Author: Caleb Scutt
Artist: Fion Lam
Editor: Jordan Mooney
Despite their intrinsic interrelation, the connectedness between evolution and philosophy is often shunned in scientific discourse. Centuries of religious dogma and historical division between the realms of science and philosophy have exacerbated this schism, leaving academics treading warily when commenting on these matters. A particularly interesting topic, and one that has been the subject of revived attention recently, is the concept of teleonomy. Teleonomy is derived from the idea of teleology, which is the notion that things happen in an attempt to achieve a certain goal. It is best described by the French biochemist Jacques Monod, who defines teleonomy as ‘the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes like natural selection.’ The key distinction is that teleonomy only describes something that appears as purposefulness, rather than an action that is intrinsically goal-oriented.
The current state of evolutionary theory as we know it is absent of purpose; conventional schools of thought consider evolution a result of stochastic mutations and natural selection. When considering that an upper limit of 15% of our genome is functional, the remaining portion consisting of remnants of our ancestral genetic history, clearly any directional purpose that evolutionary forces are under is weak, or potentially non-existent. However, we see goal-motivated actions in almost every aspect of biology. From the smallest of cells right up to entire ecosystems, the natural world is built of blocks within frameworks that each serve their… purpose. It is therefore undeniable that we all have an ‘internal teleonomy,’ which calls into question what we think we know about evolutionary theory and has wider implications in fields such as AI ethics.
It is easy for the debate around teleonomy to wade into precarious waters when ideas such as intelligent design and the anthropic principle are thrown into the mix, and evolutionary theory rejects any influence of outside purposes. How then do we explain the innate behaviours and processes exhibited by organisms all around us? Does a turtle come ashore and lay its eggs, or does it come ashore to lay its eggs? Ernst Mayr, one of the most renowned evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, commented extensively on the debate of purpose in evolution. Mayr suggested that the apparent purposefulness in organisms is ‘on the basis of a program’ and ‘a code of information.’ Only now, in recent advances in research, are we understanding the complex nature of inheritance that explains this ‘purposive behaviour.’ Phenomena such as sexual selection, epigenetics and reciprocal causation all stimulate purpose within an organism and are part of this internal teleonomy written into our genetic code. A key example of this is the phenomena of maternal effects, whereby mothers are able to influence the evolutionary trajectory of their offspring by epigenetic mechanisms. Traditional Darwinists would argue that this action is for the benefit of the offspring and thus is congruent with the theory of natural selection. Yet, altruism within the natural world challenges this concept and hints at a collective and higher-level purpose that supersedes individual survival. This is not limited to organisms with consciousness; deviations from homeostasis and subsequent mechanisms to restore stability and reproduce are all goal-oriented actions in an organism. Throughout the natural world, it is easy to observe organisms driving their own evolution by programming written in their DNA. Considering organisms from this reductionist viewpoint has significant implications as we head into the age of AI. While evolutionary theory has the potential to inspire and stimulate AI research using genetic and neural-inspired algorithms, the philosophical issues Mayr’s concept of teleonomy presents leave us with more questions than answers. Such reductionism makes it difficult to find the distinction between the genetic code of living organisms and the computer algorithms of AI. We are left with a deterministic outlook that devalues the complexity of living systems and undermines our own autonomy. The ethical implications of this regarding AI are dangerous. Recent evolutionary synthesis reveals that organisms are more in control of their own evolution than previously thought. If the direction and purpose of our own evolution can be driven by our own genetic code, does this not apply to AI as well? Rather than ostracising those for debating these important questions, it is important that scientific discourse continues to wrestle with the concept of teleonomy and its role in evolution. Coming to terms with our own purpose, or lack thereof, is crucial before we venture too far down the path of AI.
kinesismagazine.com 