Introducing James Barham; Parts 3 & 4 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 20, 2015, 18:10 (3170 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: We need to think carefully about this term “teleology”. Does he mean purpose, or does he mean divine purpose?-As I read him it is purposeful activity by the organism.
> 
> dhw: “Thus, the evolutionary process has depended upon the inherent, teleological capability of all living things to adapt themselves to circumstances, within and without. It is this capability that explains evolution, not the other way around.”
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain anything; it's a process.-He is not having evolution explain anything. Look again. He is saying the teleology of adaptation appears to explain the process of evolution. -
> dhw: So instead of random mutations and natural selection explaining evolution, we now have purposeful mutations and natural selection as our explanation. We do not have an explanation for the intelligence that organizes the purposeful mutations.-Agreed. but we have the problem of explaining the source of the intelligent information the organisms are using.
> 
> dhw: “The point is simply this: Organisms of all sorts are capable of intelligent, goal-directed, adaptive behavior that cannot possibly be accounted for on the basis of the theory of natural selection.”
> 
> Of course they can't. The argument is a non sequitur. Their intelligent behaviour is accounted for by their intelligence.-Which developed how?-> “The main task of Darwinian theory is to "reduce" teleology and normativity to mechanism.”-> 
> dhw: Interestingly, the main task of Turellian theory is to promote teleology through mechanism, since David believes God's purpose could only be achieved by preprogramming and dabbling, which would make all organisms into automatons: the exact opposite of Barham and Shapiro's claims.-Not exactly. Neither provide us with a source of the intelligence. If naturally developed, it would require immediate analysis of experienced stimuli quickly enough to survive rapid changes in stressful environment changes, either in climate or new predators.-> 
> DAVID: My comment: Obviously organisms have built-in adaptation guides; source?
> 
> dhw: Not obvious at all, since clearly Barham and Shapiro attribute autonomous intelligence to organisms. Source? Shapiro refuses to be drawn. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility of a designer God. I don't believe in it, but I don't believe in any of the alternatives either, though one of them must be true!-Since you accept cause and effect, list in your head the possible causes or the intelligence and tell me which is most realistic from your viewpoint.