Reply to comment

      I have been thinking a little bit more about Dennet's crane and skyhook idea, and more on an idea that came to me in Prof. Grobstein's Thursday class: perhaps subjectivity is the crane, while objectivity is the skyhook. I believe that all humans and organisms are only capable of being subjective, though at varying degrees of sophistication. Even when we think we approach a task 'objectively' or when we say a multiple choice test is completely 'objective,' I think it is possible in every case to identify something entirely subjective that the supposed 'objectivity' is founded upon. For example, in the case of a multiple choice spelling test, we would all agree there is exists a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to spell a given word. But, what we claim to be objectively 'right' and 'wrong' spellings for the given word are actually based on the man-made notion of HOW each word should be spelled. This required a subjective decision at some point in time.

      I think that for humans and organisms, every action at every moment in time involves some degree of subjectivity: choice, judgement, or instinct, whether conscious or not. I think that this could potentially be considered a feature of accumulated design, as the genre of subjectivity that a bird might employ would differ in complexity from ours, but the two forms of subjectivity both seem to be of the same Design. I also think that, as Dennett explains, this 'crane' of subjectivity does enhance the slow-paced natural selection process because being 'subjective' requires trying something new/different at some point in time. This gives Natural Selection a chance to act! I think it could also be argued that increased subjectivity is, as Dennett suggests, a predictable product of Natural Selection. For example, if we trace the human line of evolution (yes, according to Darwin), it appears that the anatomically modern human is more subjective than its predecessors (we can speak, we have developed political, social, economical, and societal realms which allow us to exercise further subjectivity every day). This is not to say that humans are the ultimate/perfect product of evolution, but it seems reasonable to me that if you pick any organism and trace it back to its ancestors, you'd find that its capacity for 'subjectivity' would be no less than that of its predecessors. Natural selection would have favored subjectivity as a means of modifying life forms.

    As for objectivity in its purest form, I think this is unachievable by life forms on Earth. In my story here, 'objectivity' would be the sky hook that corresponds to my 'subjectivity' crane. I'm thinking I may explore this story further in my next webpaper.