14 Jun, 3:36 PM: Thanks for your note and for the review. I have some issues with the latter: First, we don't claim that we (the scientists examining the case) can't [tell] which of linked variables are free-riders; of course we can, very often; and when we can't the problem is often technical rather than logical or methodological. Our claim is that Natural selection (if it works the way Darwin says it does) can't distinguish causes of fitness from their free-riders. There's no contradiction here; we can do lots of things that NS can't because we've got minds and it doesn't.

I have no views about the origin of life or about what amendments physicists make in the theory of natural selection these days. My impression is that, as a matter of fact, many of them endorse a pretty crude version except when someone catches them. Anyhow, I'm pretty certain that the kinds of amendments they have in mind would not fix the problems that the intensionality of 'selection-for' produces for Darwin. These problems are the polemical center of the book; would that it's reviewers undersood that. Best, jf [Jerry Fodor, pictured]

15 Jun, 12:28 AM: Thanks for the reply. I am still puzzled why NS's lack of a mind disables it as you say. Is there any reviewer who gets it? ...If the problem is a serious as you say, the solution could be as serious as cosmic ancestry. Any hope of interesting you? ...In any case, thank you. Best regards. ...Brig

12:32 AM: NS's lack of a mind would not prevent it from culling the unfit ones at least. Right? (Maybe we agree!)

9:43 AM: The explanation of selection-against is exactly symmetrical with the explanation of selection-for. If there are problems about selection-for, there are exactly the same problems about selection-against.

10:46 AM: The point is that mental states (believing, wanting etc.) are typically intensional, so if evolution were mind driven, it would be no surprise that 'select for' and the like are intensional too. But it isn't, so it is. Actually, there's a lot of discussion of this and related points in the book.

BTW: I don't think the issues about the origins of life intersect importantly with problems about how evolution works: Evolution of a phenotype presupposes previous generations with a related phenotype. It starts in the middle of things; like Homer. Problems about evolution are impossible; problems about the origin of life are hopelessly impossible. ...je

11:16 AM: It sounds like you're saying that evolution needs a mind to do what it has done. But that can't be right. ...My computer can do lots of interesting things, but it has no mind. What it has is _programming_. Life also has programming in its DNA. Can't this, if supplied, do the job? Other questions follow, but only if this line of thought interests you. Thanks for responding. ...Brig
PS -- has any reveiwer understood you fully? Who?

11:53 AM: NO; I'm saying that if Darwin were right about how evolution works, (namely, by selecting-for adaptive traits) it would have to have a mind. ...Your computer seems to have a mind because you actually do have one. Perhaps it would have a mind if it had the right sort of program (the kind you have). But it doesn't, so it doesn't. ...jf

1:02 PM: OK, I'm maybe about to get it. But it might be "adaptive" for a cave-dweller to lose the eyes, right? NS could mindlessly do that I would think. But, if for "adaptive" you substitute "inventive," then I agree 100%. Are we getting anywhere?

1:38 PM: No ammendment required; the Darwinist's claim is not that all adaptation is the result of selection. nor even that whatever is selective is adaptive. Just that selection is adaptive in paradigm cases and vice versa. ...je

22 Jun, 12:16 PM: Dear Jerry -- Thanks for all yours [above] and for permission to post. I have been thinking about these issues and want to followup if you are still interested. In particular, I am curious to hear an example or two of the paradigm cases that you mention. Presumably these would show that the process would require a mind? The devil (for me at least) may be in the details.

And, finally, could I interest you in this logical point -- The origin of a genetic program for a major evolutionary step is an assumed event with no good supporting evidence, only supposed necessity based, ultimately, only on the big bang. (So's the origin of life.) At this point the lack of evidence is noteworthy, because it has been sought so diligently. But if genetic programs don't ever have to originate, all the big problems for evolution can be solved (with HGT), and the process demonstrated with computer models. ...Any response will be welcome. Thanks. Best regards. Brig

25 Jun, 10:33 AM: There's no lack of cases that illustrate the adaptivity of evolution: exposure to antibiotics produces antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the color of moths evolves in the direction of the color of their background (likewise polar bears, etc.) Cf any standard introduction to evolutionary theory. None of this requires appeal to minds *until you ask yourself 'which trait is selected-for' in such cases?. Are white polar bears selected for being white? Or for matching their surround? Or both? Or neither?) What typically raises such questions is trait-linkage; anything that has either trait has the other. Arches and spandrels all over again ...Best, jf

26 Jun, 12:37 PM: Dear Jerry -- Many thanks for your patience. I have now re-read pp 98-100, where you say, "...nobody intended or planned for long-necked giraffes...." No, but there is a natural variance in features like size; couldn't natural selection act on that, and favor the ones with longer necks? (Longer everything it seems.) Why can't this happen? You say, "...it's best to aproach the exposition indirectly." But would you directly answer this question? Else, your logic is too subtle for me. People will think you are denying an obvious truth and dismiss you too hastily.

Please remember, I want to agree with you. And I suspect there is agreement somewhere to be found. For example, I do not think that natural selection for longer necks is limitless. Rather it is strictly limited to the range of the natural variance that exists originally. (If there is a bell-curve distribution, natural selection can move the peak rightward to the tail of the original curve, but not beyond.) But if the giraffe's long neck is enabled by genetic programs that were not installed originally (before they had long necks), those "new" genetic programs cannot be accounted for by natural selection among giraffes. I think this gets you where you want to be anyway. Furthermore, it points to experiments and analyses that could prove fruitful. Thanks! Brig

27 Jun, 1:47 PM: I do think you're missing the point; but so does almost everybody else, so you shouldn't feel bad about it. You take for granted that that the trait that is SELECTED-FOR is having a long neck. What rules out the hypothesis that the trait selected-for is, as it might be, maximal distance between nose and tail? Or any other coextensive trait? In particular, what in the theory of natural selection rules it out? Likewise with any pair of traits that are 'linked' in that selection for either produces both. ...It's because the point is so obvious that everybody missed it for a century and a half. ...jf

5:42 PM: Again, many thanks. But I am now simply curious to know your opinion or belief -- ...Say the forage-trees are too high for all but the tallest pre-giraffes, who have a distribution of heights. In any given generation, only the tall-enough ones will survive, regardless of any other traits that may or may not be free-riding with height. And height is to a sufficient extent genetic (inherited). So, natural selection could cause the average height of the pre-giraffes to rise over several generations.

Do you agree????? ...If not, could I reword the premise, for example ...over several generations the average height of pre-giraffes ...will increase because of a better survival rate??? ...I am seriously not sure where you are on this question. Your answer will help me understand where you're coming from. Forget about theories. Could the situation lead to the outcome? ...I apologize if this is tedious for you. (I am desperate for allies myself!) ...Brig

6:58 PM: But if the traits are linked, then selecting for maximum tail to nose distance will also get you long necks which allow you to forage in tree tops (and vice versa) . So again, the question arises, which (if either) was selected for? When the candidates are coextensive, Darwin doesn't say. In fact, nobody does. ..BTW, what on earth would you want allies for? ...jf

9:41 PM: Wanting not to seem rude -- I don 't care how you call it, tail to nose or whatever -- Could the situation described [above] lead to taller (plus or minus any other characteristics) pre-giraffes????? Are you able to answer? I don't *care* what the other dimensions are. I want to know if their mouthes can reach higher. I don't care if they are spotted or shiny. Could the situation make them taller? (Able to reach higher with their mouthes)? Please answer. ...I want allies because I think the standard theory of evolution is bullshit. So do you (think it's bullshit.) Let's see if we could find an alliance. Something major is wrong with Darwinism, but we opponents haven't said it well enough, yet, apparently. ...(Had 4 beers.)

28 Jun, 8:29 AM: I'm afraid one has to care which property is selected-for. Here's one reason: It's the consensus view that empirical theories should not only predict what does happen, but also what would have happened if.... (I won't go into why they should, but I doubt you'd find much disagreement among people who work in this area.) So now: consider the question whether what's selected-for is the length of the neck or the distance between the tail and the nose; and ask yourself what would have happened if the trees had been shorter: The first theory says the necks would have been shorter too; the second theory says it wouldn't have mattered. So, if you think that getting the counterfactuals right is important, then you should also think that getting it right about which property is selected-for is too. It's not an accident that people overlooked the problems about selection-for for more than a century. They are subtle and complex. ...BTW: there is some evidence that giraffes were not selected for long necks after all; it turns out they don't like to eat with their necks extended. ...jf

10:55 AM: The issue is still too subtle for me apparently. So I am muttering to myself, "I do not have to care." ...And I am also sorry that we anti-darwinists don't present a united front to the rest of the world! ...Thanks Jerry. May I append this recent exchange to the first one posted online? It may be helpful to someone.

29 Jun 10:31 AM: Dear Jerry -- I am still thinking about this. Your book was stimulating! If you get tired, it's OK to say so. ...Suppose there are two linked traits, but one of them is adaptive (helpful, beneficial, etc.) and the other is maladaptive (detrimental.) Then Natural Selction requires no mind whatsoever to selected-for the adaptive trait.

This is the case with resistance to malaria among some Africans. As you know, the trait is linked with increased susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia. ...Do you see anything in this argument?

12:28 PM: If the linkage goes in both directions, then you don't need to choose; if you select either, you get both. ...jf