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

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.

everybody, excuse my ignorance. we straight now

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

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.

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

Occam

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.

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.