Comments on: Two Views http://telicthoughts.com/two-views/ An independent blog about intelligent design Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:15:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Darwiniana » Kant and biology http://telicthoughts.com/two-views/#comment-19971 Darwiniana » Kant and biology Wed, 31 May 2006 01:18:09 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=732#comment-19971 [...] Telic Thoughts has two quotes from Barrow and Tipler’s The Cosmological Anthropic Principle on Kant, biology, and teleology. Kant’s notion of teleology had an enormous influence on the work of German biologists in the first half of the nineteenth century. Like Kant, for the most part these biologists did not regard teleology and mechanism as polar opposites, but rather as explanatory modes complementary to each other. Mechanism was expected to provide a completely accurate picture of life at the chemical level, without the need to invoke ‘vital forces.’ Indeed, Kant and many of the German biologists were strongly committed to the idea that all objects in Nature, be they organic or inorganic, are completely controlled by mechanical physical laws. These scientists had no objection to the idea that living beings are brought into existence by the mechanical action of physical laws. What they objected to was the possibility of constructing a scientific theory, based on mechanism alone, which described that coming into being, and that could completely describe the organization of life. . . . In Kant’s view, a mechanical explanation"¦could be given only when there is a clear separation between cause and effect. In living beings, causes and effects are inextricably mixed. . . . ultimate biological explanations require a special non-mechanical notion of causality - teleology - in which each part is simultaneously cause and effect. Parts related to the whole in this way transcend mechanical causality. [...] [...] Telic Thoughts has two quotes from Barrow and Tipler's The Cosmological Anthropic Principle on Kant, biology, and teleology. Kant's notion of teleology had an enormous influence on the work of German biologists in the first half of the nineteenth century. Like Kant, for the most part these biologists did not regard teleology and mechanism as polar opposites, but rather as explanatory modes complementary to each other. Mechanism was expected to provide a completely accurate picture of life at the chemical level, without the need to invoke 'vital forces.' Indeed, Kant and many of the German biologists were strongly committed to the idea that all objects in Nature, be they organic or inorganic, are completely controlled by mechanical physical laws. These scientists had no objection to the idea that living beings are brought into existence by the mechanical action of physical laws. What they objected to was the possibility of constructing a scientific theory, based on mechanism alone, which described that coming into being, and that could completely describe the organization of life. . . . In Kant's view, a mechanical explanation"¦could be given only when there is a clear separation between cause and effect. In living beings, causes and effects are inextricably mixed. . . . ultimate biological explanations require a special non-mechanical notion of causality - teleology - in which each part is simultaneously cause and effect. Parts related to the whole in this way transcend mechanical causality. [...]

]]> By: Steve Petermann http://telicthoughts.com/two-views/#comment-19812 Steve Petermann Tue, 30 May 2006 16:59:37 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=732#comment-19812 Hi johnnyb, <blockquote>As Polkinghorne pointed out, classical physics appeared deterministic because it only dealt with very stable systems. You can _create_ stability, but most systems are not so stable. It is very likely that most of physics is open to a small degree. And the body can amplify such openness to make a will have effects in the world. The Kantian notion takes it as physics being fully deterministic. While not being totally incompatible with teleology, it does make it redundant. I think the view of an "open physics" makes better sense of both worlds. </blockquote> I looks like there is a growing consensus among physcists that the reductionist view of science represents an inadequate approach. According to Paul Davies and Nobel physicist Robert Laughlin we are entering a new age of science where the focus will be on the dynamics of emergence. This approach takes seriously top-down causation. Laughlin also talks about a collective instability in things like gene expression. This means that systems that are collectively unstable can be <i>very</i> sensitive to small inputs from the environment (or intelligence?). Autocatalysis is another area where "one time events" are prevalent and "open". The import of all this, at least to me, is that intentionality need not be introduced "in the gaps" but could an inherent part of the unfolding of reality. Hi johnnyb,

As Polkinghorne pointed out, classical physics appeared deterministic because it only dealt with very stable systems. You can _create_ stability, but most systems are not so stable. It is very likely that most of physics is open to a small degree. And the body can amplify such openness to make a will have effects in the world.

The Kantian notion takes it as physics being fully deterministic. While not being totally incompatible with teleology, it does make it redundant. I think the view of an "open physics" makes better sense of both worlds.

I looks like there is a growing consensus among physcists that the reductionist view of science represents an inadequate approach. According to Paul Davies and Nobel physicist Robert Laughlin we are entering a new age of science where the focus will be on the dynamics of emergence. This approach takes seriously top-down causation. Laughlin also talks about a collective instability in things like gene expression. This means that systems that are collectively unstable can be very sensitive to small inputs from the environment (or intelligence?). Autocatalysis is another area where "one time events" are prevalent and "open".

The import of all this, at least to me, is that intentionality need not be introduced "in the gaps" but could an inherent part of the unfolding of reality.

]]> By: johnnyb http://telicthoughts.com/two-views/#comment-19794 johnnyb Tue, 30 May 2006 15:36:11 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=732#comment-19794 I think the problem is that the Kantian notion leaves teleology as _redundant_. I think they are complementary (in some degree), but that the purely physical viewpoint is incomplete -- not having sufficient causal efficacy to produce the effect. I take Polkinghorne's notion that the laws of physics are "open" -- that they do not fully determine the effect. I view our bodies as being essentially "teleology amplifiers", which take the combined open-ness of numerous reactions (on whatever levels they are open) and direct them towards a specific end. As Polkinghorne pointed out, classical physics appeared deterministic because it only dealt with very stable systems. You can _create_ stability, but most systems are not so stable. It is very likely that most of physics is open to a small degree. And the body can amplify such openness to make a will have effects in the world. The Kantian notion takes it as physics being fully deterministic. While not being totally incompatible with teleology, it does make it redundant. I think the view of an "open physics" makes better sense of both worlds. I think the problem is that the Kantian notion leaves teleology as _redundant_. I think they are complementary (in some degree), but that the purely physical viewpoint is incomplete — not having sufficient causal efficacy to produce the effect.

I take Polkinghorne's notion that the laws of physics are "open" — that they do not fully determine the effect. I view our bodies as being essentially "teleology amplifiers", which take the combined open-ness of numerous reactions (on whatever levels they are open) and direct them towards a specific end.

As Polkinghorne pointed out, classical physics appeared deterministic because it only dealt with very stable systems. You can _create_ stability, but most systems are not so stable. It is very likely that most of physics is open to a small degree. And the body can amplify such openness to make a will have effects in the world.

The Kantian notion takes it as physics being fully deterministic. While not being totally incompatible with teleology, it does make it redundant. I think the view of an "open physics" makes better sense of both worlds.

]]>