Tell About Teleology

[Ierrellus]

What is the meaning of purpose? If I say I have constructed a machine that functions as I wanted it to function, is that an indication of purpose accomplished? Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?

[kennethamy]

What is the meaning of purpose? If I say I have constructed a machine that functions as I wanted it to function, is that an indication of purpose accomplished? Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?

pur‧pose  /ˈpɜrpəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-puhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -posed, -pos‧ing.

–noun 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.


Since the machine was the "intended or desired result" of what you did, then, according to 2. (above) if you constructed it, then you accomplished your purpose.

But the idea of purpose implies intention. If you do something purposely, then you must have intended to do it. But not all organisms are capable of having an intention (of acting intentionally). It would be, for that reason, wrong to say of the kidney that the purpose of the kidney is to filter out the impurities of the blood, but it is certainly the function of the kidney to do exactly that. Again, certain kind of bacteria function to aid digestion. But bacteria have no purpose, since they have no intentions. The function of that switch on the computer is to turn on, or to turn off, the computer. I, on the other hand, use that switch with the purpose of turning the computer on (or off).

It is usually the mark of a primitive, or certainly, non-scientific, mind, to ascribe purpose where there is only function. It is only ntelligent beings who can have purposes. Non-intelligent beings have only functions.


Of course, in ordinary discourse, we often use "purpose" when we mean only "function". We may ask the salesman, what is the purpose of that switch, when what we are asking is, what is the function of that switch.

[Ierrellus]

K., for the last time I plead with you not to post your opinions against any of mine. Go to those threads where your opinion is respected. I do not hear you; I do not want to hear you. I am not criticizing you here. I'm simply requesting that, with so many options available to you here at IIDB, you can opt to not sully mine.

[kennethamy]

K., for the last time I plead with you not to post your opinions against any of mine. Go to those threads where your opinion is respected. I do not hear you; I do not want to hear you. I am not criticizing you here. I'm simply requesting that, with so many options available to you here at IIDB, you can opt to not sully mine.

"Sully". Now that is an interesting term to use. How does answering your question "sully" anything? Do you disagree with my answer? Present and support your objections. (Unless you do not know what "sully" means, it is obvious that you are harshly and impolitely, criticizing my answer, although for what reason I cannot guess). You asked a question on an open and public thread, and I replied to it without animus, and as best I knew how. You have not authority, nor right, to bar me from any thread, nor, is it right for you to do so. These are not private conversations between you and whomever you wish to converse with. As soon as you post, you lay yourself open to reply. If you think the reply violates any of the rules of this forum, then make a complaint.

[jaboteer]

What is the meaning of purpose? If I say I have constructed a machine that functions as I wanted it to function, is that an indication of purpose accomplished? Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?I would hazard a guess that your purpose was acomplished once the machine acts within your prescribed boundary conditions.

Purpose and human intention are difficult to idealize together since purpose is demonstratable while intention can remain veiled. Intentions are remnants of the past while purpose attack the future.

[kennethamy]

I would hazard a guess that your purpose was acomplished once the machine acts within your prescribed boundary conditions.

Purpose and human intention are difficult to idealize together since purpose is demonstratable while intention can remain veiled. Intentions are remnants of the past while purpose attack the future.

My purpose may be about the future (why "attack") but my intention is in the present. My purpose may be about the future, but it is not in the future. Nothing is in the future. That is why there is the thread about whether statements about the future can be true.

[Ierrellus]

K., For me the experience of your counterposts is all I need to define "sully"--trolling, countering by misreading or misinterpretation, lack of knowledge of most contemporary philosophy, old-schoolmarmish dependence on semantics and parsing, etc., etc., etc.
While I thank the one other poster who submitted a viable opinion, I now leave this thread.:banghead: Bye.

[Ierrellus]

Addendum--I would never have posted such as appears here to be ad hominem, had this been my experience only.

[kennethamy]

K., For me the experience of your counterposts is all I need to define "sully"--trolling, countering by misreading or misinterpretation, lack of knowledge of most contemporary philosophy, old-schoolmarmish dependence on semantics and parsing, etc., etc., etc.
While I thank the one other poster who submitted a viable opinion, I now leave this thread.:banghead: Bye.

To paraphrase Catesby on the death of Richard III (that's the name of a play by Shakespeare-William Shakespeare) nothing so becomes your stay on any thread as your leaving of it. The peculiar thing is that you offer no rebuttals, no counter-arguments, not even objections, reasoned or not. You just fret, and pick up your marbles. How do you think philosophical discourse is conducted?

[open-ended answer]

What is the meaning of purpose?
What is the purpose of meaning?
How does function differ from purpose?

I see purpose as being like in kind to function but with deeper and farther-reaching significance. The "function" of a casting machine may be to make identical objects in a quick and easily repetitive way. The purpose is to increase product for sales, that is to make money, that is to help the owner buy a yacht and live comfortable etc., that is to...

The purpose is a continual logical thread that is endued upon an "object" to give it a significance that transcends it's own functions/actions. What we conceive of our own "purposes" and what others perceive of our "purposes" will vary... it is relative to the viewpoint of the person.

Purpose and function can often be used synonomously but the first term has deeper connontations... because the effects of action can far outlast the "actor", as in the influence of thinkers and their works long after they have died.

What's the meaning of life? What's the purpose of life? Meaning puts "objects"(nouns) and "actions"(verbs) in their proper context, in their proper place, gives definition to terms. Purpose puts the action of objects into a conceived finalised point (telus)... the mistake is to determine it must be a singular point. The problem with the old "meaning of life" question is that we cannot put life into a proper context because we have no experience outside of life, there is no "place" to fit this object because it embodies us and lives within us and without(and around) us.

An individual's purpose cannot be conceived of in it-self, only inn relation to the outside.

OK maybe a bit past the original question.

Ierrullus:
"Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?"

I'd say so.

[kennethamy]

How does function differ from purpose?

I see purpose as being like in kind to function but with deeper and farther-reaching significance. The "function" of a casting machine may be to make identical objects in a quick and easily repetitive way. The purpose is to increase product for sales, that is to make money, that is to help the owner buy a yacht and live comfortable etc., that is to...

Ierrullus:
"Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?"

I'd say so.

Notice how you talk about the purpose of the machine in terms of it owner, and not in terms of the machine at all. That is because purpose must concern an intelligent being. It is the owner who has the purpose, and the machine has a "purpose" only derivatively, in terms of its owner's purpose. The machine has no purpose of its own, since the machine is not intelligent, and therefore, has no intention. It is only the owner's purpose or intention which gives the machine any purpose. Otherwise, the machine has only a function.

As I pointed out, a colony of bacteria may very well be able to survive. But since colonies of bacteria are non-intelligent, they (nor their structures, whatever those may be) have no purpose. Of course, some intelligent being, a physician, may introduce them into a patient, and then, it is the physician's purpose to help the patient digest his food with the help of the colony of bacteria. So, once again, we are really talking about the function of the colony of bacteria, which, itself, has no purpose, although, of course, the physician does have a purpose, for which he uses the colony of the bacteria.

Purpose and function are very different. Only beings with intelligence can have a purpose. Of course, intelligent beings can also have a function. My barber has a function. His function is to cut my hair. We can call people, "functionaries" but there is no word, "purposary". When my barber performs his function, for which I pay him, namely, cutting my hair, it is my purpose he is satisfying, not his. He is only performing his function.

[Penumbrae]

Purpose and function are very different. Only beings with intelligence can have a purpose. Of course, intelligent beings can also have a function. My barber has a function. His function is to cut my hair. We can call people, "functionaries" but there is no word, "purposary". When my barber performs his function, for which I pay him, namely, cutting my hair, it is my purpose he is satisfying, not his. He is only performing his function.

Perhaps it should be added that "only beings with intelligence can have a particular purpose." It seems to me that to ask "what purpose (in general) do human beings serve?" is at the very least theological question-begging. We have purposes (cooking pasta to eat, changing a tire), but we don't, as far as I can tell, have a purpose qua humans.

[untermensche]

What is the meaning of purpose? If I say I have constructed a machine that functions as I wanted it to function, is that an indication of purpose accomplished? Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?
Why does a structure like legs exist? They exist to serve survival purposes. To move the organism across the earth.

So the earth exists first, and then its realities, to move you need certain kinds of mechanisms, directs evolution as to what chance structures will have success on it.

So the purpose of the legs was directed. But not by any intelligence. By an environment.

Just like chance structures could have purposes moving the organism through the air, even if at first those structures provide very little movement through the air. And it is the air, and the survival advantage of being able to move in it that directs the developement of these structures that allow the organism to eventually fly.

[kennethamy]

Why does a structure like legs exist? They exist to serve survival purposes. To move the organism across the earth.



Whose purpose was it to move the organism across the earth? Aren't you talking about the function that legs have, and not its "purpose"?

[untermensche]

Whose purpose was it to move the organism across the earth? Aren't you talking about the function that legs have, and not its "purpose"?
No person's purpose. But they serve the purpose the available environment requires to get a survival advantage. To move across the earth is an advantage, even if it was only with the crudest of "legs".

But this survival advantage was defined by the environment. So it is the environment, and success in it by chance structures, that eventually leads to legs.

[kennethamy]

No person's purpose. But they serve the purpose the available environment requires to get a survival advantage. To move across the earth is an advantage, even if it was only with the crudest of "legs".

But this survival advantage was defined by the environment. So it is the environment, and success in it by chance structures, that eventually leads to legs.

The "available enviroment" has a purpose? How could that be? People have purposes, since they have intentions. "Available enviroments" are abstracts, and have neither intentions nor purposes. If you project a purpose on them, that is your business.

[untermensche]

The "available enviroment" has a purpose? How could that be? People have purposes, since they have intentions. "Available enviroments" are abstracts, and have neither intentions nor purposes. If you project a purpose on them, that is your business.
The available environment is what defines the chance structures that will have success in it.

And the structures, or modification to existing structures, that arise by chance either serve the purpose of giving a survival advantage in a specific environment, or they do not. If they serve that purpose, which is defined by the environment, not some person, like moving across the earth, which gives the advantage of being able to move to find food, then the structure will remain and thereby be something that can be modified by other later chance changes.

[kennethamy]

The available environment is what defines the chance structures that will have success in it.

And the structures, or modification to existing structures, that arise by chance either serve the purpose of giving a survival advantage in a specific environment, or they do not. If they serve that purpose, which is defined by the environment, not some person, like moving across the earth, which gives the advantage of being able to move to find food, then the structure will remain and thereby be something that can be modified by other later chance changes.

How can an enviroment "define" a purpose? Enviroments cannot define anything. Enviroments are not people. Enviroments have no intentions. Enviroments just "are".

[untermensche]

How can an enviroment "define" a purpose? Enviroments cannot define anything. Enviroments are not people. Enviroments have no intentions. Enviroments just "are".
This is how an environment defines a purpose.

First you have the earth, solid ground. A good way to find food on solid ground would be to move across it.

So the purpose, moving across, is defined by the environment, solid ground.

Is it any wonder we find so many ways in nature to move across it?

[comiezapr]

Teleology is pretty easy to handle. Ill start with a general framework, then i'll deal with the example of you offer, a machine working as intended. Ill try to generalize as best i can as i go through.

I have varios beliefs and desires. The contents of my beliefs can be charachterized as propositions; sentences where the meaning is transparent and there is no referance to indexicals or other things. Roughly, my system of belief locates a set of different possibilities, possible worlds. What this means is that given the propositions i believe there are certian ways that the world could be, either because the propositions believed dont distinguish between various possibilities or because they are silent with respect to certian possibilities. To make the possibilities more exact i, and other philosphers, individuate them as possible worlds.

My desires can be charachterized in this same way. The content of a desire is a proposition. The system of desires i have is a set of possible worlds, the set of possible worlds that are acceptable given the desires i have.

The example should be straightforward to deal with here. I desire to create a machine that performs some function. My desires are encapsulated in a set of possible worlds. I have various beliefs about the way the world is currently as well as these desires. In total, then, i have a set of possible worlds charachterizing the way that the world is (as i believe it to be) and a set of possible worlds charachterizing my desires, the way i want the world to be. My intentions are functions from one set of possible worlds (the ones determined by belief) to another set of possible worlds (the ones determined by desires). In less technical terminology, when i intend to do something i have both a goal in sight (the desire) and a starting point defined (the beliefs); when i intend to do something i act in accordance with my beliefs to fulfill my desire.

For the machine i create to satisfy my intention is for the world (as i believe it to be) after the process of creating the machine, to be in accordance with how my desires charachterized the world before the creation of the machine. My intentions can change during the process of creation, of course, and this framework can acomadate such changes.

I really hope this is clear because it can be generalized to deal with most teleological explanations to make them much more well defined. I hope this satisfies what i took to be a demand for clarity of intentional happenings and teleological happenings generally.

Edit:

Could one then say that organisms whose structures function in order to accomplish survival needs indicates a purpose for the structures?

Yes, you could do this. You would first need to say exactly what the teleological system in question is. For organisms it can be the organisms belief-desire system in which case the structures of the organism are used as tools within an intentional framework; the structures have a purpose in satisfying the organisms desire. You could also define the teleological system as the evolutionary one where the entities that are relevant to the teleological system are the basic entities of evolution (genes); these entities play the role of the thing that has beliefs and desires. The set of possible worlds that are started with (the one that is anaological to beliefs) is the actual world and the worlds that are aimed for (the worlds anaological to desires) are the worlds where there are more of the evolutionarily basic entities. This system has to be made so that each individual evolutionarily basic entity has its own intentions and such in which case the structures of an organism serve a purpose for many entities all at once. Sorry for the late edit.

[kennethamy]

This is how an environment defines a purpose.

First you have the earth, solid ground. A good way to find food on solid ground would be to move across it.

So the purpose, moving across, is defined by the environment, solid ground.

Is it any wonder we find so many ways in nature to move across it?

Moving across the ground is the enviroment's purpose? I would have thought it was my purpose. The enviroment would, of course, set limits to whether I can accomplish my purpose, but it does not "define" my purpose. And, of course, the enviroment has, itself, no purpose, although we can sometimes bend it to our purposes.

[untermensche]

Moving across the ground is the enviroment's purpose? I would have thought it was my purpose. The enviroment would, of course, set limits to whether I can accomplish my purpose, but it does not "define" my purpose. And, of course, the enviroment has, itself, no purpose, although we can sometimes bend it to our purposes.
Where could you possibly get the first question?

Please explain. It does not even closely resemble or smell like anything I have written.

Provide the exact quote where I talk about the environment's purpose being to move.

[kennethamy]

Where could you possibly get the first question?

Please explain. It does not even closely resemble or smell like anything I have written.

Provide the exact quote where I talk about the environment's purpose being to move.

Actually, I have lost any sense of to what it is that you are ascribing purpose, so I have been guessing. Maybe you had better make it clear just what it is that (according to you) has a purpose. Is it people? If it is people, then how does the enviroment "define" (another blessedly vague term) the person's purpose. Suppose it is my purpose to discover the ultimate answer to all the questions of the world. What has the enviroment to do with that?

[untermensche]

Actually, I have lost any sense of to what it is that you are ascribing purpose, so I have been guessing. Maybe you had better make it clear just what it is that (according to you) has a purpose. Is it people? If it is people, then how does the enviroment "define" (another blessedly vague term) the person's purpose. Suppose it is my purpose to discover the ultimate answer to all the questions of the world. What has the enviroment to do with that?
If we look at something like evolved legs, they obviously have a purpose. Their purpose is to move the person across the earth in search of food and water and shelter and mates and to move away from dangers. The legs are very good at moving the person across the earth.

And it is the earth itself that defined what the legs would be good at.

First there was the earth, and then there evolved various ways to move across it, because moving across it was a better survival strategy that not moving across it. So the first thing that had even the smallest ability to move across the earth had a survial advantage over all the things that could not move across the earth, that lived on land, and wasn't a plant.

So the ability to move across the land is created in part by the land itself, by the challenge the land poses, and the rewards for overcoming them.

So legs are what have a purpose, and their purpose is to move the person, and this purpose was defined by their being something to move across. Because organisms encountered solid earth, random mutations were able to lead to structures that had the purpose of moving across it. Because moving across the earth was a way to increase your chances for survival.

Without a defined purpose first there is no direction for evolution to move. Evolution moves, through random mutations, to develop structures that meet environmental challenges for survival. Structures that have a purpose defined by the environment.

[kennethamy]

If we look at something like evolved legs, they obviously have a purpose. Their purpose is to move the person across the earth in search of food and water and shelter and mates and to move away from dangers. The legs are very good at moving the person across the earth.

And it is the earth itself that defined what the legs would be good at.

First there was the earth, and then there evolved various ways to move across it, because moving across it was a better survival strategy that not moving across it. So the first thing that had even the smallest ability to move across the earth had a survial advantage over all the things that could not move across the earth, that lived on land, and wasn't a plant.

So the ability to move across the land is created in part by the land itself, by the challenge the land poses, and the rewards for overcoming them.

So legs are what have a purpose, and their purpose is to move the person, and this purpose was defined by their being something to move across. Because organisms encountered solid earth, random mutations were able to lead to structures that had the purpose of moving across it. Because moving across the earth was a way to increase your chances for survival.

Without a defined purpose first there is no direction for evolution to move. Evolution moves, through random mutations, to develop structures that meet environmental challenges for survival. Structures that have a purpose defined by the environment.


As I have been pointing out, legs don't have any purpose. Legs have a function. People have purposes because people intend to do things. Legs have no purpose, because legs do not intend to do things. The only sense in which legs can be said to have a purpose is deriviatively; in the sense that the person whose legs they are intends to do something with them, like walk. or kick a ball.

Think of talking about the purpose of an ashtray. Ashtrays have a purpose only in the sense that people use them to discard their ashes in them. But ashtrays in themselves have no purposes, for they have no intentions. The purpose of an ashtray is to function as the person who uses the ashtray intended it to be used. An ashtray (if it is heavy enough) can function as a door-stop too.

You cannot go around literally asking about the purpose of an ashtray as if it had a purpose independently of the purpose it is put to by the person who uses it.

[untermensche]

As I have been pointing out, legs don't have any purpose. Legs have a function. People have purposes because people intend to do things. Legs have no purpose, because legs do not intend to do things. The only sense in which legs can be said to have a purpose is deriviatively; in the sense that the person whose legs they are intends to do something with them, like walk. or kick a ball.

Think of talking about the purpose of an ashtray. Ashtrays have a purpose only in the sense that people use them to discard their ashes in them. But ashtrays in themselves have no purposes, for they have no intentions. The purpose of an ashtray is to function as the person who uses the ashtray intended it to be used. An ashtray (if it is heavy enough) can function as a door-stop too.

You cannot go around literally asking about the purpose of an ashtray as if it had a purpose independently of the purpose it is put to by the person who uses it.
No. Although the words purpose and function are very close to the same idea. The fuction of the lungs is to bring oxygen into the body and get rid of CO2, and that is the purpose of the lungs as well, since the lungs only have one function.

But if a thing has more than one function, like legs, the function that serves a survival purpose is the purpose for them. So moving across the ground is the purpose of legs, while tap danging is a function legs can perform, but it is not the survival purpose of legs.

Legs exist because they serve a survival purpose, not simply because they can perform many functions.

[kennethamy]

No. Although the words purpose and function are very close to the same idea. The fuction of the lungs is to bring oxygen into the body and get rid of CO2, and that is the purpose of the lungs as well, since the lungs only have one function.

But if a thing has more than one function, like legs, the function that serves a survival purpose is the purpose for them. So moving across the ground is the purpose of legs, while tap danging is a function legs can perform, but it is not the survival purpose of legs.

Legs exist because they serve a survival purpose, not simply because they can perform many functions.

But why mix up "function" and "purpose"? Why not say that lungs have a function within the system of the body, but that we cannot say they have a purpose when they do not have any intentions? Legs have several functions, it is true, but why call any of them the purpose of the legs. To talk about the purpose of the lungs or or the legs immediately raises the question, whose purpose (whose intention), and that leads right to some intelligence, and often to a deity. Objects have purposes only when someone gives them a purpose (like an ashtray). But objects may have functions if they operate within a system, and they are necessary for the maintenance of that system. and then, there is no need to talk about purpose at all. After all, when we talk of the purpose of an ashtray, aren't we just talking, indirectly, about the user or sometimes, the manufacturer, of the ashtray?

It is one of the great accomplishments of Darwinism that he showed how and why something has a function without the need of invoking the idea of purpose. You open the door again. If legs have several functions, then we can talk about the primary or the main function of the legs, and then talk of ancilliary functions. (I don't think that it is even accurate to say that it is the function of the legs to tap dance, because tap dancing does not play any role in the survival of the system, but walking does. So, it is neither the purpose or the function of the legs to tap dance. Why not say that we can use the legs to tap dance? )