https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-of-life
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
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.
Apparently the human big brain allows us to extend our knowledge of future possibilities much farther into the future than other animals. But even so, such predictions seem to be limited by the Inverse Square Law of physics : the intensity (accuracy) of a prophecy gets weaker as the distance (in time) gets greater. So, human teleology is not very useful for anticipating events beyond a couple of weeks. The farther-off the event, the more general the picture. Beyond a few years, prophets and prognosticators are reduced to predicting history and tautologies.
So, Cosmic Teleology, in the sense of this thread, requires a Mind that is not limited by physical restrictions. But, that would also entail the power of intention : purposeful behavior that is self-serving. The OP was concerned with " the teleological paradox: the parts having purpose but the whole (apparently) lacking purpose." Hence, limited human teleology can only serve short-range purposes or intentions. Only a Cosmic Deity could accurately anticipate "empirical events" billions of years in the future. Consequently, our little short-range self-serving purposes can only overcome the paradox by somehow also serving the Greater Purpose of the Ultimate Teleologist --- with knowledge that is pertinent to all. Which is apparently what most religions are trying to do by simply sucking-up to (worshiping) the One Who Knows All. But, their scriptural guesses about the Ultimate Purpose are also limited by the Law of Illumination --- hence, the paradox.
Phil Forum : Human Teleology - Meaning of Life
Re: Phil Forum : Human Teleology - Meaning of Life
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-of-life
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 the evidence in time, the thing or event. — Possibility
"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.
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 the evidence in time, the thing or event. — Possibility
"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.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Teleology - Meaning of Life
So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level — 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?
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?
Re: Phil Forum : Human Teleology - Meaning of Life
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-of-life
I don't understand how ego-driven activity isn't teleological. — Marty
Who said it wasn't?
And I don't understand how inferences are a mechanism. — Marty
Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism.
This isn't disproving teleology. — 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.
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.
Enformationism Teleology : 1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html
I don't understand how ego-driven activity isn't teleological. — Marty
Who said it wasn't?
And I don't understand how inferences are a mechanism. — Marty
Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism.
This isn't disproving teleology. — 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.
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.
Enformationism Teleology : 1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html
Re: Phil Forum : Human Teleology - Meaning of Life
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-of-life
There's obviously a distinction between intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology. You don't need intention for a teleological cause. — 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.
Evolution, Teleology, Intentionality : https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/p ... oltele.htm
Accidental "causes" are non-intentional , but also non-teleological : no goal. Intentional causes are teleological by definition : goal directed. "To Intend" is to focus on (turn toward) a specific objective. n'est-ce pas?
There's obviously a distinction between intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology. You don't need intention for a teleological cause. — 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.
Evolution, Teleology, Intentionality : https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/p ... oltele.htm
Accidental "causes" are non-intentional , but also non-teleological : no goal. Intentional causes are teleological by definition : goal directed. "To Intend" is to focus on (turn toward) a specific objective. n'est-ce pas?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests