BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/390480

How is it that an object, a human, every part of which has purpose, itself as a whole, lacks purpose or, more accurately, if a human has purpose, why hasn't it been discovered? — TheMadFool

I would make a distinction between the mechanical function of a body part, and the teleological purpose of the whole person. Function is simply a consistent input-output ratio. You input Energy and get useful Work as the output. But human Purpose implies Ambition or Aspiration. It requires the ability to imagine a possible future state, and to control functional body parts in such a way as to achieve that preferred outcome. Human purpose is not merely motivated by physical energy, but by metaphysical intentions.

The willful purpose of a single human is made manifest in the person's behavior. We can intuit their intentions from their actions. But the Purpose Problem for collective humanity is usually based on the assumption of a role & goal that is assigned by a higher power, not by the individual's will-power. The Bible revealed the divine purpose of humanity in Genesis : to serve God as gardeners & shepherds, following orders without asking any "why" questions. In other words, the purpose of humanity is to serve as will-less functional slaves for God's Will : "Thy will be done . . ." However, "Unprofitable servants" are expendable, as illustrated in the story of Noah's Flood.

God's ultimate teleological Purpose for the created world seems to be similar to that of a typical absolute ruler of human societies : Kings, Pharaohs, War Lords, Dictators, Tyrants. His servants tend the gardens & flocks, and bring him "sacrifices" for his sustenance and pleasure. So he can "walk in the garden in the cool of the day". In this scenario, God's purpose is to enjoy the power & glory provided by his servants. The servant's Purpose, then, is basically his inherited or assigned job description, or Function, as Gardener, Shepherd, etc.

For those who don't accept the biblical stories though, you are left without a divinely designated purpose or role in the Grand Plan for the planet. That is the dilemma addressed by Existentialism, which by contrast with scripture, viewed humans as Freewill Agents. Hence, each of us must define the Purpose or Meaning of our own lives. Therefore, if you need an ultimate goal to make your life worthwhile, you'll have to "discover" your teleological Purpose for yourself. As for the ultimate destiny of the world, your guess is as good as mine.

Probably, most of us will just continue to do what we are already doing, without giving the teleological destination much thought. They may be too lazy or apathetic to work for themselves, so merely wait for orders from above. A few self-motivated individuals, though, will define their own teleological destiny --- at least to the extent that they can control the contingencies of the indifferent world, that doesn't share their motives. What's your teleological target?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/391336

What success we enjoy as a species, we owe ultimately to our capacity to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. This is what we seem uniquely built for. — Possibility

Well put! Humans collectively are the apex Witnesses, Weavers, and Workers of the World. Our job, our role in the evolving universe, is to know & appreciate the wonders of the world; to assist in its construction by bringing together disparate things (enzyme, catalyst); and to work together toward making it a better place to live (communion, concert, harmony). Some thinkers have proposed that the divine purpose of humanity is to act as the eyes, ears, and hands of God in the world. In that sense, we are the Demiurge, assisting the Designer in creating an ideal world (Utopia) from the raw materials of Nature. Of course, others, with no sense of teleology, opine that humans are a cancer blighting the beauties of impersonal inhuman Nature --- rosy red in tooth and claw.

How are we doing, so far? Humanity emerged on the scene late in the progression from Max Potential of the Singularity to the current half-baked state of affairs. So, our Science is just beginning to wrest control of the laws of nature, in order to impose our collective Will on the foundations of reality, and to erect a super-structure of ideality, of human teleology. To explore the Possibilities of raw Potential.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/391336

I wonder if the the metaphors of violence, competition and force here are unconscious. Sounds vaguely fascist to me. I think removing the divine shtick and leaving the self-organizing teleology could help fix this. — Joshs

The forceful wording was tongue-in-cheek, because I'm aware that some people view humans as a cancer on the natural world. So those "trigger words" might get a rise from "tree-hugging liberals". But it also stated a harsh truth, that humanity has "selfish goals" that are different from those of indifferent Nature. In that sense, humans are indeed forcing their will upon the natural order. So, the term "teleology" was referring to the future orientation of human planning, not necessarily to any long-range plans of deity.

Hence, the metaphors of "violence, competition, and force" were appropriate from a historical perspective. It's only in recent years --- perhaps since the "blue marble" images from space --- that humans have decided to curb their selfish Will to align better with the "will" and "teleology" of Nature. Even so, humans have become the new driving force of Evolution, and are collectively steering the world toward a future that is anything but natural --- if proponents of Technological Singularity are correct, the future will be increasingly artificial. And imagining a return to the Garden of Eden is wishful thinking.


Technological Singularity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tree-hugging liberals : phrase in quotes is also tongue-in-cheek. I'm a bit of a tree-hugger myself, but I'm also realistic -- not fascist -- about the "nature" of humanity.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/391336

I think a conceptual ‘God’ is a useful reference in discussions of teleology - in many ways it keeps us from assuming that we’ve already figured it all out. — Possibility

Thanks. That is exactly what I have in mind, when I bow to necessity for a First Cause that set Nature on its current course. The law-guided program of natural evolution has eventually produced conscious agents with wills of their own. And the collective will of humanity is directed toward -- what we imagine to be -- the welfare of homo sapiens. It's only in the current generation that we have learned the hard way, that --- although we may have the power --- it's self-defeating to fight Nature. So the welfare of humanity is inextricably linked with the course of Nature, and with the teleological destination of the whole universe --- whatever that might be. We are passengers on this vehicle, but we can make ourselves as comfortable as possible in our little milieu, which may eventually expand beyond the Blue Marble.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/391336

Just because you have an input and output of anything doesn't mean that things don't occur for a specific functional purpose. Just because "things occur" doesn't mean that they don't have a guided purpose or a way expressing what they are. You can create a speculative judgement of what certain types of behaviors mean in terms of a universal concept. — Marty

If the Output is equal to the Input, there is no sign of Purpose, only Function. The distinction between "Function" and "Purpose" lies in what happens between the Input and Output.

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.

"To Purpose" is to intend, and intention is the key to teleology. It requires a look ahead to some future possibility, a value judgment, and an action to set a course in the preferred direction. Only the intentional agent knows for sure what the reason (intended goal) was. Nevertheless, an onlooker might "create a speculative judgment" of the meaning or purpose of that otherwise inexplicable course change. We infer the intention by the results of the action. If the end is not in sight, we can still infer intention by recognizing a steady tendency in an otherwise random background.

A Teleological process follows from an intentional act. Which is why Atheists deny any signs of intention or purpose in Evolution. Goal-directed natural activity would imply a "universal concept" : a value judgment of a preferred outcome. Which, in turn, would necessitate the setting of a non-random course within Possibility Space toward a specified goal, or in any consistent direction (e.g. the Arrow of Time) . Such a purposeful process would require Laws to limit the ways things & events interact, and it would need some kind selection filter to weed-out anything on the wrong course. So, Natural Laws and Natural Selection are signs of Intention.

Signs of Purpose within randomness :
Tendency
Intention
Consistent

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... of-life/p2

"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

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.

Humans have an advantage over cheetahs in that they can consciously collect data, and then logically or mathematically predict the future state of a system. Such formal inference reaches a conclusion via analysis of evidence, then logically progressing the current state into the "foreseeable" future (via imagination). For example, if a human predator wants to "bag" an antelope, he uses the accumulated data & deductions of previous humans to shoot a bullet that moves much faster than the antelope. But, even with that technological edge, the hunter still must use subconscious inference to know just how much to "lead" the antelope, in order to predict where it will be when the bullet arrives at the same spot.

So, we assess the future, and make our teleological plans on the basis of collected evidence of how the system in question (SIQ) works (normal behavior). Then we use conscious calculation (formal inference) to predict the future state of the SIQ (target or goal) at the time our personal system is in the right place at the right time. Even then, we must make intuitive adjustments to the rational estimate, in order to make allowances for unknowns and uncertainties (abnormal behavior).

However, some astute observers & intuiters deliberately "omit" certain signs of Teleology, because they don't like the implications that the future is pre-determined by some intentional agent --- a programmer outside the system --- rather than being completely random & unpredictable. So, they focus their calculations on "certain properties" that are irrational and unpredictable. Consequently, unlike the cheetah, they don't take into consideration the fact that the target has predictable tendencies that can be exploited to reach "veridical" projections. Teleology skeptics are motivated to ignore signs of certain systemic tendencies that might lead them to conclude that the system was governed by intention. Laws and conditions -- Yes, but teleological intentions -- No. Hence, the "projection" of the future they "see" is missing certain "veridical precepts" that could point to Intention in Evolution.


How Does Intuition Work ? : Intuition is not a bug, but a feature of our psychology. Yet it is part of our brain’s ability to comprehend our territory, inner and outer, not something detached ‘out there.’ The messages we receive are important, just not magical.
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spiri ... ition-work

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... of-life/p2

Billiard balls appear to operate only on a two-dimensional plane, but this isn’t the case - they’re three-dimensional objects. — Possibility

Come on, "-billi-"! Don't complicate my simple mundane analogy with cubic possi-bili-ties.

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

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.

The "apparent" program of Nature cannot be completely open-ended, since the physical universe has a limited lifespan. 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. Therefore, yes, we agree that the specific Form of The End is not pre-specified, AFAIK. Which suggests to me that it's the ever-learning evolutionary process that is important.

Tomorrow I may expand upon the notion of "apparent teleology", but for now, Namaste!

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... of-life/p2

I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know. — Possibility

OK. But that spherical reference went right over my pointy head.

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

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?

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".

Out of curiosity, what other inherent contingencies do you envisage? — 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.

Also, some contingencies are totally unexpected, and have greater effects than others. One example is the asteroid impact (literally out of the blue) that killed-off the dinosaurs and allowed tiny mammals to thrive. Was this an accident, or was it a step in some cosmic plan to evolve a bipedal animal with hands and big brains? Looking forward from the Big Bang, such an event would seem unlikely. But, in retrospect, it seems almost inevitable --- at least to those who see Cosmic Patterns in mundane events. Astrologers had the right intuition, but the wrong "science".

A contingency is unexpected, so it's hard to prepare for. But Evolutionary Programming makes use of the innate creativity of contingency to derive creative solutions to current problems. Scientists emulate Progressive Creation by plagiarizing the Evolutionary Algorithm and the Genetic Algorithm from the programming of natural selection. It's the existence of those directional algorithms that leads me to infer that a programming "entity" or "phenomenon" set the Big Bang on its course to some Final Contingency : the Problem Solution.

Contingency : "a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty".

Evolutionary Programming : http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature- ... mming.html

Algorithm : "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations",

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... of-life/p2

↪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

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.

There was in fact a divide between Nature and Human Culture for 14 billion years. And, after a few thousand years of homo sapiens, we are still learning how to align human-centered aims with those of impersonal nature. In my personal view, Nature has its own teleology, within which humanity may be necessary --- or not. It's too soon to say for sure. At this point in time, there is still a clear distinction between Nature and Human Artifice.

I don't understand the teleology of Nature well enough to make such a bold statement as "we are nothing but . . ." Yet for my own purposes, I assume that the emergence of humanity --- if not the ultimate goal of evolution --- was at least a step on the ladder.


Man vs Nature : https://www.livescience.com/16388-clima ... ature.html

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-of-life

But they are not observed, nor do they happen - we perceive potential which points to their possible existence, — Possibility

???Does not compute.
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?

Dimensional awareness, connection and collaboration manifests as relational structure. — 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:

Is the concept of "Dimensional Awareness" related to Multiverse/Many Worlds/String Theory speculations, or to Rob Bryanton's 10th Dimension conception, or to Gevin Giorbran's Everything Forever notion --- which, although way over my head, inspired my own website of Enformationism with the suggestion of Time within Timelessness.

So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level. — 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.


Imagining the 10th Dimension : https://www.tenthdimension.com/

The 10th Dimension : https://thetartan.org/2012/11/12/scitech/ten-dimensions

Everything Forever : http://everythingforever.com/