Natural selection cant distinguish which traits are selected vs which states are selected-for. The former is extensional whereas the latter is intensional. **Inten(S)ional, not intentional. Think of intensional as anti-extensional.** Intensional contexts are ones where substitution of co-referring terms fails to preserve truth. For instance, belief is a clear intensional context - Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent cant fly vs Lois Lane believes that Superman cant fly. The first sentence is true, but the second is clearly false. So here, select for is likewise an intensional context - Hearts pumping blood were selected-for vs Hearts making lub-dub sounds were selected-for. Again, the former is true, but the latter is clearly false. So lets say hearts that pump blood, and hearts that make lub-dub sounds are locally co-extensive traits. The former was clearly selected-for(which is an intensional context), whereas the latter was merely selected, and is what Fodor would call a free-rider. Natural selection however, CANT distinguish between the selected and selected-for traits. You can appeal to causal historical accounts, but at that point NS simpliciter ceases to be explanatory, since the causal-historical laws would be doing all the explanatory work, as opposed to the theory of natural selection.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 01:46:27 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015