Take a look at the video I just posted into the reply above yours. it is *exceedingly* interesting. — Wayfarer

Thanks.

The problem is precisely that 'the equation' makes no provision for the act of observation. — Wayfarer

In my understanding, interpretations of quantum mechanics, which do not make a provision for the act of observation are just as consistent with the mathematics and observations of behavior as those that do.

This doesn’t mean it has a mind in the conscious sense, but it strongly suggests that intentional-like behavior—orientation toward what matters to it —can appear even before anything like a nervous system arises. That’s part of what I meant by “intentionality in a broader sense than conscious intention.” It’s not about inner deliberation, but about the intrinsic organization of living systems around meaningful interaction with their environment. — Wayfarer

Is intention without a mind and nervous system meaningful? I’m skeptical, but I don’t know enough about this particular example to make any intelligent judgment.

Regarding whether organisms really act purposefully, or only as if they do - this is central to the whole debate about teleology and teleonomy. — Wayfarer

I don’t think the idea of a teleological universe is very compelling, but that doesn’t mean I see any particular value in the idea of teleonomy.

This is why I think the boundary between biology and psychology isn’t as clean as the classical model would have it. — Wayfarer

I’m not sure what to say about this. I guess I would have thought a clear delineation between biology and psychology is at the heart of the hard problem of consciousness that we’ve discussed many times.

A lot of the resistance to this idea, I think, comes from our folk understanding of intentionality: that it has to be something like what I am capable of thinking or intending. — Wayfarer

You call it the “folk understanding.” I call it the actual definition of the word. As I see it, you’re the one trying to change the meaning from how the word is normally used.

I just noticed I responded to your posts out of order. I’ll go back and respond to your first one now.

life, and indeed human existence, is a product of "pure chance, absolutely free but blind." He saw genetic mutations, the ultimate source of evolutionary innovation, as random and unpredictable events at the molecular level. — Wayfarer

I think this is clearly incorrect as a matter of science and not of philosophy. What we’ve learned about self organization, and abiogenesis since he made those statements shows there is structure and process intrinsic to the nature of the universe. Saying “structure” and “process” is not the same as same as saying “purpose” and “goal.”

What do you think about, and why? Do you think about things because they are relevant and meaningful to you, in relation to your goals and purposes? If so, then maybe you are thinking about life’s purposes all the time. — Joshs

I never denied that I have purposes and goals for my own behavior. I work with the purpose of making money to pay for my house and food and car. I go to the liquor store with the goal of buying wine. As I said to @Wayfarer, if that’s all we were talking about, there would be no argument here.

Because a scientific stance is itself a derivative or expression of a metaphysical stance, answering its questions is already to engage with the metaphysics that guides it. — Joshs

You and I have a different understanding of the meaning of the words “science” and “metaphysics“ and of the relationship between the two.

A scientific evolution is likely to also constitute a metaphysical revolution. — Joshs

That’s a question I’ve thought about and I’m not really sure of the answer.

Vague, unsupported, low quality arm waving.

The question of whether life, the universe, and everything is in any sense meaningful or purposeful is one that entertains many minds in our day. — Wayfarer

I'll acknowledge from the start that this is an unresolvable issue. I won't convince you and you won't convince me. As usual, my view is that this is metaphysics. You're not wrong, I'm not right. We just have a difference of opinion about the most useful way of looking at this. Although I have no intention of convincing anyone, I would like to present an alternative way of looking at this.

The moment we ask whether something is meaningful, we’re already inhabiting a world structured by purposes. Furthermore, the belief that the Universe is purposeless is itself a judgement about meaning. — Wayfarer

You are begging the question here. You ask us whether the universe has meaning and then when we say "no" you jump up and say "Ah ha! You recognize that meaning and purpose are important." Well, for most of us, the answer to the question is not "no," it's "I don't think about things that way. Life's purposes and goals are not things I think about unless someone like you brings them up." I don't ever remember thinking about life's purpose except in a philosophical context. I think most people are like me in that sense.

Even the most rudimentary organisms behave as if directed toward ends: seeking nutrients, avoiding harm, maintaining internal equilibrium. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that "as if directed" is the same as "directed?" That would be about as circular as an argument can get.

This kind of directedness—what might be called biological intentionality—is not yet consciously purposeful, but it is not mechanical either. — Wayfarer

If you look up "intention" you find two kinds of definitions 1) a near-synonym for goal or purpose and 2) a mental state. If we apply the first type of definition, we're back in a circular argument. As for the second type, the idea that the simplest biological organisms, or that biology as an entity, has mental states is clearly unsupportable.

the living being is concern, and this concern is inseparable from its form and function. — Wayfarer

"Concern" here is just another word you're using for "goal" or "purpose." It doesn't add anything new to the discussion. In these discussions, it often seems that people use "function" as a synonym for "purpose." Do you see it that way? My heart clearly has a function in my body. Does that mean it has a goal? Of course, that's really the question on the table. We're headed back into a circular argument.

Much of the debate about purpose revolves around an ancient idea, telos. The ancient Greek term telos simply means end, goal, or purpose. For Aristotle, it was a foundational concept—not just in ethics and politics, where human purpose is self-evident, but in nature as well. "Nature," he writes in Politics, "does nothing in vain." He believed that things have intrinsic ends: the acorn strives to become the oak; the eye is for seeing; the human being is naturally oriented toward reason and society. — Wayfarer

I'm certainly not a student of Aristotle but, as I understand it, he saw telos as the result of final design and final design as the result of intention, which we've already discussed. Saying "Nature does nothing in vain," is just another way of stating your premise.

This way of thinking made perfect sense in a world where observation and common experience guided inquiry. — Wayfarer

I live in a world where observation and common experience guide inquiry and I don't think that understanding is necessarily the most useful way of seeing things. It certainly isn't true in any absolute sense. Again, it's metaphysics.

Throughout, they act as if they’re pursuing ends — Wayfarer

Again - as if.

The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution....(Mind and Cosmos, Pp35-36) — Wayfarer

You quoted this from Nagle and then you commented:

But this universality came at a price. To attain it, physics had to bracket out the world as we actually live it: a world rich with meaning, embedded in time, shaped by perception and concern. — Wayfarer

You and I have been in enough discussions so you should know I am as skeptical of the idea of objective reality as you are. I even agree we live in "a world rich with meaning, embedded in time, shaped by perception and concern." And that's because we live in a human world. Those properties come from within us. If that were all you are saying, we would have no argument.

I think it is an important understanding for us to see that there is a difference between the world inside us and that outside us. I always imagine when I look at babies that that is what they are learning as I watch them wiggle, look at everything, touch their toes, and make noises. They're learning some things are them and some things are the world. I guess that's their first adventure in metaphysics.

In this light, the familiar claim that the universe is meaningless begins to look suspicious. It isn’t so much a conclusion reached by science, but a background assumption—one built into the methodology from the outset. — Wayfarer

Yes. Exactly. If you will acknowledge the way you describe things is also a "background assumption" then you and I will have no argument.

To speak of organisms is necessarily to speak in the language of function, adaptation, and goal-directedness. Biologists may insist that these are mere heuristics, that such language is shorthand for mechanisms with no actual purpose. — Wayfarer

To start, function and adaptation and not the same as goal-directedness. If I were going to pick a point when it would make sense to talk about an organisms goals, it would be when they are capable of intention. Intention requires a mind and a mind requires a nervous system. At that point, we've moved out of the realm of biology and into neurology, ethnology, and psychology.

physics was forced to reintroduce the very context it had so carefully excluded since Newton: the observational result was dependent on the experimental set-up. The result is the famously unresolved proliferation of “interpretations of quantum mechanics.” — Wayfarer

In my understanding, this is not exactly accurate. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics bring the observer into the equation, others do not. It appears that all the different interpretations are equally consistent with the mathematics and empirical results of QM. Since there appears to be no empirical way of decide among those interpretations, the choice of one over the others is, again, metaphysics.

The blithe assurances of scientific positivism—that the universe is devoid of meaning and purpose—should therefore be recognized for what they are: a smokescreen, a refusal to face the deeper philosophical questions that science itself has inadvertently reopened. In a world that gives rise to observers, meaning may not be an add-on. It may have been that it is there all along, awaiting discovery. — Wayfarer

This is pretty outrageous. You've lost track of the fact, if you ever recognized it, that you can't answer scientific questions with metaphysics and you can't answer metaphysical questions with science.

As I said at the beginning, there is no resolution to this issue. You and I have had at it enough times to know that. Now I've had my say and we can leave it at that if you want.

what rationale can be presented to justify the death of innocent civilians in Japan during WWII with the atomic bombs? — Shawn

So the death of 1 million Japanese civilians is terrible, but the death of 10 million Chinese civilians doesn't matter to you.

We’re done here I think.

the Japanese have been very stoic about it, regarding their loss of civilians. — Shawn

About 1 million Japanese civilians died during World War II. About 10 million Chinese civilians died at the hands of the Japanese.

You know how callous that sounds? — Shawn

As I noted - 50 million people, mostly civilians, died in World War 2.

Imagine the harm from the Castle Bravo test. Not spoken about yet. Then there's the problem of atomic nuclei from the absurd amount of atmospheric tests conducted. — Shawn

Acknowledging the harm done, I’m not sure that changes my first response to your OP.

have killed tens of thousands (from radiation exposure — Down The Rabbit Hole

I thought this claim was ridiculous, but then I looked it up and it turns out you were right.

Okay, so it looks like on your view there is "scientific knowledge" and there is "everyday knowledge," but there is no such thing as "philosophical knowledge." — Leontiskos

Well, there’s certainly is knowledge about philosophy, for example Aristotle was born on a certain date and died on a certain date. He wrote certain things. But as I said, philosophy doesn’t involve knowledge. It doesn’t work with knowledge.

I’ll admit, I’m just playing around with this idea. As I said in my previous post, I think I can make this argument. That doesn’t necessarily mean I believe it. I’ll think about it some more.

do you say that science involves knowledge? — Leontiskos

Sure.

is your knowledge of this philosophical? — Leontiskos

No. It’s just regular old everyday knowledge.

Can "philosophy" know that science involves knowledge? — Leontiskos

Philosophy can’t even figure out what “knowledge” means.

So the idea is that philosophers can't have knowledge, — Leontiskos

I think this is an argument I could probably make. Not so much that philosophers don’t have knowledge, but that philosophy does not involve knowledge. Certainly metaphysics doesn’t. Neither do aesthetics or morals.

Scientific objectivity is methodological - it's about designing studies, collecting data, and interpreting results in ways that minimize bias and personal influence. — Wayfarer

You’re right, in science, objectivity is methodological, but that’s not all it is. The existence of objective reality is the foundation of orthodox science, at least historically. That’s an ontological, not methodological, claim.

I feel bad about this, — J

Don’t feel bad. Getting lost in philosophy is nothing new for me.

Maybe read the quote from his p. 303 again, in the light of all this? — J

I went back and reread the OP and your response to my comment, as well as all the other posts on this thread. But I don’t get it. I can’t even figure out what the question on the table is. It’s frustrating because this is exactly the kind of question I like best.

Let’s leave it at that. I’ll follow along and see what I can get out of this.

We would like some sort of absolute knowledge, a View from Nowhere that will transcend “local interpretative predispositions.” But what if we accept the idea that science aims to provide that knowledge, and may be qualified to do it? What does that leave for philosophy to do? — J

The presupposition that a view from nowhere, absolute knowledge, objective reality, exists is the foundation of the orthodox view of what you are calling "natural science." It is metaphysics, philosophy, not science. Is this what you have called "one piece of philosophy which has absolute status?" The problem is that this is just one metaphysical view among many.

If there is or could be such a thing as the View from Nowhere, a view of reality absolutely uninterpreted by human perspectives and limitations, then scientific practice would produce this view, not philosophy. — J

This is exactly backwards. Philosophical conceptions of "a view of reality absolutely uninterpreted by human perspectives and limitations" include Kant's noumena and Lao Tzu's Tao, along with many others in just about all philosophies. Science has nothing to say about this.

Since I was diagnosed with depression, I wanted to get a philosophical approach to why people suffer from this mental state; and on the other hand, if there is another way to get through it apart from medical drugs. — javi2541997

This has been an interesting thread with a whole range of viewpoints, including my personal favorite "Snap out of it." I have been diagnosed with a fairly mild form of bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic-depression disorder, but I am rarely depressed as I normally think about it. It usually manifests as anxiety. I do take drugs, but my advice to those of us who want to really deal with this problem is "Retire." I know @BC will back me up on this. For some reason, many people find this advice unhelpful.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that nothing I say is a denial that depression is largely a physical, biological, I guess medical, condition.

Some more or less philosophical thoughts:

I have come to see philosophy as a practice like meditation, yoga, or tai chi. It's goal is to make us more self-aware. I think this is true of all such practices. I also see psychotherapy as a practice. I was a very unhappy teenager and like many of those, I majored in psychology when I first went to school. Many people who study psychology are searching for answers to their own anguish. That's why so many psychotherapists are as damaged as their clients, why so many couples therapists are divorced.

Philosophy, especially western philosophy, is a practice focusing on how our minds work, our intellect, how we think. As such, it attracts smart, intellectual, verbal people. Philosopher's are people who think too much and the mental illness of choice for those of us who think too much is depression. And then when we look for a solution, we turn to words, even though it is words that got us into trouble in the first place. If psychology is where fucked up people turn for answers to their unhappiness, then philosophy is where smart fucked up people turn. As evidence, I suggest you just take a look at many of the posts here on the forum.

I think I came to a more focused interest in philosophy with a prejudice that modern, western philosophy, at least, is more a place to hide from our problems than to face them. Here on the forum, I met many people for whom that is true. What surprised me, though, is that there were a few people who used philosophy as a tool, almost a weapon, to take on their problems head on. The first time I remember thinking about that was in a thread with my friend TimeLine. She had a very difficult childhood but she was so smart and so self-aware that you could almost feel her struggle up out of the hole she started in using the ideas Kant, Hume, and all those guys. I found it very moving, inspiring. I still do, and it changed the way I feel about philosophy. That doesn't mean I don't think that for many of us philosophy is still a place to hide.

What do you guys think? — Bob Ross

What you have described is one of the primary arguments used by anti-religionists against Christianity. How can you worship a God who does such terrible things? I don't have the knowledge or the inclination to give an answer to that question. I'm not an atheist or a theist, although I went to a Methodist church with my family when I was a kid. I will note the difference between your seven moral imperatives and the 10 commandments. The Old Testament God seems to have had a different understanding of morality than you do.

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.

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.

There being two football teams playing seems to be what happens in cultural wars, whether it is over religion or gender issues. As for 'the same rules', that is where it gets complicated because the war of opposites leads to different agendas and starting points for creation of rules, including moral guidelines. — Jack Cummins

This is from Verse Two of Gia-Fu Fengs translation of the Tao Te Ching -

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Difficult and easy are playing the same game. Front and back are playing the same game. Maybe it would be clearer if I said it’s people playing the game. Distinctions are a game people play.

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

Oops, my answer is “no.”

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.

What is the significance of seeing opposites as complementary? How useful or 'true' are such conceptions and what significance does it make in how life is lived? I would argue that the idea of good and evil as aspects of a larger whole is a fuller picture and one which allows for a less aggressive approach to 'otherness'. I see it as relevant to so much conflict in the world. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

I think if it like two football teams. They’re playing in opposition to each other, but they’re both playing the same game by the same rules.

Positing a final goal isn't less logical than positing a first cause. All events follow the first cause, yet we can't have a first cause without a preceding one, so we're left with an infinite regress. Teleologically, we say every event is for a purpose, yet you can't have a final event that lacks purpose either. — Hanover

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.

Many people here in this thread don’t see it that way and I’ve mostly given up trying to come to any common understanding with them.

If I assemble architects, framers, plumbers, carpenters, landscapers, etc to build me a house, can we not say the teleos of the enterprise is to erect a house, even though the probability of the house coming to be is uncertain? — Hanover

It’s pretty clear that human actions often have goals and purposes. By my reading, the OP raises a broader question of teleology as it applies to the universe as a whole and even to logic.

A lot of work is being done by a lot of different molecules to construct something that will not come to exist in any other way. Is there not intent.. Not thoughts of intent. But the system works toward something in the future. If there is intention here, then human or other outside intervention is not needed for intention. — Patterner

I looked at a few definitions of “intention” on the web. They fell into two groupings 1) as a near synonym for goal or purpose 2) as a mental state. The first definition is no help, since the presence of a goal or purpose is the question on the table here. The second definition clearly does not include the actions of DNA.

It's also a reminder that what matters to me is probably not much constrained by "what ought to matter" -- if there is such a thing. — J

Beyond that, what matters to me isn’t necessarily the same thing that matters to you. I see this as a really personal question, at least for me.

But I'm also thinking about an idea mattering. I take T Clark to mean, more or less, that they'll pursue a philosopher depending on whether the ideas are in some way intriguing or important. I certainly do the same. And yet . . . the ideas in almost any work of philosophy interest me, when viewed from the correct angle. If it's good philosophy, it's going to intrigue me, and most of my candidates for reading are good philosophers. So why this one rather than that one? Rorty used to say that he just didn't have an itch where some philosophers wanted to scratch. And vice versa, I suppose. — J

Yes, intriguing or important to me, not necessarily anyone else. The way I feel seems a lot like what Rorty is describing.

How this fits into an aesthetic appreciation, I'm not sure, but "an idea that matters to me" seems to be square in the middle of why I'll read the next book I'll read. — J

Thinking more about this, I guess everything I’ve said boils down to me being interested in what I find satisfying, not necessarily what I find beautiful. Is that an aesthetic judgment?

Again, a bizarre non sequitur. Even accepting your caricature, what does this have to do with establishing a goal or purpose for the universe? — SophistiCat

As I said to Pierre-Normand, there’s no way you and I are going to come to a common understanding on this.

All of the aesthetic aspects to philosophy are by-products.

The ideas are the products. — Fire Ologist

Agreed.

It’s the ideas that matter.
— T Clark

Or, what he said. — Fire Ologist

Not sure what you mean by this.

"Cuz it's pretty to me"? — Moliere

Because it’s useful to me - intellectually or practically.

Sorry, it was my second post on this thread.

Why "intuition"?” — Moliere

Did you read my first post in this thread? Maybe you don’t want to call what I’ve described “intuition,” although I think that’s a good word for it. I talk a lot about intuition here on the forum and that’s how I experience it.

Hey man, I’m the resident mystic here (or at least the one who admits it). I know what you’re saying and have many ideas about this stuff. Ideas I couldn’t explain to the others, or if I could they’d dismiss it as wishful thinking or something like that. You have to accept that the people here are philo — Punshhh

This would be fine if he were presenting this as philosophy or spiritualism, but he’s presenting it as science.

I don't want to oversimplify. In a way I think this is similar to saying "Because they're true" -- everyone can answer that, so it doesn't get at a philosophical explanation for why there's a difference in choices. — Moliere

I think I explained what I meant by intuition pretty clearly in my first post.

Frank's Common Patterns of Nature is a great paper on this – https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3507 — apokrisis

This looks like a great paper. Thanks.