My position throughout this discussion has been that teleology does not mean just that one event leads, through a chain of events, to another event. Here is the definition that matches my understanding of the meaning. It’s from Google‘s AI summary, so I’m not saying it’s definitive or correct necessarily, but it is my understanding.

“Teleology, in philosophy, is the study of purposiveness or goal-directedness. It examines how phenomena, whether natural or human-made, are explained by their ends, goals, or purposes rather than their causes. The concept suggests that things exist or occur for a specific reason, implying a design or intention behind their existence.”

I think intention is the right word to use here. Teleology implies that an event took place because it was intended. It’s my position that intention is a mental state. You need a mind for there to be a goal or purpose. — T Clark

I wonder if it's possible that ends, goals, or purposes can exist without intention. How can protein synthesis not be the goal of DNA and its cohorts? Protein isn't the result of a spontaneous chemical reaction. (I take this kind of thing to be what Barbieri means by "spontaneous molecules" and "spontaneous reactions".) It's not like vinegar and baking soda coming in contact, and there's a chemical reaction that releases carbon dioxide. I don't see how CO2 can be the goal of vinegar and baking soda, since they might never have come into contact. But protein is synthesized by an intricate process that has several molecules taking the information stored in DNA, and assembling the amino acids and proteins. DNA doesn't do anything other than this, and the order of its bases is obviously the recipe for amino acids and proteins, and nothing else.

Do you view all that in some other way?

I wonder if it's possible that ends, goals, or purposes can exist without intention. — Patterner

My answer is “no.” [edited]

Protein isn't the result of a spontaneous chemical reaction. (I take this kind of thing to be what Barbieri means by "spontaneous molecules" and "spontaneous reactions".) It's not like vinegar and baking soda coming in contact, and there's a chemical reaction that releases carbon dioxide. I don't see how CO2 can be the goal of vinegar and baking soda, since they might never have come into contact. — Patterner

I think they’re both exactly the same except that one is much more complex than the other. In addition, the DNA reaction ends up producing something that’s important to humans whereas the vinegar one does not. I think that is what gives the illusion of purpose. People like to tell stories and goals and purposes are stories that People are particularly good at.

Do you view all that in some other way? — Patterner

Clearly, yes. And just as clearly, this is a difference of opinion we’re not going to be able to resolve.

I wonder if it's possible that ends, goals, or purposes can exist without intention. — Patterner

Oops, my answer is “no.”

I think they’re both exactly the same except that one is much more complex than the other. In addition, the DNA reaction ends up producing something that’s important to humans whereas the vinegar one does not. I think that is what gives the illusion of purpose. People like to tell stories and goals and purposes are stories that People are particularly good at. — T Clark

I think DNA produces the environment in which it can reproduce. Doesn't matter what species, it's what all life is. I'd say that's the definition of life - DNA builds the environment in which it reproduces.

Do you view all that in some other way?
— Patterner

Clearly, yes. And just as clearly, this is a difference of opinion we’re not going to be able to resolve. — T Clark

Likely not. :rofl: But if modify posted her about things they didn't agree on... But what about information? Do you think DNA is encoded information? Or is it just... I don't know how to word it. It just happens that the order of the bases happens to to lead to proteins being assembled.

I think DNA produces the environment in which it can reproduce. Doesn't matter what species, it's what all life is. I'd say that's the definition of life - DNA builds the environment in which it reproduces. — Patterner

Richard Dawkins has claimed that reproduction is just a way for genes to replicate themselves. I think that’s a question of perspective and not definitive statement of fact. Dawkins might disagree with me on that.

But what about information? Do you think DNA is encoded information? — Patterner

I think you have to be careful when you talk about information. It has a very specific technical meaning in information theory, which I don’t understand very well.

Richard Dawkins has claimed that reproduction is just a way for genes to replicate themselves. I think that’s a question of perspective and not definitive statement of fact. Dawkins might disagree with me on that. — T Clark

I haven't read Dawkins, but I know he has a book called The Selfish Gene. Is that where her days that?

What is your perspective?

But what about information? Do you think DNA is encoded information?
— Patterner

I think you have to be careful when you talk about information. It has a very specific technical meaning in information theory, which I don’t understand very well. — T Clark

Googling "information theory and DNA" gave me this:

Information theory, initially developed for communication systems, has found significant applications in understanding DNA and molecular biology. It provides tools to analyze the storage, transmission, and processing of information within biological systems, particularly regarding DNA sequences and gene expression. This framework helps analyze patterns in DNA, estimate information content, and understand how genetic information is encoded, stored, and utilized by cells. — AI Overview

And there are many links that discuss it.

I haven't read Dawkins, but I know he has a book called The Selfish Gene. Is that where her days that?

What is your perspective? — Patterner

Yes, I believe that is Dawkins’ book on this subject. I haven’t read it. I’ve only read what other people say about it. He certainly knows a lot more about evolution than I do but I guess I don’t get it. Evolution of organisms, and humans in particular, is what I am interested in. It’s not clear to me whether Dawkins’ perspective would add anything to that.

Googling "information theory and DNA" gave me this: — Patterner

OK. As I tried to make clear, I don’t know enough about this to have a worthwhile opinion.

What makes a Senior Scientist right and an Associate Professor wrong? — RussellA

Well one is a working physicist and the other is a jobbing philosopher. :grin:

But I'm not rely on single data points. And have you even read Chen's paper?

He is supporting the systems stance I outlined. The problem for classical determinism is that its equations can't predict future states once chaotic complexity or hierarchical information loss intrudes.

If the errors in the prediction increase in exponential time and its accuracy only increases in polynomial time, it is easy to see why classical deteminism falls apart.

This was the lesson of chaos theory. The maths has to switch to the teleological tactic of saying well we just have to understand such systems in terms of their finality – their attractors. The failure of determinism gets excused as a "sensitivity to initial conditions" and swept under the carpet as a measurement problem.

As Chen argues, QM can flip things around as it starts indeterminate but can follow all possible paths to arrive at a collectively determined state. In Darwinian self-organising fashion, the system just finds its own way to where it was always meant to go.

Of course, Chen also then wrongly calls that evidence that quantum theory is "strongly deterministic". Really he should have said it is "strongly finalistic". :wink:

I don't think that the debate about whether the quantum theory implies determinism or not is a secret plot by powerful conspirators — RussellA

The debate ain't no secret. It is tiresomely dominating for cultural reasons that are rather too obvious.

We got locked into this black and white thinking on causality at the point in history when the Scientific Revolution collided with Catholic Church. One side had to defend the sanctity of the imperishable human soul, the other was defending the new holy order of reductionist engineering. Freewill is the banner folk fly so you know which team you are meant to rally around as the true faith.

As a debate, it destroys all that is actually interesting about Nature from a well-informed metaphysical point of view.

Folk line up to chant their chants at every opportunity. I'm already bored and over it. :yawn:

Well one is a working physicist and the other is a jobbing philosopher — apokrisis

We got locked into this black and white thinking on causality at the point in history when the Scientific Revolution collided with Catholic Church..........................As a debate, it destroys all that is actually interesting about Nature from a well-informed metaphysical point of view. — apokrisis

Perhaps that is exactly why we need "jobbing philosophers", to help us work through the metaphysical maze.

I would go further and say that natural selection is itself a teleological explanation. It is a teleological explanation that covers all species instead of just one (i.e. it is a generic final cause). — Leontiskos

An interesting relates to this issue.