[MD] Ever redefining self

[Case]

[Ian]
Spandrels et al,

This concept is a cliche (a meme) in evolutionary circles.

My view is a plea for the "engineering view" of reality (I am an
engineer after all).
Engineering = Ingenuity.
Ingenious = "Pragmatic ways to get there from here" - to bridge gaps.
(And to link up some threads - Rocket science = just engineering with a
vision.)

Anyway, the problem with the Engineering view of how reality came to
be is that it seems to fall into the admission of a creative force -
the blind watchmaker - intetionally creating the reality we see. It is
of course just a metaphor for the "emergence" from many levels of
interacting complexity - which "seem as if" they have design intent.
("Seem as if" vs "causality" .... see Paul Turner)

I notice biologist E O Wilson, whose Consilience I'm only just
reading, frequently calls on the engineering view to imagine how a
biological problem would get solved - the line being that evolution is
naturally efficient, and solutions to problems will naturally tend to
be the best, most efficient engineering solution to any given problem.
The human brain is the archetypical example. One cannot imagine
creating artificial consciousness, without first creating an
artificial brain, with artificial life demands on it. Arificial
Evolution = Engineering. It would look pretty much like the real
thing, even if it wasn't made of meat.

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of Engineers everywhere :-)

[Case]
I may be reading this wrong but I don't see why applying an engineering
model should result in any kind of perception of 'design'. Applying an
engineering metaphor to biology is of necessity an attempt at reverse
engineering. It is a productive exercise because it requires an analysis of
systems and the interaction of static and dynamic processes. Nevertheless, I
suggest the illusion of design results from the reverse engineering process.
But thinking, "this is how I would do it," should not suggest to a competent
engineer: "so this it how it was done."

The point about nature's efficiency rings true. In nature everything follows
the path of least resistance. Parsimony and efficiency are a natural
consequence. The illusion of successful 'design' is boosted by the fact that
all we see is nature's success stories. Everything else is either lost in
the fossil record or about to be abandoned there.

[Ham]
...they know intuitively that the universe didn't get here by the laws of
probability, that the "inevitability" of energy (nothingness?) building
itself an intricate, self-sustaining cosmos in which sentient life emerges
has zero probability.

[Case]
Despite my best efforts to explain this to you, you persist. The only thing
that comes to mind as having zero probability would be that anything could
be said to have zero probability. But Douglas Adams explains it this way:

"The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply
hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 SubMeson Brain to an atomic
vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice
hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were
often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the
hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in
accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for
this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because
they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.  Another thing they
couldn't stand was the perpetual failure they encountered in trying to
construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability field
needed to flip a spaceship across the mind-paralyzing distances between the
furthest stars, and in the end they grumpily announced that such a machine
was virtually impossible.

Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up the lab after a
particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning this way: 

If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, then
it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to
make one is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into
the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea...
and turn it on!

He did this, and was rather startled to discover that he had managed to
create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generator out of
thin air.

 It startled him even more when, just after he was awarded the Galactic
Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness, he got lynched by a rampaging mob
of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they
really couldn't stand was a smartass."

[Ham]
"Engineers everywhere" would be better advised to apply their skills to the
physical world they live in rather than trying to mechanize its Creator.

[Case]
It seems to me that what "Engineers everywhere" are learning is that
watchmaker metaphors are based on a Newtonian, mechanical world view. The
closer you look, the more you will find that physics itself lends itself to
more organic models and metaphors.