Teleological Levels
by BradfordLawrence Gage explores the Four Levels of Teleology in some depth. What are often referred to as atelic phenomenon do in fact satisfy teleology at some levels. By breaking down teleology into distinct steps, Gage suggests a process perspective which would restore teleology to its once occupied perch.
Paley's watch met the four levels of teleology but Paley's critics have sucessfully argued that nature has shown itself capable of engendering ever increasing biological complexity through blind forces of nature. Richard Dawkins and others have used the blind metaphor like an atelic mascot. An historic shift yielding an atelic paradigm. The study of nature yields knowledge. Assume what you wish about teleology.
At this point it is worth recalling that atelic assumptions are operative, and not a validation of the actual nature of the forces studied. Labeling evolution an atelic process does not make it atelic. The watch may run once it exists but forces of nature have not revealed how it was put together. Neither do we understand how it was wound up. Organisms maintain their complexity and replicate by means of a capacity to consume material and extract energy from it. Reproductive fidelity is a distinguishing feature of living organisms.
Intelligent design critics believe atelic operative assumptions will yet reveal life's mysteries. Perhaps. Gage writes:
Similarly, notice that each of Artigas's levels of teleology is at a greater remove from the subject of the telos. The end of a process is simply part of the process. The goal of a tendency is a future part of regular process. A value for a subject is hypothetical or possible future part of a process. The purpose of a plan is possible future part of an intelligent subject's activity.
If life is the end process and prior purpose evidenced by physical discontinuities, then goals of cellular replication and adaptation would be enabled by intelligent activity. If that were the case the search for atelic processes is a vain endeavor.
For Dawkins and like-minded thinkers the order evident in the universe and natural laws just exist. It's just the way things are. Teleology is mainly confined to effects induced by humans. Yet to the brute intelligence of lower organisms even such obvious teleology can remain hidden. They are not able to grasp the process levels apparent to more intelligent humans. Yet humans may be no different. Like brutes in a field they may simply be unable to connect the dots that unfolded from purposeful plan to end process.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:23 am
There is something about cell intelligence that gnaws at that fourth level of teleology.
Comment by Telicmeme — August 6, 2008 @ 4:23 am
August 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Given this, doesn't the fact that atelic methods are achieving great results prove they are far from a vain endeavor? In other words, if life is the end result of atelic processes then we would except atelic methods to generate great results and telic methods to accomplish nothing, which is in fact what we see. We discussed this before, one of the main differences between us is that you want the final answer and nothing else is good enough whereas I simply want to see that good progress is being made using current methods.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 6, 2008 @ 11:36 am
August 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Todd:
True. My comment was directed at a narrow scope of study that is generally depicted by the term origins.
We do not see what you are claiming. We see core biological systems generated only by cells and not arising from a trail traceable to basic natural forces. The atelic nature of methodology need not be confused with the nature of results accruing from the application of an atelic methodology. Empirical methods are not suited to distinguish telic from atelic when describing forces like gravity for example. A Guillermo Gonzalez can use his rational mind and attribute the order and precision observed within the universe to a telic process. A Dawkins will see such things as merely existential and not suggestive of telic inferences.
There are different ways of viewing this. With the passage of time we have witnessed more and more instances of basic biochemicals found generated in varying extra-cellular conditions. If some have catalytic properties the atelic community has the expectation that resulting reactions will tend to produce the type of biological complexity required for life.
A telic observer like me has also observed the growing knowledge of ever increasing cellular complexity with the passage of time. The issue for me is whether or not the evidence suggests an incremental process bridging the cavern between biochemicals and proto-cell. My read is the opposite is suggested.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hi Telicmeme. Good blog. I liked your original.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Such as?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 6, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
kornbelt888,
A google search for "recent breakthrough in biology" returns 321,000 results. A search for "biology journal" returns 15,400,000 results. If you want to see the great results I'm talking about you need only open your eyes (and then your browser).
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 6, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Todd B,
That's a non-answer. I'm interested in particulars of what you think are "atelic processes…generating great results".
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 6, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
What is the purpose of an acorn? Obviously, it is to grow into an oak tree. This is the purpose of an acorn even though vast majority of acorns don’t grow into trees. Some indeed end up as squirrel food– another, although secondary, purpose of acorns.
How do we know that growing into oaks is the primary purpose of every acorn? Because we know through observation and scientific study that acorns have that capacity. (Even ancient people were able to figure that out.) Indeed, the DNA of a single small acorn contains the plans for an entire tree. There is nothing atelic about any of this. It is one among many of these kinds processes that we see in nature. Teleology exists throughout nature. Ateleology explains nothing.
Whether there is a higher purpose and meaning for oak trees, beyond being an oak tree, I don’t know. That is obviously another level of teleology. But even the apparent lack of that kind of teleology doesn’t remove the very real natural teleology evidenced in oak trees and all kinds of trees.
I would argue that teleology is even evident in the so called "evolutionary tree."
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 6, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
"Atelic methods"?! Atelic methods, TB?
You just made that up didn't you? Poof! Pulled it right out of thin air.
"Atelic methods" is going into my bag of oxymorons, next to "evolutionary design."
Googling for "ateic methods," btw, produces zero results. LOL
Comment by Rock — August 7, 2008 @ 8:46 am
August 7th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Bradford wrote:
This is a very interesting admission. What, exactly, is science, if not the rigorous application of "empirical methods"? Yes, I understand that many scientists also use mathematical modeling as part of their investigations, but such models are always tested using "empirical methods", and if the models do not match the results of empirical tests, it is the models that are revised, not the other way around. The results of observations and experiments using "empirical methods" are the bedrock of science and the scientific method.
That said, I do believe that Lawrence Gage is on the right track in distinguishing between four types of teleology. Ernst Mayr did essentially the same thing back in 1974, in his landmark paper "Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis" (available online here). Mayr distinguishes between teleomatic, teleonomic, and teleological processes. Teleomatic processes are essentially the same as those Gage classifies as Type 1 (termination of a process) and Type 2 (attractive or repulsive physical forces). However, Gage lumps together both "attractive or repulsive physical forces" (which are processes that can be described entirely using atelic/Newtonian natural laws) and "multiple tendencies of living beings", which Mayr points out are very different from physical laws.
Mayr describes the teleology of living beings as "teleonomic", meaning that they are the result of the working out of a "program" (i.e. the genome) of such organisms as they interact with their environment. Such programs are indeed teleological, in that they:
• pre-exist the organism whose assembly and operation they specify and regulate;
• cause the organism to react actively to perturbations in their environment, allowing them to homeostatically achieve their pre-existing goals (i.e. survival and reproduction) despite changes in their environment;
• can vary over time, providing the raw material for evolutionary change; and
• can be inherited, both vertically (i.e. from parents to offspring; what Mayr called "closed" programs) and horizontally (i.e. in the manner of viruses; what Mayr called "open" programs).
Mayr argues that, given that the programs that specify the assembly and operation of living organisms fulfill all of these conditions, there are very good rational reasons to refer to all living organisms as "goal-directed entities", and therefore as being "teleological" entities.
However, Mayr also argues that the programs that specify the assembly and operation of living organisms need not themselves be the result of a teleological (i.e. goal-directed) process. On the contrary, Mayr argues forcefully that the processes that produce such programs are natural selection and random evolutionary processes (such as genetic drift and founder effects), which need not be teleological to produce such programs. He therefore refers to the kind of goal-directedness that characterizes living organisms as teleonomic, rather than teleological.
In Mayr's analysis, therefore, there are two different kinds of teleology:
• teleomatic processes, which terminate in an end state as the result of physical laws operating both inside and outside entities that change over time, and
• teleonomic processes, which terminate in an end state as the result of the operation of a program inside the entity, which specifies the homeostatic assembly and operation of the entity (i.e. living organism) over time.
Contrary to Gage's four types, in neither of Mayr's definitions are values included. Mayr, like most scientists, does not include values in his analysis of natural causes and effects. This is because doing so involves the commission of what G. E. Moore called "the naturalistic fallacy". That is, one cannot logically derive "ought" statements from "is" statements.
That said, I do believe that Gage's Type 3 ("value-driven") and Type 4 ("purpose-driven") forms of teleology do have merit. However, I believe (and can make a logical argument for the idea that) such teleological processes are limited to the behavior of complex sentient living organisms such as the "higher" animals (i.e. complex vertebrates and cephalopods).
I am currently working on a book on this subject, tentatively entitled On Purpose: The Origin of Design in Nature by Means of Natural Selection, or the Proliferation of Intentional Agents in the Struggle for Existance. The parallels with Darwin's Origin of Species are, of course, intentional
–Allen
***************************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
***************************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
blogs/websites:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
http://evolpsychology.blogspot...
***************************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
***************************************
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — August 7, 2008 @ 9:57 am
August 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Rock,
I thought I could use a shorter phrase than "methods that assume atelic processes" and still be understood. I thought people would be smart enough to make that connection, apparently I was wrong. If you find the phrasing confusing you might consider asking for clarification, or do you care more about quote mining and collecting sound bites then trying to understand what is being said? Anyway, if you want to prove me wrong then please provide just one objective fact about anything outside the sphere of human activity that was obtained purely as result of assuming telic process. What we see in the world is that "telic purpose" can not exist until after a suitably intelligent life form has first evolved. Life must proceed telic process.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 10:15 am
August 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
John A.D.,
Ah, so you are another person in the "all verbs and most nouns are telic" camp, good for you. I just hope you realize that your position is purely poetic metaphysics and offers no avenue for advancing our knowledge and understanding of the world around us.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 10:15 am
August 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
kornbelt888,
Ok, you want particulars then read any of the recent science articles posted on this very blog. All of our scientific understanding of the universe is what I mean; by assuming atelic processes are at work science has made many great discoveries including all the knowledge we now have about the complexity and inner workings of the cell.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 10:15 am
August 7th, 2008 at 10:26 am
You're mis-quoting there, kornbelt888. Todd B did not write "atelic processes", but rather "atelic methods". Bradford wrote about processes such as evolution being telic or atelic - Todd B was writing about atelic methods employed by scientists to investigate those processes. As for your incredulity as to whether those methods have produced results, you may as well ask Mike Gene:
Comment by JAllen — August 7, 2008 @ 10:26 am
August 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Allen_MacNeill. I'll respond in some detail when I have more time.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Todd Berkebile to Rock:
Is the statement “life must proceed telic process” a self evident or logically necessary one? Is it a statement that can be verified empirically? Or, should we just assume that it is true well…just because?
Todd to me:
Poetic? Because I was talking about acorns, oak trees and squirrels?
It is just as metaphysical to believe that that the universe is devoid of any kind of ultimate meaning and purpose. Is that something you know, Todd, or is it just something you just believe in your heart of hearts? Rational people after all can make a distinctions between A: matters of fact, and B: matters of opinion and belief.
I would argue that when one makes claims about “nature” and/or the universe as a whole (the universe has no ultimate meaning and purpose; the universe does have an ultimate meaning and purpose) one is making claims that are neither self evident (logically necessary) or empirically provable. I call these kinds of claims global because they look globally at either nature, or some natural process (evolution) as a whole, or the universe as a whole.
However, this does not mean that one cannot make global interpretations about the nature of the universe or a global process like evolution. Furthermore, one can compare with one interpretation with another to see which is better supported or more consistent with the known evidence. However, it is either a mistake, or a matter of hubris to claim that ones initial premises are necessarily true.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 7, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Empirical methods are not suited to distinguish telic from atelic when describing forces like gravity…
Indeed. Yet the study of actual telic effects yields distinguishing markers of a telic process. When we examine telic end products we find patterns suggesting directed natural forces. Dembski was on the right track in thinking that extremely improbable effects indicate design but did not link his probability assessments to biological processes. Better models are needed to identify constraints as well as possibilities. The linkage between protein structure and function, for example, may provide more limited transition pathways than previously assumed even within cellular environments. Pathways to minimal function in precellular environments may be non-existent in the absence of telic input. The acquisition of cellular properties, with a capacity to enable evolution, would be either front loaded by forces of nature whose telic nature is indeterminate or the front loading would be telic in nature. The choice of options is unresolved.
Greater understanding may yield predictions able to distinguish between patterns resulting from chemical reactions and those facilitated by a guiding hand. Or perhaps evidence for a telic effect may remain circumstantial and unconfirmed by experimental data. However, rather than framing options as science vs. non-science, origin issues appear beyond the scope of science if reliable predictions about how life arises are the operative indicator.
I agree but think that oughts arise from what one credits as real. For example, it is not uncommon to find studies that attribute actions or even values as resulting from evolution. A genetic predisposition toward behavior or beliefs, if seen as caused by a natural process, can influence our views as to their propriety. Sexual mores, anti-social behavior, competition, religious beliefs and much more have been linked to genetics and the linkage is all too often overly simplistic and subject to ambiguous interpretations. We are genetically enabled to reason and feel emotions but pinning down specific points of view to genetics and giving this a natural descriptor sets off alarms. The proponent's own views might be guiding the interpretation. But this digresses beyond the focus of the blog entry even if it merits attention in its own right.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2008 @ 4:31 am
August 8th, 2008 at 8:36 am
In science, if a claim has no empirically distinguishing implications, then it is considered extraneous and without merit.
There is nothing wrong with a discussion of the various meanings of teleology, as long as it doesn't become an excuse for equivocation. The header of this blog says, "Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design." This distinguishes the 'teleology' of a rock directed to roll down a mountain; the 'teleology' of an acorn whose purpose is to grow into a tree; and the unsupported teleology of Intelligent Design.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 8:36 am
August 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Critics love to point this out where Gonzalez's claims are concerned but ignore the equally extraneous nature of Dawkin's claims.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2008 @ 10:24 am
August 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
That's a bit vague for a response. Please note my comment spoke only to the scientific perspective. Is there a particular claim of Dawkins' you take issue with?
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 11:57 am
August 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Don't play dumb Zach. You know as well as I do that Dawkins' fame as a popular writer rests on his debunking theism. There is nothing scientific about that. Much that is extraneous to good science though.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
So I've heard. I've also heard he's written quite a lot, but you won't provided any specific claim you think 'critics' should feel obliged to respond to.
So? Lots of things are not scientific. By contrast, Gonzalez is purporting to make scientific claims. As such, they are subject to scientific criticism.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
His claims are at least as well known as those of Gonzalez and probably better known. You're not obligated to respond to anything.
Bradford: There is nothing scientific about that.
Gonzalez links well known facts to an argument that infers the existence of God. That's why he is treated differently than Dawkins. He offends atheistic sensibilities and their solution is the hide behind science tactic.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
You didn't respond to my point. If someone is making scientific claims, then those claims are reasonably subject to scientific criticism. Do you disagree? So we have to examine the specific claims. You refuse to provide such a claim with regards to Dawkins.
As to Gonzalez and Richards; they use puddle-logic. To accept their assertions means accepting that the orbital relationship between the Earth and Moon is designed, even though we have ample evidence that it is the contingent result of a collapsing nebula.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 2:40 am
There is much more to their book than the Earth and Moon. Hospital to life factors are cited which make advanced intelligence possible. It's a very unusual combination of factors that appears ever more unique the more we know about our universe.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2008 @ 2:40 am
August 9th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Yet, this is enough to demonstrate the scientific vacuity of their claims.
The puddle's hole is unique, too.
Comment by Zachriel — August 9, 2008 @ 9:02 am
August 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Zach:
I haven't read Gonzalez's book, but surely you can do better than to offer a model (co-accretion) that died in the 1970s. Darwin-Fisher and See's theories failed too. Current consensus is the "Big Whack" model, though nobody's sure it's correct (you'll have this in science).
Hot Idea: Origin of the Earth and Moon
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I didn't suggest co-accretion. The Impact Theory is now widely accepted because it explains the unique geological characteristics of the Moon. However, it's still the result of a collapsing nebula. The planets were formed by myriad such impacts, the Moon being a bit of debris.
Comment by Zachriel — August 9, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The attempt to demonstrate that things aren't as 'fine tuned' as Gonzalez believes just got another hit -
Solar System Is Pretty Special…
You never know. It's probably not actual evidence for God, but it does put a crimp in some bland dismissals. Quite interesting work, or at least Science thought so…
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The problem with people that assert that the origin and subsequent evolution of life can all be explained by a dysteleological (blind, unplanned, unguided, undirected etc.) process is that they do not consistently hold to that position. Indeed, after slamming the front door they, more often than not, quietly smuggle teleology back into science through the back door. Of course they’ll insist that what they have allowed in is not really teleological. A little redefining of some terms, and a little rhetorical sleight of hand and… “Aha! we can have our cake and eat it too!” (unless, of course, someone catches them in the act)
In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe gives a great example of this. He begins by quoting Elliot Sober, quoting Richard Dawkins–with allusions to Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett who use similar arguments.
Sober, in his book, Philosophy of Biology, is commenting on the METHINKSITISAWEASEL analogy that Dawkins uses in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins was referring to a computer program that generates the phrase: METHINKSITISAWEASEL after a “reasonably probable” number tries beginning with a purely random set of letters. This he then uses to illustrate the power of natural selection.
Sober, perhaps to further simplify the analogy, uses the idea of something like a combination lock (using letters instead of numbers) to carry out the same thought experiment.
“How many different combinations of letters,” he asks, “may appear in the windows? There are 26 possibilities on each disk and 19 disks in all. So there are 26^19 possible sequences… The probability that METHINKSITISAWEASEL will appear…is 1/26^19 …a very small number indeed.
But now imagine that a disk is frozen if it happens to put a letter in the viewing window that matches the one in the target message… the message can [now] be expected to appear after a surprisingly small number generations of the process.” (Behe, p220)
The problems with the Dawkins-Sober analogy is that it doesn’t explain where the target sequence comes from. It cannot be a target sequence unless it is pre-selected, something that a blind, unintelligent process cannot do. Who or what selected it?
Why METHINKSITISAWEASEL? asks Behe. Why not “MY
DARLINGCLEMENTINE or MEBETARZANYOUBEJANE?
As a disk turns, who is deciding which letters to freeze and why?
Instead of an analogy for natural selection acting on random mutation, the Dawkins-Sober scenario is actually an example of the very opposite: an intelligent agent directing the construction of an irreducibly complex system. The agent (Sober here) has the target phrase (lock combination) in his mind and guides the result in that direction.” (p221)
METHINKSBEHEHASAPOINT
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 9, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
It's only a problem if you forget it's an analogy, and only of one aspect of the problem at that.
In biology, it's the environment that defines the selection criteria. We can directly *observe* the process of natural selection, including its effect on populations (adaptation).
Comment by Zachriel — August 9, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“Knives, birds' wings, and mountain slopes are used for certain purposes: cutting, flying, and climbing. A bird's wings have in common with knives that they have been 'designed' for the purpose they serve, which purpose accounts for their existence, whereas mountain slopes have come about by geological processes independently of their uses for climbing. A bird's wings differ from a knife in that they have not been designed or produced by any conscious agent; rather, the wings, like the slopes, are outcomes of natural processes without any intentional causation. Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleological explanations. I propose that this use is appropriate, because teleological explanations are hypotheses that can be subject to empirical testing. The distinctiveness of teleological hypotheses is that they account for the existence of a feature in terms of the function it serves; for example, wings have evolved and persist because flying is beneficial to birds by increasing their chances of surviving and reproducing. Features of organisms that are explained with teleological hypotheses include structures, such as wings; processes, such as development from egg to adult; and behaviours, such as nest building. A proximate explanation of these features is the function they serve; an ultimate explanation that they all share is their contribution to the reproductive fitness of the organisms. I distinguish several kinds of teleological explanations, such as natural and artificial, as well as bounded and unbounded, some of which but not others apply to biological explanations.”
Ayala, FJ. 1999. Adaptation and novelty: Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology. Hist.& Philo of.Life Sciences. Vol. 21 (1), pp. 3-33.
My emphasis for TB's sake.
Comment by Rock — August 9, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Joy:
OK, suppose before being aware of this study I put the probability of God's existence at P(God)=10^-9 (one in a billion). What should be my updated probability P(God)', given these new results? You may use Bayes' theorem in your answer.
Comment by Raevmo — August 9, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
The vacuity lies in the analysis of their argument. They cite physical facts about the universe to make a front loading argument relevant to cosmology and the origin of the universe. The argument is not dependent on experimentation and therefore is not a scientific one in the strict sense of the word. But the authors do not make the claim that it is. Truth is not confined to the empirical realm.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
It is a very poor analogy. That's the point JD is making.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2008 @ 6:08 pm