Thanks, Bjorn. That was very helpful. I’ve been re-reading Christian DeDuve’s books and he specifically dismisses three “isms,” namely, vitalism, finalism/teleology and creationism. When I looked up teleology in the dictionary, I was challenged. I’m very thankful for your explanation and piece of history which clarifes the issue for me. Your effort is very much appreciated.
Fred Good
[From Rick Marken (2005.12.01.0820)]
Fred Good writes:
Thanks, Bjorn. That was very helpful. I've been re-reading Christian DeDuve's
books and he specifically dismisses three "isms," namely, vitalism,
finalism/teleology and creationism. When I looked up teleology in the
dictionary, I was challenged. I'm very thankful for your explanation and piece
of history which clarifes the issue for me. Your effort is very much
appreciated.
At dictionary.com the first definition of teleology is "The study of design
or purpose in natural phenomena". Well, that's what PCT is all about. The
fact that teleology has been dismissed by scientists (Bill Powers has noted
that teleology is still considered a "scientific profanity") goes a long way
towards explaining why PCT has not caught on with psychologists who want to
consider themselves scientific.
PCT is based on the fact that purposeful behavior is real -- it's control.
So the study of purposeful behavior -- teleology -- is scientifically
legitimate. It all comes down to understanding the _fact_ of control: the
fact that organisms act in whatever way is necessary in order to produce
pre-selected results. One the phenomenon of purpose is recognized and
understood there is no taint that comes from studying it.
Best regards
Rick
---
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.01,20:45 EUST)]
From Rick Marken (2005.12.01.0820)
At dictionary.com the first definition of teleology is "The
study of design or purpose in natural phenomena". Well,
that's what PCT is all about. The fact that teleology has
been dismissed by scientists (Bill Powers has noted
that teleology is still considered a "scientific profanity")
goes a long way towards explaining why PCT has not
caught on with psychologists who want to
consider themselves scientific.
Wonderful.
Let me chat for a while.
People who don't know PCT have a problem when they shall explain "purpose".
In a rubber band example they say that the purpose is something that appear
first when Mr. NN pulled the rubber band knot from a certain position to
"over the dot". They say that we cannot see what the cause is (learn about
the cause) after the effect. This conflicts with determinism. Cause is
before the effect in a time interval.
We who know PCT know that life is control, mostly control with negative
feedback. Life is not cause and effect. Life is control.
What PCT may teach the world is that determinism is for _not_ living things.
Control with negative feedback is for living things and also for not living
things (for more not living things than we often think).
Purpose is independent of causality, initial or final.
I also think control with negative feedback is for economics, because the
economic actions are part of control loops in living organisms.
We shall be careful when we talk about teleology and purpose so people don't
think upon purpose as a cause. With PCT we shall teach them that cause and
effect is a misstep for living organisms and we shall offer them PCT,
control with negative feedback.
Bjorn