Causes, Goals, and Reasons: Clarifying the meanings of teleology by Dan J. Bruiger

Dear Researcher Bruiger,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible teleology.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Thanks for the essay!

I like the review aspect of it, and its broad nature. I thought that you were right to ask: "Is the mathematical description of teleological behavior feasible?" You quickly answer in the negative, saying that "Yet, mathematical models are essentially simplistic, whereas nature is essentially complex--perhaps indefinitely so. The prospect of mathematically describing complex processes, leading from molecules to "aims" and "intentions", is sufficiently daunting to warrant a negative appraisal."

But just because in general things are very complex doesn't mean there aren't simple and generalizable cases of it. Perhaps the mathematical description of teleological behavior in a human is completely impossible with current capabilities, but what of a bat, a bee, a cell, or artificial life and agents? You yourself say that a language of state-spaces and attractors exists - it seems to me that this should be the first place one looks for such a mathematical description, and there are artificial agents simple enough to make the attempt.

Hi, Well written and I agree with the conclusion. More work needed to define the problem before jumping to a claimed solution..

Dan,

I enjoyed reading your essay and found it very useful. You managed to unknot some long entangled abstractions and clarify the problem space. In particular, I was pleased with your adept deflation of the notion of determinacy; -- "Determinacy and indeterminacy are states of knowledge, not of nature." You make a substantial argument to that effect, but actually, what was most enlightening was that I didn't realize one was allowed to slay that particular dragon. It is still found tethered in the yard of some very astute physicists. I appreciated your general argument that it is necessary to distinguish between that which is mental and that which is physical. This is an essential bit of mental hygiene, but one that is difficult to maintain since the former arises from and is thoroughly engaged with the substrate of the latter.

As to "agency," if you read philosophy on the subject, it feels like a game of golf without the holes. There is certainly clarity in attributing agency to autopoietic entities, yet there is utility in its usage by geologists, "canals carved by the agency of running water." This roots the notion in a physical context as a more general principle. I noticed that you twice mention the logical possibility that the universe itself might be discovered to be autopoietic. That would be an interesting paradigm to shift.

Regards, Don Foster

Hello Dan

I especially like your critique of AI mysticism: "The programmer, not the machine, specifies the goals of the program." I've been arguing that computers and robots are merely projections of agency as you define it, and that "artificial intelligence" (AI) should be de-mystified as "artificial expertise" (AE).

To the question: "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?" you have essentially negated it with the thesis that it is intention which gives rise to mindless mathematical laws. And you ask, what gives rise to aims and intention, if it's not mindless mathematical laws?

You answer is that "nature 'programmed' organisms to be self-programming!", self-programming being what you associate with intention, which you ascribe to "agency."

But with that answer it seems to me the essay, although very thoughtful and well-written, only begs the question with a different formulation: How can nature program (give rise to) self-programming? You've speculated that the cosmos might turn out to be self-organizing on large scales (which would make a metaphysical Nature an agency in your terms). But in positing a dualism of biological systems that manifest agency, and merely physical systems that don't, you are left with a physical nature that is initially not self-programming, and only then, with the emergence on the microscopic scale of individual biological organisms ("the only agents we know of"), agencies that are. Hence, it seems to me, the fundamental question of how biological agency can arise from physical non-agency is left unresolved.

Dear Dan J. Bruiger,

Thank you for the nice essay. You analysed the FQXi question in a fine manner and went into Teleology and artificial intelligence to Robots. You are correct probably those robots will try to self program to fix their own aims...

But will that be a good process to program the robots that way? Will that be helpful or destructive...?

Hi Dan Bruiger,

Contrasting 'random' and 'intention' (random = not intended) is fascinating; I haven't seen it so stated before. And "determinacy and indeterminacy are states of knowledge, not nature."

I do agree that "mathematical laws cannot give rise to anything that other mathematics." And I am just to the second paragraph!

I haven't come across Bunge for some time, but he is correct that "Action principles do not imply teleology." And D'Abro's following remark.

You observe that the cosmos may turn out to be self-organizing on large scales. I find it more likely that a self-organizing cosmos would operate on all scales, and that is essentially what I propose in my essay, which I hope you will read.

You key on 'agency', and state "there can be no consciousness without internal representation" [but not vice versa]. I define things a little differently. I define consciousness as awareness and volition, whereas intelligence is consciousness plus logic. It is physical logical structure that yields representation. Since I assign consciousness (agency) to a universal field, then it is the interaction of this physical field with 'matter' that is locally self-organizing, as the field is aware of dynamic local physical logic (as in neural nets). This disposes of the need to explain the 'emergence' of a system that is aware of itself. The field is aware of local physical flows, and "concentrates" where such flows are maximum, as in the brains of evolved organisms, all of which evolved in the presence of this universal field.

Otherwise one must explain how my massive brain is conscious, but also how the gnat that is walking on my paper as I write this, whose brain is the size of the point of a pin, also manages to walk, fly, find food, mate, reproduce and survive over the millennia. One field interacting with each and every bio-organism prevents one from having to explain how each and every individual organism "became aware", yet the organic structure and unique experiences of each organism explain the great variety we observe.

You clearly have gone to great lengths to understand these issues; I hope my essay helps advance your understanding.

Thanks for fascinating, well thought out, informational and entertaining essay. I think it needs more visibility.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I would rather believe in theology again than in genuine teleology. Nonetheless, I am looking for essays that are devoted to what is behind extremal principles.

Incidentally, concerning "The Found and the Made" I came by chance across a posting in sci.math that plausibly explained why both applies. It called "i" an invention. While I am not sure if this is correct, I suspect Pauli was wrong.

Hi Dan,

You say "I think it is great that physics now takes an interest in consciousness, but the ideas I have seen proposed essentially bark up the wrong tree. I think physics will have to change, to allow a place for the subject alongside the object, before it will be able to find an objective explanation for consciousness."

And you say "It strikes me as no easier to say how a neural structure interacts with a consciousness field (producing awareness) than to say how awareness arises in "dead matter" through Darwinian selection."

Having tried both approaches, I do think it's easier to assume that consciousness is inherent in the universe rather than an artifact. As I answered you on my own page where you asked "how neural nets "couple" with the consciousness field?"

In physics, "couple" means interaction or force. Typical forces are F=qE, the force on charge q of electric field E and F=mG, the force on mass m of gravity field G. So we might hypothesize F=iC, the force on intelligent substance i, of consciousness field C, however I reject the idea of "intelligent substance", i. So where do we go? If we look further we remember F= qE qv x B. That is we include the force of the magnetic field B on charge current qv. So we might hypothesize F = mG mv x C, for the force of consciousness field C on momentum mv. What momentum? The momentum of mass flowing in axons and across synaptic gaps. If one plays around like this, one might come up with very interesting results, including the fact that the field energy ~C**2 has mass equivalence and thus couples to itself. Try it. See where it takes you.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dan J. Bruiger,

Thank you, It is thinking and Good policy..

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Dear Dan Bruiger,

Thank you for a wonderful essay. I truly enjoyed reading it and gained a better understanding of all the terminology that is sometimes loosely thrown around. It influenced my own entry in needing to focus on genuine teleology and using math, a product of human cognition as a tool to characterize it.

Natesh

Dear Dan J. Bruiger

great essay, getting at real issues of importance, and taking the philosophical context seriously. The kind of non-simplistic analysis we need.

Appreciated.

George Ellis

Dan,

Really good essay. I echo Georges comments. Conceptually built on the same footings as mine which I think you'll like, though I do get even more practical!

In particular I commend;

..the formation of the program itself can potentially be explained in causal terms, for example though natural selection of mutations.

While laws do not govern, a program governs because it is constituted to do so. In other words, while a law is an empirical generalization of observations, a program is a set of commands to achieve an end.

"mathematical laws" and "aims and intention" are compatible with each other insofar as they are alike expressions of human agency. But no further.

'...no aspect of nature can be exhaustively mapped'.

I applaud you sir. I'll also be very interested in your understanding, thoughts and agreement of mine, which may be a little more intellectually 'testing'!

Very best of luck.

Peter

With regard to identifying intelligent systems, you suggest autopoiesis with the caveat that there is a resultant limitation that intelligent systems must be self-producing. I couldn't help but wonder whether my measure for intelligent systems, nurturing capacity directed at the root element, would satisfy that criterion. I don't think so, since it does not reproduce. On the other hand, it does self-maintenance rather well.

On the Cybernetics work you are referring to, my guess is that it must be Ashby's Requisite Variety and Conant's Good Regulator theorem. I am not mathematically informed enough to judge my work in terms of their scholarship, but I am fairly sure the system satisfies 'homeostasis' as a condition.