Downvoted for using on-standard terms without referencing or defining them clearly.
So the terminology used is in fact pretty standard in mainstream philosophical contexts. Notions of final and efficient causes date back to Aristotle, and was discussed in a lot of detail by Aquinas. This seems like an example of making presumptions about a field where one should do a little research first (and is the sort of thing that gives the impression that many LW people just don't know much philosophy beyond a very narrow approach).
Now, there's a valid reason for downvoting which is that notions of final cause are just not useful. They are the sort of thing that's barely coherent, has teleology almost built in, and reflects more human cognitive predilections than much about the universe. So that's a possible reason for downvoting. At the same time though, OP seems to have made some effort to discuss notions of final cause in the context of whether they are cognitively useful, which might make them more reasonable as potential shortcuts.
(...) it wants to live and reproduce because evolution designed it that way.
This is a key crucial wording which propagates popular misconceptions about evolution.
Evolution did not design anything. Evolution has no will, no objective, no motives, no utility function, no overarching plot or grand plan for humanity and the world, unlike what an uninformed reader would instantly infer from reading the above quote.
A slightly better formulation would be:
"(...) it wants to live and reproduce because it is a modified copy of other organisms that randomly wanted to live and reproduce, while the organisms that did not want to live and reproduce were eliminated long ago in the history of evolution."
The following sentences that talk about evolution are similarly extremely misleading. I will retract my downvote once these issues are corrected and the signal-noise ratio is improved a bit.
Yes. Yes I did (confidence 70%). This is exactly why I use the word "misleading". It was never clear to me that this was an example of intermediary map-level concepts that are useful to think with even if they are not what the territory computes. It still isn't clear, even now, after a third reading.
Also, if my inferences on what you're trying to communicate are correct, the signal-to-noise ratio of this post is very low as most of the content is an applause light show. Attempts at charitable interpretation trigger my "Confused" warnings.
Either I misunderstand your article, or the article is of very low overall value to me and the content is an unclear and inefficient rewording of previous material covered by Eliezer in old sequences.
Why does evolution want to maximize genetic fitness? Can evolution "want" anything?
"Final causes" just seem like rationalizations to me. I'm not sure I understand why you won't "go on to say that final cause, freewill, experience, and so on are illusory and 'all that exists is efficient cause'".
(or, while final cause can be best for your map, efficient cause is the primary out in the territory)
Describing a phenomenon in terms of final cause is often the most useful and effective way to explain the given phenomenon for one's purposes. For example if you want to know why a plane flies or why a computer program operates the way it does, it's because it was designed that way. A squirrel climbs trees because it wants to eat nuts, it wants to eat nuts because it wants to live, it wants to live and reproduce because evolution designed it that way. Evolution designs organisms a certain way because it wants to maximize genetic fitness. A person acts a certain way because they desire the expected outcome.
It's virtually never a good answer to explain a plane's behavior in terms of the atomic and subatomic interactions which ultimately account for all the efficient causes behind the plane's behavior (except possibly in extremely advanced military fighter or space shuttle research laboratories or something).
However, in every case of final cause we observe, science at some point over the last two and a half millennia has found corresponding efficient causes. And, more importantly than finding that these efficient causes correspond with final causes, science has found that the efficient causes are *primary*. Without legs, the squirrel won't climb a tree, no matter how much it wants the nuts. If you take away the necessary brain function, the free will disappears. Without reproducing species and the rest of evolutionary mechanics discovered by science, evolution won't go on evolving things.
But, I would not go on to say that final cause, freewill, experience, and so on are illusory and "all that exists is efficient cause". When someone describes behavior in terms of final causes, or describes experience or free will, in the terms and meanings they are using, all of those things certainly do exist. You could no more deny final cause than to deny efficient cause - because ultimately, the final causes we observe and talk about, we have found they DO have corresponding efficient causes.
It's just important to remember that while the final cause is often epistemologically primary, so to speak, the efficient cause is metaphysically primary.
(this is just another way of trying to help dissolve the general classes of reductionism, freewill/determinism, and qualia issues - most often these are the result of metaphysics/epistemology confusions, or in LessWrong parlance, map/territory confusions.
the advantage of thinking of it this way is to try to see a more general relation between final cause and efficient cause that applies not just to mysterious brains and minds, but to much less mysterious events like squirrels legs climbing trees. when you have a clear idea of why reductionism/compatibilism is obvious in non-mysterious contexts, it's much easier to see that it applies just as well even in the mysterious contexts).