Materialism is nonsensical

[Sy Borg]

As far as I am concerned, you have not yet asked a sensible question, nor made a single coherent point, that is worthy of a reply. If I missed something in your mess, by all means re-post - and clearly so it's not an eyesore.

Let's take one question at a time. At minimum (among many other questions), you must answer the how, what, where, why, and when did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Can you? Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

All matter has a configuration that is to some extent dynamic and, as far as we know, all configurations apply to matter. This is not controversial.

[3017Metaphysician]

As far as I am concerned, you have not yet asked a sensible question, nor made a single coherent point, that is worthy of a reply. If I missed something in your mess, by all means re-post - and clearly so it's not an eyesore.

Let's take one question at a time. At minimum (among many other questions), you must answer the how, what, where, why, and when did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Can you? Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

All matter has a configuration that is to some extent dynamic and, as far as we know, all configurations apply to matter. This is not controversial.

I'm not following you there. You seem to be saying that molecular configurations somehow produce complex biological systems. You know, genetically coded self-organized properties of matter. How, what, why, when and where did all that happen?

[Sy Borg]

As far as I am concerned, you have not yet asked a sensible question, nor made a single coherent point, that is worthy of a reply. If I missed something in your mess, by all means re-post - and clearly so it's not an eyesore.

Let's take one question at a time. At minimum (among many other questions), you must answer the how, what, where, why, and when did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Can you? Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

All matter has a configuration that is to some extent dynamic and, as far as we know, all configurations apply to matter. This is not controversial.

I'm not following you there. You seem to be saying that molecular configurations somehow produce complex biological systems. You know, genetically coded self-organized properties of matter. How, what, why, when and where did all that happen?

I suggest that you ask those latter questions of scientists. They could tell you better than I can. Self-organisation certainly takes place all the time. IMO evolution does not start with LUCA, but geology

What I am saying is that all matter has a dynamic configuration of some kind. It might be very complex, such as life, or simple like an atom. Meanwhile, all configurations, all patterns, exist in matter as far as we know. That is, there are seemingly no entirely incorporeal forms, only forms that apply to matter. That's where we are up to. Barring some quantum strangeness at insanely small scales, we largely live in a material world, albeit within a complexifying environment.

[3017Metaphysician]

Let's take one question at a time. At minimum (among many other questions), you must answer the how, what, where, why, and when did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Can you? Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

All matter has a configuration that is to some extent dynamic and, as far as we know, all configurations apply to matter. This is not controversial.

I'm not following you there. You seem to be saying that molecular configurations somehow produce complex biological systems. You know, genetically coded self-organized properties of matter. How, what, why, when and where did all that happen?

I suggest that you ask those latter questions of scientists. They could tell you better than I can. Self-organisation certainly takes place all the time. IMO evolution does not start with LUCA, but geology

What I am saying is that all matter has a dynamic configuration of some kind. It might be very complex, such as life, or simple like an atom. Meanwhile, all configurations, all patterns, exist in matter as far as we know. That is, there are seemingly no entirely incorporeal forms, only forms that apply to matter. That's where we are up to. Barring some quantum strangeness at insanely small scales, we largely live in a material world, albeit within a complexifying environment.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like the logical fallacy of an appeal to ignorance. I'm getting a sense of your inability to answer the question. As such, your 'materialism' has yet to make sense. Please clarify if you are able!

[GE Morton]

Here are three definitions from the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"process =
1. something that goes on or is carried on; a continuous action, or series of actions or events; a course or method of action, proceeding, procedure.
2. a continuous and regular action or succession of actions, taking place or carried on in a definite manner, and leading to the accomplishment of some result; a continuous operation or series of operations. (The chief current sense.)
3. natural or involuntary operation; a series of changes or movements taking place."

Regarding #s 1 and 3: We usually consider a "series of actions or events" or a "series of changes or movements" to be a process when we anticipate some result from it. A process is not just any series of changes or events; it is one with a definite starting point and end point --- the end point being the "result." The Earth's orbit around the Sun is a continuous series of changes, but we don't call it a "process." The flow of a river is a continuous action and series of changes, but we don't call that a "process" either.

I think it's useful in ontology to define "process" very broadly as a genus with different species, such that processes consisting in the making of products or artifacts, or ones "bringing about a result"/"leading to the accomplishment of some result" are but one species of process among others. A result of a process is an outcome, effect, or consequence of it; and e.g. "the process of obtaining a driver's license" does bring about a result, viz. the having of a driver's license. But what is e.g. the result of the process of counting from 1 to 100? Not all processes are resultative or productive!

The result of counting to 100 would be the reason the person did it --- perhaps the 2nd grader proving to his teacher that he could do it, and thus earning a gold star. Perhaps a chemist counting 100 seconds to make sure a particular reaction completes.

The point is that we have ample other terms for describing dynamic systems. Conflating them all to "processes" conveys a connotation that they are purposeful, leading to some anticipated or desired result, which in the case of most natural systems is incorrect.

[Sy Borg]

All matter has a configuration that is to some extent dynamic and, as far as we know, all configurations apply to matter. This is not controversial.

I'm not following you there. You seem to be saying that molecular configurations somehow produce complex biological systems. You know, genetically coded self-organized properties of matter. How, what, why, when and where did all that happen?

I suggest that you ask those latter questions of scientists. They could tell you better than I can. Self-organisation certainly takes place all the time. IMO evolution does not start with LUCA, but geology

What I am saying is that all matter has a dynamic configuration of some kind. It might be very complex, such as life, or simple like an atom. Meanwhile, all configurations, all patterns, exist in matter as far as we know. That is, there are seemingly no entirely incorporeal forms, only forms that apply to matter. That's where we are up to. Barring some quantum strangeness at insanely small scales, we largely live in a material world, albeit within a complexifying environment.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like the logical fallacy of an appeal to ignorance. I'm getting a sense of your inability to answer the question. As such, your 'materialism' has yet to make sense. Please clarify if you are able!

Materialism is not mine. In fact, I already said that I'm not a materialist. Please try to keep up.

All I said is that materialism is not ridiculous. That's it. It's a sensible enough assumption, given the evidence, but there are gaps and there's no guarantee that materialism will have the answers. However, it might come up with the answers, or perhaps slight modifications will work out.

A number of forum members hold very confident opinions about the nature of reality. By contrast, I am happy to wait and see what evidence arises and make the occasional guess, while appreciating that definitive answers to the great mysteries may be achieved by future generations, and perhaps based on schemas that have not been yet considered. I don't expect answers to the great questions but I think that positing materialism - with all its gains - as ridiculous is misguided and naive.

If you said materialism was incomplete and not necessarily the be-all-and-end all, I would agree. But instead you chose what I think of as the "tribal warrior" approach - acting as the perspicacious metaphysician pitted against mean-spirited materialists. Bleagh.

[Belindi]

Is a process the changing of an object's state, or is an object a snapshot of a process? Which has primacy, if any?

Objects are "snapshots" of process. It's like saying a subatomic wave or particle is both wave and particle until the particular experiment answers the question "which is it?"

Intelligent animals are biologically constituted to differentiate process into still snapshots, as we have to be able to measure so we can predict.

That would seem the more ontic situation, with objects being more an epistemological concern (noting that this all applies to rocks too, albeit on slower and longer time scales).

What is life but a temporal sub-process that operates within larger processes in a Russian doll configuration?

Yes, objects are "an epistemological concern". So how is it you yourself are not an idealist(immaterialist) ? I think that must be because "life but a temporal sub-process that operates within larger processes in a Russian doll configuration".

If one believes the EPR entanglement experiment one must believe space does not exist. In that case living entities are deluded about objects including space which is itself an object albeit a commonsense and ubiquitous circumstance in animals' everyday experiences.Therefore living things have a larger status than the physicalist configuration you call "Russian doll". I think the EPR experiment is firm evidence that physical matter is improbable unless it be reduced to a plenum of potential energy. Not only living consciousnesses but rocks too are potential energy.

What makes living 'consciousness ' different from unconscious or dead systems is that living 'consciousness' is future- oriented---especially the 'consciousness' of intelligent men who can appreciate dangers of climate change , and lack of empathy with others' peculiar psyches, and the variety of cultures' and species' special quirks. Rocks by comparison simply continue to do what they have always done with no care for future.

[3017Metaphysician]

I'm not following you there. You seem to be saying that molecular configurations somehow produce complex biological systems. You know, genetically coded self-organized properties of matter. How, what, why, when and where did all that happen?

I suggest that you ask those latter questions of scientists. They could tell you better than I can. Self-organisation certainly takes place all the time. IMO evolution does not start with LUCA, but geology

What I am saying is that all matter has a dynamic configuration of some kind. It might be very complex, such as life, or simple like an atom. Meanwhile, all configurations, all patterns, exist in matter as far as we know. That is, there are seemingly no entirely incorporeal forms, only forms that apply to matter. That's where we are up to. Barring some quantum strangeness at insanely small scales, we largely live in a material world, albeit within a complexifying environment.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like the logical fallacy of an appeal to ignorance. I'm getting a sense of your inability to answer the question. As such, your 'materialism' has yet to make sense. Please clarify if you are able!

Materialism is not mine. In fact, I already said that I'm not a materialist. Please try to keep up.

All I said is that materialism is not ridiculous. That's it. It's a sensible enough assumption, given the evidence, but there are gaps and there's no guarantee that materialism will have the answers. However, it might come up with the answers, or perhaps slight modifications will work out.

A number of forum members hold very confident opinions about the nature of reality. By contrast, I am happy to wait and see what evidence arises and make the occasional guess, while appreciating that definitive answers to the great mysteries may be achieved by future generations, and perhaps based on schemas that have not been yet considered. I don't expect answers to the great questions but I think that positing materialism - with all its gains - as ridiculous is misguided and naive.

If you said materialism was incomplete and not necessarily the be-all-and-end all, I would agree. But instead you chose what I think of as the "tribal warrior" approach - acting as the perspicacious metaphysician pitted against mean-spirited materialists. Bleagh.

SB!

Okay, I'm trying to follow you but you seem to be all over the place (not sure if you'll change back or forth). Now you are agreeing with me that it's an incomplete theory. Great. We agree and am happy you can see 'things' (no pun intended) for what they are... . I'm not happy though, just because you agree with me; I'm happy that you feel good or comfortable about your conclusion(s) in that they represent a reasoned or objective analysis. Formally speaking, truth's associated with metaphysical topics such as the relationships between mind and matter, origin, nature and purpose of the universe (inanimate objects to animate objects), qualitative and quantitative properties of the mind, and so on, falls under the category of Metaphysics.

I didn't invent that category. If you look it up, Materialism, is all part of Metaphysical philosophy. More importantly here (because this speaks to one reaction you had), Kant was indeed spot-on when he introduced the concept of Antinomy when confronted with our abilities to reason. In this instance, we default to analyzing complete opposite's to parse a given concept, or in making sense of one; Materialism and immaterialism, physics and metaphysics. And so I drew from Physics as a means to one end. Materialism is physics, basically. My point is that as such, you were not wrong with your particular introduction of God dunnit because it was a normal or natural inclination or reaction to do so, since it represents an antinomy or opposite. We naturally gravitate to antinomies when trying to make sense of stuff. But because this is not a religious thread, I wish to explore Materialism and exhaust its narrative, exclusively.

And I appreciate your sensitivity about the emotive elements...but as you very well know, those of us who have passions for philosophy are more inclined or more than willing to argue their point. Most in good faith, some not so much. But I would like to think that most want to share their knowledge. And while there are many means to one end, we have to learn to have thick skin, and be willing to get into the trenches if we have to, in order to support our positions. We've certainly experienced this before in that those who just have opinions, avoid specific arguments because they have none. Remember though, this is a philosophy site, not an opinion blog. Specifically, this section is called " Argumentative Philosophy Forum".

All that sad, in good faith I've provided many succinct examples or anecdotes from 'physical' specialist's like Einstein, Davies, Hawking, the use of logical deduction, and other pragmatic or common sense analogical approaches to make the case that Materialism is incomplete and/or makes little sense. I've even tried to be an advocate of the Materialist thought process by supporting the narrative, all in an effort to make sense of it. I put myself in your shoes, as it were, to try and think through how I myself would justify Materialism as an exclusive means/method in explaining everything in terms of material events.

As you alluded, many forum members maybe just posting their opinions with no support. We all have opinions and passions about stuff, but like it or not, we have to use reason to support our arguments. As Hume said, reason is the slave to passions. And so, at the risk of redundancy, it is important to keep this criteria front and center. As much as it pains me to say, the Material narrative is incomplete. I'm hoping reasonable minds will see that dichotomizing reality makes no sense. As such, the Materialist, at minimum, must answer the how's, what, where, why's and when did information emerge from matter. Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

[GE Morton]

Well, apart from the fact that your comment there does not address the question to which it (presumably) responds (which was whether understanding the genesis of a system helps us understand its function), your analogy woefully misses the mark. There is no parallel at all between the evolution of natural systems and Mama's cake baking. Mama follows a recipe she hopes will lead her to some desired result, i.e., a delicious cake. Nature has no intentions, no desires, no purposes, follows no recipe, possesses no "information," and its behaviors lead to no anticipated result.

Let's take one problem at a time because there are several. As you said Mama hopes a recipe will lead to some desired result. And as you said nature has no intentions. Now you must bridge the gapnof intentionally from màterial events. Can you?

Yes, nature, not being a sentient creature, has no intentions. Imputing intentions to natural processes and events is another category mistake. But I confess I don't know what a "gapnof" is, or what bridging it might mean.

You also seem not to understand what information is. It is knowledge possessed by some sentient creature regarding some state of affairs of interest to that creature. While there can be states of affairs in the absence of any creature with knowledge about them, there is no information without someone to possess it.

Nope. The existence of biological systems requires information. Can you not answer my questions? I'll repost below.

Well, no, it doesn't. No biological systems, nor any other natural phenomena, systems, events, etc., require any information to exist or to occur. They neither gather any information, convey any information, produce any information, nor act upon any information. You (and Prof. Davis as well, see below) simply don't understand what information is. As I said above, information is knowledge of some state of affairs. Only conscious, sentient creatures know things. Rocks and trees and volcanos and clouds don't "know things." You're committing another category mistake, applying a term for a category of conscious phenomena to non-conscious, inanimate things. You have a habit of doing that, e.g., imputing emotional states to neurons. You're absurdly trying to export phenomena occurring in your own mind into the natural world as components thereof.

Information --- knowledge --- is not something that exists "in the world," i.e., externally to human minds, except that information which has been encoded and stored by humans in some physical medium, such as a book or flash memory chip or a computer's hard drive. Prior to its being so recorded, no information existed anywhere in the "external world."

Biological system behave according to the laws of chemistry and physics. Our knowledge of those laws constitutes "information." The laws themselves do not. My knowledge of the cards I'm dealt in a poker hand is information; the cards themselves have none. They just are what they are.

Information systems. You know, like in Biology? How does matter give rise to such complexity?

Biological phenomena are not "information systems." An "information system" is a system WE invent to store or communicate information, i.e., knowledge we have gained about some state of affairs which we consider worth retaining and communicating. Libraries and radio transmitters and telephones and computers are information systems. Rose bushes and amoeba are not.

Here's the video again regarding 'information'. I picked a short one ...I think it's about midway.... you gotta pay better attention GE! Mama's going to put you back in time out LOL!

LOL indeed.

Davis says, "These days we're so familiar with it [information], it seems to have a life of it's own."

Whereupon he proceeds to speak of it as though it does have "a life of its own." Which, of course, it does not. He goes on, "Information seems to have some sort of causal power." Well, no it doesn't --- people who possess information may have some causal power, but the information per se does not. The causal powers are exerted by people who possess it.

Then, "We construct narratives around what information does; it affects the world."

By then he has thoroughly confused himself; he has isolated, severed, information from those in possession of it and attributes agency to it, rather than to the sentient agents acting upon it. He has "reified" it; promoted it from a mental state of humans into a "force of nature."

Prof. Davis could benefit from some advice from philosophers.

PS: Note that "information" has a different meaning in information theory. There, "information" is just the number of bits than can be stored in a given medium, or transmitted over a communications channel in a given time. It doesn't matter whether the bits encode any knowledge meaningful or useful to humans.

[GE Morton]

"Davies," not "Davis." Sorry.

[3017Metaphysician]

Well, apart from the fact that your comment there does not address the question to which it (presumably) responds (which was whether understanding the genesis of a system helps us understand its function), your analogy woefully misses the mark. There is no parallel at all between the evolution of natural systems and Mama's cake baking. Mama follows a recipe she hopes will lead her to some desired result, i.e., a delicious cake. Nature has no intentions, no desires, no purposes, follows no recipe, possesses no "information," and its behaviors lead to no anticipated result.

Let's take one problem at a time because there are several. As you said Mama hopes a recipe will lead to some desired result. And as you said nature has no intentions. Now you must bridge the gapnof intentionally from màterial events. Can you?

Yes, nature, not being a sentient creature, has no intentions. Imputing intentions to natural processes and events is another category mistake. But I confess I don't know what a "gapnof" is, or what bridging it might mean.

Really? If you are considered all material matter, what are your intentions right now?

You also seem not to understand what information is. It is knowledge possessed by some sentient creature regarding some state of affairs of interest to that creature. While there can be states of affairs in the absence of any creature with knowledge about them, there is no information without someone to possess it.

What would those states of affairs be?


Nope. The existence of biological systems requires information. Can you not answer my questions? I'll repost below.

Well, no, it doesn't. No biological systems, nor any other natural phenomena, systems, events, etc., require any information to exist or to occur. They neither gather any information, convey any information, produce any information, nor act upon any information. You (and Prof. Davis as well, see below) simply don't understand what information is. As I said above, information is knowledge of some state of affairs. Only conscious, sentient creatures know things. Rocks and trees and volcanos and clouds don't "know things." You're committing another category mistake, applying a term for a category of conscious phenomena to non-conscious, inanimate things. You have a habit of doing that, e.g., imputing emotional states to neurons. You're absurdly trying to export phenomena occurring in your own mind into the natural world as components thereof.

I'm not following that. Where did matter come from? How does it exist? Did it always exist? If you are only material matter, why do you exist? Please explain if you are able!

Information --- knowledge --- is not something that exists "in the world," i.e., externally to human minds, except that information which has been encoded and stored by humans in some physical medium, such as a book or flash memory chip or a computer's hard drive. Prior to its being so recorded, no information existed anywhere in the "external world."

How do you know that information is not attached to matter? Please explain if you can!

Biological system behave according to the laws of chemistry and physics. Our knowledge of those laws constitutes "information." The laws themselves do not. My knowledge of the cards I'm dealt in a poker hand is information; the cards themselves have none. They just are what they are.

If all there is is matter, what are those laws, material substances? What is 'our knowledge'? How does material matter have 'knowledge'? You said earlier that it doesn't. Please explain if you are able!

Information systems. You know, like in Biology? How does matter give rise to such complexity?

Biological phenomena are not "information systems." An "information system" is a system WE invent to store or communicate information, i.e., knowledge we have gained about some state of affairs which we consider worth retaining and communicating. Libraries and radio transmitters and telephones and computers are information systems. Rose bushes and amoeba are not.

But humans created those. Are you suggesting a 'creation' of some kind?

Here's the video again regarding 'information'. I picked a short one ...I think it's about midway.... you gotta pay better attention GE! Mama's going to put you back in time out LOL!

LOL indeed.

Davis says, "These days we're so familiar with it [information], it seems to have a life of it's own."

Whereupon he proceeds to speak of it as though it does have "a life of its own." Which, of course, it does not. He goes on, "Information seems to have some sort of causal power." Well, no it doesn't --- people who possess information may have some causal power, but the information per se does not. The causal powers are exerted by people who possess it.

Really? Are you sure about that? Your stream of conscious thoughts have a life of there own, no?


Then, "We construct narratives around what information does; it affects the world."

By then he has thoroughly confused himself; he has isolated, severed, information from those in possession of it and attributes agency to it, rather than to the sentient agents acting upon it. He has "reified" it; promoted it from a mental state of humans into a "force of nature."

Prof. Davis could benefit from some advice from philosophers.

I suspect you would be the 'laughing stock' of the conversation at his "Dinner party". LOL!

PS: Note that "information" has a different meaning in information theory. There, "information" is just the number of bits than can be stored in a given medium, or transmitted over a communications channel in a given time. It doesn't matter whether the bits encode any knowledge meaningful or useful to humans.

Are you suggesting 'design' again here? Materialism has nothing to do with 'design' does it?

Allow me to repost this question. We'll keep it on the subject line for reference:

The Materialist must explain or answer the how's, what, where, why's and when did information emerge from matter. Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

[Consul]

Regarding #s 1 and 3: We usually consider a "series of actions or events" or a "series of changes or movements" to be a process when we anticipate some result from it. A process is not just any series of changes or events; it is one with a definite starting point and end point --- the end point being the "result." The Earth's orbit around the Sun is a continuous series of changes, but we don't call it a "process." The flow of a river is a continuous action and series of changes, but we don't call that a "process" either.

What do we call it then?

Linguists distinguish between different temporal aspects of dynamic verbs. For example, dying is a perfective or terminative process, because it has an inherent end point (being dead), whereas flowing is an imperfective or nonterminative process that can (in principle) go on forever. The Earth's orbiting around the Sun is an imperfective/nonterminative process too.

See: Events > Types of Events > Activities, Accomplishments, Achievements, and States

I think it's useful in ontology to define "process" very broadly as a genus with different species, such that processes consisting in the making of products or artifacts, or ones "bringing about a result"/"leading to the accomplishment of some result" are but one species of process among others. A result of a process is an outcome, effect, or consequence of it; and e.g. "the process of obtaining a driver's license" does bring about a result, viz. the having of a driver's license. But what is e.g. the result of the process of counting from 1 to 100? Not all processes are resultative or productive!

The result of counting to 100 would be the reason the person did it --- perhaps the 2nd grader proving to his teacher that he could do it, and thus earning a gold star. Perhaps a chemist counting 100 seconds to make sure a particular reaction completes.
The point is that we have ample other terms for describing dynamic systems. Conflating them all to "processes" conveys a connotation that they are purposeful, leading to some anticipated or desired result, which in the case of most natural systems is incorrect.

The only "result" of your counting to 100 is your having counted to 100, which achievement may have been your purpose or goal. Your reason for starting to count to 100 may have been the promise of a reward in case you succeed.
Having an inherent end, counting to 100 is a perfective/terminative process.

Most philosophers regard (intentional) actions as a kind of events; so processes as series of events can be series of (intentional) actions done for some reason and purpose. But processes needn't be goal-directed activities or teleological processes, i.e. ones with a "final cause".

From the perspective of pure-process ontology, according to which dynamic systems lack substantial, nonprocessual elements (substances, objects), a dynamic system is (nothing but) a complex of (pure) processes.

[3017Metaphysician]

Regarding #s 1 and 3: We usually consider a "series of actions or events" or a "series of changes or movements" to be a process when we anticipate some result from it. A process is not just any series of changes or events; it is one with a definite starting point and end point --- the end point being the "result." The Earth's orbit around the Sun is a continuous series of changes, but we don't call it a "process." The flow of a river is a continuous action and series of changes, but we don't call that a "process" either.

What do we call it then?

Linguists distinguish between different temporal aspects of dynamic verbs. For example, dying is a perfective or terminative process, because it has an inherent end point (being dead), whereas flowing is an imperfective or nonterminative process that can (in principle) go on forever. The Earth's orbiting around the Sun is an imperfective/nonterminative process too.

See: Events > Types of Events > Activities, Accomplishments, Achievements, and States

I think it's useful in ontology to define "process" very broadly as a genus with different species, such that processes consisting in the making of products or artifacts, or ones "bringing about a result"/"leading to the accomplishment of some result" are but one species of process among others. A result of a process is an outcome, effect, or consequence of it; and e.g. "the process of obtaining a driver's license" does bring about a result, viz. the having of a driver's license. But what is e.g. the result of the process of counting from 1 to 100? Not all processes are resultative or productive!

The result of counting to 100 would be the reason the person did it --- perhaps the 2nd grader proving to his teacher that he could do it, and thus earning a gold star. Perhaps a chemist counting 100 seconds to make sure a particular reaction completes.
The point is that we have ample other terms for describing dynamic systems. Conflating them all to "processes" conveys a connotation that they are purposeful, leading to some anticipated or desired result, which in the case of most natural systems is incorrect.

The only "result" of your counting to 100 is your having counted to 100, which achievement may have been your purpose or goal. Your reason for starting to count to 100 may have been the promise of a reward in case you succeed.
Having an inherent end, counting to 100 is a perfective/terminative process.

Most philosophers regard (intentional) actions as a kind of events; so processes as series of events can be series of (intentional) actions done for some reason and purpose. But processes needn't be goal-directed activities or teleological processes, i.e. ones with a "final cause".

From the perspective of pure-process ontology, according to which dynamic systems lack substantial, nonprocessual elements (substances, objects), a dynamic system is (nothing but) a complex of (pure) processes.

Consul!

Thank you for shedding some light here on the concept of intentionality. GE seems to deny intentionality for some reason. It's, again, nonsensical. For instance, if all material events preclude information processing and intentionality, what does that look like? How do events happen? How do things exist? Obviously, we would not be participating in this forum much less have existed in any form (from any form of biological information systems or the human intention and animal instincts for procreation). What am I missing here?

This is not even to mention the emergence of self-organized biological organisms nor the existence of material substances themselves. Please explain if you can. GE seems to be clueless... ?

[Consul]

Processes need be neither terminative in the sense of having an inherent end point nor teleological in the sense of having an intended goal or purpose; and the result of a terminative process needn't be an effect or product. For example, climbing a mountain is a process which is both terminative and teleological; but its result—having climbed a mountain—is neither an effect nor a product of the mountain climbing, but its completion or "perfection". (Terminative processes are alternatively called perfective.)

[3017Metaphysician]

Processes need be neither terminative in the sense of having an inherent end point nor teleological in the sense of having an intended goal or purpose; and the result of a terminative process needn't be an effect or product. For example, climbing a mountain is a process which is both terminative and teleological; but its result—having climbed a mountain—is neither an effect nor a product of the mountain climbing, but its completion or "perfection". (Terminative processes are alternatively called perfective.)

Consul!

Sure. Are you saying that both animate and inanimate objects have no goals or purpose? If you are trying to argue that material existence has no purpose that would not correspond to anything at all, since things exist both qualitatively and quantitatively. For human perception, they need each other. To say humans themselves have no intrinsic purpose is meaningless and nonsensical (we are on this forum for a purpose). In other words, how do informational systems (purpose, etc.) emerge from matter?