The difference between plants and stars?

[brian0918]

I have to come back to this: "goal-directed", at least in the context of your statements, implies volition. A volitional object, to set a goal, evaluates a situation and chooses a plan of action in order to arrive at a desired outcome. That process implies consciousness; something that neither a star nor a plant possesses.

So then Rand was wrong about living things having goal-directed action. It still does no damage to her ethical system - we still have goals. She simply made a distinction where one was unnecessary.

I stand utterly corrected.

That assumes that Rand is right about this issue. If stars and viruses can be considered to have self-generated, goal-directed actions, that still does not imply that they are alive, nor does it have any effect on Rand's ethical system. It is not necessary to show that only living things have goals/values in order to show that living things act to maintain their life.

Edited January 14, 2009 by brian0918

[Ordr]

So then Rand was wrong about living things having goal-directed action.

No, I was.

That assumes that Rand is right about this issue.

Yes, she was.

[brian0918]

Yes, she was.

So you are willing to discard all discussion and accept an appeal to authority in place of an argument? Because I thought the whole purpose of this discussion was to determine whether what you have just asserted in those 3 words is true.

Edited January 14, 2009 by brian0918

[Grames]

Defining life definitively probably isn't going to happen here, if biologists can't even get it straight. But according to Objectivist epistemology, the meaning of a concept is its referents, not its definition. If I were to point at series of entities as examples of living things I would never point at a star or a flame. Would you?

[softwareNerd]

How would a biologist go about arguing that stars are not living things? An Objectivist would go about this in the same way. It is not a philosophical proposition.

[Ordr]

So you are willing to discard all discussion and accept an appeal to authority in place of an argument? Because I thought the whole purpose of this discussion was to determine what you have just asserted in those 3 words.

Nope, but it impacted a major portion of my argument (and subsequent points) so I'm working on the topic in that new light. I'm not going anywhere.

[D'kian]

I think the flaw here is in the assumption that stars act at all.

Certainly there are processes going on. Hydrogen gets fused into helium, heluim is fused into heavier elements, there are shockwaves, sun spots, solar flares, variances in the magnetic field, etc etc. But all that is self-contained. Stars need nothing from the outisde to sustain their fusion (they don't eat).

Plants don't move, but they do need outside materials to keep on existing. Largely these come from the soil they're rooted to, less so from the air around them, and sunlight just shines on them. But they do need to have these things or they die. They ahve to incorporate nutrients, capture carbon dioxide and gather sunlight. That means the plant needs to develop from a seed to a plant, and that's action. Sure it's all predetermined. The roots will grow in the direction there's water, the leaves and branches in the direction there's sunlight, but they do grow. Some plants also exhibit other behaviors (if that's the right word) or reactions, like excreting certain substances to repel insects.

A star, once it ignites a fusion reaction, just coasts along. It does nothing.

[JMeganSnow]

The activity of a star is not aimed at anything. It is simply a process of converting hydrogen into helium (and heavier elements), and once the hydrogen is all converted the star will go out. There is no activity generated with the goal of acquiring more hydrogen to keep going indefinitely--the only thing generated is radiation.

A living creature, however, constantly generates new action with the goal of keeping its processes going for as long as possible. Plants grow and spread. Animals eat and migrate and so forth. Humans plant farms and study medicine.

Ayn Rand specifically defined that "goal-directed" action is not the same as "purposive", with purposive meaning "intended and chosen". If the processes of a star were said to be directed at a "goal" that goal would be to go *out*. The processes of a plant, however, are directed toward staying alive (I know that some actions, like reproduction, are directed toward species survival rather than individual survival, but that's still survival-related).

[brian0918]

Defining life definitively probably isn't going to happen here, if biologists can't even get it straight. But according to Objectivist epistemology, the meaning of a concept is its referents, not its definition. If I were to point at series of entities as examples of living things I would never point at a star or a flame. Would you?

No, I wouldn't. What we're trying to show here is why, as Rand asserts, only living things have self-generated, goal-directed action. If it is not true that this action is limited to living things, I don't think it affects anything but the truth of that one assertion by Rand.

[brian0918]

There is no activity generated with the goal of acquiring more hydrogen to keep going indefinitely--the only thing generated is radiation.

Gravity is that activity. If it can pull more fuel in through gravity, it will convert that to energy it can use to counteract its death (through collapse).

Ayn Rand specifically defined that "goal-directed" action is not the same as "purposive", with purposive meaning "intended and chosen".

Is there any evidence or argument to back this up, other than a simple definition, ie, saying "a goal is not a purpose, period", with no explanation?

If the processes of a star were said to be directed at a "goal" that goal would be to go *out*.

The end result is to go out, but why can't the goal be to produce heavier elements. The end result for plants is to "go out", but it has short-term goals.

How would a biologist go about arguing that stars are not living things? An Objectivist would go about this in the same way. It is not a philosophical proposition.

The philosophical part is showing that *only* living things can have self-generated, goal-directed action, which was Rand's assertion. It may be true that a star is not a living thing, but what prevents it from having goals in the same sense that plants have goals? And how about viruses, which certainly have goal-directed action but are not alive?

Edited January 14, 2009 by brian0918

[Greebo]

Gravity is that activity. If it can pull more fuel in through gravity, it will convert that to energy it can use to counteract its death (through collapse).

No, gravity is not an activity. Gravity is a force that exists independently of any "action" the star may be seen as taking. The gravity is a byproduct of the star's mass, only, and is not generated by the star as a part of the star's identity as a star.

In a cause effect sense - the star is the effect. Gravity is the cause of the star. Is the gravity then self directed to create the star?

[brian0918]

Gravity is a force that exists independently of any "action" the star may be seen as taking.

And the chemical interactions that occur between light and molecules of the plant likewise use forces that exist independently of any "action" the plant may be seen as taking.

The gravity is a byproduct of the star's mass, only, and is not generated by the star as a part of the star's identity as a star.

Why could this not be said of the chemical interactions involved in photosynthesis?

Is the gravity then self directed to create the star?

Well, matter attracts matter. If you want to call that self-generated, goal-directed action, why not?

[Thales]

Man this thread has grown massively in a short time!

Dr. Binswanger has authored a book "The Biological Nature of Teleological Concepts", which should answer Brian's questions here.

Just to give a brief description, plants do have goals, but they don't have goals in the same way that humans do. Rather, due to evolution plants have been created to seek their own survival. They have leaves so that they can soak in energy from the sun. They have roots, so that they can provide nutrients to their bodies. There is purpose for each element of the plant. The sun, otoh, just burns by fusion. There is no purpose underlying its actions.

[brian0918]

Dr. Binswanger has authored a book "The Biological Nature of Teleological Concepts", which should answer Brian's questions here.

Thanks. I will definitely check this out. (Edit: It's actually called "The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts"). Wow, I just read the description at the bookstore, this sounds exactly like what I'm looking for.

Just to give a brief description, plants do have goals, but they don't have goals in the same way that humans do. Rather, due to evolution plants have been created to seek their own survival. They have leaves so that they can soak in energy from the sun. They have roots, so that they can provide nutrients to their bodies. There is purpose for each element of the plant. The sun, otoh, just burns by fusion. There is no purpose underlying its actions.

What I've been asking all along is why "producing heavier elements" cannot be considered a goal of a star. I'll also throw viruses into the mix, since they are seen as having goals but are also not considered alive.

Edited January 14, 2009 by brian0918

[Grames]

Man this thread has grown massively in a short time!

Dr. Binswanger has authored a book "The Biological Nature of Teleological Concepts", which should answer Brian's questions here.

Just to give a brief description, plants do have goals, but they don't have goals in the same way that humans do. Rather, due to evolution plants have been created to seek their own survival. They have leaves so that they can soak in energy from the sun. They have roots, so that they can provide nutrients to their bodies. There is purpose for each element of the plant. The sun, otoh, just burns by fusion. There is no purpose underlying its actions.

I have a copy of that, I darned if know where I stashed it. If anyone has a copy to hand, throw us some relevant quotes. I'm drawing a blank on useful things to say and blame it on too much coffee.

[Greebo]

And the chemical interactions that occur between light and molecules of the plant likewise use forces that exist independently of any "action" the plant may be seen as taking.

Without the plant's life, the chemical interactions would not occur. The interactions stop then the plant ends.

When the star burns out and dies, the gravity doesn't stop.

Cause. Effect.

[Marc K.]

[...] as Rand asserts, only living things have self-generated, goal-directed action. If it is not true that this action is limited to living things, I don't think it affects anything but the truth of that one assertion by Rand.

Yes, it does. It is the entire basis of the Objectivist ethics. Metaphysically speaking, living entities exist in a different way from non-living things. This difference is what gives rise to the whole concept of value, which is the objective basis for distinguishing between good and evil.

[brian0918]

Yes, it does. It is the entire basis of the Objectivist ethics. Metaphysically speaking, living entities exist in a different way from non-living things. This difference is what gives rise to the whole concept of value, which is the objective basis for distinguishing between good and evil.

How does the claim that certain non-living things have self-generated, goal-directed actions impact the fact that humans still face the prospect of non-existence? When we die, our bodies no longer have self-generated, goal-direction action.

Edited January 14, 2009 by brian0918

[Greebo]

How does the "fact" that certain non-living things have self-generated, goal-directed actions impact the fact that humans still face the prospect of non-existence? When we die, our bodies no longer have self-generated, goal-direction action.

I don't believe you've proven that any non-living things have self-generated, goal directed actions.

The burden of proof is, I think, upon you to prove that stars actions are "self generated" and "goal directed".

What you've done so far is redefine self-generated and goal-directed. You've said, in essence, "Stars produce heavier elements. Lets say that's their goal." But the production of heavy elements isn't a goal of the star, it's a byproduct of the fusion that takes place because of the density, mass, and temperature.

If heavier elements weren't produce by fusion, the star couldn't exist, and if the chemical reactions to make energy from sunlight didn't happen, plants wouldn't exist either. BUT - the star didn't develop a technique for making heavy elements in order to live longer as a star. The plant, over millions of years, developed new processes via mutation which gave it better photosynthesis, the ability to grow roots towards water, etc.

Likewise, you've re-defined "self-generated" - going so far as to suggest that the star *uses* gravity in order to survive when the gravity *preceded the star*. The you've put that "star use gravity to feed" idea on the same level as "plants use chemicals to feed". The star didn't generate the gravity in the sense that the plant generated the chemicals it uses. The star's gravity is determined by physics not by the star. The plant, on the other hand, *makes* the chemicals it needs to survive, and can actively seek out more of the same.

So - all you've done so far is play what I'm starting to consider are nothing more than intellectually dishonest word games.

[Marc K.]

What I've been asking all along is why "producing heavier elements" cannot be considered a goal of a star. I'll also throw viruses into the mix, since they are seen as having goals but are also not considered alive.

Instead of looking at difficult cases like viruses why don't you start more simply.

Ask yourself: does flowing water have a goal? Do rocks pursue goals? How about a rock that is rolling down hill? How about waves? Is the goal of mountains ultimately to become sand? or sandstone? or mountains again? Is there some other course of action open to the sun? If the goal of it's life is to make the heaviest element why does it wait to do this until it dies?

Look at reality and group things together that seem to be similar.

[Ordr]

Dr. Binswanger has authored a book "The Biological Nature of Teleological Concepts", which should answer Brian's questions here.

I just ordered this upon your recommendation. I definitely need to learn a lot more about these particular matters.

[Marc K.]

When we die, our bodies no longer have self-generated, goal-direction action.

How do you know that? Maybe decomposition is a goal. Ultimately the earth will be swallowed by the sun so maybe our goal is to feed the sun. If the sun can have self-generated, goal-directed action so can my dead body, right?

How does the claim that certain non-living things have self-generated, goal-directed actions impact the fact that humans still face the prospect of non-existence?

Well you don't really mean non-existence right? You just mean passing from animate to inanimate matter. And really you don't even mean that if the sun or a rolling stone is alive. So I'm not sure what you mean.

You said you were going to read "The Objectivist Ethics" are you in the middle of it or have you finished it?

Edited January 14, 2009 by Marc K.

[brian0918]

I don't believe you've proven that any non-living things have self-generated, goal directed actions.

That was not my intent. My intent was to understand how to define "self-generated, goal directed actions" in order to see if any non-living things fit that definition.

What you've done so far is redefine self-generated and goal-directed.

No, I'm asking for the definition.

You've said, in essence, "Stars produce heavier elements. Lets say that's their goal."

No, I've asked "why can't that be a goal" - ie, what's the definition for "goal", and why.

BUT - the star didn't develop a technique for making heavy elements in order to live longer as a star. The plant, over millions of years, developed new processes via mutation which gave it better photosynthesis, the ability to grow roots towards water, etc.

Alright, you've specified how a star is not alive according to our knowledge of what a living thing should look like, but I've not argued otherwise. I am asking what prevents non-living things from having self-generated, goal-directed actions.

I just ordered this upon your recommendation. I definitely need to learn a lot more about these particular matters.

Ditto.

You said you were going to read "The Objectivist Ethics" are you in the middle of it or have you finished it?

I've already finished it.

Ask yourself: does flowing water have a goal? Do rocks pursue goals? How about a rock that is rolling down hill? How about waves? Is the goal of mountains ultimately to become sand? or sandstone? or mountains again?

Exactly, I'd like to understand these limits.

Is there some other course of action open to the sun?

Is there for a plant?

If the goal of it's life is to make the heaviest element why does it wait to do this until it dies?

Why does that matter? And why can't the goal be to "make heavier elements", rather than "make the heaviest element"?

Edited January 14, 2009 by brian0918

[Greebo]

That was not my intent. My intent was to understand how to define "self-generated, goal directed actions" in order to see if any non-living things fit that definition.

No, I'm asking for the definition.

No, I've asked "why can't that be a goal" - ie, what's the definition for "goal", and why.

That's certainly far from where you started.

I think the fundamental question is, if someone asserts a specific "goal", or a "self-generated" action, for a non-living thing, how do you show that those are not in fact goals or self-generated actions?

I think you need to figure out what you're asking.

Then get a dictionary.

goal

   /goʊl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [gohl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

2. the terminal point in a race.

3. a pole, line, or other marker by which such a point is indicated.

4. an area, basket, cage, or other object or structure toward or into which players of various games attempt to throw, carry, kick, hit, or drive a ball, puck, etc., to score a point or points.

5. the act of throwing, carrying, kicking, driving, etc., a ball or puck into such an area or object.

6. the score made by this act.

I think we can safely eliminate #s 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from this list, leaving:

Goal: the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

Applying a similar process to the other words...

Directed: guided, regulated, or managed

Action: something done or performed; act; deed

Generated: to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.

And I think self is pretty obvious.

So a self generated, goal directed action would be:

An action performed, expending effort, caused to exist with the purpose of achieving a specific result.

What does a star do that fits that definition?

[Marc K.]

I just ordered this upon your recommendation. I definitely need to learn a lot more about these particular matters.

I'm sure it is a great book but you should also understand the basic issue. Have you read "The Objectivist Ethics"?