DOCSLIB.ORG

8 the Organism As a Semiotic and Cybernetic System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
8 the Organism As a Semiotic and Cybernetic System 8 The Organism as a Semiotic and Cybernetic System In this chapter we shall deal with three main issues: (a) Organisms as semiotic systems, (b) teleonomy, information control, and teleology, (c) the notion of biological self. Organisms are essentially biological systems that are able not only to coadapt with other biological systems but also to control environmental information, that is, able to control the relevant parameters of the environment.1 To do this, they have developed specialized systems for information selection and control [Subsec. 7.6.2]. Without information control no free energy would be acquired, and the organism could not survive. A change of some parameters (of external, environmental variables) will affect the system’s stability in some way and could be dangerous, either directly by destabilizing the system, or indirectly by hiding some free-energy sources. In other words, the necessity to control environmental information arises because the environment always changes in a way that (1) cannot be predetermined by the organism and (2) often raises new problems and challenges. From a pure systemic point of view, it is this selective pressure that also produces new forms of adaptation and new solutions, like sexual reproduction at a phylogenetic level [Subsec. 7.5.2]. Therefore, adapta- tion, although going beyond the issue of information control, could not happen without the latter [Sec. 7.2]: An adaptive behavior is a special case of the behavior of a stable system [Subsec. 6.3.1], the region of stability being the region of the phase space in which all the essential variables lie within their normal limits2 (this is called homeostasis). I finally stress that at the level of unicellular organisms, especially the bacterial level, a localized information-control instance does not exist. This function is executed by the whole organism as both a distributed and an integrated system. 8.1 The Concept of Sign We have considered how problematic the classical concept of information-processing is [Sec. 6.1 and Subsec. 7.4.5]. The true mystery of life is how living beings are able to control environmental information by treating it as a sign of something that is fundamental for their own survival3 and act accordingly. For example, a certain chemical gradient is a sign of a certain free-energy resource. Signs are any form of being or activity in which some pattern (icon) and an indexical relation to a referent (an object or event) are connected [Fig. 8.1]. According to Peirce’s formulation,4 a sign is any physical event or object that stands for something in a certain respect or capacity. Summing up, there are two different features to be distinguished in any sign: 1[AULETTA 2008a]. 2[ASHBY 1952]. 3[VON HELMHOLTZ 1867, p. 586]. 4[PEIRCE CP, 2.228, 2.247–8, 2.304, and 1.540] [PEIRCE 1903c] [PEIRCE 1907]. Peirce was the father of semiotics. 248 The Concept of Sign 249 SIGN referent icon Fig. 8.1 General nature of the sign. The icon can be any pattern that can be associated with a certain referent. The referent can be any object, system, event, or outcome which can be physically interacted with. Ogden and Richards were the first scholars to make use of such triangles [OGDEN/RICHARDS 1923], but C. Cherry introduced this form [CHERRY 1957]. (1) The referent,5 i.e. the thing that a sign stands for. A sign has an indexical relation with its referent: A mark expresses this relation6 [Subsec. 5.1.4]. (2) A sign has such a relation with its referent in a certain respect. The icon is this respect, and it is the instructional or representational content of the sign, according to whether the direction is [Fig. 8.2] • From codified information (starting from the genome [Sec. 7.4]) to a referent (here repre- sented by a specific goal to be attained [Sec. 5.3], for instance the production of a protein displaying a certain function) or • From some external stimuli that are codified in informational terms at the membrane (for instance, for a receptor to be activated or not) [Sec. 7.6], or also in some peripheral sensory system (sensory coding [Subsec. 3.3.1]), to an internal representational or quasirepresen- tational pattern or function. This is the way in which information acquisition serves the needs of the organism. The assumption here is that ANY external signal or variation in the environment can in principle be codified in this way. In both cases, codification always occurs at the source [Subsec. 2.3.2], which is internal in the first case and external (rather at the surface) in the second one. In any case, only codified information at the source allows for the kind of information control that is necessary for the organism and that will be described below. This is the evolutionary pressure that explains the emergence [Subsec. 2.4.2] of a new classical information codification. The iconic content does not need to be an analogue of, or similar to, the referent. Anything to which the organism is sensitive can in principle stand for anything else if it is in a proper indexical relation with this something else and in a proper iconic respect relative to the organism and its needs. Speaking of animals’ dealing with signs, D. Premack asserts that a piece of plastic becomes a sign whenever the properties ascribed to the item are not those of the piece of plastic but of the object that it denotes.7 This is a very important intuition that can be generalized in this way: A 5[FREGE 1892a, FREGE 1892b]. 6Kripke thematized this referential relation in terms of the rigid indexicality of proper names [KRIPKE 1972] [AULETTA 2003a]. 7[PREMACK 1976]. 250 The Organism as a Semiotic and Cybernetic System INFORMATION SOURCE Fig. 8.2 There are two main information sources: One inside the organism and the other outside [see Sec. 7.2]. If we schematically depict the organism as a cell having a core, representing the genetic information (which is also true to a certain extent for unicellular eukaryotes), the first source is located in the most inner part of it (representing its program). The other source is the result of the interaction of the organism with the exterior environment and is depicted here as information codification taking place at the membrane (at the interface between interior and exterior). sign does not represent physical or chemical properties but the function a certain item has, plays, or represents for the organism.8 We can say that classical information-acquiring deals with the acquiring of information from a source, while representational semiotics, being a guess about the vital significance of an information source, can be conceived as kind of reversed Bayesian inference [Subsec. 6.1.1 and again Sec. 7.6]: This inference is expressed by the probability that, given a certain transduction, the parameters that may have caused it are those that the organism expects. For this reason, physical laws and semiotic controls require disjointed, complementary modes of description.9 Laws are global and inexorable [Sec. 2.4]. Controls are local and conditional. Life’s semiotical activity is born for the purpose of allowing the organism’s goal-directed activity,10 which is the true core of the cybernetic research program [Subsecs. 3.2.2 and 6.1.5]. Semiotic controls require several aspects, none of which are functionally describable by physical laws that, unlike semiotic systems which rely on an information source, are based on parameters like energy, time, and rates of change. However, they are structurally describable in the language of physics in terms of constraints, degenerate states and processes, information-sharing and selecting, differential timing, and irreversible dissipative events. The fact that semiotics cannot be dissociated from codified information (even if it is not by itself information but only dealing-with-information comprehending functions, outcomes, and processes that are not themselves codified) is of great relevance [Subsec. 7.4.5]. I mention here that some scholars have tried to build a theory of living beings in semiotic terms (so-called biosemiotics), but very often in sharp opposition to (at least classical) information theory.11 It seems to me that in 8[AULETTA et al. 2008]. 9[PATTEE 1995]. 10[PATTEE 1997]. 11[SEBEOK 1991, SEBEOK 2001] [HOFFMEYER 1996, HOFFMEYER 1997]. The Organism as a Teleonomic and Teleologic System 251 this way no significant result can be obtained. For instance, we have already considered [Sec. 7.2] how the concept of a new complex system may arise through a new level of integration of previous aspects (information processing, regulating, and selecting) that are already present at the level of the pure information-acquisition processes [Subsec. 2.3.2]. Moreover, I have said that the most basic relation that grounds the semiotic processes of life can be found in the connection between codified information and function in the activation–transcription–translation process. Among the first scholars to have understood life in semiotic terms was J. von Uexk¨ull.12 Indeed, only living beings grasp and produce signs. In the physical world there are patterns [Subsec. 6.3.1], but there is no agent other than an organism that is able to refer these patterns to objects, events, or operation outcomes through a proper indexical relation,13 which is another way of saying that it is only organisms that can show adaptation processes.14 This means that physical (or informational) patterns (i.e. signals) cannot be interpreted as signs if not through a biological system able to treat them as signs. 8.2 The Organism as a Teleonomic and Teleologic System 8.2.1 Teleonomy We have remarked that prebiotic self-organizing systems like B´enard cells are dependent on entropic fluxes that are not controlled by themselves, and this is the main relation they have with the environment [Subsecs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Framing Christian Eschatology Through Natural Teleology? Theological Possibilities and Concerns
    Framing Christian Eschatology through Natural Teleology? Theological Possibilities and Concerns Leidenhag, M. (2019). Framing Christian Eschatology through Natural Teleology? Theological Possibilities and Concerns. Heythrop Journal . https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.13305 Published in: Heythrop Journal Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2019 Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes Registered. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:02. Oct. 2021 Framing Christian Eschatology through Natural Teleology? Theological Possibilities and Concerns Mikael Leidenhag New College. University of Edinburgh. Mound Place. EH1 2LX. UK. [email protected]. Christian theology typically maintains that God is transforming the universe into a New Creation. Christianity is significantly forward looking with its concern with the ‘last things’ and the final destinies of individual people, human history, and the cosmos as a whole.1 The history of the world is, therefore, interpreted in light of what will come.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecules, Information and the Origin of Life: What Is Next?
    molecules Perspective Molecules, Information and the Origin of Life: What Is Next? Salvatore Chirumbolo 1,* and Antonio Vella 2 1 Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy 2 Verona-Unit of Immunology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, 37134 Verona, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0458027645 Abstract: How life did originate and what is life, in its deepest foundation? The texture of life is known to be held by molecules and their chemical-physical laws, yet a thorough elucidation of the aforementioned questions still stands as a puzzling challenge for science. Focusing solely on molecules and their laws has indirectly consolidated, in the scientific knowledge, a mechanistic (reductionist) perspective of biology and medicine. This occurred throughout the long historical path of experimental science, affecting subsequently the onset of the many theses and speculations about the origin of life and its maintenance. Actually, defining what is life, asks for a novel epistemology, a ground on which living systems’ organization, whose origin is still questioned via chemistry, physics and even philosophy, may provide a new key to focus onto the complex nature of the human being. In this scenario, many issues, such as the role of information and water structure, have been long time neglected from the theoretical basis on the origin of life and marginalized as a kind of scenic backstage. On the contrary, applied science and technology went ahead on considering molecules as the sole leading components in the scenery. Water physics and information dynamics may have a role in living systems much more fundamental than ever expected.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Essay Three
    Chapter 3 Essay Three THE MULTIPLE MEANINGS OF TELEOLOGICAL TELEOLOGICAL language is frequently used in biology in order to make statements about the functions of organs, about physiological processes, and about the behavior and actions of species and individuals. Such language is characterized by the use of the words function, purpose, and goal, as well as by statements that something exists or is done in order to. Typical statements of this sort are: "One of the functions of the kidneys is to eliminate the end products of protein metabolism," or "Birds migrate to warm climates in order to escape the low temperatures and food shortages of winter." In spite of the long-standing misgivings of physical scientists, philosophers, and logicians, many biologists have continued to insist not only that such teleological statements are objective and free of metaphysical content, but also that they express something important which is lost when teleological language is eliminated from such statements. Recent reviews of the problem in the philosophical literature (Nagel 1961; Beckner 1969; Hull 1973; to cite only a few of a large selection of such publications) concede the legitimacy of some teleological statements but still display considerable divergence of opinion as to the actual meaning of the word teleological and the relations between teleology and causality. This confusion is nothing new and goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who invoked final causes not only for individual life processes (such as development from the egg to the adult) but also for the universe as a whole. To him, as a biologist, the form-giving of the specific life process was the primary paradigm of a finalistic process, but for his epigones the order of the universe and the trend toward its perfection became completely dominant.
    [Show full text]
  • Proper Activity, Preference, and the Meaning of Life
    Philos Theor Biol (2014) 6:e501 Proper activity, preference, and the meaning of life Lucas J. Mix§ Both popular and scientific definitions of life must account for the possibility of the sub- optimal operation of some function. Identifying the function in question and the criteria for optimality will be necessary steps in crafting a definition that is both intuitive and rigorous. I lay out a rule of thumb—the proper activity criterion—and a three-part typology of binary, range, and preference for understanding definitions of life. The resolution of “optimal” function within a scientific framework presents the central challenge to creating a successful definition of life. A brief history of definitions of life and explanations of biological function is presented to demonstrate the value of the typology. After analyzing three controversial cases—viruses, mules, and stars—I present three possible options for resolution: vitalism, reductionism, and instrumentalism. Only by confronting the consequences of each can we come to consensus about what is necessary and desirable from a common definition. KEYWORDS Astrobiology ● Evolution ● Life ● Metabolism ● Origin of Life 1. Introduction The primary challenge for generating a useful scientific definition of life comes from competing concepts of biological activity and our failure to make them explicit in our models. I set forth a three-part scheme for characterizing definitions of life, identifying a binary (presence or absence of some activity), a range (of operations for the activity), and a preference (for one end of the range). The three components together form a proper activity in biology (Table 1). To be clear, I am not proposing that proper activity be adopted as the best definition of life or even as a desirable definition for life.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.On the Debate About Teleology in Biology: the Notion Of
    História, Ciências, Saúde - Manguinhos ISSN: 0104-5970 [email protected] Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasil Leitão Ribeiro, Manuel Gustavo; Leites Larentis, Ariane; Ayres Caldas, Lúcio; Coelho Garcia, Tomás; Labati Terra, Letícia; Hawrylak Herbst, Marcelo; Volcan Almeida, Rodrigo On the debate about teleology in biology: the notion of “teleological obstacle” História, Ciências, Saúde - Manguinhos, vol. 22, núm. 4, octubre-diciembre, 2015, pp. 1321-1333 Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=386142813012 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative On the debate about teleology in biology On the debate about RIBEIRO, Manuel Gustavo Leitão et al. On the debate about teleology in teleology in biology: biology: the notion of “teleological obstacle”. História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, v.22, n.4, the notion of out.-dez. 2015, p.1321-1333. “teleological obstacle” Abstract Among the epistemological obstacles O debate sobre teleologia described by Gaston Bachelard, we contend that unitary and pragmatic na biologia: a noção de knowledge is correlated to the teleological categories of Ernst Mayr “obstáculo teleológico” and is the basis for prevailing debate on the notion of “function” in biology. Given the proximity of the aspects Manuel Gustavo Leitão Ribeiro highlighted by these authors, we propose Professor, Instituto de Biologia/Universidade Federal Fluminense. to associate the role of teleological Niterói – RJ – Brasil thinking in biology and the notion of [email protected] unitary and pragmatic knowledge as an obstacle to scientific knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Architecture, Design, and Tradeoffs in Biomolecular Feedback Systems
    Architecture, Design, and Tradeoffs in Biomolecular Feedback Systems Thesis by Noah Andrew Olsman In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Pasadena, California 2019 Defended November 16, 2018 ii © 2019 Noah Andrew Olsman ORCID: 0000-0002-4351-3880 All rights reserved iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Well you’re in your little room, and you’re working on something good. But if it’s really good, you’re gonna need a bigger room. And when you’re in the bigger room, you might not know what to do. You might have to think of, How you got started, Sitting in your little room. — Jack White, Little Room I have been incredibly fortunate to be surrounded by supportive and stimulating people throughout my life. My family has always encouraged with my natural tendency to pursue a wide variety of different interests, even when they (and, frankly, I) did not know where these pursuits would take me. I am fairly confident that most parents would not have put up with a 16-year-old spending most school nights playing online poker. That freedom throughout my life allowed me the opportunity to find what truly interests me and follow it through, and has been an important aspect of the way I think about science. I would also like to thank my brother Matthew for providing guidance over the years and being a source of support and perspective. I will forever be indebted to the Caltech community. Despite living the majority of my life in Los Angeles, I had little understanding until I came here what Caltech is as an institution.
    [Show full text]
  • SYSTEM APPROACH to TELEONOMY of BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION Summary. the Paper Deals with Natural Immanent Teleology of Biosystems
    Szczepan W. Ślaga SYSTEM APPROACH TO TELEONOMY OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION Summary. The paper deals with natural immanent teleology of biosystems. With respect to M. Bunge’s view of theoretical constructs the author takes a system- informational theory of bioorganization and search the factual references in the form of real objects and processes exhibiting the features of goal-directed activities. Equifinality as a main feature of open and dynamic systems is proposed to be related to the idea of a program bearing information. An internal dynamics and the coordination of different processes in biosystems takes place under the influence of diverse regulations and control mechanisms with the latter acting as a result of adequate internal or external information. We therefore may say that processes in biosystems are accomplishing in accordance with that program and are directed to the goal inducated by information encoded in this program. The specific organization of biosystems and biological processes seems to be the foundation of teleology in biology. This organization is the empirical basis and the factual reference of teleological statements and a starting-point for formulation of criteria of an approval of these systems as teleonomic and processes as goal-directed ones. The problem of teleological explanation is not analysed here. I. PRELIMINARY DEFINITONS AND DEMARCATION On purposefulness one has written so much that we could fill with the books and papers quite a big library. Yet the problem of purposefulness of nature is still as much puzzling and intriguing as it was at Aristotle’s times. It look as if 68 -paraphrasing the words of Teilhard de Chardin-after getting to a certain point in explanation of the problem we do not more any step further, but continue to shift around some inexplicable mistery inherited after ages of discussions and disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong and Weak Teleology in the Life Sciences Post-Darwin
    religions Article Strong and Weak Teleology in the Life Sciences Post-Darwin Michael A. Flannery UAB Libraries, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA; fl[email protected] Received: 27 May 2020; Accepted: 15 June 2020; Published: 18 June 2020 Abstract: It is often assumed that direction and purpose in nature—teleology—is a dead relic of the past, a result of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871). But teleology has had a long and complex relationship with science. This paper will trace its general history with an emphasis upon the life sciences, especially biology. Particularly important is the fact that all teleology is not equal; strong (transcendent) teleology (designated Ts) should be distinguished from weak (purely descriptive and utilitarian) teleology (designated Tw). A working definition of teleology in its most meaningful aspects is then given. The challenges that Darwinism faced in dealing with purpose in nature are discussed, as is their proposed solution in the evolutionary synthesis, and the persistence of Ts following that synthesis is outlined and critiqued. Evidence of Ts persistence in the life sciences is presented with several relevant examples, and strong teleology is further differentiated by specific (Ts+) and nonspecific (Ts ) varieties. This essay concludes that Ts remains an ongoing − and integral part of the life sciences and will likely remain so, even though it may be true but not verifiable empirically. Keywords: teleology; teleonomy; teleometry; Darwinism; neo-Darwinian synthesis; evolution; Lecomte du Noüy; Edmund Ware Sinnott; Pierre-Paul Grassé; Michael Denton 1. Teleology’s Historical Relationship to Science Teleology in its most basic form is about purposes in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Ideas Revisited
    THE HISTORY OF IDEAS REVISITED In an essay entitled « Objectives and Methods in-intellectual History », published in 1957, I proposed that the field of study known as the history of ideas (often called intellectual history in the United States) be defined as a search for (a) the most general presuppositions of thought in a given age and (b) the factors responsible for bringing about changes in those presuppositions in the course of time'. By way of illustrating this approach to the history of ideas I undertook to delineate (1) what I conceived to be the dominant view of nature in the eighteenth century, (2) a formerly dominant but now (in the eighteenth century) subdominant view centered on the notion of decline from original perfection, and (3) an incipient view of nature as a law-bound system of matter in motion. I then tried to suggest some of the historical developments responsible for making the once-incipient view of nature the dominant view by the end of the nineteenth century. By that time the static view of nature as a framework of rationally contrived structures fitted as a stage for the activities of intelligent beings had been replaced by a view that represented all the structures of nature — stars, solar systems, mountain ranges, species, etc. — as products of the operations of a law-bound system of matter in motion ; the only permanent structures were the atoms, the ultimate particles of the system of matter in motion. As to the factors which helped to produce this change in presupposi- tions concerning nature, I suggested the following : (1) new discoveries in astronomy, geology, and paleontology suggesting that the seemingly permanent structures of nature might be more mutable than had been 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Program”: Behind the Genesis of an Influential Metaphor
    GENETICS | PERSPECTIVES The “Genetic Program”: Behind the Genesis of an Influential Metaphor Alexandre E. Peluffo Institut Jacques Monod, UMR 7592, CNRS-Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 75013 Paris, France ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7216-4205 (A.E.P.) ABSTRACT The metaphor of the “genetic program,” indicating the genome as a set of instructions required to build a phenotype, has been very influential in biology despite various criticisms over the years. This metaphor, first published in 1961, is thought to have been invented independently in two different articles, one by Ernst Mayr and the other by François Jacob and Jacques Monod. Here, after a detailed analysis of what both parties meant by “genetic program,” I show, using unpublished archives, the strong resemblance between the ideas of Mayr and Monod and suggest that their idea of genetic program probably shares a common origin. I explore the possibility that the two men met before 1961 and also exchanged their ideas through common friends and colleagues in the field of molecular biology. Based on unpublished correspondence of Jacob and Monod, I highlight the important events that influenced the preparation of their influential paper, which introduced the concept of the genetic program. Finally, I suggest that the genetic program metaphor may have preceded both papers and that it was probably used informally before 1961. KEYWORDS program; genetic program; developmental program; Ernst Mayr; François Jacob; Jacques Monod; teleonomy FTER World War II, many physicists turned toward bi- forces during development (Goodwin 1985; Noble 2006), Aology and brought Descartes’ metaphor of “animal ma- the role of symbiosis in defining individuality (Gilbert and Epel chines” closer to reality, with the difference that the machines 2008), and the inescapable role of the environment (Oyama were now electric computers run by programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose for and Within Creation: a Theological Appraisal of Organismic Teleology
    Modern Theology Month 2021 DOI:10.1111/moth.12689 ISSN 0266-7177 (Print) ISSN 1468-0025 (Online) PURPOSE FOR AND WITHIN CREATION: A THEOLOGICAL APPRAISAL OF ORGANISMIC TELEOLOGY MIKAEL LEIDENHAG Abstract Although many believe that modern evolutionary biology renders teleology superfluous, this article explores the recent resurgence of attempts to locate teleology, functions, and purpose in the nature of organisms. This essay further explores the relevance of teleology within Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox traditions, and the ways in which some theological doctrines have been construed against a teleological conception of both humanity and the wider cosmos. It also defends the reality of intrinsic teleology against an evolutionary-reductionist accommodation strategy, and responds to the accusation that a theological affirmation of purpose within biological organisms entails the thorny position of intelligent design. Introduction It is commonly assumed that the rise of modern science and evolutionary biology entailed the demise of teleology. The received narrative is that the shift to mechanism meant that final causation was subsumed under efficient causation. Darwinian evolution provided a new frame- work for explaining biological change and progression without the need for teleological catego- ries of purposes, goals, and divine intentionality. This has led some thinkers to exclaim with striking confidence that the message of science is “absolutely clear: no teleology, no purposes, goals, or ends.”1 Given this development, some theologians have come to argue that whereas there is purpose for creation, there is no purpose in creation. This article will argue for the opposing position, namely that there are good philosophical reasons for affirming teleology within the natural world and that theologians ought to affirm the reality of intrinsic teleology.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution 'On Purpose': Teleonomy in Living Systems
    EVOLUTION ‘ON PURPOSE’: TELEONOMY IN LIVING SYSTEMS MONDAY 28TH AND TUESDAY 29TH JUNE 2021 2 DAY ONLINE INTERNATIONAL MEETING ORGANISED BY THE LINNEAN SOCIETY OF LONDON Living systems exhibit an internal teleology, the full implications of which have not been explored. This meeting will address various aspects of this phenomenon, including its scope and meaning, and its many forms and facets. Although it is now widely accepted that living systems exhibit an internal teleology, or teleonomy, the full implications of this distinctive biological property have yet to be explored. This online conference will seek to address various aspects of this important phenomenon, including the origins and history of the teleonomy concept, its scope and meaning, and its many forms and facets. Possible topics may include: an historical review of teleological thinking; teleology (and entelechy) versus teleonomy in evolutionary theory; the nature of teleonomy (who/what is in control, and how?); agency and teleonomy; semiotics and teleonomy; modeling teleonomic processes; teleonomy in the genome, in epigenesis, in physiology, and in behaviour; teleonomy and natural selection; teleonomy in human evolution; and, especially significant, how teleonomy has influenced the evolutionary process. PROGRAMME June 28, 12-4 PM GMT (1-5 BST): 8 half hour presentations June 28, 5:30-7:30 PM GMT (6:30-8:30 BST): 4 half hour presentations June 29, 12-4 PM GMT (1-5 BST): 8 half hour presentations June 29, 5:30-7:30 PM GMT (6:30-8:30 BST): 1 hour, pre-arranged comments, 1 hour, open discussion MONDAY JUNE 28 12.00 (GMT) Welcome by the President of the Linnean Society of London 12.05–12.30 Peter Corning FLS (ISCS, Seattle) | Teleonomy in Evolution: “The Ghost in the Machine” 12.30–13.00 J.
    [Show full text]