According to John Searle, there is no function in nature, it is just something we assign to nature. What does?

Question

he mean?

Answer 1

If I had to guess, I'd interpret it to mean that what we call "natural laws" aren't really laws, in that they don't actually govern what happens.  We notice patterns in the world and, through inductive logic, conclude that they are laws.

I'm probably wrong, since I don't know who John Searle is.

Answer 2

Okay, Dynamite...I'd nit-pick about your use of the word function instead of "purpose"... to say something has a function just means that it has a use. On the other hand, to say that Nature has a purpose, usually describes that Natural phenomena are determined goals in the "grande scheme" of things...

Searle, from what I've read, does assign Nature, and especially biological organisms, with some use. But believes that Nature is not Ideology... IOW, our ability to render purpose to use is strictly a human activity. He's attempting to get in line with Darwin's ideas on Natural Selection and Evolution.

Phew, hope that helped...  

Answer 3

That is the naturalist position that existence was not created, the position created by the pre-Socratics, and held as the world view until Augustine and Plotinus turned it on its head. Funny you should ask, because it's the subject of my blog all this week.

But what it means is that because no creative force gave birth to existence, no creative force could have given it a purpose; that because it has always existed and cannot cease to exist, the only purpose it has is the purpose life gives it. And since Man is the highest form of life, Man defines the purpose.

Answer 4

8 We impose our concepts whether they apply or not.

Answer 5

Biological function has no purpose other than the survival of the organism. There is no "goal" or objective in evolution. Organisms evolve in response to environmental change, not to fulfill any purpose or achieve a particular outcome.