Does Science really support materialism? Teleological Language In Biology

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Desire evolved.

It’s irrelevant whether desire evolved or not. If we can discern goal direction in the behaviour of an organism, including ourselves, then that’s what it is, and it shouldn’t exist if metaphysical naturalism is true for the reasons i have already argued.

No, evolution is blind as to purpose so anything that results from it is likewise blind. Some people assume purpose because their personal view of the world requires it.

If an amoeba moves from a heat source, it is exhibiting an evolutionary derived response to avoid being one of the ‘less fit’. Does it move with purpose? That is, ‘intentionally’? Not in any accepted meaning of the term. Yet that ‘intention’ evolved into a ‘desire’ to move away from danger. They are one and the same thing. Don’t let the fact that we can consider it philosophically lead you away from that.

 

[IWantGod]

evolution

Evolution is irrelevant.

 

[IWantGod]

If an amoeba moves from a heat source, it is exhibiting an evolutionary derived response to avoid being one of the ‘less fit’. Does it move with purpose? That is, ‘intentionally’? Not in any accepted meaning of the term. Yet that ‘intention’ evolved into a ‘desire’ to move away from danger. They are one and the same thing. Don’t let the fact that we can consider it philosophically lead you away from that.

The fact that evolutionary processes are blind, that is to say physical reality is not trying to create life or produce anything is scientifically correct. The fact that atoms are not trying to survive is not something i reject. But that is a different thing entirely from saying that living organisms do not meaningfully act for the end of survival, that we do not desire to be alive, or that desire in itself is not something that directs us towards objective ends that really exist and corresponds to survival. This is a philosophical position (not science), and it is wrong because there is clearly goal direction in the behaviour of organisms including ourselves. And considering that from a materialist point of view we are entirely made up of physical processes you don’t have the luxury of making a distinction between blind physical processes that do not act for a purpose or with intention and you choosing with intention to go for a drive to get some food to sustain your biological functions.

There is clearly a contradiction in this if we assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but there is no contradiction in holding that evolution is true and teleology is true, especially considering that if organisms didn’t act for their survival then evolution wouldn’t work at all. It’s irrelevant if nature selected-out those organisms that didn’t desire or fight to live, because that doesn’t explain why directionality, goal direction, or intentionality exists in nature .

 

[Bradskii]

There is clearly a contradiction in this if we assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but there is no contradiction in holding that evolution is true and teleology is true, especially considering that if organisms didn’t act for their survival then evolution wouldn’t work at all.

You are misunderstanding evolution. Organisms don’t act in a way to promote their survival. They are simply endowed with features that allow a continuation of their genes…

The difference might seem a matter of semantics, but it’s not. It’s a huuuuge difference in the way the world works. I’m not sure I can explain it to you well enough for you to understand. Which is my problem, not yours.

 

[IWantGod]

You are misunderstanding evolution.

No it is you that does not understand since you keep conflating the theory of evolution with your materialistic bias.

They are simply endowed with features that allow a continuation of their genes…

The goal direction that we find in organisms and ourselves. A teleology that is most evidently expressed in a human-beings intentionality towards particular ends including survival. In fact it’s self-evident and you are in denial.

The difference might seem a matter of semantics, but it’s not.

In your case it is.

 

[Bradskii]

So does a fur coat or fangs or a tendancy to turn towards the light indicate intention?

 

[IWantGod]

So does a fur coat or fangs or a tendancy to turn towards the light indicate intention?

Does your intention to go to work tomorrow so you can put food on the table indicate intention.

(i left the question mark out since it is a rhetorical question after-all.)

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So does a fur coat or fangs or a tendancy to turn towards the light indicate intention?

Does your intention to go to work tomorrow so you can put food on the table indicate intention.

(i left the question mark out since it is a rhetorical question after-all.)

Does my intention…indicate intention? I’m not sure that sort of question is going anywhere at all. Does my desire for a beer indicate desire. Does my fear of snakes indicate fear?

Teleology is meant to indicate the end goal. The ultimate purpose. All the emotions and desires we’ve mentioned serve one purpose. Desire is not there just to keep my beer consumption up and fear is not there just to help me avoid snakes. These and other instincts and emotions have been evolutionary developed to keep us alive long enough to pass on our genes. Period.

Now if staying alive long enough to produce offspring is teleological then go for it. Because that’s what our purpose is in life - to pass on our genes. Everything else is just a side show.

Now that obviously doesn’t align with any religious view, so I guess this is the point where we agree to disagree.

 

[IWantGod]

so I guess this is the point where we agree to disagree.

If your not willing to accept the self-evident fact that there is goal direction in your behaviour, then we have no choice but to disagree. loool

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

so I guess this is the point where we agree to disagree.

If your not willing to accept the self-evident fact that there is goal direction in your behaviour, then we have no choice but to disagree. loool

Goal direction does not equal teleology. You need to consider the end purpose. The end purpose of everything we do (excepting incidental diversions such as art etc) is ultimately that which allows us to survive.

As you said, is going to work goal directed? Yes, but what purpose does it serve. To earn money? Yes, but what purpose does that serve? To buy food? Yes, but what purpose does that serve?

See where that ends up? An ultimate purpose. The end goal. And there’s where we might find teleology.

 

[IWantGod]

Goal direction does not equal teleology.

According to whom? You? Call it what you want, but it will not change the fact that metaphysical-naturalism becomes a contradictory position as soon you admit that there is goal direction.

Teleology or finality is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal. It is derived from two Greek words: telos and logos.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Goal direction does not equal teleology.

According to whom? You? Call it what you want, but it will not change the fact that metaphysical-naturalism becomes a contradictory position as soon you admit that there is goal direction.

Teleology or finality is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal. It is derived from two Greek words: telos and logos.

I mean goal direction as in heading to the fridge for a beer or going to work. You may as well say reaching for a beer is teleological, which makes a nonsense of the term. You need to look for the purpose, and if you are happy to think that the purpose is simply to have a drink, then again, we must agree to disagree.