The "survival" strategy of the universe's energetic system is to learn of and anticipate the "known" and concurrently expect the "unknown."
Thus organisms with conscious connections to their surroundings learn to anticipate events and consequentially come to trust the accuracy of the anticipated. And to distrust those signals that have not been to the same extent expected. And the signalers learn in turn to make signals conform to their competitive and predatory needs, and thus these "deceptive" actions (as the more abstract thinkers have come to call it), have arisen and continue to fuel the evolutionary advancement of all purposive strategies.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
And So?
Perhaps the elemental "truth" of the cosmos is that any energetic system with the most minimal strategic purpose will learn to self-organize its operation; and that somewhere there has always been a form of strategically motivated energy.
All such organizing will thus be in turn strategic and all strategies by necessity manipulative, and in that sense competitive with all other potentially intervening strategies. What we then have come to see as strategic cooperation will have been the result of competition at some more basic level of these strategies' mutual existence.
So that we, as evolved strategic entities, can now cooperate to compete, somewhat as our cosmological forbears had much earlier competed to cooperate.
All such organizing will thus be in turn strategic and all strategies by necessity manipulative, and in that sense competitive with all other potentially intervening strategies. What we then have come to see as strategic cooperation will have been the result of competition at some more basic level of these strategies' mutual existence.
So that we, as evolved strategic entities, can now cooperate to compete, somewhat as our cosmological forbears had much earlier competed to cooperate.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Because?
All forms of our universe's nature are by the logic of its "laws" anticipating an answer to the "what comes next" question (i.e., a matter forming the basis of a problem requiring resolution). Evolving preparations for dealing more safely with prospective answers will have sequentially become their strategic purpose. Finding ways to better "ask" that central question becomes purposive as well.
Initial on-off optional systems develop safer sub-optional strategies. Which, trial and error wise, concurrently redevelop the forms that can more reasonably apply them.
Which (still the "big question" exactly how and when) allowed the arising of the simplest self-calculated questions and independently usable responses, that then developed individually separate yet inevitably cooperative strategies for discovering better questions, and better "living" forms from which to functionally ask them.
(And it may be that the universe has virtually always had symbolic pattern based strategies prepared to be adjusted and acted on self-sufficiently when opportunities required it, or circumstances were best suited to such processes.)
Initial on-off optional systems develop safer sub-optional strategies. Which, trial and error wise, concurrently redevelop the forms that can more reasonably apply them.
Which (still the "big question" exactly how and when) allowed the arising of the simplest self-calculated questions and independently usable responses, that then developed individually separate yet inevitably cooperative strategies for discovering better questions, and better "living" forms from which to functionally ask them.
(And it may be that the universe has virtually always had symbolic pattern based strategies prepared to be adjusted and acted on self-sufficiently when opportunities required it, or circumstances were best suited to such processes.)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Why
Why not?
Serving a biological purpose means, in effect, serving an intelligent purpose, if, as I believe, all biological functions were self engineered intelligently in anticipation of attending properly to expected problems.
And chances seem quite good that all systems functioning in the universe were self-engineered, even though more by reactive than pro-active choice, to nevertheless have, and thus serve, an intelligent purpose.
Which may be why so many are confused as to the use of the word purpose, since service of a purpose still implies a purpose somewhere behind the service. And we're taught that, outside of man and beasts at least, the universe has no purpose for its actions. But it seems to me our inferential feelings are correct after all, and that service of a purpose is always for an intelligently acquired and required reason.
Serving a biological purpose means, in effect, serving an intelligent purpose, if, as I believe, all biological functions were self engineered intelligently in anticipation of attending properly to expected problems.
And chances seem quite good that all systems functioning in the universe were self-engineered, even though more by reactive than pro-active choice, to nevertheless have, and thus serve, an intelligent purpose.
Which may be why so many are confused as to the use of the word purpose, since service of a purpose still implies a purpose somewhere behind the service. And we're taught that, outside of man and beasts at least, the universe has no purpose for its actions. But it seems to me our inferential feelings are correct after all, and that service of a purpose is always for an intelligently acquired and required reason.
Friday, May 6, 2011
More Reasonable Purposes
Conceptual versus Factual Premises
A lot's being written now with titles such as "Why do humans reason?" and "Arguments
for an argumentative theory." Interesting but as usual no-one is looking at our system's deeper evolutionary purpose. The points they are missing in a nutshell are these:
Our predictive systems are using probabilistic logic in one sense, but not necessarily as in Bayesian or other factual premise driven systems. Because what we in our subconscious processing are looking for are familiar patterns, and we assess them not so much for consequences of expected behaviors but for past purposes that those patterns must (from historical assessments) represent.
The problem then becomes one of how those predicted or predictive purposes might help us to anticipate the tactical natures of apposing learned or inherited strategies.
The probabilities depend on the perceived purposes, hence the premises involved are not so much factual as conceptual.
The concept of conceivable purposes.
A lot's being written now with titles such as "Why do humans reason?" and "Arguments
for an argumentative theory." Interesting but as usual no-one is looking at our system's deeper evolutionary purpose. The points they are missing in a nutshell are these:
Our predictive systems are using probabilistic logic in one sense, but not necessarily as in Bayesian or other factual premise driven systems. Because what we in our subconscious processing are looking for are familiar patterns, and we assess them not so much for consequences of expected behaviors but for past purposes that those patterns must (from historical assessments) represent.
The problem then becomes one of how those predicted or predictive purposes might help us to anticipate the tactical natures of apposing learned or inherited strategies.
The probabilities depend on the perceived purposes, hence the premises involved are not so much factual as conceptual.
The concept of conceivable purposes.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
In Service of My Purposes
When Something Serves a Purpose
If to be a "something" is to have a place in the scheme of things (once we've assumed there are schemata to be had), then the consistency with which that something may take its place will signify that being in such a place predictively amounts to at least one purpose (if not the greater purpose) that this something serves., i.e., its schematic need to take that time and place in nature.
Purposes to which these somethings are put? Not necessarily.
Found to fit? More likely.
If to be a "something" is to have a place in the scheme of things (once we've assumed there are schemata to be had), then the consistency with which that something may take its place will signify that being in such a place predictively amounts to at least one purpose (if not the greater purpose) that this something serves., i.e., its schematic need to take that time and place in nature.
Purposes to which these somethings are put? Not necessarily.
Found to fit? More likely.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Could Non-Reason Ever Serve a Purpose?
The universe by virtue of its apparent lawfulness is reasonable - the most probable consequences of its interactions are logically predictable. And yet a strictly determinative universe would have no need for logic or predictability.
Why? Because it seems a system with unregulated cause and effect would be more than just chaotic - there would arguably be no movement at all in a non-regulated and thus non-purposive universe.
Why not? No 'compelling' reason.
Why? Because it seems a system with unregulated cause and effect would be more than just chaotic - there would arguably be no movement at all in a non-regulated and thus non-purposive universe.
Why not? No 'compelling' reason.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)