I agree we are not in a newtonian universe anymore, but in a dynamical
universe. By reintroducing the aristotelian final causality as
teleology you are still in a essentialist world view, were things have
internal purpose. We should reduce the phenomena of teleology not as a
internal finality but as the result of fractal or dynamical constraints
that give rise to attractors. The funny thing is that this dynamical systems frame of analysis is
offering us the mathematical tools for reducing functionnal
neuroscience to physics by general dynamical process like
self-organization. I’m really encouraging everyone to read the
Scholarpedia article on "Self-organization" to get a grip on how these
circular causal process EXPLAIN AWAY the teleology or final causality
that Matt want to reintroduce.
universe. By reintroducing the aristotelian final causality as
teleology you are still in a essentialist world view, were things have
internal purpose. We should reduce the phenomena of teleology not as a
internal finality but as the result of fractal or dynamical constraints
that give rise to attractors. The funny thing is that this dynamical systems frame of analysis is
offering us the mathematical tools for reducing functionnal
neuroscience to physics by general dynamical process like
self-organization. I’m really encouraging everyone to read the
Scholarpedia article on "Self-organization" to get a grip on how these
circular causal process EXPLAIN AWAY the teleology or final causality
that Matt want to reintroduce.
You should google that : "Three Fallacies of Teleology" and read the
little blog article. My level of english is just too poor to continue
the debate, but I believe you’re attributing goal-directed behavior to
things that are not goal-directed.
