Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Change is inevitable. Progress is a choice.
Post 45. July 08, 2018
Natural versus Supernatural Teleology Change versus Progress
Before the advent of modern science, the notion of top-down holistic causation, presumably the will of the gods, was a commonly accepted explanation for how living things gradually change form as they grow from acorn into oak tree. Yet scientists no longer assume that gods intervene in natural processes. So their explanation for the emergence of biological forms is driven from the bottom-up, and from within, as in the expression of genetic information. Consequently, the idea of teleology, sequential changes attracted to an end-state, faded. But the notion of ends-as-means1 never went away completely. And that may be due to the fact that the human will is a goal-oriented process. The conscious mind can imagine a future state, and direct the body toward that goal. It's often said that “everything happens for a reason”, but whose reason? Is it only my interpretation of causation, or the consensus of humanity, or is the meaning-of-it-all known only to God?
For scientists, natural processes are normally assumed to have no conscious desires, but by blindly flailing around their actions accidentally result in positive adaptations that are conducive to survival. Their explanation for the “appearance” of teleological progression, is that normally new forms are pre-determined by past forms, but occasionally modified by mutations that introduce novelty. In other words, evolution is pushed by the past instead of being pulled by the future. However, maverick biologist, Rupert Sheldrake, has concluded that the future can influence the past. And the medium for that backward causation is the Morphogenetic Field. It functions as an “attractor”2, causing random processes to coalesce into a few basic stable forms, such as whirlpools and cyclones and life.
With their mechanical cause & effect explanations, scientists believe that they have no need for the concept of divine design. “Darwin killed the design argument . . . Darwin changed a priori design – God's plan – into a posteriori adaptation.” Consequently, the various forms and functions in the world are merely after-thoughts instead of forethoughts. As Darwin so eloquently put it : “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”3. I agree that Darwin-ian evolution is a mechanism so beautiful & functional that it outshines the highest art-forms of human ingenuity & intention : “only God can make a tree”. But man-made machines are beautiful & functional for a reason. So, it's natural for humans to assume that the multifunctional universe also has a reason for being: the appearance of design is perception, not deception.
The Enformationism thesis suggests a BothAnd resolution for the “illusion” of design in nature. Evolution is progressing in the direction of higher & better organization – dead physics to living biology to human psychology – because it is both a bottom-up cause & effect process, and a top-down teleological attractor. By that I mean the “designer” was not a watchmaker, but a programmer, who creates a mechanical system, whose function is to evolve toward an end state 4, which is the purpose of the whole exercise. When a game designer creates, she has some imaginary scenario in mind to guide the step-by-step implement-ation of software & hardware into an experience for the gamers within the artificial world. In the Reality Game though, it's our physical world that we are experiencing as the actors, players, and avatars5.
3. Teleology : Steven Asma says biology needs to understand the purpose -- the telos -- of organisms and systems. Philosophy Now, June/July 2018, Teleology Rises From the Grave
4. Omega Point : Without a direct revelation from the designer, we can only guess at He/r motive. The Bible implies that God, like an insecure king, needs loyal subjects to love him, and to stroke his ego, in return for paternal protection and favoritism. Catholic priest & scientist T. de Chardin, concluded that evolution is a form of reproduction, by which God recreates herself. But what emotion would impel a deity to create imperfect replicas? What was the point of this exercise in evolution? See Note 8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
5. Experience : Surely, the mere emergence of self-conscious and self-directing entities was not the goal of the game. Instead, it must be only the beginning. What marvelous experiences await more advanced players of the game of life?
NEXT
BACK
Forum
