Perplexed in Peoria  wrote:

> "John Wilkins"  wrote in message
> news:c9jnmk$2g5p$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > Perplexed in Peoria  wrote:
> >
> > > "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
> > > news:c9fpqn$19n4$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > > Perplexed in Peoria 
wrote or quoted:
> > > > > See my reply to John.
> > > >
> > > > Can't seem to find that reply.
> > >
> > > Damn, the reply seems to have been lost by Google Groups.  It was a
> > > long one and I didn't save a copy.  Dumb of me.
> >
> > Most of my really excellent articles get lost, leaving only the mediocre
> > ones. Can't exactly explain it...
> > >
> > > In the meantime, the main thrust of my response to John was
> > > that any discussion on these topics has to take place in
> > > the context of Shannon's communication theory.  That means:
> > >
> > > 1.  That information theory inevitably carries a dose of
> > >     teleology - it is an engineering discipline, not a
> > >     branch of pure descriptive science.  Of course,
> > >     Nature (natural selection) is also an engineer.  A
> > >     central part of this is Shannon's idea of the active
> > >     channel.
> >
> > Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it didn't matter what
> > the meaning of the message was in his theory, so long as the stream
> > received was the stream sent. I don't think this is in any way a
> > teleological theory, and I believe you are overinterpreting. It applies
> > nicely to a nonteleological system (for example, cell--cell signalling).
> >
> As it happens, my lost post anticipated and dealt with this
> response.  You need to imagine three levels here.  Meaning reduces
> to information, which in turn reduces to physical state.  Shannon
> deals only with the lower two levels, but the information
> level retains a modicum of teleology.  Here is the quote
> from Shannon that you referred to, with my EMPHASIS added:
> 
>   The fundamental PROBLEM of communication is that of
>   reproducing at one point either exactly OR APPROXIMATELY
>   a message selected at another point.  Frequently the
>   messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are
>   correlated according to some system with certain physical
>   or conceptual entities.  These semantic aspects of
>   communication are irrelevant to the ENGINEERING PROBLEM.
>   The significant aspect is that the message is one
>   selected from a set of possible messages.  The system
>   MUST BE DESIGNED to operate for each possible selection ...

That there is a design problem in Shannon systems is a fact about the
context in which Shannon developed the maths. It has no more teleology
in it that game theory needs rational egoists to make sense. In a
*telegraphic* system there is an element of intentional design, because
that is how telegraphic systems get made and why. But application of
Shannon theory to a biological system does not involve teleology, any
more than the application of game theory to genetics or evolution
requires reflective self-interest-maximising agents.
> 
> However, it must be that you use the word teleological
> differently than I do.  Cell-to-cell signalling is quite
> teleological, as I use the word, assuming of course that
> this signalling is an adaptation created by natural
> selection to serve some function.  Your reductionist
> tendencies (or perhaps tendencies toward Cartesian dualism)
> may be worse than I thought.  Natural selection EXPLAINS
> the appearance of design - it does not dispell it.  To
> my mind, NS restores the respectability of teleology in
> biology - it doesn't demand that teleological language
> and forms of explanation be suppressed.

I think you need to read up on the way teleology has been dealt with
since Mayr and Pittenrigh  worked out the notion of a teleonomic
system. Teleonomy is goal-seeking behavior, teleology is goal-directed
behavior. Shannon building a telegraphy system for Bell is teleological,
because Shannon is a gaol-directed system. Cell--cell signaling is a
teleonomic system because it seeks a particular outcome, but it does so
because of decidedly nonteleological processes.

Think of it like this:

"Blind" systems include teleonomic systems include teleological systems.
The pre-evolutionary view was the exact reverse.
-- 
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au
  a little emptier, a little spent
  as always by that quiver in the self,
  subjugated, yes, and obedient.  -- Seamus Heaney
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/3/04 1:27:01 PM