Teleonomic Matter and Subjectivity without Identity

Darkneos January 08, 2025 at 01:35 1300 views 4 comments
The matter part is a term used by David Krakauer about the goal oriented matter. Someone I was talking to mentioned how this is an example of subjectivity without identity but from what I read it’s not.

After I emailed him I was sent two articles as follows:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f29a430a2b6a34680879cc0/t/67246c602e20f71f1e247dfe/1730440289240/DK-MultiplePathsToMultipleLife2021.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f29a430a2b6a34680879cc0/t/67246e609221262ec20eb7a6/1730440802655/DK-InformationTheoryOf+Individuality2020.pdf

But looking through both of them (the second was hard because I couldn’t understand the math) I don’t think he answered my question. This sounded more like defining what life is and then how to classify individuals. The second was how to define individuals and he labels it as aggregates that propagate information.

Now part of me wonders if that sort of information is the notion of a self but it’s unclear what he’s referring to here. I mean I think individuals do have identity as they are able to tell members of their own from other animals, we humans do it too. It’s how I know I’m not a rock or a tree. Cells do it too. I’m asking here to see if there is anything I missed but so far I can’t say the articles answer the question as it seems more psychological than biological.

We are made of aggregates and yet these aggregates operate as a whole to yield something greater than their sum. Any thoughts on this?

Comments (4)

ucarr January 08, 2025 at 11:05 #958982
Reply to Darkneos

Teleonomic Matter

Quoting Darkneos
The matter part is a term used by David Krakauer about the goal oriented matter


Quoting Darkneos
Someone... mentioned how this is an example of subjectivity without identity


Teleonomy is thought to derive from evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, and/or the operation of a program. - Wikipedia

On the abstract plane, do you think goal orientation can be separated from subjectivity? If so, should teleonomy be limited to components of living organisms?

If iron flakes travel to a lodestone, that's the automatic action of magnetic force acting upon metal. Do the iron flakes possess a self awareness seeking to benefit itself? At this level, it's easy to surmise no self interest. At the level of autonomic components of living organisms, not so easy to surmise no self interest.

Is teleonomic matter supposed to be proto-selfhood?

Let's say there's a bio-chemical approach to selfhood. Does this gradient of bio-chemical interface with selfhood bolster the materialist concept of consciousness?

Darkneos January 08, 2025 at 21:08 #959121
Quoting ucarr
If iron flakes travel to a lodestone, that's the automatic action of magnetic force acting upon metal. Do the iron flakes possess a self awareness seeking to benefit itself? At this level, it's easy to surmise no self interest. At the level of autonomic components of living organisms, not so easy to surmise no self interest.


His first paper talks about how we wouldn’t label such things as life.

Quoting ucarr
Let's say there's a bio-chemical approach to selfhood. Does this gradient of bio-chemical interface with selfhood bolster the materialist concept of consciousness?


Far as I know the materialist concept of consciousness has plenty of evidence behind it while everything else doesn’t.
alan1000 April 12, 2025 at 14:26 #982032
The general thrust of your post is unintelligible, but, at the level of iron flakes, there is obviously no reason to suppose they possess consciousness of any kind, since their molecular structure is undifferentiated. Unless, of course, you define "consciousness" as a capacity to respond to any external stimulus, a definition which would include every atom and molecule in the universe, and, consequently, would be meaningless.
Darkneos April 12, 2025 at 21:35 #982089
Quoting alan1000
The general thrust of your post is unintelligible, but, at the level of iron flakes, there is obviously no reason to suppose they possess consciousness of any kind, since their molecular structure is undifferentiated. Unless, of course, you define "consciousness" as a capacity to respond to any external stimulus, a definition which would include every atom and molecule in the universe, and, consequently, would be meaningless.


I'm just trying to understand what he's saying.