Dawkins' Atheist Bus

[3 Body No Problem]

That is an elegant way of putting it, although I do wonder whether "matter can organise itself" doesn't have crypto-teleological overtones - as if matter had an innate propensity to organise itself into replicators...

Well, matter does self-organise itself into humans, viruses, mice, GPS-navigation systems, otherwise these things would not exist.

Whether this self-organsation can be seen as the goal or telos of matter (in the sense of my definition) is an interesting question.

How and why matter can self-organise and how this seemingly negentropic behaviour relates to the second law of thermodynamics is an interesting question that is not fully resolved.

Interestingly, random mutation is first of all mutation in the <em>representation space</em>: mutated DNA "means" to produce a mutated organism. And the fitness landscape within which that organism will appear "means", in a far weaker but not totally causally inactive sense, to conserve or discard the mutation.

Yes, self-replication relies on a suitable environment. The role of fitness is interesting. Looking at the human genome, we find parts which are called "Junk DNA" which does not <i>seem</i> to have any function in self-replication, and it seems to be full of mutations in comparison with our ancestors DNA, eg. some fish that is millions of generations away from us. And then there's parts of our DNA that is essentially identical with the corresponding DNA in our swimming ancestors. How can that be when the rate of mutation is quite high -- much higher than would allow for unchanged DNA over millions of generations? The answer is simple: that part of the DNA codes for something very important in the self-replication process, and any mutation will lead to an organism that's unfit to reproduce. So environmental selection has an important function in the replication process.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

And it was answered several times; indeed, it was the basis of the critique upthread of Dawkins' humanist-theistic fetish. Science - via evolutionary theory, for instance, among others -has itself refuted teleology.

I don't see a serious answer from your side, even after reading this thread several times.

Genetic replication is an activity, not a purpose. You're conflating Meaning/Purpose/Teleology with simple operational description of a blind activity.[/QUOTE]

No I am not. You are lacking a substantial understanding of the concept "Purpose/Teleology:.

It only depends on the generally-accepted definitions of these terms.

There are no "generally-accepted definitions", otherwise we would not have this disagreement. Why don't you state your definition? It can't be that much work to cut and paste, if it's been said already.

 

[waffle]

<blockquote>Matter can organise itself into causally active representations of future states (aka goals)</blockquote>

That is an elegant way of putting it, although I do wonder whether "matter can organise itself" doesn't have crypto-teleological overtones - as if matter had an innate propensity to organise itself into replicators...

Interestingly, random mutation is first of all mutation in the <em>representation space</em>: mutated DNA "means" to produce a mutated organism. And the fitness landscape within which that organism will appear "means", in a far weaker but not totally causally inactive sense, to conserve or discard the mutation.

Would that be cosmic wonder ?

The moon as 'unfit' mutant, a discarded result of the earth's failed attempt to 'innately' replicate itself ...

 

[jambo]

How and why matter can self-organise and how this seemingly negentropic behaviour relates to the second law of thermodynamics is an interesting question that is not fully resolved.

It is an interesting question but as I understand it the formulation of 2LOT refers to isolated systems, something most if not all environments within which evolution and life take place would not be. I think it's debatable whether there are any completely isolated systems at all in fact, other than perhaps an entire universe.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

An estimated 1 billion children currently live in poverty (a number greater than the entire world population in the early 1800s).

Given that the population is much bigger than in the 1800s and that the great increase in population numbers is a direct effect of the world's increasing wealth, it's not clear to me that this statistic says what you want it to say. Your statistic is also problematic for other reasons. It measures income only. That's a big mistake. For example access to health care and food is not measured. But the majority of the world's population does have much better access to those than in 1800, just look at how long people live. The reason we have almost 7 billion inhabitants is because of improved healthcare and nutrition vis-a-vis the past. Things are not as easy as you wish them to be.

we can let millions starve and die, dismiss their very existence as 'wishful thinking' because, you know, millions are well off and healthy.

I propose this where?

capitalism is implicated in the perpetuation of disease and death,

What makes you think I'm in favour of the current system of Intellectual Property? I am in fact quite hostile to (some substantial parts of it).

But I also acknowledge, that most medical progress has been coming from the capitalist states and not from the eastern block, while it was still marxist-stalinist.

 

[waffle]

I don't see a serious answer from your side, even after reading this thread several times.

You don't want to see one. You are unable to see one.

Genetic replication is an activity, not a purpose. You're conflating Meaning/Purpose/Teleology with simple operational description of a blind activity.

No I am not. You are lacking a substantial understanding of the concept "Purpose/Teleology

You really have no understanding of the actual concept. The 'definition' you provided is circular, question begging, reasoning: "Let us define X as having goal/purpose Y. Therefore X has a purpose."

matter does self-organise ... this self-organsation can be seen as the goal or telos of matter ... self-replication.

Matter has no goals (believing so is a rejection of evolutionary theory and a regression into the humanistic safety of teleology), neither does it 'self' organize or 'self' replicate - because matter has no self.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

It is an interesting question but as I understand it the formulation of 2LOT refers to isolated systems, something most if not all environments within which evolution and life take place would not be. I think it's debatable whether there are any completely isolated systems at all in fact, other than perhaps an entire universe.

I'm not an expert in thermodynamics, but my reading of this book left me thinking that (1) it's not fully resolved what a closed system is (and hence an open system), moreover (2) not all problems in the thermodynamics of open systems are resolved either.

I'm happy to learn more about this from the experts on the board!

 

[jambo]

No I am not. You are lacking a substantial understanding of the concept "Purpose/Teleology:.

There are no "generally-accepted definitions", otherwise we would not have this disagreement. Why don't you state your definition? It can't be that much work to cut and paste, if it's been said already.

Isn't the point that the language used is instructive and revealing in itself? I think it's fair to say that if you speak of genetic code, for instance, as having a purpose, you are betraying a belief, acknowledged or not, that a gene has a raison d'etre of some kind and from somewhere. Which is fine of course, you may well believe that, but it's worth being honest about and examining that isn't it?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

You don't want to see one. You are unable to see one.

Why don't you try a simple cut&paste?

You really have no understanding of the actual concept. The 'definition' you provided is circular, question begging, reasoning: "Let us define X as having goal/purpose Y. Therefore X has a purpose."

That's not what I said. I explained it via self-representation. An example I gave was Church's famous Y-Compbinator (lambda x.f(xx))(lambda x.f(xx)). My definition is <b>not</b> circular! What is circular is the phenomenon of self-replication. You confuse levels here!


If you disagree please point out exactly where you have a problem with the my definitions, rather then dismissing them summarily. Please also state your own definitions, then we can compare!

Matter has no goals [...] neither does it 'self' organize or 'self' replicate - because matter has no self.

From the Wikipedia article on self-organization (my emphasis):

The most robust and unambiguous examples of self-organizing systems are from physics. Self-organization is also relevant in chemistry, where it has often been taken as being synonymous with self-assembly. <b>The concept of self-organization is central to the description of biological systems, from the subcellular to the ecosystem level.</b> There are also cited examples of "self-organizing" behaviour found in the literature of many other disciplines, both in the natural sciences and the social sciences such as economics or anthropology. Self-organization has also been observed in mathematical systems such as cellular automata [...]


There are several broad classes of physical processes that can be described as self-organization. Such examples from physics include:

• structural (order-disorder, first-order) phase transitions, and spontaneous symmetry breaking such as
  • spontaneous magnetization, crystallization (see crystal growth, and liquid crystal) in the classical domain and
  • the laser, superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation, in the quantum domain (but with macroscopic manifestations)
  • second-order phase transitions, associated with "critical points" at which the system exhibits scale-invariant structures. Examples of these include:
  • critical opalescence of fluids at the critical point
  • percolation in random media
• structure formation in thermodynamic systems away from equilibrium. The theory of dissipative structures of Prigogine and Hermann Haken's Synergetics were developed to unify the understanding of these phenomena, which include lasers, turbulence and convective instabilities (e.g., Bénard cells) in fluid dynamics,
  • structure formation in astrophysics and cosmology (including star formation, galaxy formation)
  • self-similar expansion
  • Diffusion-limited aggregation
  • percolation
  • reaction-diffusion systems, such as Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction
• self-organizing dynamical systems: complex systems made up of small, simple units connected to each other usually exhibit self-organization
  
  

Matter has no goals (believing so is a rejection of evolutionary theory and a regression into the humanistic safety of teleology)

In the light of the above, you are essentially saying that modern physics, chemistry and biology " is a rejection of evolutionary theory".

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Isn't the point that the language used is instructive and revealing in itself? I think it's fair to say that if you speak of genetic code, for instance, as having a purpose, you are betraying a belief, acknowledged or not, that a gene has a raison d'etre of some kind and from somewhere.

In fact I agree if you use terms in 'everyday meaning' of these terms. But I do not, as I have pointed out several times. And I wonder if Dawkins was using everyday semantics. If one wants to have a serious discussion about the question of teleology and its compatibility with scientific though, one should be a bit careful about one's terms.

 

[jambo]

Sorry 3bnp, I'm not sure that'll wash, even if you can point to a technical definition of the word 'purpose' that specifically rules out any idea of intentionality, the fact is that it is still there in the language, that's what is interesting.

As for common definitions of 'purpose', it's quite clear overall:

pur·pose (pûrps)
n.
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" Sarah Josepha Hale.
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.
tr.v. pur·posed, pur·pos·ing, pur·pos·es
To intend or resolve to perform or accomplish.
Idioms:
on purpose
Intentionally; deliberately.
to good purpose
With good results.

I suppose you could say that the sense in which it can mean 'with good results' doesn't necessarily imply an intention, but it does suggest a basis for judgement on the quality of results. Hmm...

 

[waffle]

Given that the population is much bigger than in the 1800s

You're sidestepping the point once again: you dismissed the - again generally accepted finding by all pertinent organizations, NGOs etc - statement that child poverty/disease is higher - in absolute terms - than it has ever been, calling it 'wishful thinking' and without substance.

and that the great increase in population numbers is a direct effect of the world's increasing wealth

This is also problematic, as it both ignores the distribution of wealth and power and the fact that the wealthiest (largely Western) population centres (excluding inward migration) have been falling in number for many years.

it's not clear to me that this statistic says what you want it to say.

What I want it to say? As opposed to your new enlightened neoliberal definition of poverty statistics as misleading because the poor are not 'really' poor at all because 'trickle down' health care and food is easily accessible ...

But the majority of the world's population does have much better access to those than in 1800

I'm forever amazed how positivists always instantly displace and deflect a discussion about the reality of huge levels of world poverty on to a discussion about how supposedly well off the majority are. Concentrate on all The Good News of capitalist plenitude.

I propose this where?

It is implied by your summary dismissal of the huge level of child poverty/disease as 'wishful thinking.'

What makes you think I'm in favour of the current system of Intellectual Property? I am in fact quite hostile to (some substantial parts of it).

Your dismissal (you are fond of being dismissive) of capitalism (of which 'intellectual capital' is a feature) and your depoliticization of history made me think so, and that this ideology has no bearing either on humanism or child poverty.

But I also acknowledge, that most medical progress has been coming from the capitalist states

And where else might it 'come from' in a globalized capitalism?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm not an expert in thermodynamics, but my reading of this book left me thinking that (1) it's not fully resolved what a closed system is (and hence an open system), moreover (2) not all problems in the thermodynamics of open systems are resolved either.

I'm happy to learn more about this from the experts on the board!

I've only studied this to undergrad level, but I think a system is considered isolated if it is thermodynamically isolated, that is, if it is not exchanging energy (in either direction) with an external environment. If you have a system inside a really, really good thermos flask then, to a pretty decent approximation, it is thermodynamically isolated. Of course, the ultimate isolated system is the whole universe, and when you apply the 2LOT to that you inevitably predict the heat death of the universe, which is surely the most existentially morbid concept that has ever occurred to anyone.

With regards to the earth, it is clearly not an enclosed system, since it is constantly bombarded with radiation from the sun, which has been likened to a "bucket of negative entropy" which terrestrial systems can "dip into", providing the ordered energy needed to power all biological processes, including evolution. But the sun is gradually using up its fuel, gradually running out of the negative entropy it inherited from the earlier universe, which came in turn from the extraordinarily un-entropic state of the Big Bang - so the 2LOT is respected, after all.

 

[waffle]

In the light of the above, you are essentially saying that modern physics, chemistry and biology " is a rejection of evolutionary theory".

No, I'm arguing that those, like Dawkins and you, who claim that matter has a purpose, that evolution/natural selection/replication etc, have an underlying Meaning, are ignoring the findings of science, insisting on teleology where there is none, an argument I have been making throughout this thread. You haven't been 'listening', because you simply a priori and transcendentally reject this argument.

Edit: Yes 3BNP, scientific humanists are certainly eager to use 'self' in relation to anything they care to study, as all good and proper humanists do.

 

[Mr. Tea]

No, I'm arguing that those, like Dawkins and you, who claim that matter has a purpose

No, it is being claimed that the purpose of DNA (not "matter" in general) is to reproduce itself, if the word 'purpose' is understood in a sense that does not rely on a sentient will. Let me reiterate an argument I made above (which you of course ignored at the time): in common parlance, it makes sense to say "The purpose of eyes is to see". Now, would you say that that statement is factually incorrect? Because if the purpose of eyes is not to see - because, not having been designed by a conscious mind, they have no purpose at all - it's a hell of a stroke of luck that they happen to be so precisely adapted to seeing, don't you think?

that evolution/natural selection/replication etc, have an underlying Meaning

I don't think anyone has mentioned "'Meaning" - or even "meaning" - until now, other than in discussing the meaning of the word 'purpose', so why bring it up?

 

[jambo]

No, it is being claimed that the purpose of DNA (not "matter" in general) is to reproduce itself, if the word 'purpose' is understood in a sense that does not rely on a sentient will. Let me reiterate an argument I made above (which you of course ignored at the time): in common parlance, it makes sense to say "The purpose of eyes is to see". Now, would you say that that statement is factually incorrect? Because if the purpose of eyes is not to see - because, not having been designed by a conscious mind, they have no purpose at all -

'Eyes see.'

It's more economical to just say what eyes do so why include purpose? It might be a common turn of phrase but it absolutely embeds and reveals a belief in purpose, it could hardly be more obvious, it's right there. Can you see it? It does look like there is a kind teleological ideology there in this manner of speech and description.

Is the statement factually correct? If we agree that eyes 'carry out the function of seeing' then the question lies in whether we can establish if eyes have a purpose or not doesn't it?

it's a hell of a stroke of luck that they happen to be so precisely adapted to seeing, don't you think?

Either that or natural selection, wouldn't you say?

 

[IdleRich]

"No, I'm arguing that those, like Dawkins and you, who claim that matter has a purpose, that evolution/natural selection/replication etc, have an underlying Meaning, are ignoring the findings of science, insisting on teleology where there is none, an argument I have been making throughout this thread. You haven't been 'listening', because you simply a priori and transcendentally reject this argument."

Are you still going on about this? It's been clearly demonstrated that Dawkins explicitly said that evolution does not have an underlying purpose or meaning (in exactly the words "there is no purpose to evolution"). Why do you keep lying about this issue? How do you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously when it can be seen by anyone that you will happily pretend that something says the exact opposite of what it says if you think it suits your purpose?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hmm, I can see where you're coming from, but I think the phrase "eyes see" is fundamentally a rather different kind of statement from "fire burns" or "stars shine", if you see what I mean. Eyes have the structure and function that they do because they confer an evolutionary advantage to (some) animals. They have, in a sense, been 'designed' by natural selection, and I don't think it's unscientific to say that as long as you're aware that this is a different usage of the word 'design' from how it's used when we talk about the design of, say, a building or a car. This semantics works the other way too: we talk of the design of buildings and cars 'evolving' over time, as new demands are placed on them and new technologies are developed, even though this 'evolution' is occurring through the actions of conscious beings rather than blind natural selection pressures.

 

[waffle]

'Eyes see.'

It's more economical to just say what eyes do so why include purpose?

Even here, the function "Eyes see" may also seem dubious in evolutionary terms. What, then, do we make of the blind? They too have eyes (and indeed, I'm already imagining crusading evolutionary psychologists proposing a teleological 'solution': Blind eyes serve the crucial evolutionary purpose of being a decorative attractor in the sexual seduction and reproduction apparatus of survival of the human fittest, etc). And can't blind people 'see' by other means anyway (conceptually)?

Even better, it's easy to envisage a putative post-apocalyptic world consisting entirely of blind humans (because some esoteric cosmic rays penetrated the eyes of the seeing, turning them into self-cannibalizing zombies who quickly then became extinct), the blind therefore surviving (the 'fittest') through 'natural selection' and having been best 'adapted to their environment', their sightless eyes also surviving through countless subsequent generations as 'redundant' appendages (with a future blind Damien Hirst-wannabe extracting millions of them from volunteers in an 'all seeing' formation for installation exhibiting along with all the other obsolete stuffed-animal junk?), anyone being born with seeing eyes treated as an exotic mutant with a great future career as a circus-act visionary.

 

[waffle]

Are you still going on about this? It's been clearly demonstrated that Dawkins explicitly said that evolution does not have an underlying purpose or meaning (in exactly the words "there is no purpose to evolution"). Why do you keep lying about this issue? How do you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously when it can be seen by anyone that you will happily pretend that something says the exact opposite of what it says if you think it suits your purpose?

You remind me of one of those Bible-quoting fundamentalists with "But it states clearly here ...", and not forgetting Bush/Blair's "But I genuinely believe there are WMDs in Iraq". Yes, poor Idlerich (shouldn't you be weeping over your banking shares?), in your literal-mindedness, if anything is not instantly and self-evidently assimilable into your empiricommonsense, if it might need some further reflection (like placing the quote in context, or understanding how it is possible to 'know' something, while simultaneously disavowing it by believing something else, by believing the contrary), then the optimal response is to simply reject it from all further consideration. The proper tactic whenever one is confronted with different, challenging, or unfamiliar ideas is to engage in some "enhanced interrogation" techniques by passing them over to a ludicrously literal-minded reading, which oh-how-reassuringly-conveniently renders them self-evidently and absolutely absurd, all the better to then hurl childish abuse at such nasty interlopers.