Purpose in Biology

[Resha Caner]

I liked the outcome of our musings on the fundamental principle of biology even though it seems no one else did. Since I'm not a biologist, I have some freedom to color outside the lines since the result will never impact the practice of biology, so I find these little forays engaging.

I've been pondering the idea of "purpose". First, to be clear, I don't mean purpose in the sense of the intent of an intelligent agent. So, this isn't an attempt to sneak in ID. Though a creationist, I don't think ID is a viable approach. Rather, I mean it more in terms of a history of productive use. So, if elephants have traditionally used their feet for walking, the purpose of feet is walking, and to then use their feet as supports for a coffee table is not their purpose.

So, I would first like to hear opinions of whether there is any value for a concept of purpose in biology?

 

[Anguspure]

I liked the outcome of our musings on the fundamental principle of biology even though it seems no one else did. Since I'm not a biologist, I have some freedom to color outside the lines since the result will never impact the practice of biology, so I find these little forays engaging.

I've been pondering the idea of "purpose". First, to be clear, I don't mean purpose in the sense of the intent of an intelligent agent. So, this isn't an attempt to sneak in ID. Though a creationist, I don't think ID is a viable approach. Rather, I mean it more in terms of a history of productive use. So, if elephants have traditionally used their feet for walking, the purpose of feet is walking, and to then use their feet as supports for a coffee table is not their purpose.

So, I would first like to hear opinions of whether there is any value for a concept of purpose in biology?

Purpose is term that describes an abstract.

Where a basic chemical function is observed in biology purpose may be difficult to discern because of the simple chemical action that occurs because of laws of physics and chemistry.

However wherever a number of parts combine in a heirachy to perform a higher and different function, an abstract purpose may be discerned.

 

[Resha Caner]

Purpose is term that describes an abstract.

Where a basic chemical function is observed in biology purpose may be difficult to discern because of the simple chemical action that occurs because of laws of physics and chemistry.

However wherever a number of parts combine in a heirachy to perform a higher and different function, an abstract purpose may be discerned.

You're right that an idea of purpose would probably only apply to higher systems. You're also right that it is difficult to pin down. I go back and forth on whether it can be done and whether it would be of any use.

But I don't think the abstract nature of it is the roadblock. There are many things in science that are abstract. In fact, per the old philosophical problem of trying to separate substance and property, it's sometimes hard to discern what is real and what is abstract.

For example, in mechanics is "force" a real thing or an abstraction? I lean toward saying it's an abstraction. I do so because of a thought experiment regarding what can stand alone. To oversimplify it, the question is: can I have matter without force? Yes. Can I have force without matter? No. So, matter is the "real" thing and force an abstraction of a property of interacting matter.

 

[Anguspure]

You're right that an idea of purpose would probably only apply to higher systems. You're also right that it is difficult to pin down. I go back and forth on whether it can be done and whether it would be of any use.

But I don't think the abstract nature of it is the roadblock. There are many things in science that are abstract. In fact, per the old philosophical problem of trying to separate substance and property, it's sometimes hard to discern what is real and what is abstract.

It is interesting that we consider a contrast between what is real and what is abstract. If abstract concepts such as numbers, purpose and laws run to the very core of everything we study, should we not consider that abstracts are at least as important to what is real as things that we perceive as material and concrete?

For example, in mechanics is "force" a real thing or an abstraction? I lean toward saying it's an abstraction. I do so because of a thought experiment regarding what can stand alone. To oversimplify it, the question is: can I have matter without force? Yes. Can I have force without matter? No. So, matter is the "real" thing and force an abstraction of a property of interacting matter.

I don't think we can have matter without force. The very constituent of matter is force (E=MC2) and the manner in which one piece of matter is distinguished from another is a manifestation of force.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is interesting that we consider a contrast between what is real and what is abstract. If abstract concepts such as numbers, purpose and laws run to the very core of everything we study, should we not consider that abstracts are at least as important to what is real as things that we perceive as material and concrete?

This is a digression from the topic, but I guess we can entertain ourselves with it until (or if) someone else replies. I don't think I ever implied that real things are more important than abstract things, but I would say they are more fundamental and less changeable.

The issue with force is that it is dependent on other, more fundamental things. Therefore, it can be defined in a number of different ways. There is no way to demonstrate that force must be a certain way. Rather there is only an agreed upon definition. So, while the abstract is important, it is dangerous to think of it as fixed, proven, real. That is how one becomes myopic.

I don't think we can have matter without force. The very constituent of matter is force (E=MC2) and the manner in which one piece of matter is distinguished from another is a manifestation of force.

Force doesn't appear in E = mc^2.

Fundamental particles are not distinguished by force, but by their electric charge, color charge, spin, and mass. In fact, the term "force" is being dropped from discussions of the fundamental. For example, what used to be called the "weak force" is now more commonly called the "weak interaction" - a more benign term.

So, if the universe consisted of one and only one quark, there would be no force as there would be nothing for that single quark to apply a force to. As implied by the switch from "force" to "interaction", force is a response of two (or more) things, not a property of one thing.

 

[Anguspure]

This is a digression from the topic, but I guess we can entertain ourselves with it until (or if) someone else replies. I don't think I ever implied that real things are more important than abstract things, but I would say they are more fundamental and less changeable.

The issue with force is that it is dependent on other, more fundamental things. Therefore, it can be defined in a number of different ways. There is no way to demonstrate that force must be a certain way. Rather there is only an agreed upon definition. So, while the abstract is important, it is dangerous to think of it as fixed, proven, real. That is how one becomes myopic.



Force doesn't appear in E = mc^2.

Fundamental particles are not distinguished by force, but by their electric charge, color charge, spin, and mass. In fact, the term "force" is being dropped from discussions of the fundamental. For example, what used to be called the "weak force" is now more commonly called the "weak interaction" - a more benign term.

So, if the universe consisted of one and only one quark, there would be no force as there would be nothing for that single quark to apply a force to. As implied by the switch from "force" to "interaction", force is a response of two (or more) things, not a property of one thing.

This is curious. Is not energy a unit of force?

 

[Resha Caner]

This is curious. Is not energy a unit of force?

No, it's a unit of energy. In the SI system, force is measured in Newtons (N), and energy is measured in Joules (J).

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it's a unit of energy. In the SI system, force is measured in Newtons (N), and energy is measured in Joules (J).

Actually, energy is defined as the ability to do work.

Work is force times distance, (Newton-meters) and is also measured in Joules.

Power is work divided by time (Newton-meters/sec), measured in Watts.

 

[Adi-Buddha]

Does biology have a purpose? Frankly, this question never crossed my mind. Even if God created biology on purpose, he didn't reveal it to the mankind, so there is no way of discovering what the purpose is. Saying that the purpose is unknown is the same as saying that it doesn't exist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Does biology have a purpose?

Since our souls are occupying biological systems, that seems like a purpose to me.

One thing I've noticed from a life in science, is that the universe runs by incredibly elegant rules, even if it appears to be complex and obscure. When we get to the bottom of things, it's always a lot simpler than we initially thought.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since our souls are occupying biological systems, that seems like a purpose to me.

I doubt that's anything you could formalize for science.

 

[The Barbarian]

I doubt that's anything you could formalize for science.

You're correct. Science, by its very methodology is unable to make such a conclusion. The supernatural is beyond the reach of science, which can neither verify nor deny it.

However, scientists can. Thank God for that.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're correct. Science, by its very methodology is unable to make such a conclusion. The supernatural is beyond the reach of science, which can neither verify nor deny it.

I never included the supernatural in my idea of purpose. In fact, I find the term "supernatural" rather useless. It was you who mentioned the soul.

So, I was looking more toward using an idea of purpose in a scientific context.

 

[The Barbarian]

I never included the supernatural in my idea of purpose. In fact, I find the term "supernatural" rather useless. It was you who mentioned the soul.

So, I was looking more toward using an idea of purpose in a scientific context.

A team of psychology researchers at Boston University (BU) asked chemists, geologists and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT and Yale University to evaluate explanations for different natural phenomena. The statements included purpose-based (or teleological) explanations such as "Trees produce oxygen so that animals can breathe," or "The Earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV light."

Scientists who were not under time pressure tended to accurately reject these purpose-based explanations. Meanwhile, scientists who were instructed to assess the statements quickly were more likely to endorse these teleological explanations, even though they are scientifically unwarranted.


"It is quite surprising what these studies show," Deborah Kelemen, an associate professor of psychology at BU, said in a statement. "Even though advanced scientific training can reduce acceptance of scientifically inaccurate teleological explanations, it cannot erase a tenacious early-emerging human tendency to find purpose in nature. It seems that our minds may be naturally more geared to religion than science."
https://www.livescience.com/24378-scientists-purpose-nature.html

What you're asking about is what philosophers call a "final cause." For example, a table has an efficient cause (carpentry) and final cause (place to eat meals). Science can't deal with final causes in nature. It has no way to identify them.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure you're seeing my point yet, but that's OK. I knew it was a long shot before we started.

There are many who use mystical renderings of words like "force" and "energy" that have nothing to do with science. Those words did not originate with scientific meaning, but rather scientists appropriated them for scientific purposes and gave them more rigorous, scientifically based definitions. As this thread shows, people then often conflate the meanings, and think that simply referring to something as having energy or force makes their statement scientific. It seems sometimes the opposite occurs as well.

I was asking the same of the word "purpose". It was just a thought experiment.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure you're seeing my point yet, but that's OK. I knew it was a long shot before we started.

My experience is that if you're having trouble defining it simply, it's probably because you don't have it very well defined for yourself.

There are many who use mystical renderings of words like "force" and "energy" that have nothing to do with science. Those words did not originate with scientific meaning, but rather scientists appropriated them for scientific purposes and gave them more rigorous, scientifically based definitions. As this thread shows, people then often conflate the meanings, and think that simply referring to something as having energy or force makes their statement scientific. It seems sometimes the opposite occurs as well.

See the research I cited. It appears humans are wired to look for purpose. This is why even scientists, if they don't think it over carefully, may attribute "purpose" to nature as a scientific idea. And it's not hard to see why. It's a more specific case of humans being able to pick patterns out of background. Early hominids who saw tall grass moving and inferred "big animal in there" tended to survive more often than those that didn't.

Hence our perceptual bias toward "purpose." In moderate amounts, that bias has a strong survival value. In excessive amounts, it amounts to paranoia.

I was asking the same of the word "purpose". It was just a thought experiment.

"Energy" btw, has almost exactly the same meaning in science as it does in the original Greek:

Greek energeia "activity, action, operation," from energos "active, working," from en "at" (see en- (2)) + ergon "work, that which is wrought; business; action," from PIE root *werg- "to do."

In science, energy is defined as the ability to do work.

Force is an interaction between two objects, a push or a pull. The etymology of "force" is more indirect. It implies compulsion against an adversary.

 

[Resha Caner]

My experience is that if you're having trouble defining it simply, it's probably because you don't have it very well defined for yourself.

Yes, the idea is in it's infancy. If you want to defer your participation in the discussion until the idea is more mature, that's fine with me. I wasn't placing blame. Whether it's my inadequate explanation or your inadequate understanding, I don't think you yet grasp what I'm after.

See the research I cited. It appears humans are wired to look for purpose.

I saw what you cited, but I don't think that matters. That humans are wired to look for purpose does not make purpose unscientific. People are wired to sense force - to feel it, yet force also has a scientific definition.

"Energy" btw, ...

I'm quite familiar with force, work, energy, etc. My M.S. is in Mechanical Engineering and I've got over 30 years experience with mechanics. Your response here honestly confuses me, and I don't know how to address that confusion except to be direct: I get the impression you're conflating my observations about other people with my own understanding of force and energy. The Greek root of "energy" in no way affects the mystical meanings some people attach to the word, and those are meanings told me by other people. They do not relate to my understanding of the scientific definition of energy.

The conversation has become rather tangled.

 

[The Barbarian]

Words mean things. "Purpose" in science is dependent on an agent capable of intent. Purpose in nature would presuppose an agent that made nature.

So science can't deal with that presupposition, although scientists can.

That's how it works.

 

[Resha Caner]

Words mean things. "Purpose" in science is dependent on an agent capable of intent. Purpose in nature would presuppose an agent that made nature.

So science can't deal with that presupposition, although scientists can.

That's how it works.

That sounds somewhat Platonist to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

That sounds somewhat Platonist to me.

In the sense that one distinguishes between effective causes and final causes.