Well, in all candor, Thames, that reads (and I've read it three times now) like an explanation that really explains nothing.
Examples, good or bad, aside, this was really the crux of my post:
"There has to be an intentionality of some kind that we don't understand, in my view."
Life seems bent on perserving itself and producing beneficial adaptations in a purposeful way. The fact that different species have developed the means to fly doesn't, to me, at all obviate the "intentionality" of flying and the purposiveness of "wings". To the contrary, imho. I don't believe wings are accidental or random...that's more or less my whole point.
I'm not saying there's a white-haired old man with an etch-a-sketch who plotted this all out ahead of time. I'm saying there's something "else" at work that we still don't understand, and we likely don't even "see", because the sensory and temporal registers of our ability to perceive are fixed within a finite band, and it [still] lies outside the range of our [technologically-enhanced] cognition. |
