once may be a hell of big exception.
In the words of Stephen J.Gould:"Homo sapiens is an entity,not a tendency."

>If this is true, then it is always deterministic and has
>at least a direction even if not an end/state, and even
>if we do not know what it is.

>The only thing constant in it is evolution toward this end
>of being able to comprehend what it is about and to be
>able to do something about it.

"evolution toward this end...",sounds like teleological determination a la
Teilhard de Chardin.




> Regards, Mark