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?
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."The willful purpose of a single human is made manifest in the person's behavior. We can intuit their intentions from their actions. " ---Gnomon
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? — Marty
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. — Gnomon
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? — Marty
Come on, "-billi-"! Don't complicate my simple mundane analogy with cubic possi-bili-ties. :grin:Billiard balls appear to operate only on a two-dimensional plane, but this isn’t the case - they’re three-dimensional objects. — 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.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. — Possibility
Come on, "-billi-"! Don't complicate my simple mundane analogy with cubic possi-bili-ties. :grin: — Gnomon
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. — Gnomon
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. — Gnomon
OK. But that spherical reference went right over my pointy head. :razz:I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know. — 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: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. — 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.Out of curiosity, what other inherent contingencies do you envisage? — Possibility
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.↪Gnomon
Piaget wrote that the nature of nature was to overcome itself, the point being that from Piaget's point of view there is no dichotomy between the aims of humanity and those of nature. There is no divide at all. We are nothihg but a further development of the aims of nature itself as self-transformation. Nature is artifice through and through. — Joshs
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". — Gnomon
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: — Gnomon
???Does not compute.But they are not observed, nor do they happen - we perceive potential which points to their possible existence, — 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:Dimensional awareness, connection and collaboration manifests as relational structure. — 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:So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level. — Possibility
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: — Gnomon
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.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. — Marty
"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: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 theevidence in time, the thing or event. — Possibility
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:So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level — Possibility
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.So, human teleology is not very useful for anticipating events beyond a couple of weeks.
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. — Marty
Who said it wasn't?I don't understand how ego-driven activity isn't teleological. — Marty
Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism.And I don't understand how inferences are a mechanism. — 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.This isn't disproving teleology. — Marty
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:There's obviously a distinction between intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology. You don't need intention for a teleological cause. — Marty
Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism.
You don't need knowledge of an ultimate purpose in order to demonstrate teleology. You can just restrict it to goal-orientated functions.but I don't have any knowledge of the ultimate Purpose of the process.
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.
I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain "intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology". Are these distinctions necessitated by some specific doctrine?
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.Well, then, we're just equivocating on what a mechanism is. What's your definition of it? — 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?You don't need knowledge of an ultimate purpose in order to demonstrate teleology. You can just restrict it to goal-orientated functions. — 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.Purpose can serve as a form or the basis off of what the telos does (direction). — Marty
How then do you define "teleology", without "purpose"?
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." — 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. — 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). — Immanuel Kant
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.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? — Gnomon
I'm not quite sure if I follow how this is an argument against teleology.
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. — Marty
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"?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? — Marty
Functionally, a mechanism is just a specialized process or procedure that produces a desirable output (teleological goal) from relevant input (raw material).
would you prefer to think of Inference as "magic"?
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.
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)?I'm not sure if that's useful. — Marty
It wasn't a dichotomy, but an invitation for you to offer a different option.That seems like a false dichotomy. — Marty
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.