fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Fitness has no place for such a construct since it is defined as a stochastic process. I gave you a big clue when I included trees as being life. They have no nervous system, no mechanism for agency, yet they follow the same dictates for fitness as humans. I can reach out and find rationales to interpret treeness with agency without mind but that would be silly and useless when it's perfectly obvious that what we are talking about is not the result of agency.
Trees do not possess agency, agreed. Are you saying that because trees exist still despite not having agency, that agency is irrelevant to how fit a certain arrangement of genes/environment is?
What I am saying is that agency is not among first principles for life. What you are saying is an obvious misrepresentation of that fact as a defence of your position about whether agency is a first principle for life.
For some life it may be an important factor but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying. It simply isn't in the nature of living things to possess agency. For that to be so would negate the idea that randomness is essential to fitness.