Human Teleology, The Meaning of Life
Look at our bodies; every part of it has or, for vestigial organs, had purpose. Noses to smell, eyes to see, ears to listen, legs to walk, arms to make tools; the same applies to internal organs and maybe purpose exists even at the molecular level. In effect, every part of our body has purpose and yet the question "what is the meaning of life?", understood as a question about the purpose of humanity, remains unanswered. How is it that an object, a human, every part of which has purpose, itself as a whole, lacks purpose or, more accurately, if a human has purpose, why hasn't it been discovered?
This is, by any standards, a peculiar state of affairs isn't it? Every part having a purpose but the whole lacking/missing one; this I call the teleological paradox. Either we agree that humans actually are purposeless or, if we extrapolate the purposefulness of the parts that constitute the human body to the whole, the human, then we surely must have some purpose but haven't yet discovered it.
Let's go back to body-parts. I can imagine a nose being used to operate a phone if ever we're in the unfortunate situation of having our hands tied behind our backs; similarly, teeth maybe used to defend against assailants, etc. However, the accepted purpose of noses is to smell and teeth is to chew food; in other words, even if a particular object has a wide range of uses, the use that the object is best-suited to is considered as its purpose.
Aren't we then justified in applying the same logic to humans? What is it in us that stands out? What among the things we're capable of that not only distinguishes us from the rest but also is something we can do extremely well, something we're best-suited for? The fact that our species is named homo sapiens which roughly translates to wise man suggests, in no uncertain terms, that it's thinking that humans excel at; that's relatively speaking of course. Thus, it must be that our, humanity's, purpose is to think. That doesn't mean that all we have to do is think because that can mean even daydreaming or sexual fantasizing to name a few instances of thinking; no, we need to give, quite unsurprisingly, purpose to our thoughts and, if one refers to our species designation as homo sapiens (wise man), it must be that the humanity's purpose is to seek and gain wisdom. Can we then not say that the purpose of humanity is to become philosophers, seekers of wisdom?
I'd like to add a small comment about what I described as the teleological paradox: the parts having purpose but the whole (apparently) lacking purpose. Consider complex human artifacts, say a watch; every part of that watch is purpose-built and the whole, the watch itself, too has a purpose. It seems the property of having purpose is transferable from the parts to the whole; the fallacy of composition is not being committed. Ergo, whatever the purpose maybe, since the parts of a human have purpose, the whole human must have purpose. Here I'm not making any claims as to what the purpose of a human life is, only that a purpose exists.
This is, by any standards, a peculiar state of affairs isn't it? Every part having a purpose but the whole lacking/missing one; this I call the teleological paradox. Either we agree that humans actually are purposeless or, if we extrapolate the purposefulness of the parts that constitute the human body to the whole, the human, then we surely must have some purpose but haven't yet discovered it.
Let's go back to body-parts. I can imagine a nose being used to operate a phone if ever we're in the unfortunate situation of having our hands tied behind our backs; similarly, teeth maybe used to defend against assailants, etc. However, the accepted purpose of noses is to smell and teeth is to chew food; in other words, even if a particular object has a wide range of uses, the use that the object is best-suited to is considered as its purpose.
Aren't we then justified in applying the same logic to humans? What is it in us that stands out? What among the things we're capable of that not only distinguishes us from the rest but also is something we can do extremely well, something we're best-suited for? The fact that our species is named homo sapiens which roughly translates to wise man suggests, in no uncertain terms, that it's thinking that humans excel at; that's relatively speaking of course. Thus, it must be that our, humanity's, purpose is to think. That doesn't mean that all we have to do is think because that can mean even daydreaming or sexual fantasizing to name a few instances of thinking; no, we need to give, quite unsurprisingly, purpose to our thoughts and, if one refers to our species designation as homo sapiens (wise man), it must be that the humanity's purpose is to seek and gain wisdom. Can we then not say that the purpose of humanity is to become philosophers, seekers of wisdom?
I'd like to add a small comment about what I described as the teleological paradox: the parts having purpose but the whole (apparently) lacking purpose. Consider complex human artifacts, say a watch; every part of that watch is purpose-built and the whole, the watch itself, too has a purpose. It seems the property of having purpose is transferable from the parts to the whole; the fallacy of composition is not being committed. Ergo, whatever the purpose maybe, since the parts of a human have purpose, the whole human must have purpose. Here I'm not making any claims as to what the purpose of a human life is, only that a purpose exists.
Comments (85)
So... if you view your body parts as made and created for a purpose, then the theory stands. If the body parts are not viewed as made for a purpose -- which is an equally as valid view as the other -- then the theory in the OP is meaningless.
Take your pick, it's a free world.
And the difference being?
More than semantic.
If you ask what's the difference between use and purpose, then please refer to a dictionary. I speak and write in English. Describing plain, commonly understood concepts, with words that are plain and commonly understood. If you are unable to tell the difference between use and purpose on your own, then it's no use to tell you.
You don't have to reply
Can something that doesn't have a purpose have a use?
Huh? Humans are notoriously bloody awful at thinking. If that's our 'purpose' we'd have better trot off into the collective night as we're a miserable failure of a species.
Moreover taking for granted a self-aggrandizing self-appellation as evidence for our 'purpose' is hilariously facile.
I confess that I'm a little confused on the distinction between use and purpose. Contrary to my claims, some of us, like myself, don't exactly excel in thinking.
That out of the way, the impression I get from the questions "what is the meaning of life? what is our purpose?" is that of the asker wishing to discover the part he's to play, his role as it were, in life. If there is a difference between use and purpose as understood in my terms above, then by the salva veritate principle, asking "what is my use?" carries a different meaning to asking "what is the meaning of life? what is our purpose?". Is it true then that salva veritate is violated when we exchange "purpose" for "use"?
The lexical definition of purpose is end which can be safely expressed as objective/aim and also use. Let's consider common usage of the words "objective" and "aim" and check how it's relevant to my claims:
Meaning 1: Mr. P says that his aim/end/objective is to be a musician. Quite clearly, in this case he wishes to achieve a state a state of being in which he will be able to do something with music. In this case, aim/objective/end/purpose is not equivalent in meaning to use: I can't say "Mr. P's use is to be a musician"
Meaning 2: The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails into something. In this case there is no difficulty in saying, without the slightest change in meaning, that the use of the hammer is to drive nails into something.
When I ask the question "what is the purpose of life?" which meaning of "purpose" am I using? Is it meaning 1 (aim/end/objective) or meaning 2 (use) or some other meaning I'm unaware of? Can I replace "what's life's purpose?" with "what's life's use?" or can't I, being restricted to "what's life's objective/aim/end?" This is a very difficult question for me and while I invite criticism on it I'd like to see what relevance it has to my usage of the word "purpose".
To the extent that I can see, both use and end seem completely applicable to the matter of life's purpose: when someone says life's purpose (aim/objective/end) is x it means that we should purpose (use) life for x.
A query of a meaning to life, is not an existential query, it's universal. As theMadFool stated, we're full of physical purpose but when mind is anoint, we are in full control - a purpose isn't clear.
I think the meaning of life is to harmonize with universal conditions - also the moral high road.
If we do not eat, drink, rest, and if we are not careful enough, we die. The opposite to life, not inclusive of the same meaning.
Existing in harmony with universal conditions is an imperative, we need to do this to explore, and to learn. If you're not up for it, do you deserve a voice on the matter? You must be living alternatively if so, off wikipedia and Government.
Quoting TheMadFool
The human organism has not evolved to maximise survival, dominance or procreation. What success we enjoy as a species, we owe ultimately to our capacity to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. This is what we seem uniquely built for.
I would make a distinction between the mechanical function of a body part, and the teleological purpose of the whole person. Function is simply a consistent input-output ratio. You input Energy and get useful Work as the output. But human Purpose implies Ambition or Aspiration. It requires the ability to imagine a possible future state, and to control functional body parts in such a way as to achieve that preferred outcome. Human purpose is not merely motivated by physical energy, but by metaphysical intentions.
The willful purpose of a single human is made manifest in the person's behavior. We can intuit their intentions from their actions. But the Purpose Problem for collective humanity is usually based on the assumption of a role & goal that is assigned by a higher power, not by the individual's will-power. The Bible revealed the divine purpose of humanity in Genesis : to serve God as gardeners & shepherds, following orders without asking any "why" questions. In other words, the purpose of humanity is to serve as will-less functional slaves for God's Will : "Thy will be done . . ." However, "Unprofitable servants" are expendable, as illustrated in the story of Noah's Flood.
God's ultimate teleological Purpose for the created world seems to be similar to that of a typical absolute ruler of human societies : Kings, Pharaohs, War Lords, Dictators, Tyrants. His servants tend the gardens & flocks, and bring him "sacrifices" for his sustenance and pleasure. So he can "walk in the garden in the cool of the day". In this scenario, God's purpose is to enjoy the power & glory provided by his servants. The servant's Purpose, then, is basically his inherited or assigned job description, or Function, as Gardener, Shepherd, etc.
For those who don't accept the biblical stories though, you are left without a divinely designated purpose or role in the Grand Plan for the planet. That is the dilemma addressed by Existentialism, which by contrast with scripture, viewed humans as Freewill Agents. Hence, each of us must define the Purpose or Meaning of our own lives. Therefore, if you need an ultimate goal to make your life worthwhile, you'll have to "discover" your teleological Purpose for yourself. As for the ultimate destiny of the world, your guess is as good as mine.
Probably, most of us will just continue to do what we are already doing, without giving the teleological destination much thought. They may be too lazy or apathetic to work for themselves, so merely wait for orders from above. A few self-motivated individuals, though, will define their own teleological destiny --- at least to the extent that they can control the contingencies of the indifferent world, that doesn't share their motives. What's your teleological target? :cool:
Use is when something is used, perhaps to make change. Purpose is a projection of that use, a convenient idea perhaps, but also a fantasy.
The purpose of any particular human is whatever , at any given moment, its behavior, as a totaling of all its integrated processes, is pointing toward. Put differently, in the same fashion that one can dissect the organism into parts and talk about their 'use' or 'purpose' in relation to the aims of the organism as a whole, one can talk about one's motives, desires , purposes as a psychological entity in such terms.
That is why one is alwasy in a state of desire, which is to say, that one is oriented in a certain disposition to think and act as a function of one's current organism-environmental posture, and that one is at the same time implying ahead of or beyond that posture, .Psychological functioning, as all organismic functioning, is for self-overcoming. Human purpose is a constantly changing self-organized implying ahead of itself. To look for reasons and purposes beyond or above (God) this temporally self-transforming body-environment interaction is to unknowingly affirm it.
"You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application."
-Bertrand Russell
Well done, A Seagull; explaining concepts at the level that ought to be obvious to a ten-year-old is too tedious for me.
Much like in math, it is easy to prove the sinus theorem (Sin(alpha))^ + (Cos(alpha))^2 = 1, but it is almost impossible to prove that 2 + 2 = 4. The simpler the terms and the more in-your-face, the harder to explain they are to someone who can't get them. I give up on that sort of exercise.
The implication is that the design is faulty. It can be shown that that proposition is false.
Rabbits had several utility functions in the design; guns did, too.
This is where they intersect.
The happiness of rabbits has nothing to do, or has limited application, with the design.
That's A. B. is, that we have NO PROOF whether the rabbits think it's not a good thing to be shot so humans can have their fun. Rabits revelling in being sport targets or food for humans and predators is not impossible, and if the design is well done, then it is a valid assumption to imbue on the design.
(For the record, I am a rabid anti-designist. I just abhor counter-logical arguments, even if on the surface they help my cause or support what I believe in. The bigger the man or woman who utters them, the more pleasure for me to debunk their stupidity.)
Well put! Humans collectively are the apex Witnesses, Weavers, and Workers of the World. Our job, our role in the evolving universe, is to know & appreciate the wonders of the world; to assist in its construction by bringing together disparate things (enzyme, catalyst); and to work together toward making it a better place to live (communion, concert, harmony). Some thinkers have proposed that the divine purpose of humanity is to act as the eyes, ears, and hands of God in the world. In that sense, we are the Demiurge, assisting the Designer in creating an ideal world (Utopia) from the raw materials of Nature. Of course, others, with no sense of teleology, opine that humans are a cancer blighting the beauties of impersonal inhuman Nature --- rosy red in tooth and claw.
How are we doing, so far? Humanity emerged on the scene late in the progression from Max Potential of the Singularity to the current half-baked state of affairs. So, our Science is just beginning to wrest control of the laws of nature, in order to impose our collective Will on the foundations of reality, and to erect a super-structure of ideality, of human teleology. To explore the Possibilities of raw Potential. :nerd:
I wonder if the the metaphors of violence, competition and force here are unconscious. Sounds vaguely fascist to me. I think removing the divine shtick and leaving the self-organizing teleology could help fix this.
This here is part of the reason we’re not doing such a great job of it. It isn’t about wresting control from the laws of nature or imposing our collective Will, but about working with these laws as the limited Will of all of nature to develop the full potential of the universe - not just of humanity. Understanding how the Will operates at all levels of relational structure in the universe, and where the opportunities exist to increase awareness, connection and collaboration despite the tendency for ignorance, isolation and exclusion, is where ‘our Science’ should be focusing its efforts.
As for your resistance to ‘divine shtick’, I think perhaps this comes from an assumption that the reference here to ‘God’ is a being - I’ve had lengthy discussions with Gnomon about this, and I’m confident that this is not how they conceptualise ‘God’, despite the language. Reading a personality or other anthropic traits into discussions about ‘God’ lead to throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. I think a conceptual ‘God’ is a useful reference in discussions of teleology - in many ways it keeps us from assuming that we’ve already figured it all out.
You could just substitute for God a 'radical otherness' to assure that experience doesn't become captured within a prefigured organizing frame. Even when God is no longer thought as a being or a personality, God as the name for a teleological movement can still end up as a metaphysical totalization of being. Hegel does this with his idea of dialectical becoming, and I suspect that something similar is being offered by Gnomon.
I agree with you here - I think this describes roughly where my own theory differs from Gnomon’s. I like the idea of a broader sense of ‘radical otherness’ to get past the notion of Being even as an absolute metaphysical concept. I think we maximise this relation, then, beyond a distinction of ‘self’, let alone ‘humanity’ - which renders the question of human teleology rather narrow.
Our uniquely developed capacity as humans enables us to participate more effectively and efficiently, but I see our ‘purpose’ as no different than any other existence in the universe: to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.
It seems as though everything has a purpose in so far as everything in the world operates underneath rational constraints. That is, simply, in virute of what a thing is (having determinate characteristics/a form), it does what it's nature is. It does not do what it's not. As long as a concept determines the object of inquiry, that concept then determines in advanced what it's parts functionally do.
Aristotle made a sort clever argument once that accidents (or things occurring by chance) are generally understood from purpose, and not the other way around. We see something occurring by accident as a by-product of multiple purposeful acts. When I incidentally walk into my friend at the park due to the fact that I wanted to have a stroll in the part, I would say that would have occurred "by chance."
But then the question gets pushed back: why do we have to say the theory of functionalism is non-teleological? Just because you have an input and output of anything doesn't mean that things don't occur for a specific functional purpose. Just because "things occur" doesn't mean that they don't have a guided purpose or a way expressing what they are. You can create a speculative judgement of what certain types of behaviors mean in terms of a universal concept.
And how is this done? This "intuiting"? You just see? Non-inferentially? Why is it that when we "see" in whatever way we do, we omit certain properties that're teleological from certain behaviors/functions and not from others? What is it about our seeing that creates a projection, and in order types of perceptions veridical precepts?
If all teleological explanations occurred after-the-fact, then they should not be able to have predicative power to generate explanations of the future. But unless there's a substantial change in the organism or being that you're analyzing, it seems as though teleological explanations have plenty of explanatory power, and can be postulated to occur before the organism (or being) has undergone whatever future transformation. You can generally cash these out in terms of hypothetical necessities generally.
I also tend to question why things have a utility. Why is it the case that we can see certain types of feedback loops, or cycles occurring in the world with some degree of certainty? The idea that "things occur" doesn't seem to generate any explanations.
I also don't really see a reason why teleological explanations are only "in us" as a regulative function of our cognitive processes. It seems as though we need an error theory for that.
The forceful wording was tongue-in-cheek, because I'm aware that some people view humans as a cancer on the natural world. So those "trigger words" might get a rise from "tree-hugging liberals". But it also stated a harsh truth, that humanity has "selfish goals" that are different from those of indifferent Nature. In that sense, humans are indeed forcing their will upon the natural order. So, the term "teleology" was referring to the future orientation of human planning, not necessarily to any long-range plans of deity.
Hence, the metaphors of "violence, competition, and force" were appropriate from a historical perspective. It's only in recent years --- perhaps since the "blue marble" images from space --- that humans have decided to curb their selfish Will to align better with the "will" and "teleology" of Nature. Even so, humans have become the new driving force of Evolution, and are collectively steering the world toward a future that is anything but natural --- if proponents of Technological Singularity are correct, the future will be increasingly artificial. And imagining a return to the Garden of Eden is wishful thinking. :cool:
Technological Singularity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Tree-hugging liberals : phrase in quotes is also tongue-in-cheek. I'm a bit of a tree-hugger myself, but I'm also realistic -- not fascist -- about the "nature" of humanity. :joke:
Thanks. That is exactly what I have in mind, when I bow to necessity for a First Cause that set Nature on its current course. The law-guided program of natural evolution has eventually produced conscious agents with wills of their own. And the collective will of humanity is directed toward -- what we imagine to be -- the welfare of homo sapiens. It's only in the current generation that we have learned the hard way, that --- although we may have the power --- it's self-defeating to fight Nature. So the welfare of humanity is inextricably linked with the course of Nature, and with the teleological destination of the whole universe --- whatever that might be. We are passengers on this vehicle, but we can make ourselves as comfortable as possible in our little milieu, which may eventually expand beyond the Blue Marble. :smile:
If the Output is equal to the Input, there is no sign of Purpose, only Function. The distinction between "Function" and "Purpose" lies in what happens between the Input and Output.
A billiard ball normally transmits the input force to the next ball without any thought or intention. But if a ball suddenly changed course, ignoring the Aim of the shooter, we could assume from its behavior that the ball had developed a mind of its own. Or that it had been programmed to change direction in mid-course. Such things don't "just occur" without some reason, some internal purpose. Purpose and Programming provide internal guidance to a target.
"To Purpose" is to intend, and intention is the key to teleology. It requires a look ahead to some future possibility, a value judgment, and an action to set a course in the preferred direction. Only the intentional agent knows for sure what the reason (intended goal) was. Nevertheless, an onlooker might "create a speculative judgment" of the meaning or purpose of that otherwise inexplicable course change. We infer the intention by the results of the action. If the end is not in sight, we can still infer intention by recognizing a steady tendency in an otherwise random background.
A Teleological process follows from an intentional act. Which is why Atheists deny any signs of intention or purpose in Evolution. Goal-directed natural activity would imply a "universal concept" : a value judgment of a preferred outcome. Which, in turn, would necessitate the setting of a non-random course within Possibility Space toward a specified goal, or in any consistent direction (e.g. the Arrow of Time) . Such a purposeful process would require Laws to limit the ways things & events interact, and it would need some kind selection filter to weed-out anything on the wrong course. So, Natural Laws and Natural Selection are signs of Intention. :nerd:
Signs of Purpose within randomness :
Tendency
Intention
Consistent
Nor do I understand the distinction between function and purpose. Unless you're saying what definitionally makes something teleological is intention, but that doesn't seem correct to me. It seems definitionally all teleology is is end-goal activity, or cyclical activity (the maintenance of some cyclical function). So why is it that the body functions dynamically with all it's parts (or rather processes) to produce things like homeostasis or metabolism?
You also didn't seem to answer my question:
Intuition is sub-conscious inference. It's sometimes described as "the brain on autopilot". It's how we do most of of our routine everyday thinking. It's also how most animal thinking works. The brain is an inference machine, it is constantly creating a narrative of what happens in the environment, and guessing what will happen next. For example, predators must be able to anticipate their prey's typical evasive tactics, in order to be one step ahead of them. Without this ability to predict the short-term future, cheetahs would never catch an antelope, who can run almost as fast, and usually have a head start. Moreover, from experience, the cheetah can infer that the "purpose" of a zig-zagging antelope is to foil the cheetah's "purpose" --- its intention.
Humans have an advantage over cheetahs in that they can consciously collect data, and then logically or mathematically predict the future state of a system. Such formal inference reaches a conclusion via analysis of evidence, then logically progressing the current state into the "foreseeable" future (via imagination). For example, if a human predator wants to "bag" an antelope, he uses the accumulated data & deductions of previous humans to shoot a bullet that moves much faster than the antelope. But, even with that technological edge, the hunter still must use subconscious inference to know just how much to "lead" the antelope, in order to predict where it will be when the bullet arrives at the same spot.
So, we assess the future, and make our teleological plans on the basis of collected evidence of how the system in question (SIQ) works (normal behavior). Then we use conscious calculation (formal inference) to predict the future state of the SIQ (target or goal) at the time our personal system is in the right place at the right time. Even then, we must make intuitive adjustments to the rational estimate, in order to make allowances for unknowns and uncertainties (abnormal behavior).
However, some astute observers & intuiters deliberately omit certain signs of Teleology, because they don't like the implications that the future is pre-determined by some intentional agent --- a programmer outside the system --- rather than being completely random & unpredictable. So, they focus their calculations on "certain properties" that are irrational and unpredictable. Consequently, unlike the cheetah, they don't take into consideration the fact that the target has predictable tendencies that can be exploited to reach "veridical" projections. Teleology skeptics are motivated to ignore signs of certain systemic tendencies that might lead them to conclude that the system was governed by intention. Laws and conditions -- Yes, but teleological intentions -- No. Hence, the "projection" of the future they "see" is missing certain "veridical precepts" that could point to Intention in Evolution. :nerd:
How Does Intuition Work ? : Intuition is not a bug, but a feature of our psychology. Yet it is part of our brain’s ability to comprehend our territory, inner and outer, not something detached ‘out there.’ The messages we receive are important, just not magical.
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-does-intuition-work
Billiard balls appear to operate only on a two-dimensional plane, but this isn’t the case - they’re three-dimensional objects. You can make a billiard ball appear to change direction mid-course, by interacting with it on a three-dimensional level. We assume the table is perfectly horizontal, so an unknown slope or dip can ‘cause’ the ball to change course. You can also apply vertical spin to the ball, which can make the ball appear to stop in its tracks or continue on a trajectory despite colliding with another ball, for instance.
The point is, if you’re only looking at the movement of billiard balls as two-dimensional, then they will sometimes appear to have a ‘will’ of their own, or ‘internal’ guidance towards some ‘end-goal’ we’re unaware of as an external observer. But it’s more likely interaction with an additional aspect of the ball’s existence - intentional or otherwise. The same thing occurs with four, five and even six-dimensional relations - the more we are aware of, connected to and collaborating with these additional aspects of existence, the less mysterious, more variable and more interactive the apparent purpose or programming.
Quoting Marty
The assumption of specific end-goal activity is the argument against teleology. The body produces homeostasis as part of a process that enables us to achieve something more than homeostasis. Just as the cue ball stops in its tracks once it knocks a ball into the pocket - without thought or intention - enabling the billiard player to achieve something more than sinking one ball, so too, the apparent purpose of the body’s processes is limited by their level of awareness.
Teleology describes an apparent purpose or programming, but I think it really just points to relational structures beyond our current level of awareness, connection and collaboration. I believe Gnomon sees it as an open-ended ‘programming’ and posits a deity (which I find unnecessary), whereas my view is more of an inherent meaning in relation to itself. Either way, I think we agree that there is no definable end-goal as such.
Come on, "-billi-"! Don't complicate my simple mundane analogy with cubic possi-bili-ties. :grin:
Quoting Possibility
If the "relational structures" that cause the appearance of purpose or programming are beyond the reach of human senses, then we might as well call it by the common name for such entities : God. But, just to indicate that I'm not talking about any of the traditional anthro-metric deities, I spell it G*D ( * stands for unknown). For me, G*D is the prime relational structure that I refer to functionally as the Enformer. That's because Information is relationships and ratios. And everything we know is Information.
The "apparent" program of Nature cannot be completely open-ended, since the physical universe has a limited lifespan. So, in my theory, The End is not completely specified, but is open to course changes due to inherent contingencies. And one kind of contingency is human Free Will. Therefore, yes, we agree that the specific Form of The End is not pre-specified, AFAIK. Which suggests to me that it's the ever-learning evolutionary process that is important.
Tomorrow I may expand upon the notion of "apparent teleology", but for now, Namaste! :cool:
Not complicating, but extending - and spherical possibilities, to be precise :joke:
I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know.
Quoting Gnomon
Not necessarily, because I’m not referring to an entity as such - and I find that naming it in this way can limit our capacity to approach an understanding of what it is we’re referring to.
Quoting Gnomon
Out of curiosity, what other inherent contingencies do you envisage?
OK. But that spherical reference went right over my pointy head. :razz:
Quoting Possibility
If the "dimensional awareness" is not an "entity", what is it, a phenomenon? I don't know what my "G*D" is. All I know is what it does : enform, create, etc. What does your DA do? :smile:
Entity : "a thing with distinct and independent existence."
Phenomenon : "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question".
Quoting Possibility
Technically, any effect that follows a cause is a contingency, because, in a randomized system, the future is unpredictable. But imaginative humans can project past patterns or trends into the near future, in order to plan for what's likely to happen --- for probable possibilities.
Also, some contingencies are totally unexpected, and have greater effects than others. One example is the asteroid impact (literally out of the blue) that killed-off the dinosaurs and allowed tiny mammals to thrive. Was this an accident, or was it a step in some cosmic plan to evolve a bipedal animal with hands and big brains? Looking forward from the Big Bang, such an event would seem unlikely. But, in retrospect, it seems almost inevitable --- at least to those who see Cosmic Patterns in mundane events. Astrologers had the right intuition, but the wrong "science".
A contingency is unexpected, so it's hard to prepare for. But Evolutionary Programming makes use of the innate creativity of contingency to derive creative solutions to current problems. Scientists emulate Progressive Creation by plagiarizing the Evolutionary Algorithm and the Genetic Algorithm from the programming of natural selection. It's the existence of those directional algorithms that leads me to infer that a programming "entity" or "phenomenon" set the Big Bang on its course to some Final Contingency : the Problem Solution. :cool:
Contingency : "a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty".
Evolutionary Programming : http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/evolution/evolutionary_programming.html
Algorithm : "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations",
Whoa! Curb your enthusiasm for Humanistic Naturalism. I doubt that Piaget made such an absolute equation of Nature & Nurture. His opinion was more of an "ought" than an "is", and was intended to overcome the "dichotomy between the aims of humanity and those of nature" that he observed in the Western Culture of his day.
There was in fact a divide between Nature and Human Culture for 14 billion years. And, after a few thousand years of homo sapiens, we are still learning how to align human-centered aims with those of impersonal nature. In my personal view, Nature has its own teleology, within which humanity may be necessary --- or not. It's too soon to say for sure. At this point in time, there is still a clear distinction between Nature and Human Artifice.
I don't understand the teleology of Nature well enough to make such a bold statement as "we are nothing but . . ." Yet for my own purposes, I assume that the emergence of humanity --- if not the ultimate goal of evolution --- was at least a step on the ladder. :smile:
Man vs Nature : https://www.livescience.com/16388-climate-change-debate-man-nature.html
The purpose is simply wrapped up in procreation. People want other people to live a certain way-of-life. Go to work, entertain, maintain their environment. This creates suffering for those who are born, and creates opportunities to what? Deal with.. deal with. All this for the idea of what? Simply because more people somehow "need" to be perpetuated to live a way-of-life. For what? Simply because more people somehow "need" to be perpetuated to live a way-of-life. For what? Simply because more people somehow "need" to be perpetuated to live a way-of-life. Is that not a satisfying answer? It isn't for me either. We should stop thinking that we somehow "need" to perpetuate more people into a way-of-life.
You aren't created in a vacuum. You were created in a society. You may not think that you perpetuate it. That you are being used. But you do and are. Society needs more people and we convince each other that it is "happiness" that we are somehow bestowing by creating a new life to perpetuate the situation. Rather, it is using them by creating a situation of suffering for them on their behalf..by thinking that they should live a way-of-life, as they certainly will (lest they die or kill themselves). The teleology you ask about is that of perpetuating a way-of-life. You can rebel and stop the cycle of being used for this.
Well, it’s neither of these at this level.
Structure: the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
I apply the qualifier ‘relational’ to emphasise the distinction from structure as ‘a building or other object constructed from several parts’. These six-dimensional relational structures I’m referring to are not independent from all other relational structures that constitute the universe. But they are not observed, nor do they happen - we perceive potential which points to their possible existence, and we imagine, test and refine our understanding of the possible relations which manifest that potential.
Quoting Gnomon
Dimensional awareness, connection and collaboration manifests as relational structure. Awareness of a three-dimensional aspect manifests as objects, environment, earth, sky, etc. Awareness etc of ‘time’ or a four-dimensional aspect manifests as life, beings, events, death, etc. Awareness etc of value or potential manifests as metaphysical will, phenomenon, morality, gods, knowledge, reason, logic, mathematics, etc. And awareness etc of absolute possibility, a dimensional awareness beyond a maximum and all-inclusive potential, manifests as your ‘G*D’, Brahman, the One, the All, the meaning of everything, the ‘unknowable’, ‘radical otherness’ and other ‘God’ concepts and atheist alternatives at a level beyond value - inclusive of ‘evil’, illogical and irrational ‘impossibility’, etc.
So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level. Notice that some of these concepts are named in such a way that they encourage a relation of ignorance, isolation and/or exclusion instead.
???Does not compute.
If I don't observe a thing or event, how could I perceive any potential that is relevant to those non-entities? By extrasensory perception, or pure imagination? Are these "six-dimensional structures" what most of us call Ghosts? If they are invisible & intangible & infinitely possible, how could we measure their non-physical dimensions? :brow:
Quoting Possibility
A "relational structure" is what I would call "metaphysical Information". It consists of mental relationships with no physical substance : a Platonic Form or Idea or Geometric Ratio. How is "Dimensional Awareness" different from Physical Perception or Metaphysical Conception? How are invisible Dimensions measured and numbered? :chin:
Is the concept of "Dimensional Awareness" related to Multiverse/Many Worlds/String Theory speculations, or to Rob Bryanton's 10th Dimension conception, or to Gevin Giorbran's Everything Forever notion --- which, although way over my head, inspired my own website of Enformationism with the suggestion of Time within Timelessness. :nerd:
Quoting Possibility
Again, how is this mysterious kind of "awareness" different from ordinary mundane knowledge gathering? Again, some relevant real-world metaphors might help me to "see" or "perceive" the purely abstract structures you're talking about. Einstein saw the unseeable by imagining metaphorical scenarios, such as riding on a light beam. :cool:
Imagining the 10th Dimension : https://www.tenthdimension.com/
The 10th Dimension : https://thetartan.org/2012/11/12/scitech/ten-dimensions
Everything Forever : http://everythingforever.com/
PS___ I can grok multidimensional curved space & time in graphic images, but not in mathematical symbols, because I don't speak the language of abstract relationships.
I'm not sure if those are inferences as much as they are dispositional tendencies occurring in the brain. They are not strictly epistemic events, but I can agree that they relate to epistemic events.
Either way, let's say that mechanism was there. It doesn't seem like you have some way to disambiguate why certain empirical events are teleological and others are not. You can postulate that one presupposes a mind having an intention, but that seems to be appealing to some psychological state, not empirical events. Yet it seems based on just empirical events we are able to deduce teleological states in at least some cases (that is predicting the norms associated with our behavior).
My hypothesis is that there is no way to disambiguate the two, and that everything has normative conceptual features all the way down that dictate what things do. These are functionally teleological according to a concept that determines something's content. (Conceptual Realism). When we view organisms we recognize that conceptual content, and form beliefs in accordance with it. That conceptual content is relative, though, so it can change over time. That's why final causes aren't fixed (predeterministic), but moreso a rule that's situated in a context.
You seem to be saying there is an analogy between teleological explanations and efficient causation. But a billiard ball moving because of an external force, exerting momentum onto another ball, doesn't seem to be indicative of what teleology is. It seem as though what teleology is is having a certain goal-orientated action behind what a thing is doing, explicated in virute of a concept (a norm). But that seems to be true of everything for me.
As for the body's homeostasis being a by-product of various processes I agree with you. But then those processes themselves just seem to display organization of sorts, and then in turn, when coupled, produce the organization of homeostasis.
We can’t measure them - we can subjectively relate to possibilities, and perceive the potential manifested from this interaction.
To observe is to look at the evidence in time, the thing or event. To perceive is to understand the value structures and potentiality by which an event is determined and initiated. Much of our education system builds on our capacity to perceive potential without necessarily having personally observed the predicted event. This is how we read music, for instance.
Six-dimensional structures allow us to take this another step further: to create a potential and value-rich experience in our minds that isn’t related to any particular observable event...yet. Most creative processes operate at least partly in this realm, conceiving new potential in the world by relating perceived potential beyond what we already know of infinite possibility.
The human brain certainly has the necessary "mechanism" for inference : for putting 2 and 2 together and inferring 4. But even many animals have that innate ability. And, as noted in the discussion of predators, their application of the ability to predict the near future is self-serving. I'd call that Ego-Teleo-Logy. Tele- means "far", and -logy means "knowledge". So, it literally means knowledge far ahead of now --- specifically, knowledge that is pertinent to me, and to my purposes.
Apparently the human big brain allows us to extend our knowledge of future possibilities much farther into the future than other animals. But even so, such predictions seem to be limited by the Inverse Square Law of physics : the intensity (accuracy) of a prophecy gets weaker as the distance (in time) gets greater. So, human teleology is not very useful for anticipating events beyond a couple of weeks. The farther-off the event, the more general the picture. Beyond a few years, prophets and prognosticators are reduced to predicting history and tautologies.
So, Cosmic Teleology, in the sense of this thread, requires a Mind that is not limited by physical restrictions. But, that would also entail the power of intention : purposeful behavior that is self-serving. The OP was concerned with " the teleological paradox: the parts having purpose but the whole (apparently) lacking purpose." Hence, limited human teleology can only serve short-range purposes or intentions. Only a Cosmic Deity could accurately anticipate "empirical events" billions of years in the future. Consequently, our little short-range self-serving purposes can only overcome the paradox by somehow also serving the Greater Purpose of the Ultimate Teleologist --- with knowledge that is pertinent to all. Which is apparently what most religions are trying to do by simply sucking-up to (worshiping) the One Who Knows All. But, their scriptural guesses about the Ultimate Purpose are also limited by the Law of Illumination --- hence, the paradox. :smile:
"Subjectively relate to possibilities" sounds like extrasensory perception, or simple imagination. If the "evidence" is invisible --- "But they are not observed, nor do they happen" --- how can we "look" at it, and how could we "perceive potential manifestations"? To me, "potential" is un-manifested. So, again the notion of multi-Dimensional Awareness does not compute for my puny 4-dimensional brain. :brow:
Sounds like "raising consciousness" by "opening the third eye". Does that kind of dimensional "enlightenment" come from deep mindless meditation, or can it be achieved by mindful reasoning? :nerd:
I don't understand how ego-driven activity isn't teleological. And I don't understand how inferences are a mechanism. They are reason-giving, and driven by justification in a logical space of reasons. Why would I believe that inferences are the same thing as casual activities?
I mean, I don't know why you say that. It seems as though there's a lot of utility in teleology. And even if it was just a few weeks (in certain cases), it just means the teleology changed. This isn't disproving teleology.
And no. There's obviously a distinction between intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology. You don't need intention for a teleological cause.
[quote=Marty]My hypothesis is that there is no way to disambiguate the two, and that everything has normative conceptual features all the way down that dictate what things do. These are functionally teleological according to a concept that determines something's content. (Conceptual Realism). When we view organisms we recognize that conceptual content, and form beliefs in accordance with it. That conceptual content is relative, though, so it can change over time. That's why final causes aren't fixed (predeterministic), but moreso a rule that's situated in a context.[/quote]
So do you disagree or not?
Who said it wasn't?
Quoting Marty
Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism.
Quoting Marty
Who said anything about "disproving" teleology. Maybe you have a different definition from mine. I do see signs of teleology in evolution, but I don't have any knowledge of the ultimate Purpose of the process. That would require divine revelation, rather than philosophical inference. I assume there was a First Cause, but all I know is He/r methods, not He/r intentions.
Philosophical Teleology : the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
Theological Teleology : the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
Enformationism Teleology : 1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html
I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain "intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology". Are these distinctions necessitated by some specific doctrine? Daniel Dennett has a doctrine called the "Intentional Stance" that he uses to counter doctrines of Teleological Evolution -- Including my own. :cool:
Evolution, Teleology, Intentionality : https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/evoltele.htm
Accidental "causes" are non-intentional , but also non-teleological : no goal. Intentional causes are teleological by definition : goal directed. "To Intend" is to focus on (turn toward) a specific objective. n'est-ce pas? :nerd:
Well, then, we're just equivocating on what a mechanism is. What's your definition of it?
You don't need knowledge of an ultimate purpose in order to demonstrate teleology. You can just restrict it to goal-orientated functions.
The first and second are interrelated. Purpose can serve as a form or the basis off of what the telos does (direction).
Extrinsic teleology is imparting a teleology through the intention of an artisan onto an artifact. It's direction is proportional to the concept that's implanted by the artisan. The purpose of a factory and how it functions is derived from the extrinsic concept of a designer.
Intrinsic teleology is one in which the telos is immanent to the organism and it's form. An example might be the offspring's inheritance in DNA (it's form) is going to not be imparted but passed on from the parent. Generally, an organism doesn't have a form of extrinsic teleology that establishes its causal functions derivatively.
This was my definition of the "mechanism" of logical Inference : "Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism." It's a mental procedure or process that produces reasonable inferences. The mind is a machine by analogy.
This is Google's definition of "mechanism".
1. a system of parts working together in a machine; a piece of machinery.
2. a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.
Here's examples of Logic metaphorically described as a "mechanism" :
Philosophy of Logical Mechanism : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0987-8_17
Teleology and Logical Mechanism : https://www.jstor.org/stable/20116567?seq=1
Quoting Marty
How then do you define "teleology", without "purpose"? An animal may have a short-term purpose of survival from day to day. But each daily goal is merely one instance of the long-term purpose of avoiding death. The end goal is implicit in the proximate goal. No?
Telos : an ultimate object or aim.
We may be talking about the same thing, but in different terms. I sometimes refer to Evolution as "teleological", because its behavior seems to be goal directed. But I don't "define" that teleology in terms of the ultimate end state, which is unknown to me. I just say that the arrow of Time, and the upward trend of evolutionary complexity and organization are pointing in the direction of some final goal. See page 2 of the EnFormAction Hypothesis blog post linked below.
Teleological Evolution : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Quoting Marty
What is "the telos"? Is it a reference to some kind of collective human will? Is that "telos" random, or does it have some particular goal (purpose) in mind? Apparently your usage is drawn from some theological or philosophical doctrine that I'm not familiar with. For the Greeks, "telos" was the goal or purpose of a process, not a global mind or divine Will.
Telos : https://www.telospress.com/tag/friedrich-nietzsche/
I don't see why using Google's definition is useful when addressing philosophical concepts. You think that Google is going to define mechanism in any way that's analogical to how the mechanists did?
Nor do I see why it's useful to define mechanism by employing the term in the very definition itself. Particularly if it seems to be only placed in the concept aesthetically. Also, If using step-by-step inferences is "mechanistic" then anything is "mechanistic." Which seems vacuous to me.
You don't exclude purpose. You exclude the word "ultimate", and just use "goal-directed", or "purposeful actions" in some way. I believe there might be some ultimate purpose of nature, but you don't have to argue for the uniformity of nature to explain the uniformity of an organism, and its organization.You just simply stipulate that there's a functional end to every organism; you posit that things do things in order to obtain a certain x — temperature regulation, conversion of energy into matter, etc. You stipulate that a organism's system maintains itself, builds upon itself continuously for it's own continual survival, and produces more of itself (being the cause of it's own effect.) There is some sort of concept which subsumes the general properties underneath it (top-down causation).
On the Character Peculiar to Things [Considered] as Natural Purposes.
[quote=Immanuel Kant]I would say, provisionally, that a thing exists as a natural purpose if it is both cause and effect of itself (although [of itself] in two different senses). For this involves a causality which is such that we cannot connect it with mere concept of a nature without regarding nature as acting from a purpose; and even then, though we can think this causality, we cannot grasp it. [...] In the first place, a tree generates another tree according to a familair natural law. But the tree it produces is of the same species [Gattun]. Hence with regard to its species the tree produces itself: within its species, it is both cause and effect, both generating itself and being generated by itself ceaseless, thus preserving itself as a species.
Second, a tree also produces itself as an individual. It is true that this sort of causation is called merely growth; but this growth must be understood in a sense that distinguishes it completely from any increase in size according to mechanical laws: it must be considered to be equivalent to generation, though called by another name. {For the matter that the tree assimilates is first processed by it until the matter quality peculiar to the species, a quality that the natural mechanism outside the plant cannot supply, and the tree continues to develop itself by means of a material that i its composition is the tree's own product."
[/quote]
This type of causality remind you of anything?
On the Principle for Judging Intrinsic Purposiveness in Organized Beings:
[quote=Immanuel Kant ]This principle, which is also the definition of organized beings, is: an organized product of nature is one in which everything is a purpose and reciprocally also a means. In such a product nothing is gratutious, purposeless, or to be attributed to a blind natural mechanism.[/quote]
Efficient Causation:
[quote=Immanuel Kant]A causal connection, as our mere understanding thinks it, is one that always constitutes a descending series (of causes and effects); the things that are the effects, and that hence presuppose others as their causes, cannot themselves in turn be causes of these others. This kind of causal connection is called that of efficient causes (nexus effectivus). [/quote]
[quote=Gnomon] But each daily goal is merely one instance of the long-term purpose of avoiding death. The end goal is implicit in the proximate goal. No?[/quote] If that was the case, then what is the theory of natural selection exactly doing? Does it have no predictive power? Because if it can make predictions prior to the instances, then the instances seem to be conforming to the rule, not the instances. The instances are instead subsumed under the concept of survival and reproduction.
Both teleological explanations and efficient causation derive from Aristotlean philosophy, which attempts to ‘solve’ the problem of infinite regress with the actual external existence of a ‘first cause’. When you say everything that occurs has a goal-orientated action behind it, this is essentially what you’re proposing: an intention that exists external to the occurrence.
What you’re not addressing, however, is what this intention is and where it comes from. This is where teleological explanations don’t really explain - rather they hide behind the ambiguity of concepts such as ‘goal’ and ‘purpose’ to imply an actual ‘force’.
I think you’re missing the duality of intention in my description of the billiard ball’s movement. Unless you’re aware of, connected to and collaborating with the slope in the table or spin direction, then either of these effects on the ball’s movement across the table is external to your intention in exerting momentum onto the ball. But the effect of the slope in the table isn’t a goal-orientated action, either, but a causal condition of the four-dimensional event that is the ball’s movement across the table. It’s when you’re unaware of the slope that it appears to be either an external force or a goal-orientated action (the ball having a mind of its own). Once you’re aware of it as a three-dimensional relation to the space in which the ball’s movement occurs, you can allow for the slope, so that the effect is no longer external to the occurrence but incorporated into your action.
What I’m trying to get at is that what we think of as an external ‘force’ or a goal-directed action points (in my view) to a dimensional aspect of reality that we haven’t taken into account. Once we’re aware of this dimensional relation and can collaborate with it or allow for it within our actions, it’s no longer teleological - there would be no intention that exists external to the occurrence.
Apparently, the term "mechanism" violates your understanding of mental processes. Functionally, a mechanism is just a specialized process or procedure that produces a desirable output (teleological goal) from relevant input (raw material). If you object to the analogy of "mechanism", would you prefer to think of Inference as "magic"?
Maybe you can show me a non-Google definition of "mechanism" that will illustrate what your specific objection to it is. I personally don't have any qualms about referring to mental processes, such as Logical Inference, with the analogy of a physical mechanism. Obviously, metaphysical Logic is not a physical mechanical device, but the Brain is a physical computer that follows logical procedures to produce useful information (goal) about the future implications of relevant activities in the here & now (raw material).
Computational Theory of Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
Mind as Machine : https://www.amazon.com/Mind-As-Machine-Cognitive-Two/dp/0199241449
Who are "The Mechanists"? How did they define "mechanism" that's different from the Google description of an artficial or natural goal-oriented process?
PS___I just came across this definition of Metaphysics, that might be relevant here :
"Bohm expressed the view that "metaphysics is an expression of a world view" and is "thus to be regarded as an art form, resembling poetry in some ways and mathematics in others, rather than as an attempt to say something true about reality as a whole"
"David Bohm" on @Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm?wprov=sfta1
I'm not sure if that's useful.
That seems like a false dichotomy.
Mechanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy)
That would only be true for extrinsic teleology, not intrinsic.
They don't "come" from anything. They are constitutive of the object/process/state of things. Perhaps those things come from something else, but that doesn't make them ateleological.
Teleological explanations don't work this way. Because teleological explanations don't have the premise located in the conclusion like this. That is, the ball having telos to be orientated towards falling down (due to a slope) because it's falling down. Teleological explainations (at least the ones I'm talking about) are dispositional qualities intrinsic to the organisms.
Okay, but that's just a claim, though, right? That just because we have things that show up to disprove our projected forms of directed activity doesn't mean that there's no directed activity. It also could be the case that when we have complete knoweldge of the world, it'll prove to be entirely mechanistic but that certainly doesn't prove that it is the case.
Would you like to contribute a different metaphor for Cosmic or Human Teleology that is more useful than a step-by-step-process directed toward a specific functional goal (mechanism)?
Quoting Marty
It wasn't a dichotomy, but an invitation for you to offer a different option.
Note: At first, I thought you might have some relevant ideas about Teleology, and the Meaning of Life, that I was not familiar with. But, we've been going in circles here. Do you have anything positive to contribute to the topic of this thread, other than negative "what-it's-not" detours? :cool:
Imagination - yes. Perception is subjective, ‘seeing’ with the mind or understanding. Your mind is not only four-dimensional - if you’re capable of communicating conceptually and imagining pink elephants, then you’re already perceiving potential. There is no actual pink elephant, only a potential one, in your mind and in mine. They’re potentially the same one. But they have no four-dimensional existence. These words I’ve typed here point to (or manifest) the potential existence of a pink elephant by relating two concepts and integrating the difference in potential. Now you have the opportunity to perceive the pink elephant’s potential, too - as ‘minor’ as it is. Of course, you can choose to exclude it as ‘impossible’, or you can allow your mind to relate to the possibilities... in collaboration with, say, a tin of paint...:wink:
Quoting Gnomon
This is what we do everyday. It’s just a different way of describing it. The reason I use this language is because it enables me to interrelate one through to six dimensional relations without having to switch discourse. I’ve noticed that it can be difficult for someone to follow if they need to keep translating every time they relate on a different dimensional level. We tend to see the first three dimensions simply as ‘space’, for instance, and then relate objects in that space to time as universal ‘spacetime’. What we perceive outside of that is separated as ‘mental’. But from my perspective, it’s important to understand how each dimensional structure of relations manifests reality and also relates to the dimensional levels of awareness, connection and collaboration above and below, so to speak. I think the gaps in our understanding of quantum mechanics, abiogenesis and consciousness illustrate how important these dimensional awareness shifts are in how we understand reality as a whole. I’m trying to articulate a conceptual structure that enables us to bridge those gaps and navigate all six dimensions at once, but to do that we need to be prepared to deconstruct current concepts into an alternative discursive structure. Your approach is to develop new words, but I think it’s the same challenge we’re facing.
I don’t see it as a ‘third eye’ or ‘higher consciousness’ thing - for me, it’s a recognition that interacting mindfully ‘outside the box’ and finding a way to integrate that information into our conceptualisation of ‘reality’ is what drives our understanding of the universe.
Quoting Marty
How is ‘passed on’ not the same as ‘imparted’ in relation to DNA information? What’s the difference?
So, what you’re saying is that it’s ‘teleological’ if you ignore the causal conditions contributing to the object/process/state of things? Isn’t that like saying the billiard ball has a mind of its own?
My point is that teleological explanations necessarily isolate an interaction from the conditions in which it occurs. It sounds ridiculous when you try to identify telos here because to do so, you would need to isolate the action of falling down the slope from the conditions of moving forward on the cue’s impact, or vice versa. The ball curves to the left as it moves forward from the cue’s impact due to a slope in the table.
‘Dispositional’ refers to arrangement, particularly in relation to other things. You can try to isolate these qualities from the relational structures that determine them, but again you’re ignoring the causal conditions in which this particular arrangement occurs in the organism.
I think that's a reasonable concern. However, you don't have to isolate them, actually. You can see how identities (subjects, objects, processes, etc) are relative towards the surrounding context and it's dynamic relationship to others objects (or processes, whatever). I generally think that the inner is described through the outer, and outer defined through the inner. However, that dynamic relationship still manages to build an identity, and what we would consider a relative form of teleology. That's why the teleology can change based on the surrounding contexts. However, changing the surroundings contexts slightly doesn't generally seem to eliminate the dispositional (and teleological) qualities intrinsic to the organism generally — the organism dispositions 'resists' against environmental changes, and preserve its own homeostatic nature. And it can only do this dynamically. So, the metabolic structure of an animal in a harsh environment won't stop functioning. It will stop functioning if you place that animal in space or something. So I'm not an absolutist about natures, or teleology. They are hypothetical necessities generally. But I don't think anyone (including Aristotle) would deny this.
I think if you accept that things function dynamically, you won't believe in discrete causal activity, but start working more top-down. Which, imho, is teleological.
I'm not sure I see the difference. Unless you're suggesting the word "imparted" is an external relationship that does not pass down a form, but just explains some sort of kinematics. The word 'information', however, suggests conceptual content, however. Some conceptual form that instructs how an organism will operate underneath. That is, the concept subsumes it's parts towards a functional end.
It doesn't ignore the causal conditions, it asks why are the causal conditions constituted the way they are. Teleological explanations aren't incompatible with other forms of causation. If we examine early notions of teleology we find that explanations in nature are just incomplete until we have all four forms of causation that Aristotle postulated. Teleological explanations would now be known as epistemic explanations. However, if you're conceptual realist.... then... well... these explanations inhere in the world too.
I believe it's okay to ascribe a minimal force of agency to any object in the universe. As long as we recognize that this form of "intention" is not conscious intention but just goal-orientated activity. I'm not a panpsychist.
That’s interesting, because you did distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic teleology with this example:
Quoting Marty
I agree that there is no difference, and therefore no distinction. I just wanted to clear that up before we continued.
Quoting Marty
All teleology IS relative - it comes and goes depending on your perspective of the situation - in particular on your awareness of, connection to and collaboration with dimensional aspects of reality. The more you increase awareness of this inner arrangement to a subject, object or process, and the dynamic relationships that build this identity, the less teleological it appears to be, because everything is interrelated.
Which then brings us to the teleological explanation of ‘top-down’ meaning/purpose. This is where our perspective of intention skips a dimensional aspect again, and suggests that everything and everyone has a specific purpose intended for us, our awareness of which often conflicts with the individual will of the organism. My problem with this perspective is that it ignores the distinction between value/potential and meaning/purpose. The teleology comes from assuming value or perceived potential is equal to the end-goal or purpose.
Humans might not be intelligent but we are the most intelligent and with abstract thought comes serious depression. Typically animals that are capable of abstract thought are more likely to commit suicide.
On a side note there are alternatives to suicide #Shark_Fighter_Nation or fight a rattle snake with a pair of garden shears or go join the Peace Corp.
Anyway Noah Harrari wrote a book called Sapiens and it basically says humans can coordinate among millions (as opposed to the Ape's 150 ape groups) because we believe fiction and this fiction allows us to coordinate. He basically says humans are wise because we allow ourselves to collectively believe lies.
I do believe there is a possibility this is 100% (rather than 80%) true.
I'm not going to go into why i disagree with you on alot of this (you can probably figure it out). However as far as the OP is concerned, this answer is completely sufficiient without delving into my favorite "religion".
Ah, okay. Well, when the artisan 'imparts' his concept onto the work of art, the art doesn't take on the inherent form of the artisan. All it does it take on the concept of the artisan. Whereas, in parent-offspring relationships, the form is passed on, inherited. That is, the organism is the cause and effect of the organism — reproduces itself as a species.
So you agree in teleology then?
Interrelation and dynamism is indicative of teleological systems, though. And why can't there be a dynamic system within the entire cosmos? You just take the dynamism to the whole.
Who said anything about purposes being tailored towards us? Their purpose isn't internal to the subject. If it was, then it is only a regulative teleology.
And I'm not sure why it does that? The hypothetical necessity shows that the potential is going to occur unless there is something that stops it. Are you denying dispositional potentials?
The entire form is not normally passed on, though. The offspring takes on only the concept of the species, just like the art. What is passed on is information regarding the form of the parent, but that information is both incomplete and altered by the interaction of both the parent and the information itself with the environment. Again, you’re ignoring the other causal conditions that contribute to ‘reproduction’. The parent organism only contributes to the cause and effect of its offspring - it does not fully reproduce itself, but rather connects and collaborates - often with an available sexual partner, with the protein and other material available to construct the DNA, and with additional information regarding the potential of the offspring, integrated from their own interactions with the world (For example, there is a particular ‘switch’ in our DNA that the parent switches ‘on’ during prolonged famine conditions, which alters the way their offspring’s metabolism will operate).
So, too, the artisan contributes to the cause and effect of the art, in collaboration with the material, the environment and tools they have available, and the concept of potentiality constructed in their mind from their own interactions with the world.
The difference here is only in the ignorance of contributing causal conditions.
No causal action is done in isolation. When we say phrases like, "This causes that" we're talking about relatively localized events, states which have some self spatial containment and like-partedness — the more you deviate from those the more you lose sight of the identity. So when we are talking about human agents, we are obviously not including the ecosystem around them that preserve their bodies literally at all times. It certainly doesn't seem like we can't talk about the identity of the person — we do it all the time. We see that, despite their interdependence with the ecosystem there's still an inner identity (some determinate form that resists being homogenized with the rest of the world). Identities that are based, in part, on things like our immunity system, our metabolic structure, etc — all locally contained, and attributed to some like-partedness. So when I say that organisms have an offspring that passes on it's form, I just mean that there is something about the form of the offspring that is inherited and identical, or passed on. I certainly don't see how this is identical to the same type of imposition of a form that an artisan gives to a painting. A purpose being based on a concept that an artisan intended seems distinct from a form that is inherited.
Also, alteration does not mean destruction. Alteration, akin to change, presupposes something in a temporal sequence that was not fully eliminated — presumably something in the organisms form that was inherited and then expressed differently with the surrounding context. Otherwise we would assume nothing was inherited. I'm not arguing for biological determinism, or some causa-sui being.
I am also not sure how any of this denies teleology. At best you're now arguing against our knoweldge of cosmic teleology.
No - I’m saying that the manifestation of dispositional potential is limited by the interacting perspective. There is more dispositional potential to an object than one can observe/measure. The dispositional potential of an acorn, for instance, is for greater than becoming an oak tree. And it isn’t that the acorn is going to become an oak tree unless there is something that stops it, either. Becoming an oak tree is not necessarily the purpose of an acorn, just as becoming a chicken is not necessarily the purpose of an egg.
Quoting Marty
Teleology I have no problem with - it’s the explanations I disagree with, so my approach to it is always one of caution. Interrelation and dynamism is indicative of Darwinian evolutionary theory, for example - but I have serious problems with its interpretation in relation to explanations of purpose. Natural selection need not be explained as ‘survival of the fittest’, and the purpose of life is NOT to maximise survival, dominance and proliferation of the species. These teleological explanations (like most) are ignorant of contributing causal conditions and dimensional aspects of reality that point to a MUCH broader and more relative dispositional potential (and therefore purpose) than our limited perspective assumes.
My view of purpose vs cause is one of BOTH/AND: for me, the impetus underlying the cosmos is both teleological and random, and it is our limited perspective that determines our intentional capacity. What matters to the whole is awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion.
I see the ultimate purpose AND cause of the cosmos as maximising awareness, connection and collaboration. It is the value attributed to preserving identity which limits this capacity - whether at the level of atoms, molecules, objects, events, organisms, persons, ideologies, etc. In order to change, we must let go of this fear of losing an identity constructed entirely of ongoing relationships whose potential is limited only by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. It is this courage that has inspired the Big Bang, chemical reaction, the origin of life, consciousness, curiosity and love.
Quoting Marty
From an outsider’s observation of an artist, it looks like imposition. But the artist would understand that the creative process is the same - that they impart something of themselves into the work.
Look, if there's conceptual content, if there's dynamic, interrelation, holism, if things are operating towards ends... What the hell is purpose if not that? I'm not presupposing a personal God here. It's like I'm making a pizza with pepperoni, dough, ketchup, and you tell me, "Why are you calling that a pizza!?"
I was reading your post and I can't see what I actually disagree with. So it just leads me to believe you don't really disagree with me.
But ‘things’ are not operating towards ends that can be objectively defined. There is purpose, sure - but what we understand of that purpose is relative to perceived potential. It’s not like a pizza, which is a particular arrangement of potential in pepperoni, dough and ketchup. Purpose refers to every possible way of combining pepperoni, dough and ketchup. Just because the only way you can perceive to combine them is as a pizza, does not make ‘pizza’ into ‘purpose’.
Quoting Marty
Let me clarify: arguments against teleology are not necessarily denying teleology. They do, however, highlight the limitations of employing teleology as an explanation. I have yet to come across another ‘teleological explanation’ that isn’t ignorant of or deliberately excluding causal conditions and/or dimensional aspects.
So, let’s go back to the OP:
Quoting TheMadFool
Because each of us determines ‘purpose’ relative to perceived potential. We tend to think they are one and the same, but they’re not. So our concept of ‘purpose’ is limited, because we fail to distinguish between purpose and perceived potential, which in my view is a distinction of dimensional aspect.
I sense a difference between potential, understood as a talent that could be developed and purpose, umderstood as the reason why someone was born. I can't think of someone off the top of my hat but I hear stories of people with the potential to do something but their purpose was something else entirely. Here's one:
In my OP it seems I tried to align potential with purpose which now seems incorrect insofar that they may not point in the same direction. The best that can be said perhaps is that since potential is something that one naturally likes to fulfill and purpose lacks this feature in that you may not like your purpose, it follows that if our potential is our purpose it would be most desirable.
It’s not so much that they point in different directions. This is a misunderstanding that stems from thinking of purpose at a reduced level of awareness. There is a tendency to think of purpose only in terms of what we believe we can or should accomplish: excluding illogical, irrational, immoral and improbable possibilities - but this isn’t purpose, it’s potential/value.
Our purpose is inclusive of but also extends beyond what we think we are capable of, or what we think we might like. This is why people sometimes demonstrate potential in one area, only to discover a sense of purpose in doing something they never expected. It isn’t that their purpose previously lacked value - they simply lacked awareness of that value.
Sometimes this happens when, say, a star footballer sustains a permanent injury, and is forced to rediscover their potential and value in an alternative, initially undesirable career - one that turns out to be ultimately more rewarding in terms of interrelated potential and value. They may not make the same money or be perceived as a purely physical asset, but rather perceive their value and potential in terms of social, ethical or intellectual capacity and contribution.
I don't understand.Just because you can change ends, or the potential can change, it doesn't mean that things aren't working dynamically towards ends. And of course acorns are going to become tree unless they are inhibited. This is demonstrated in the case that no oak trees came from elephants, whales, humans, dandelions, etc. There is something that rationally constrains the modality of acorns. Notice all oak tress came from an acorn. Wild!
To be honest, I have no idea how to make sense of natural selection without teleology. For the reasons Jerry Fodor gives in What Darwin Got Wrong. There's also plenty of philosopher of biology who show it's compatible with purposefulness.
I'm not suggesting a teleology that is the same as some form of biological determinism. I think there's freedom in life, if that's what you're advocating for, but nonetheless relative direction. You can include all the causal contingencies in the world and still work your way completely top-down and see all the process/parts are moving relative to the whole. But, again, unless you're saying we can't make identities at all, then I don't see a problem with showing how there are dispositional qualities to organisms. The organism itself isn't a by-product of just external factors, it participates with its outside — co-determines it's own trajectory.
Things are working dynamically, but not necessarily towards ends - this remains debatable, particularly when you look closely at what it is that changes. An acorn is going to more readily become food for squirrels or compost than an oak tree - that’s not a failure or inhibition, it’s an alternatively perceived potential or value. Yes, only an acorn can become an oak tree, but becoming an oak tree is not an acorn’s sole purpose, and to perceive it as such is to limit your perception of its potential and value.
The end itself is not changing here: the acorn’s ‘purpose’ is manifest relative to perceived potential or value, and subsequent awareness, connection and collaboration on the part of contributors to the process. Without an opportunity for water to be aware of, connected to and collaborating with this acorn’s potential at a sufficient level, for instance, it will not become an oak tree. Rationality only enters this relationship if I consciously interact with either or both the water and/or the acorn to facilitate their interaction with each other. In this process I am aware of, connected to and collaborating with what I perceive of the relative and interacting potential and value of the acorn, the water and myself. I haven’t changed ‘ends’ here, only realised a certain potential. Who’s to say the acorn cannot become anything except an oak tree?
I don’t believe the modality of acorns is rationally constrained - at least, not from the top down. The structure of an acorn constrains its modality, but not to the extent that it is destined only to become an oak tree. There is potential to an acorn that is yet to be realised - not to become a whale or a dandelion, but in the same way that we eventually realised potential and value in mould and bacteria. We may never realise additional potential in an acorn, whatever it is, but it remains an unknown element to the purpose of an acorn.
So you can talk about ‘purpose’ or telos, but in truth it will always be open-ended, and any attempt to define ‘purpose’ is necessarily limited by the relativity of perspective. That’s okay - as long as you recognise it as such. It isn’t a purpose you’re referring to - it’s perceived potential or value.
And what is the whole (universe) relative to?
Doesn't work. You said these structure of the parts are dynamically built. So you're going up (relationally), not down (through discrete parts making the whole).
You also can't generate any normativity this way — never form a belief which can be in accordance with what a thing is.
Why is it that, despite organisms being a dynamic process, they have at least a relatively fixed process? That is, I can change some of the environmental pressures and the organism remains intact in some ways. What is this regulation or maintenance of its parts if not at least a relative telos? Why does the inner seem preserved? And if there is some level of preservation, does this not at least show a inner-outer distinction to some extent?
What is a rational constrain if not related to potential forms? Unless you're saying that things can become anything and everything, then you're already saying they are constrained.
Because this particular potential (among others) was realised by an acorn’s interaction with the world.
Quoting Marty
It does work - you’re just not accustomed to looking at the universe as a dynamically built relational structure. It’s a paradigm shift. The ‘whole’ is the origin - the ‘parts’ are only perceived as discrete in ignorance of this relational ‘whole’. So it’s not so much discrete parts making the whole, but rather the whole increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with itself through dynamic structural relations.
So the modality of acorns is constrained by ignorance - in the dynamic structure of interacting ‘parts’ - of the relational ‘whole’.
Quoting Marty
Normativity is just perceived value/potential as a prediction for future interactions based on information from past interactions. Beliefs are not formed according to what a thing IS, but always according to this perceived potential, which is necessarily uncertain and subjective.
Quoting Marty
What you call ‘relative telos’, I’m calling perceived potential - the semantic difference is one of perspective. Telos assumes objective knowledge, but it is this ‘objectivity’ that is unknown as such. Your term is as useful as ‘relative truth’ or ‘relative infinity’.
The inner is not ‘preserved’ - it is sustained as a dynamic relational structure. Inner-outer distinction is each system striving to sustain the current structure by ignoring, isolating or excluding new information on the relational whole. This occurs to some extent all the way down to basic atomic structure. In self-aware organisms it manifests as fear, but the process is the same. This is what constrains forms, and it isn’t rational at all.
But particular thing doing other particular things isn't saying anything more than "things happen". That doesn't have any explanatory power. Why does that happen to be the way it is as oppose to it not being that way? It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that oak trees don't come from whales. Nor am I going to accept a full on rejection of the question of "Why?"
Clearly trees come from a particular set of properties, but that's true of anything. It's not interesting.
One way or another when you're endorsing certain claims, you're endorsing it because there's a rational constraint or a type of ontological normativity in the world that presses itself on you, and make you responsibility to get it right. If there wasn't, then there's nothing to distinguish anything.
Sure I am. I'm a process ontologist. I don't think non-dynamic relationships exist. I'm completely convinced that things work relationally, dynamically, continuously, and processual. I haven't denied that from the beginning.
That also doesn't answer the question.
No, I'm not talking about perceived normativity. I'm talking about the ontological normativity. Even if there was a distinction between our beliefs and how things are, that doesn't mean that things aren't a certain way relative to others things.
Quoting Possibility
I don't see the difference. Why is it sustained? And again, don't tell me because of particular events.
You're misunderstanding what I mean by rational here. I'm saying that nothing can fill in for distinguishing things from other things in the first place, because what makes distinction possible is a conceptual distinction — a material incompatibility (though rationally structured) between two things.
Quoting Marty
There IS nothing to distinguish anything - except awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion at every dimensional level of existence. It’s not rational constraint or ontological normativity. There is no pressure or responsibility to get it ‘right’, except what is imposed as a result of efforts to ignore, isolate and exclude.
When you look back and ask why things happened this way and not that way, such as an oak tree coming from an acorn and not a whale, the explanation is necessarily deterministic. There is no need for an alternative to cause and effect or basic science, here. What we’re looking for is a worldview that supports and verifies not only this deterministic explanation of history, but also an intentional or ‘free will’ approach to potential future interactions. The idea that it must be an overarching, rational constraint rather than an underlying impetus (say, love) comes from fear, mostly.
Quoting Marty
Why not? Because it isn’t interesting? The difference between sustain and preserve isn’t obvious at most levels of awareness. Preserve implies an external dynamic and awareness, sustain an internal one, regardless of awareness. This seems to be a pattern of difference between our views. At the level of human experience, both seem to make sense. But at another level, while it is the relative potential energy of particles sustaining an atomic structure, for instance, I’m not sure what you think preserves it.
I don’t imagine we’re going to get very far in this discussion, but I’m happy to continue. You seem convinced that ‘relative telos’ is an explanation, but it’s just another term for ‘God’, which ultimately explains nothing. It’s a comfort, really.