In what follows I will attempt to show the distinction between the ‘purpose’ of an object and the ‘function of an object.
Definition of purpose:
A purpose may be defined as ‘the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used etc.’ or ‘an intended or desired result, end, aim, goal’.
Definition of function:
The dictionary definition of ‘function’ describes “the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.”
In this exercise, I shall use a slightly modified form of this definition.
‘Function’ shall be taken to refer to a description of an actualised physical interaction of a substance or substances. Unlike the above definition, it shall not be taken that the function of a thing implies a purpose for reasons which will be explained later.
Natural and artificial substances:
For the purposes of this article, an ‘artificial’ substance shall be taken to refer to any inorganic object whose creation requires the application of sentient intelligence or which is causally derivative of such an input. Houses, nests, swords and shoes fall into this category.
A natural substance shall refer to an object which has been formed through exclusively physical factors. Cliffs, clouds, organs and so on fall into this category.
It is my intent to show that the only types of substances which can be possessed of a purpose are artificial substances.
The River And The Dam.
Consider a tree which has fallen into a river, and a manmade dam.
The functions of both can be said to be essentially identical, each serves to alter the flow of the water.
However, it seems counterintuitive to say that the purpose of the fallen tree is to dam the river.
This means that while we can derive the function of a substance from an observation of its physical characteristics and its relationship with other physical bodies, the property of ‘purposefulness’ does not seem to be predicated on any physical factor.
Consider a second tree, identical to the first, which has been deliberately placed by a man so as to dam the river.
From a purely physical account, we could not differentiate in this case, which tree has a purpose and which does not. It can be said then, that the purpose of an object is in fact predicated upon the intent of its creator.
Purposes and the external world.
If an object has a purpose, it is created in order to fulfil some intended functional role.
Since natural substances which are not possessed of intelligence are incapable of creating substances with reference to further external substances (such natural substances do not experience awareness) we can conclude that intelligence or intent is a necessary requirement for something to be created with a ‘purpose’.
A heart after all, cannot be aware of the blood it pumps, just as an ocean cannot be aware of the cliff it creates. We do not say that the purpose of an ocean is to erode, yet it seems odd to say that the purpose of a heart is not to pump blood.
Evolutionary Anthropomorphisms
A problem when considering the human body is the fact that it appears at first to have been designed. Our organs are part of a highly complex system, which surely cannot have simply accidentally arranged itself so as to make our existence possible.
However, consider the example of an animal who has razor sharp claws, green skin, and lives in a forest.
It is tempting to conclude that his skin is designed to blend in with the surrounding trees, that the purpose of his claws is to act as a weapon to defend itself or hunt for food or whatever.
Yet when we look a little closer, we understand that we must modify our language.
The animal’s claws are ideal for catching prey perhaps, its skin is ideally suited to its environment.
Imagine a scenario with two lizards, one with green skin and sharp claws, and one whose genes have mutated to give it bright yellow skin and no claws.
For obvious reasons one species manages to survive while the other is soon wiped out, not being able to catch prey, not being able to camouflage itself in the green forest.
Over billions of years such changes occur, leaving us with the species who happened to be the best suited to survival. We should not infer from this that anything about us has in fact been designed. The genes which turn the lizard’s skin green are unaware of the trees, the genes which trigger the growth of the claws are unaware of the animals they will be used to catch. It just so happens that the green lizards got lucky, they survive and pass their genes on to future generations and so on.
To return to the example of the human heart, perhaps now we can see that it is not so absurd to say that our heart has a function, but does not in fact have a purpose, being the product of billions of years of evolutionary change.
Conclusion:
If the function describes what something does, the purpose describes why it does it. We have seen that for the essence of something to precede its existence a purpose or intent is necessary. Such requires an intelligence to conceive of the future relationship or interaction between the object and objects external to it.
It follows from this that no natural substances can be possessed of purposes in contrast with artificial substances which are possessed of both.
No comments:
Post a Comment