who or what purposes?

I have a brain which is associated with my mind. Other people also have brains and minds.

•    These different brains and minds communicate non-verbally (80%) and verbally (20%).
•    So what do they communicate about?
•    They communicate about avoiding dangers and about meeting basic and more elaborate needs.
•    To what end?
•    So that individuals and groups may reproduce.
•    To what end?
•    From the viewpoint of living things reproduction is a hard wired end in itself.

In the grander scheme of things sexual reproduction generates the variety upon which the survival of the fittest and thus the ongoing process of evolution is based. Evolution is an inevitable background process that has been operational since at least the big bang. It has gone through cosmic, biological, cultural and now conscious phases.

Some people believe that evolution has a purpose. Such a belief entails a mind or intelligence which decided on the purpose. A designer. Or a committee of policy makers and planners? A man with the plan? This is the anthropomorphic viewpoint.

Some people believe that evolution is without purpose. There is opportunistic tinkering driven by the differential survival rates amongst competing variations. The selection process is taking place simultaneously at various levels – gene, individual, group, culture (meme), ecosystem. In retrospect it can seem that there was a purpose and a plan - but this is in the mind of the observer rather than in that which is observed. This is the emergent viewpoint.

The anthropomorphic viewpoint is classic. The unknown is explained by metaphor from what is known.  Things happen for a reason. The reason is human volition and action based on a plan. Thus, for example, human sacrifices are made so as to influence the ancestors and so to bring the rain – and countless other needs will be met as if by intentional spirits.

The emergent viewpoint is still emerging.  There is still the belief that things happen for a reason: that effects have causes. But there has been an evolution in thinking about the possible agents of change. Myth and magic are out and Newtonian physics is in.

For example, meteorologists make regular forecasts about rain. They often get it wrong, especially in the long term, but this is not because of the intentions of demons or gods. The weather is the result of multi-cause and multi-effect chains. It abides by the laws of physics but it is nonetheless unpredictable in the longer term.

SO – concerning evolution, who or what purposes?
I appear to be in two minds.

When mindless and tired I feel old habits commanding attention and I go along with the magic omniscience of the anthropomorphic viewpoint.

When mindful and awake there is a glad embracing of the ruthlessly unattached and more than human wisdom of the emergent viewpoint