Philosophy Now Forum

Stephen Asma says biology needs to understand the purpose – the ‘telos’ – of organisms and systems.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/126/Teleology_Rises_from_the_Grave

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 3:37 am Stephen Asma says biology needs to understand the purpose – the ‘telos’ – of organisms and systems.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/126/Te ... _the_Grave

Teleology in biology is naïve fantasy.

I think the conclusion that Autopoiesis is a recent descendant of an older tradition is a little hasty. It is certainly not Intelligent Design by another name, and as Prof. Asma quite rightly points out, it has nothing to hide. The central principle of autopoiesis, as conceived by Maturana and Varella as recently as the 1970s, is simply that a biological cell has the ability within it to create daughter cells. This is in contrast to the allopoiesis of the human manufacture of physical goods where, for example, a car factory is required to create cars. There is no necessity for God unless perhaps, as an observer, you need to see one. Autopoiesis also finds fertile ground in modeling technological information systems. The simple corollary here being that the source code for a C compiler is compiled using the C compiler. Further, information processing begets information, much in the way that genotype begets phenotype in an endless loop. The mechanics of this middle level were adequately described in the C19th by Charles Sanders Peirce: interpretant—that which is created during the process of interpretation—can be seen, not in the atomic address-to-value of a variable, but in the composite name-to-value mappings found in IS, where values may also be further names. This year is the 70th anniversary of the Manchester Baby which first demonstrated this principle. The HTTP process which the world happily uses every day would have been readily understood by Peirce. Furthermore, is entirely plausible that the manifestation of language—as an information bearing medium—does not need an allopoietic meta-languages favored by linguists: in itself it, and by extension we ourselves, may also be such a self-describing system. The only place for a Ghost in the Machine is in the imagination of those who refuse to understand how it works.

Natural theology is not synonymous with design arguments as even a cursory review of Thomas Aquinas' quinque viæ shows.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 3:39 am Teleology in biology is naïve fantasy.

No!

And please forgive me for sounding like a broken record with this, but a truly naïve fantasy can be seen in the belief that without the slightest hint of teleological impetus, that the blue orb depicted below...



...simply found itself (by sheer chance) to be fully-equipped with every conceivable ingredient necessary to allow the processes of biology and evolution to unfold on its surface.

In other words, the ruling-out of teleology in biology in no way, shape, or form rules-out what appears to be a deliberate and “goal-oriented” furnishing...

(stocking, preparing, endowing, supplying)

...of a cosmic setting with everything it could possibly need to enable the efflorescence of life from the very fabric of the setting itself.

These types of arguments against teleology always seem to be accompanied with a blinkered (tunnel-visioned) ignoring of the seemingly impossible prerequisite conditions that had to be in place prior to the emergence of biological entities.
_______

Any universe is pointless without observers. Just happening in vain.

Is our universe just lucky to have us? That is truly the question!

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:51 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 3:39 am Teleology in biology is naïve fantasy.

No!

And please forgive me for sounding like a broken record with this, but a truly naïve fantasy can be seen in the belief that without the slightest hint of teleological impetus, that the blue orb depicted below...



...simply found itself (by sheer chance) to be fully-equipped with every conceivable ingredient necessary to allow the processes of biology and evolution to unfold on its surface.

In other words, the ruling-out of teleology in biology in no way, shape, or form rules-out what appears to be a deliberate and “goal-oriented” furnishing...

(stocking, preparing, endowing, supplying)

...of a cosmic setting with everything it could possibly need to enable the efflorescence of life from the very fabric of the setting itself.

These types of arguments against teleology always seem to be accompanied with a blinkered (tunnel-visioned) ignoring of the seemingly impossible prerequisite conditions that had to be in place prior to the emergence of biological entities.
_______

So if you think teleology is more than naïve fantasy... how do you think it works? By magic?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:37 pm Any universe is pointless without observers.

I don't think such a universe would be particularly bothered about that.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:59 pm

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:37 pm Any universe is pointless without observers.

I don't think such a universe would be particularly bothered about that.

I guess that's the essense of physicalism. And the opponent of idealism.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:26 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:59 pm

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:37 pm Any universe is pointless without observers.

I don't think such a universe would be particularly bothered about that.

I guess that's the essense of physicalism. And the opponent of idealism.

You mean like the one is real and the other fantasy?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:24 am You mean like the one is real and the other fantasy?

I think that is your own opinion

The fathers of QM said these things about "reality":

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
- Niels Bohr

The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
- Werner Heisenberg

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:12 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:24 am You mean like the one is real and the other fantasy?

I think that is your own opinion

The fathers of QM said these things about "reality":

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
- Niels Bohr

The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
- Werner Heisenberg

I agree entirely with Bohr and Heisenberg. Nevertheless 'real' is a word and I was using it to distinguish between theories based upon analysis of facts and theories based upon wishful thinking: The real and the fantasy.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:37 pm I agree entirely with Bohr and Heisenberg. Nevertheless 'real' is a word and I was using it to distinguish between theories based upon analysis of facts and theories based upon wishful thinking: The real and the fantasy.

Socrates said the wisest words ever spoken by a man:

I know that I know nothing.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:48 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:37 pm I agree entirely with Bohr and Heisenberg. Nevertheless 'real' is a word and I was using it to distinguish between theories based upon analysis of facts and theories based upon wishful thinking: The real and the fantasy.

Socrates said the wisest words ever spoken by a man:

I know that I know nothing.

Of course he was lying!

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:37 pm Any universe is pointless without observers.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:59 pm I don't think such a universe would be particularly bothered about that.

Keeping in mind (as pointed out by QuantumT) that according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, without the presence of observers to collapse the wave function, reality cannot take form,...

...then perhaps A_Seagull could describe for us the status of the features and contents of the universe in the absence of observers.
_______