Introducing James Barham; Parts 3 & 4 (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, August 21, 2015, 20:15 (3381 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We need to think carefully about this term “teleology”. Does he mean purpose, or does he mean divine purpose?
DAVID: As I read him it is purposeful activity by the organism.-I think so too, but there is a degree of ambiguity in the word, and the question of the source of cellular intelligence is always in the background.-BARHAM: “Thus, the evolutionary process has depended upon the inherent, teleological capability of all living things to adapt themselves to circumstances, within and without. It is this capability that explains evolution, not the other way around.”
Dhw: Evolution doesn't explain anything; it's a process.-DAVID: He is not having evolution explain anything. Look again. He is saying the teleology of adaptation appears to explain the process of evolution.-“The other way round” would mean evolution explaining the capability, and I am pointing out that nobody would claim that it does, because evolution doesn't explain anything. This is one of several devices used to try and discredit the theory (like pretending that natural selection is offered as an explanation for cellular intelligence).
 
dhw: So instead of random mutations and natural selection explaining evolution, we now have purposeful mutations and natural selection as our explanation. We do not have an explanation for the intelligence that organizes the purposeful mutations.
DAVID: Agreed. but we have the problem of explaining the source of the intelligent information the organisms are using.-That is what I mean by not having an explanation for the intelligence, which you prefer to call “intelligent information”.-BARHAM: “The point is simply this: Organisms of all sorts are capable of intelligent, goal-directed, adaptive behavior that cannot possibly be accounted for on the basis of the theory of natural selection.”
DHW: Of course they can't. The argument is a non sequitur. Their intelligent behaviour is accounted for by their intelligence.
DAVID: Which developed how?-Same problem. Nobody knows the source. This discussion is about how evolution works: Chapter 2 of life, not Chapter 1.-BARHAM: “The main task of Darwinian theory is to "reduce" teleology and normativity to mechanism.”
dhw: Interestingly, the main task of Turellian theory is to promote teleology through mechanism, since David believes God's purpose could only be achieved by preprogramming and dabbling, which would make all organisms into automatons: the exact opposite of Barham and Shapiro's claims.
DAVID: Not exactly. Neither provide us with a source of the intelligence. If naturally developed, it would require immediate analysis of experienced stimuli quickly enough to survive rapid changes in stressful environment changes, either in climate or new predators.-Same again, and again. The issue between you and Barham/Shapiro/me is your insistence that cells are automatons and not autonomous, intelligent beings. The source is a different subject.-DAVID: My comment: Obviously organisms have built-in adaptation guides; source?
dhw: Not obvious at all, since clearly Barham and Shapiro attribute autonomous intelligence to organisms. Source? Shapiro refuses to be drawn. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility of a designer God. I don't believe in it, but I don't believe in any of the alternatives either, though one of them must be true!-DAVID: Since you accept cause and effect, list in your head the possible causes or the intelligence and tell me which is most realistic from your viewpoint.-From my point of view, there is no “most realistic”. I acknowledge the possibility of your God, of some sort of panpsychist evolution, and of chance (given an eternity and infinity of material combinations). I can't go further than that.-QUOTE: "Teleology---or goal-directedness, or purposiveness---is a manifest property of practically all biological phenomena. It has been considered anathema since the time of Francis Bacon, because it has seemed impossible to square with ordinary physical causation. Homeodynamics is valuable, above all, as a way of reconceptualizing teleology in biology.-"Traditionally, teleology has been considered unacceptable because it seems to presuppose either "backwards causation" or else a mind capable of forming conscious intentions." (MY BOLD)-"The former is unacceptable because it seems impossible that a non-actual, future state of affairs (the goal state) should causally influence the present. The latter is unacceptable because most biological systems apparently lack a mind in the relevant sense of a capacity for forming conscious intentions.”(David's bold)-David: Note he removes 'mind', which is my point.-You have ignored the paragraph that precedes your bold (and which I have now put in bold). He is explaining why teleology has been traditionally rejected (whereas he accepts it): namely, backward causation or the APPARENT lack of a mind. He does NOT agree with these “traditional” reasons. You are clutching at straws. He has already said explicitly that he shares Shapiro's view of cells as autonomous intelligent beings.