The biological basis of teleological concepts

by Harry Binswanger

What is the actual basis of terms such as "goal," "function," and "for the sake of"? Can these teleological concepts be validly applied to non-conscious biological processes such as the heartbeat, plant growth, and cellular metabolism? Does the behavior of any inanimate objects, natural or man-made, qualify as goal-directed? To resolve these issues, Harry Binswanger provides a unique approach combining factual and epistemological considerations. If human purposeful action is the paradigm case of goal-directed action, then regarding a non-purposeful process as goal-directed means taking it to be causally similar to purposeful action. Accordingly, to determine the proper extent of teleological concepts, Binswanger provides an analysis of purposeful action and a point-by-point comparison of the features of purposeful action to those of vegetative and inanimate processes. He concludes that natural selection, in adapting actions to ends with survival value, does make all living action qualify as goal-directed, and that no inanimate process qualifies. An appendix compares Binswanger's views with those of Larry Wright and Andrew Woodfield.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Biology, Science

264 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

Reviews

[Steven]

For what Binswanger was trying to do in this book, I think he did a good job. It's actually funny that he was right about cultural evolution being nonsense 50ya. It's pretty shocking that those brain dead ideas have hobbled along for so long, but they're wholly supported by the regime so it be what it do....

[Boris R · Rating 5 out of 5]

We all like to philosophize about whats life is all about, and what makes us tick as human beings, and what would it take to build a robot that is "alive". This books discusses all these ideas from birds-eye view of biology and develops a proof that all living things, including animals, plants, organs and cells, have a goal. But only humans can really understand anything, so how can animals and plants understand what they are doing? Does a dog understand that to satisfy hunger it needs to eat, or is it automatically going to get food? What about plants -- do they understand that they need sunlight, or are they automatically reaching for it? If these actions are automatic, yet they seem to have a clear purpose, then is there a grand designer God? For example, a heart beats in order to pump blood. This blood itself enables the heart to continue pumping. Since the heart can not understand that it needs to pump blood to continue functioning, then someone must have designed the whole system, and that someone must have understood the purpose of the heart. True or false? The book answers this question.