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.

Put simply: Teleological explanation requires a fixed end or final cause. But in a probabilistic system, the future is open at every step. To say that events are happening as a means to reaching some future state C, is nonsensical considering state C isn't even guaranteed. — tom111

I think you have identified an important distinction between a scientific (mechanistic) and a philosophical (probabilistic) worldview. Classical physics was based on mathematical logic, in which an effect necessarily follows a cause. But Quantum physics revealed a statistical logic, in which there is an element of uncertainty between Cause & Effect. As you implied, a Teleologically-evolving system must have a pre-defined goal. But a Teleonomically-progressing*1 world can explore many options as it proceeds, not to a fixed end, but toward an optimized solution to a general problem, or question.

For example : self-adjusting Evolutionary Programming*2, using digital computers, can emulate analog evolution and even quantum computing, by utilizing the near-infinite options of random code variations to add flexibility to the rigid mechanical operations of older two-value (1 or 0) information processing. Ironically, Darwin's evolution assumed god-like pre-selection of criteria for success. For instance, sheep would be bred for maximum wool production : an empirically measurable goal. But Natural Selection may be more open-ended ; as illustrated by Evolutionary Programming : "EP algorithms can adjust their own parameters (like mutation rates) during the search process". The code itself is modified by the transformative procedure.

I don't know if your OP was intended to apply to the initiation and evolution of our physical universe. But my own worldview interprets the Big Bang as a creation event. In which case, the question arises : who or what caused the Bang? And to what end? The Genesis myth may have made sense 3000 years ago. But a modern explanation for Being (Ontology) and Purpose (Telos) would have to take 21st century science into account. Hence, the new definition of natural evolution would be Probabilistic instead of Deterministic. :nerd:

*1. Teleonomy :
# Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
# Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat),"Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

*2. Evolutionary programming (EP) is a computational method that mimics biological evolution to solve optimization and search problems. It's a type of evolutionary algorithm (EA) that uses mutation as the primary operator to evolve a population of potential solutions. Unlike genetic algorithms, EP traditionally emphasizes mutation over crossover.
1. Initialization:
A population of solutions is randomly generated or initialized with some prior knowledge.
2. Evaluation:
The fitness of each individual is assessed based on the problem's objective function.
3. Variation (Mutation):
New solutions are created by applying mutation to the existing individuals. In some cases, a small amount of crossover (combination of solutions) might be included.
4. Selection:
Individuals are selected based on their fitness, with better solutions more likely to survive and reproduce.
5. Repeat:
Steps 2-4 are repeated for a set number of generations or until a satisfactory solution is found.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evolutionary+programming

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

That's an interesting observation, since deniers of end-driven processes feel confident that Darwin's randomized mechanical procedure*1 obviates the need for First & Final causes. Just as Quantum processes are statistically randomized, biological mutations seem haphazard, going nowhere.

As you noted though, Natural Selection (choice, election, preference) gives direction to what is otherwise an erratic path of cause & effect. So, the question arises : whence the criteria for fitness that determine the survival of an organism? If you trace evolution back to its origin in the Big Bang, the Primary Measure of fitness seems to be inherent in the laws of thermodynamics : Energy ~= Life : Entropy ~= Death. And some thinkers have extended the coasting mechanical chain to its fated eventual End in "heat death".

Yet, they fail to explain how a small blue planet, on the cusp of an ordinary spiral galaxy has somehow evaded the Second Law Sword, and produced Living & Thinking lumps of animated matter. How to account for that side-track from a one-way trip to Frozen Hell? :wink:


*1. The relationship between Darwin's theory of evolution and teleology is complex and debated. While Darwin's theory is often seen as replacing teleology (the idea of goal-directedness in nature) with a mechanistic explanation of natural selection, some scholars argue that he actually re-invented or adapted teleological thinking. . . . .
While using teleological language, Darwin's theory does not imply a pre-determined direction for evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=darwin+teleology
Note --- Teleology is based on the inference from emergent examples of orderly & organized anti-entropic features, such as Life & Mind that should not be possible if chaotic Entropy ruled the world. The observed direction of Time' Arrow seems to be pointed toward increasing structural order & functional complexity, such as the human brain.

- Interesting points. :up: