Wonders and Singularities
a cause for purpose
All too frequently wonders and singularities (phenomena) are judged by the cause which gave rise to the often incredible purpose that they become endowed with for serving. For example, a violent volcano eruption creates islands and makes living space. The relation that exist between two temporarily simultaneous or successive events when the first (the cause) brings about the second (the effect) is the study of causality.
In philosophy, the school of thought that looks at the results of the cause, the finality, is known as the teleological perspective. It focuses on the finality of an object or purpose, the end result, rather than the cause that gave birth to its eventual purpose and end.
Classical philosophy argues that natural entities have an intrinsic purpose independent of human use or opinion. I agree. When humans label something based on the value of its utility, such as a knife or a fork, it is so labeled based on that items extrinsic (relational) property giving to it by humans. Even when asking, “what makes a good knife,” the answer would be “one that cuts good.” Focusing on the end result of what the purpose of the knife is will allow for the makers of the knife to know that it is a good knife even if it is left on a beach for all eternity and never used.
Weight is another example of an extrinsic value that is always subject to change based on the effects of the gravitational force field on that object in that particular location (i.e, respective of where it exist). To be clear, things get heavier (weight, extrinsic) as they get closer to the sun (or closer to the center of the Earth), yet their mass (intrinsic) remains the same. Aristotle said that the acorn’s intrinsic telos (end goal, finality) is to become a fully grown oak tree. But it may be said the extrinsic value giving to it by humans is that it is to become wood for a table or a house at some point.
I also think of potted plants and Christmas tree farms as good examples. The florist will tell you that the (extrinsic) purpose of the flower is to design a good bouquet. Likewise, the farmer will tell you that the end result (extrinsic) of the tree is to be a “good Christmas tree.” But neither bouquets nor Christmas trees are intrinsically or wholly contained within these objects.
Modern philosophers (though I would argue there is no longer such a thing as philosophy or philosophers. I did go over this in The Bonobo as Philosopher if you wish to refer to that publication for my reason), and scientists argue and debate on the validity and accuracy of teleological axioms in philosophy and science. As such, modern scientific and philosophical language has sought to introduce fancy language to confuddle hidden agendas. Enter - the concept of attractor, which works to a degree (that’s a pun if you can follow along).
The mathematical system of dynamics is the functioning of a system described by the dependency of a point in relation to time and its ambience in space, such as parametric curve. I have added a graph below to help you understand.
This can include mathematical models for the random motion of particles suspended in a medium such as a liquid or gas (known as Brownian motion), and the back-and-forth motion of a pendulum. Basically, the attractor is a set of states toward which a system tends to evolve given a wide variety of starting conditions for that system.
Again, an attractor is basically the end result or state of a system that is implied by the rules of that system. Everything from religion to chess has rules bound up inside a system that is meant to guide the players of that religion or game of chess to an end result; salvation or the capturing of an opponents king.
In philosophy, Nietzsche’s idea of the übermensch (superman) is the idea that just as a dog cannot possibly understand or grapple with the idea of being a human neither can normal humans come to understand the notion of being a super-human. The übermensch is a teleological attractor but only to basic normal humans who must experience limitations and death.
Thomas Nagel in 2012 conceptualized a non-Darwinian account of evolution (don’t laugh) to include impersonal and natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective values. Though Nagel is not a biologist (laugh) and has even said that he is not qualified nor competent enough to argue against biogeography, the fossil record, comparative psychology, or genomics, (among other fields) he does state that his main complaint is that evolution has some explanatory tasks to perform but that it can’t. (Huh?) But if evolutionists are troubled they can pack up their worries because Nagel is basically just knitting fog.
At this point I must quote John Dupré from the University of Exeter 2012:
“Nagel expresses a view that was popular among philosophers of science half a century ago, and has been of the decline ever since. It is a view that is perhaps still common among philosophers of mind (David Chalmers much discussed book The Consciousness of Mind (1996), for example, bases its argument for dualism on a similar view of materialism), but reductionism has been almost entirely rejected by philosophers actually engaged with the physical and biological sciences: it simply has no interesting relation to the diversity of things that scientists actually do.”
I agree.
Nagel’s main argument, when it is made clear, is that materialist Neo-Darwinism (which apparently is his own concept, a bad habit of philosophers) has failed to provide an adequate explanation for mind and for value and according to Nagel, the cosmos cannot function properly without mind and value, but I am pretty sure he would never say that to a Stegosaurus.
When it comes to understanding this materialist Neo-Darwinian structure invented by Nagel I have had more luck nailing snot to a wall. Apparently, he could use some very basic psychology. Even psychology 101 tries to separate those who believe it is all mental and cognitive from those who believe it is all behavioral. This is done with the nature versus nurture argument. Then, of course, it could be a little of both. But it is in no way only cognitive and it can certainly function just fine without the cognitive aspect. Look at arachnids, insects, and crustaceans which don’t feel any emotions whatsoever. Their functionality is entirely based on behavior; if it’s hot, move away. For more on this I would refer one to B.F Skinner.
Just with insects alone, there are over 1 million species that have been studied to some degree. Also, about one-fifth of all marine life is crustacean and with 8,060,833,650 billion humans, there are about 3 million arachnids per human, or about 21 quadrillion spiders. So it would behoove an alien space craft flying past Earth looking for creatures high in emotional intelligence to keep on cruising considering that most of Earths inhabitants have no natural instinctive state of mind whatsoever. Then you throw in lizards, to boot!
The capacity of one to recognize and understand oneself as an independent reasoner and accept their biased dependance on social practices and traditions tends to lean toward the impossible. The ultimate goal of deep satisfaction and liberation does not come from understanding everything from an unbiased frame of mind. But again, I would say that a person who is one hundred percent free of biases comes with their own inherent set of problems. Look at Gandhi who thought he was completely unbiased and understood how to look at his biases as an independent observer and come to what he called practical solutions for everyone else. It can be dangerous to think that we are unbiased and know everything. Dangerous for ourselves and others.
I admit that the practices of science and philosophy are teleologically geared toward the true understanding of what is right and good. My lifelong search for truth has taught me that I don’t judge by right or wrong, good or bad. I judge by whether one takes or gives and how will the scales be balanced when they leave this world. Did you take more or did you give more? This is the most measurable and observable approach I can find thus far in my travels.
Consequentialist hold that it is ok to kill one person in order to save many. It’s the old philosophical maxim “the end justifies the means.” But there are those who adhere to the stringent deontological argument that states there is no way to justify a small lie even to save millions or prevent a war. Looking back, if I have learned anything during my journey it is best captured in: it’s a little bit of everything.
“Always leave things better than you found them.” Barbie: The Pearl Princess 2014.
best,
Think Dragon