2 of 2
2
mimicry
Posted: 31 August 2007 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

okay, then pardon me. what I meant to clarify is that youre not suggesting the grasshopper intentionally chooses to look like a leaf.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 12:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 31 August 2007 12:08 PM

okay, then pardon me. what I meant to clarify is that youre not suggesting the grasshopper intentionally chooses to look like a leaf.

Oh yes. Grashoppers don’t do a whole lot of intentional choosing.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

everybody, excuse my ignorance. we straight now

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22
dougsmith - 31 August 2007 12:00 PM
truthaddict - 31 August 2007 11:39 AM

so when Doug made his comment I said the quote above to clarify for others that he was not talking about teleology.

... but I was talking about teleology. To be clear, functional adaptations are teleological: they are adaptations for a particular end. (E.g., in this case, camouflage). That is teleological.

No, Doug.  The mutations are purely random and without any “for” at all.  If a particular mutation happens to allow the life form to exist in its environment a little more effectively, one may look at it and say (incorrectly) that member of the species accomplished a functional adaptation. 

You have to be careful in the use of “teleology”.  In ethics (Utilitarianism) it may be used for evaluation of behavior, but in science it refers to motivation or purpose.  No matter how much the camouflage helps the grasshopper, it wasn’t motivated to develop it.

I note that in a later post you stated that the grasshopper had no intention, but intention or purpose sort of goes along with the teleological explanation.

Occam

[ Edited: 31 August 2007 01:34 PM by Occam ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
Occam - 31 August 2007 01:30 PM

No, Doug.  The mutations are purely random and without any “for” at all.  If a particular mutation happens to allow the life form to exist in its environment a little more effectively, one may look at it and say (incorrectly) that member of the species accomplished a functional adaptation. 

You have to be careful in the use of “teleology”.  In ethics (Utilitarianism) it may be used for evaluation of behavior, but in science it refers to motivation or purpose.  No matter how much the camouflage helps the grasshopper, it wasn’t motivated to develop it.

I note that in a later post you stated that the grasshopper had no intention, but intention or purpose sort of goes along with the teleological explanation.

Occam, teleology doesn’t need intention. It does need purpose, and anything with a function has a purpose. Biological talk is inherently functional, as when we say that the shape of a grasshopper’s exoskeleton have the function of camoflage.

I suggest you look HERE for a good intro.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Ha, what do you expect of the mushy sciences like biology and psychology?  Hard scientists like physicists and chemists know what teleology really means.  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

For some of the biologist Ernst Mayr‘s views on teleology in biology, look HERE, and in particular his first conclusion:

(1) The use of so-called teleological language by biologists is legitimate; it neither implies a rejection of physicochemical explanation nor does it imply noncausal explanation.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

occam,

that was where i think i confused myself with the phrase teleology. i misused it in the context of intention. in a biological sense it doesnt require intention, which I wrongly asserted.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2