TPF : Objection to Teleology

[Gnomon]

That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done. — T Clark

I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. They are not scientific factual assertions, but personal philosophical perspectives. My opinions may sound confident, because I have given them a lot of thought, and presented my thesis on a webpage. Besides, I have replied to similar "claims" repeatedly ad infinitum on this forum. For example, the post linked below in the FreeWill thread treats the Teleological argument without specifically mentioning it.

If you need more than that, my blog has several posts on the topic of Teleology : Post 7 -- Enformation : Process of Creation (teleological tendencies) : Post 15 -- Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism (teleological implications) ; Post 33 -- What is EnFormAction? (teleological direction) ; Post 60 -- Teleological Evolution (phase changes, emergences, speciations). If you will PM me, I can give you links to to these and many other detailed essays on similar topics, each with lots of explanatory sidenotes & links to other information. My opinions are definitely not expressed as "unquestionable". There is a blog forum where you can post your criticism in more specific terms.

Evolutionary Emergence of Freewill :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/654052

[Gnomon]

I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny. — T Clark

Denial is easy; understanding is hard.

Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. But, if you compare the present state of the universe to its original state, the cosmic scale of change is undeniable. It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events.

If you are thinking in terms of Moral progress though, then that's an ethical question, which is always up for debate, because there is no objective empirical evidence, just subjective personal beliefs. Philosophical questions are seldom "obvious", even though some axioms are considered to be "self evident" --- progress is not axiomatic or factual. So, we argue analogies & metaphors.

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. Of course "teleological" or "logical" or "ethical" progression is another story. What kind of evolutionary change would you look for to determine whether evolution is "progressive" or "digressive" or "static"? You'll need to define your terms.

Evolutionary Progress? :
That the history of life on Earth manifests some sort of progress has seemed obvious to many biologists.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/art ... 451/264248

FWIW, If you Google "progressive speciation", you can make your own list of expert opinions.
"Speciation results from the progressive accumulation of mutations . . ."
"species represent progressive stages . . ."
"Progressive levels of trait divergence . . . "

"Adams suggests that there is such a thing as moral progress, ..."
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blog ... gress.html
seconds ago
Options

[Gnomon]

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


Barrow and Tipler didn’t invent the notion of an Anthropic (human oriented) Principle in Nature. They merely digested many different cosmological theories over centuries into a form that is amenable to the technical and mathematical format of modern science. They “traced the history of the underlying world-view in which it has germinated”. . . . However, the authors prefer the term “eutaxiological”, which means that the end state is unknown (i.e. no prophecy), and implies that the Process may be the Purpose. But first, they address the Copernican assumption (rule of thumb), underlying most of modern cosmology. Which asserts as a “principle” – based on 17th century observations – that “we [humans] do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe”. To which, the authors reply that “our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers”.
excerpt from BothAnd Blog, post 116

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Di ... ion-of.png

[Gnomon]

And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do. — T Clark

You put your finger on the difference between my general philosophical worldview and your specific scientific paradigm. I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. Someone once asked him where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.

Most "hard" scientists, in their dissection of nature, take a reductive & analytical approach to their work. But philosophers are dealing with imaginary metaphysical Ideas, not carving reality at its physical joints. So, you might expect that their methods should be adapted to their invisible & intangible subject (non-)matter. Ironically, some philosophers, perhaps goaded by physics envy, attempt to apply the same methods that work on the whats of material objects, to their study of the whys of mental concepts.

Aristotle distinguished between hard & soft science by dividing his treatise into two books. He considered both to be relevant to Phusis (Greek for Nature). But recognized that objective nature and subjective human culture required different approaches. That's why the book we now know as The Meta-Physics is not based on direct observation & physical dissection, but on conversation & rational analysis.

What I'm saying here is that we are talking past each other. When I present concepts of "soft" science, you interpret them as-if they are assertions of "hard" science. That's why you still don't understand what I mean by "progressive" evolution. You may interpret that to mean Quantitative improvement, while I'm talking about Qualitative advancement. But, there is no natural empirical evidence for Qualia. So, all we have to go on is human opinions. Are you better-off than a cave-man? Your opinion (or belief) is just as true as mine : it's a no-win tug-of-war, because the rope is stretchy.

That's why hard science makes rapid physical progress in controlling Nature, while soft philosophy keeps rehashing the same old questions about Human Nature & Culture. Beliefs & Opinions, even those of experts, are always debatable. And Philosophy is not progressive in any empirical sense. Hence, the threads on this forum that go in circles for months without reaching a consensus. The only intellectual progress is within the individual mind. My personal worldview is sharpened by grinding against the rough edges of hard science.


Hard vs Soft Sciences :
Hard sciences use math explicitly, they have more control over the variables and conclusions. They include physics, chemistry and astronomy. Soft sciences use the process of collecting empirical data then use the best methods possible to analyze the information. ... They include economics, political science and sociology.
https://www.usu.edu/today/story/whats-t ... e-rages-on

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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Teleonomy and Evolution :
Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/teleo ... evolution/

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer :
"Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized."
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567

[Gnomon]

No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo

Yes, really.

The authors of the ACP book I quoted go beyond the mere evidence of a "selection effect" to imply that Darwin's aimless "Natural Selection" was found, on a cosmic scale, to be -- lawfully and seemingly intentionally -- directed toward the emergence of animated Life, and eventually of intentional Mind. This then-novel notion was not quite as outrageous as some made it out to be. Darwin based his own term on the future-oriented intentions of human breeders, who deliberately set-out to produce sheep with more wool, and dogs with specialized sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Of course, Darwin was reluctant to express the obvious religious implication of design in nature. Yet, ACP is still technically Natural selection, because it predates human Cultural Selection

However, those theoretical physicists, a century later, were aware of Darwin's dilemma : both theists and atheists were outraged at his unorthodox theory. So, they were hesitant to use the touchy term "Teleology", and substituted the less familiar words "Teleonomy" or "Eutaxiology". That minor distinction only meant that they didn't claim to "know" (e.g. by revelation) the ultimate goal of the progressive process. They merely interpreted the evidence to-date as Anthropological or Anthropogenic in direction.

Since then, some have looked even further into the future, envisioning "trans-human" cybernetic successors to the homo sapiens species. Anyway, the fierce ferment among theorists has resulted in a hierarchy of interpretations of the abstract numerical evidence presented. The Weak AP was merely a current status report, as you noted. But the Strong AP says that "Our existence is the end goal of a plan". And the authors of the book go on to propose an even more radical "Final AP".

So, if this 21st century version of Teleology sounds un-orthodox to you, it's in good company with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Schrodinger et al, who introduced disruptive novel paradigms into the philosophical conversation, and in the expanding scientific understanding of the ever-surprising underlying actuality of apparent Reality.. But. don't blame me --- if your settled worldview is threatened by positive Evolution. I'm just the reporter of good news for the future of the living & thinking Cosmos.

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes ...
___Wikipedia
Note -- How could human purposefulness arise from a random confluence of atoms?

Eutaxiology (from the Greek eu – good, and tax – order) is the philosophical study of order and design. It is distinguished from teleology in that it does not focus on the purpose or goal of a given structure or process, merely the degree and complexity of the structure or process
___Wikipedia

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .” In fact, they extrapolate beyond Carter’s limited WAP to speculate on the ultimate destiny of the universe, taking not only a Strong interpretation (SAP), but going so far as to present a Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). They express their confidence in no uncertain terms : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. ___Barrow & Tipler, physicists,
BothAnd Blog, post 116

"prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” ___J.A. Wheeler, theoretical physicist.
BothAnd Blog, post 116

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. ____John D. Barrow
https://philpapers.org/rec/BARTAC-2

↪T Clark
↪180 Proof

[Gnomon]

And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of. — T Clark

I'm sorry if I blasphemed your idol by calling him "soft". I meant no disrespect. Instead, I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. For those not conversant with the arcane conventions of mathematics, he described his thought experiments in metaphorical imagery, such as trains & elevators. Would you like to suggest a less offensive way to denote the difference between pragmatic demonstrative science and theoretical speculative philosophy?

[Gnomon]

No, not really. The anthropic principle, at least in the form that is respectable/generally accepted, is basically just a tautology, — Seppo

Oh really? The book I reviewed is indeed not "generally accepted". And the authors were aware that they were going beyond the conservative interpretation of WAP, to propose a more radical perspective. So, they support their conclusion with a lot of technical data that was way over my head. If you are more into the math, maybe you can critique them on scientific facts instead of their unpopular interpretation. Obviously, their proposed new paradigm of cosmology is not accepted by the old guard who defend a more traditional reductive worldview.

Weak, Strong, and Final Cosmologies :
But this book is mostly concerned with the anthropogenic implications of current scientific knowledge. Which, they claim, reveals a “series of mysterious coincidences between the numerical values of the fundamental constants of Nature”. And they also contend that “our picture of the universe and its laws are influenced by an unavoidable selection effect . . . this self-selection principle . . . is usually called the Weak Anthropic Principle”(WAP). Since the WAP is essentially a tautology, it only implies that those coincidental values and laws are consistent with the emergence of Life, but doesn’t imply design or specify the humanoid species.
BothAnd Blog, post 116

I'm hoping that you're misrepresenting them, because this is a mess. "Natural selection" was not found "on a cosmic scale" because natural selection in Darwin's sense, and in the sense that is actually well-established, pertains to a selection effect on biological organisms — Seppo

I agree that your emotional response to a brief overview of a complex scientific proposal is "a mess". But, until you read the book itself you have no grounds for concluding that I'm misrepresenting the meaning of a book on cutting-edge Cosmology. The authors were physicists, and expanding Darwin's notion beyond its limited biological application up to a universal & cosmic scale. What you say is "well-established" is what they intended to dis-establish. Theirs is a Cosmological Argument based on 20th century science instead of medieval theology. Their rationale is an attempt to scientifically explain the emergence of homo sapiens, instead of dismissing such an improbable event as a mere random accident of impersonal Fate.

Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion [WAP]. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .”
BothAnd Blog, post 116

Anthropocentric vs Cosmocentric :
"Voltaire’s contemporary, skeptical philosopher David Hume, following the new deductive & reductive scientific methodology, reasoned that “the Design Argument is unscientific”. Which is true, because it is an inductive & holistic form of reasoning, which allows inference to leap over gaps in knowledge. But then, Inference, from known to unknown, is always based on incomplete information."
BothAnd Blog, post 116

Ah yes, I reel in terror from the daring and heroic Internet Truth-Speaker, wreaking havok on our "settled worldviews" with his speculative religious philosophy and pseudoscience.. — Seppo

Your emotional reaction to blasphemy of revered Scientific Truth sounds similar to Muslim's outrage at any criticism of the Holy Koran. Science is not "settled" or static. Like sharks & evolution, Science must progress or die. I don't agree with all of the authors' speculations. But theirs is not a "religious" or "pseudoscience" notion. It is not presented as an argument from authority, but from evidence. And is always open to counter-evidence. In any case, your scandalized outburst is not a philosophical critique. It sounds more like a religious defense of divinely revealed Truth.

SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
The purpose of this non-profit organization Science Is Never Settled is to remind people of what all good scientists know, science is never settled.
https://scienceisneversettled.com/

Is the science settled? No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties.
https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

[Gnomon]

This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. — T Clark

I didn't say that Einstein was "incorrect", I merely noted that he was a theoretical scientist instead of an empirical researcher. So, I agree with the second part of your reply. But, the first part completely missed my point. Smells like raw sausage. Yum! :joke:

[Gnomon]

And what does this mundane pool analogy tell of the eternal? — Hanover

The analogy points to how we distinguish intentional patterns from random activity : by rational inference from physical evidence. If you imagine the unknown Intender as the Bible-god, that's your prerogative. But. I don't.

The authors of the book I reviewed went into great detail to show how they arrived at the conclusion of premeditated creation behind the mathematical patterns of physical reality. A court of law uses the same reasoning to decide between an accidental death and intentional murder. But such inference cannot identify the one who did the planning, unless there is circumstantial evidence, such as blood stains or powder burns on the accused.

That's why the authors provide a trail of evidence pointing to an unknown perpetrator that is not in the courtroom, hence outside the system of space-time. They didn't pretend to know the unknowable. They just projected the trail of evidence into the future, to imply that the full intention has not yet been achieved. So the Cause of the creative pattern is still at large.


legal definition of intent :
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com › intent

[Gnomon]

I've already pointed out that the attribution of intentionality or purpose to the universe is not supported by any established empirical results or models- that it is a speculative proposal that some scientists evidently hold as a matter of personal theology or metaphysics. — Seppo

And you know this absolute scientific fact how? Have you ever looked into models of reality that go beyond "established" (settled) opinion? Of course, not all hypothetical speculations are correct, but some may be the heralds of a new paradigm in science. That's why the first rule of both Science and Philosophy is to keep an open mind. And the second rule is to be skeptical of your own settled beliefs.

The responses that I'm getting on this thread, referring to "established" or "settled" Science, fall into the category that Thomas Kuhn called "conservative resistance" to a new worldview. We are indeed in a revolutionary era, that perhaps began with Big Bang & Relativity & Quantum & Information theories. They were stubbornly resisted by believers in the Classical Materialism of 17th & 18th century worldviews. But the aftershocks & implications of those matter-melting revolutions are still unfolding in the 21st century.

For example, Neuroscience and Information science are expanding the boundaries of the establishment belief system of earlier paradigms to include the observer in the observation. We are no longer able to ignore the effects of the observer's beliefs & intentions on the statistical foundations of Reality. That's why hypothetical (speculative) proposals --- to make sense of quantum nonsense and cosmic mysteries --- abound. For instance, Cosmic Inflation was an unproveable hypothesis, intended to avoid the implication of Big Bang as a creation event. Do you want to forbid any questioning of settled opinions, as the Amsterdam Rabbis reacted to Spinoza's "heretical" critique of the Torah?

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions :
His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. . . . According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. . . . This conservative resistance to the attempted refutation of key theories means that revolutions are not sought except under extreme circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

The power of intention has the ability to literally change the shape of our brains. This process is known as neuroplasticity - the brain's soft and interchangeable potential, stimulated through repetition of a particular behaviour.
https://www.balance-festival.com/Journa ... Intentions

Why is speculation forbidden in science? :
Speculation is not completely forbidden in science. In fact, used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be quite useful.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/0 ... n-science/

Cosmic Inflation? :
A final question lies at the very borderline of science, but has recently become a subject of scientific speculation and even detailed model-building: How and why did the big bang occur? Is it possible to understand, in scientific terms, the creation of a universe ex nihilo (from nothing)?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ph ... -inflation