And I mean by it the "model" according to which experiences are organized.
The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.
The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now
The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.
- Posts: 692
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
As I said -JamesOfSeattle wrote: ↑January 13th, 2019, 3:06 pmThis is incorrect. That’s kinda like staying stars are concepts which only enter the universe when conscious critters create them. “Purpose” (archeopurpose, teleonomic purpose) is a description of a pattern in physical stuff that arises without the need to reference a conscious being. “Meaning” likewise. This “meaning” requires “purpose”, in that, at some point, a mechanism was created and the (teleonomic) purpose of that mechanism was to create a sign. A neuron is such a mechanism. (Not saying the neuron was the first such mechanism, but it could have been). The output of this mechanism, the “sign” (neurotransmitter for neurons) is thus an affordance for “meaning”. It allows for a subsequent mechanism to generate a response appropriate to a “meaning” of the sign (there could be more than one), like a reflexive pulling away from something noxious. This is the “purpose” and “meaning” that arises naturally without the need for a conscious entity. This same “purpose” and “meaning” is what allows something that looks and acts like qualia to emerge from the physics.But as I just described, physics does have meaning and symbols, just like it has stars. If meaning and symbols are necessary and sufficient for consciousness, voila. Or maybe you also need qualia, but again, voila.Physics doesn't have meaning or symbols, without experiential states being present.
Just noting that physics can be framed in a teleonomic way which identifies a similarity with conscious critters who have actual experiential purpose and desires and understand symbols, is - just pointing out a similarity. It might be significant or it might not.Teleonomy is a conceptualised framing which only exists if there's there's someone there to think of it, otherwise there's just physics. Unless there's some additional underlying explanation about the nature of the universe for something like evolution's teleonomy.
If it is, then it points to the need for a more fundamental explanation of how the universe works based on purpose and meaning. In other words, if teleonomy isn't ''just physics'', then physics itself must have some inherent fundamental purpose/meaning. Which would be where the explanation for acorns growing into oaks (via the mere mechanism of evolution) lies.
But. Evolution does the explanatory teleonomic work, without invoking purpose and meaning. And if purpose and meaning were fundamental to physics, then why isn't the physics of waves eroding a shoreline teleonomic?