peter wrote:
To accept that the universe is teleological, we have to take the next step and say that what we seen via the emergent properties of life and consciousness, had to have some temporally prior and greater manifestation either driving or drawing its direction - presumably toward some goal beyond that which we currently understand (and of course, here we enter the realm of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's 'Omega Point').
I don't know. Maybe? I think life can be teleological without having one particular end goal. Humans certainly have many goals. But at the same time,
humanity does seem to have a trajectory.
peter wrote:(This, incidentally, is why, I believe, that science is so hostile to even a consideration of the idea that the universe displays purpose. Once acknowledged, one is into the realm of difficult questions - questions from which it would rather hide than have to face. It took the discipline hundreds of years to break free from the chains of religion; it is not going to allow it to slip in through the back door in the form of an acceptance of purpose. I take the view that the possibilities of the universe's capabilities far exceed our current capacities to even conceptualise; that the acknowledgement of purpose in no way takes us back into the realm of superstition and dogma. Rather it opens new and exciting avenues of investigation, the following of which will draw us ever closer to full understanding of why we are here (as distinct from how).)
Seriously, you need to read MIND AND COSMOS! It is a *difficult* read, but rewarding. I think you're exactly right, scientists won't consider these options because they have fought so hard to rid us of religious superstition. But they've thrown away a little too much when they discarded supernatural. Just because religion is teleological doesn't mean that teleology is itself religious. The success scientists have had with reductive materialism has misled them. This is a philosophy, both an epistemology and an ontology. It's not science! The success of science is not itself a measure of the veracity of reductive materialism. It has been merely useful, not necessarily proven. MIND AND COSMOS provides another philosophical framework upon which a new kind of science can be built. Nagel is an atheist. He's not talking about religion. He's just showing how reductive materialism can't explain the most interesting facts of the known universe: life and consciousness.
avatar wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with that, but you seem to be conflating "life" with "human life" which doesn't seem to be the purpose of this topic.
If only plant life existed, would it be using natural laws in ways that would not occur naturally?
The purpose of life is not to use natural laws in ways that would not otherwise occur. That's more of a potential side-effect of life. Very Happy
Life itself has no consciousness, it's a bio-chemical process and its only purpose is to continue happening. Whatever arises from it is irrelevant to the process itself.
Humans aren't the only conscious organisms. I think that all life responds to its environment in ways that inanimate matter does not. Is this consciousness? Yes, I believe to greater and lesser degrees. But that's just my belief. It's not proven. I'm staking my argument on ambiguity: there isn't a clear dividing line between conscious and unconsciousness. Maybe that line is the animal/plant divide. Maybe not!
But you're right that not all life can understand the laws of nature. Hell, not all humans understand the laws of nature! But there are different levels of "understanding," just as there are different levels of consciousness. A boy catching a baseball understands more about parabolas than he realizes. A bird landing on a branch understand aerodynamics more than it realizes. The very act of landing on a branch is a coordination of atoms that would be impossible without knowledge of the branch's existence, and awareness of its location. Take away the bird's eyes, or its mind, and this particular movement of atoms would not be possible.
Speaking of possible . . . this is what the laws of nature* provide:
possibility. They trace out all the possible paths matter can take. This includes living beings. Neither the emergence of life nor the directions taken by life violate natural laws. But this doesn't account for their presence and their paths taken. In other words, it doesn't account for their
actuality. This is where a new set of laws must be discerned by our science. Physics and chemistry are insufficient to explain why matter took
these paths. Once matter is conscious, this consciousness itself becomes an overriding consideration in the paths that these atoms take. For instance, animals looking for food or mates aren't merely driven by chemical reactions, they have
goals. They are looking for something specific.
And, as Nagel argues in MIND AND COSMOS, the contribution of consciousness is not limited to the paths that these atoms take, but also for the emergence of these kinds of collections of atoms in the first place. In other words, for the emergence of organisms.
Mind affects matter. We've known this for at least 100 years with the double slit experiment in quantum physics. We just haven't come to grips with this reality yet. It will take a new paradigm.
* [By 'laws of nature' I primarily mean physics and chemistry.]
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.