Hi Case > > Teleology however weakened is a vestige of Final Cause. It is the reason > something happens.
DM: Yes, that's my point, complete rejection looks wrong to me. When you talk about an active system there are a range of > probable future states and the system itself may act in a way to make some > more probable than others. A thermostat turns on an off to alter the > temperature of a room. DM: Thermostats act in a determined way most of the time, but this includes breaking down eventually, the timing of which is unpredictable, there may be choice in this timing, i.e nature choses. There are no laws here, a probability always means there is a dynamic & possibly active aspect. You can try to fudge this but it is just trying to cover up what I mean by active. I don't suggest this may not be intentionless, but it may also not intended, this is what we mean by agency/action and we attribute choice to many systems but there is no clear cut line to call some behaviours agentive & others mechanistic or law-like. The agentive ascription of a 'thou' and not an 'it' is one we choose, I see no knock down way to make this choice. > > If you want to limit teleology to some kind of willful effort to influence > probabilities in the direction of some future imagined goal, well maybe. > But > that is a definition of teleology too weak to support the term, in my > view. DM: It is weak but it is part its got the basic form of an end that directs the choices being made and how strong it might get is far from clear cut I'd suggest, even though I think that such 'willing' is likely to be weak in many cases. > > Claiming that there is a purpose in the inanimate, as in, a rock falls > because it values being close to the ground may provide some sense of > identification with our rock nature but it does little to enhance our > understanding of falling bodies. DM: Not an example I'd use. But what about the rock's act of keeping its shape. All process is busy repeating even when it is as static as a rock. > > But if simply giving us the mere illusion of understanding were all the > term > did perhaps it would be benign. But when we think we have found purpose in > nature this lets us off the hook. Purpose, consciousness, intellect are > all > properties that emerge into nature through us. We have a purpose. It is to > be fruitful and multiply. Individually it is whatever we elect it to be > based on our biology and our history. DM: Seems to me there is a judgement call here and its a tricky one. More tricky than you want to admit. It would be an equal mistake to judge human beings to be inanimate automatons but you could and it is not easy to entirely dismiss. The 'feeling' aspect and agentive aspects of behaviour that we call animate begin at some level and most certainly evolve, but at what level, they may be entirely absent is simply impossible to judge and to my mind all behaviour has an active aspect even if this means rigidly'obeying laws' > > In short this talk of inorganic matter having purpose and values strikes > me > as animism. Imbuing the mindless with mind and agency seem to me to be a > regression in understanding not an advance. DM: Why? And why does it give you a twitch? moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
