Split: Please could you prove that I'm wrong? Teleology, Philosophy derail

[Lapis Lazuli]

Dopamine drips.

Dopamine is a reductionist explanation that does not get at the emergent property ascribed to teleology.

 

[Black Rose]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Dopamine is a reductionist explanation that does not get at the emergent property ascribed to teleology.

actions are either inhibited or reenforced
knowing causality is intelligence
reflective self awareness let you ask "why?"

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology is the cause we know of, but asking why it is systemically being inhibited leads to self awareness for some non-Nihilistic beings.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology is the cause we know of

ok

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

ok

Its been around for at least 2400 years. Snark that.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleolology

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

[BIMG]http://terriblycute.com/files/2012/01/tumblr_lydcgzRUfM1r5trqqo1_500.jpg[/BIMG]

Derp derp

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Its been around for at least 2400 years. Snark that.

so have many stupid things

and many non-only things

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

and many non-only things

Interesting.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

I don't get why Teleology is so important to people regarding evolution. It's not even relevant.

Does anyone ever ask for the teleology of gravity?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Well it's relevant to the philosophies concerning evolution, though not relevant to the study of evolution. It's not so relevant but then again sort of relevant at the same time. The OP somewhat skimmers on the philosophy of it.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Care to rephrase that in English?

What even falls under the category of philosophy of evolution that's not just some metaphysical assumption?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Materialism is an assumption as much as idealism is. There is no possible way to prove that your senses are axiomatically true unless one employs intuition, which by definition is not an axiomatic rationality but a type of assumption.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Still not explaining how teleology is in any way necessary or even relevant to evolution.

If anything you're just further highlighting the redundancy of it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology = agent-based selection. Choices are made because of reasons. We like to lump it into an impersonal physical law because some choices appear irrational to us as observers and because selection isn't strictly internal.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Still not explaining how teleology is in any way necessary or even relevant to evolution.

If anything you're just further highlighting the redundancy of it.

I don't see why teleology isn't relevant to evolution at all. The whole Darwinism thing blew up in conflict because of that reason.

I'm not saying the theory of evolution is wrong (in fact I agree with evolution), what I'm trying to point out is that evolution often leads to a materialistic understanding of the world, [which explains the rise of atheism especially when one comes into contact with evolution, (especially of geology, of the species, and of psychology)].

What's being related is the philosophies evolution relates itself with. I'm not talking about the empirical study of evolution.

 

[Black Rose]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology = agent-based selection. Choices are made because of reasons. We like to lump it into an impersonal physical law because some choices appear irrational to us as observers and because selection isn't strictly internal.

it comes back to intelligence
if you understand causality your choices reflect your ability to manipulate
mate selection is resource dominance hence peacock feathers
hominids became a species who understood they could use tools

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory

Other animals do not have reflection the way humans do so they can not understand that why intelligence matters. Their teleology is not based on mind selection. Humans select other humans for their minds. Lower animals don't have the teleology of mindsight / intentionality.

Spoiler

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/social-brains-do-insect-societies-share-brain-power

social insects are different from social mammals. the ratio of brain size in apes and monkeys are proportional to group size.

https://stevelekson.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/dunbar-neocortex-size-and-group-size.pdf

insect brain shrink because they are less social in social groups where they only need to do one thing for that group. humans need to do multiple things for multiple people and keep track of all conditions. with the internet and soon virtual reality the complexity of the environment will increase the number of variables that need to be tracked. imagine life before libraries and public education. you did one thing and one thing only to survive. mostly farming. when technology reduced survival needs the social aspects and technological aspects allowed more complex manipulation of environment. Teachers could impart knowledge that accelerated abstract powers of manipulation. Those brain which can handle the increased pressure of abstraction will continue development faster.

http://peterdiamandis.tumblr.com/po...tm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer

we have been reaching this hive mind and individual awareness that we need and not more for a long tlime. if that is not enough then eat some wires and poop a better brain

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

What's being related is the philosophies evolution relates itself with. I'm not talking about the empirical study of evolution.

Yeah and I asked what actually falls under the category of being a philosophy of evolution and you responded with something irrelevant.

Give me an example of a philosophy that evolution 'relates itself with'.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Yet another thread where I see Lapis Lazuli and Onestep mention philosophy in a completely unrelated context.

It's not so relevant but then again sort of relevant at the same time. T

Taken from another thread:

It's relevant to the topic at hand in a way, but yes I guess it doesn't keep the conversation going lol.

If you are going to do this then at least explain what you mean instead of making pointless vague statements. I cringe whenever I read you say that.

I can say everything is related "in a way, somewhat, somehow", but it doesn't mean anything, it doesn't contribute to the topic.

If OP questions the validity or the theory itself, then how introducing philosophical interpretations or thoughts about the way things are ordained is any relevant to it.

It's akin to interjecting in a conversation concerning elephants about the creator or speculate about the beginning of the universe and what Aristotle or Godel thought about it (and mentioning that Godel was a platonist because that's awfully relevant as well).

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Still not explaining how teleology is in any way necessary or even relevant to evolution.

Teleology is not relevant to a Nihilist view of reality, and not everyone is a Nihilist. Teleology doesn’t explain very much in terms of mechanisms, but it is essential to the thought of self developing beings who are in the process of working toward cultivating their values. Darwinism is distinct from Lamarckian evolution, and I would not dispute natural selection, just the value of it in todays political debate. You won’t read it explicitly, it's between the lines.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology doesn’t explain very much in terms of mechanisms, but it is essential to the thought of self developing beings who are in the process of working toward cultivating their values.

Why would it be essential to cultivating values?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology is not relevant to a Nihilist view of reality, and not everyone is a Nihilist.

It's downright presumptuous to make such claims about others.

Can you explain the importance of teleology to non-nihilists then?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

It's not about being presumptuous. It's about understanding ideas and how they relate to people's worldviews and philosophies whether they be personal or societal. Asking people to 'explain that' is akin to asking for a lecture on the history of ideas, the development of civilization, ranging from anthropology, sociology, religion, history of academia, history of philosophy, cultural zeitgeist, general history, and so on. Personally, I don't want to lecture people, nor do I think people want to hear a lecture. If the topic doesn't seem relevant to your understanding of the worldview, don't merely shrug it off saying it doesn't make sense or say that it's 'presumptuous'. Asking 'why' recursively is just asking for a series of tl;dr notes. Ideas are tied and grounded in history, they aren't standalone axioms that just 'formed' out of thin air. I think the history of Darwinism was a good example, though it's being ignored for some reason.

Ever wonder why the scientific method came about in the first place? People didn't suddenly go 'eurkea'! like Thomas Edison to come up with it. Its foundation was a developmental process, given birth by a number of pre-existing ideologies, and with a combination of cultural milieus grounded in historical events.

Evolution is tied up easily with naturalism, for one. It's in the spirit of rationalism and empiricism. Its study fueled atheism [verbal emphasis on theism], which (atheism) denies, for the most part, teleology. In short general atheism = anti-teleology. That gave rise to nihilism, which Lazuli notes. And to some extent, nihilism is the rising ontological philosophy today, which is fueled by atheism* (and postmodernism) (which again is grounded in historical events, a zeitgeist, whatever)

*the idea rather than the movement, just to clarify

tl;dr ideas -> history -> new ideas -> history -> newer ideas etc

 

[StevenM]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

hmm...

Teleology seems to explain how things are now, but not how they came to be.

Roots are indeed there to support a tree, and hands do have the purpose of grabbing and holding things. Teleo believers could say the trees exist for the purpose that monkey's can climb on them. But then that would be saying the evolution of the tree had an intention for the monkeys. It's more of a philosophical consensus that trees exist, and monkeys climb on them, but they don't exist by necessity. It could be the tree not have roots, and instead grow horizontally on the ground. Hands also are not necessary, monkeys would then get by as other animals without hands do. There is not even any written rule that there must be trees, monkeys, or any of the effects that they cause by existing.

So how did it become that trees now have roots, and how did it become that monkey's now climb on them? I'd say because it worked! There are many things life does right now in this existence which either work or not work varying on it's present conditions. Those things that work continue working, and those that don't, break and fall apart where it meets it's end.

Mars didn't work, at least as far as I know. I mean, not for a life that's big enough to see. Being a red planet x AU from the sun worked. Thus I'm not saying things must work. It's either they do, or they don't.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

It's not about being presumptuous.

Well it is, since Lapis seems to be purporting that you can't cultivate values without teleology. That's about as presumptuous as you can get.

It's about understanding ideas and how they relate to people's worldviews and philosophies whether they be personal or societal.

Something you and Lapis are apparently abysmal at.

Saying, "well this is sort of related but not really but it is sort of if you think about it from this way but kind of not too lol haha" isn't a form of understanding. It's just regurgitating vapid cultural niceties like, "everyone's opinion is valid".

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Well like I said I'd have to bust out a history lesson to show their relation. I can't speak for Lazuli, but as I for me I'm vindicating myself :L

I think you're more focused on the concrete implications of evolution rather than its abstract implications, like ontology. That's where I see the relation.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

No, you don't have to bust out a history lesson to demonstrate anything you presumptuous turd.

There's literally nothing ontological or teleological that has any relevance whatsoever to evolution. Absolutely nothing to be offered by either of them that has any bearing whatsoever on actual understanding of evolution.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

lol

Well yeah if you mean evolution just as an empirical study. I agree with that

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

There's literally nothing ontological or teleological that has any relevance whatsoever to evolution. Absolutely nothing to be offered by either of them that has any bearing whatsoever on actual understanding of evolution.

This is the essence of the problem that we are currently at, politically speaking. The deconstruction of religious ontology is leading to the deconstruction of, for lack of a better phrase, “common sense” ontology and scientific ontology: i.e. the advent of Nihilism.

I would have to part ways with you 1step, ontology has everything to do with empirical studies. It is what allows science to be related to politics. As Nietzsche noted, Nihilism plays out in the rise and fall of civilizations.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Well like I said I'd have to bust out a history lesson to show their relation. I can't speak for Lazuli, but as I for me I'm vindicating myself :L

I think you're more focused on the concrete implications of evolution rather than its abstract implications, like ontology. That's where I see the relation.

One question:
Is it impossible to provide a simple explanation of why it is that something is important?

If something is relevant to the context, or if something is rational, then the idea can be at least outlined in basic terms and contained very shortly, even most abstract and sophisticated.

If you essentially say that something is too complex to explain and you can't be bothered to show the connection then yes:
-you are being presumptuous,
-what you are defending is likely false (obfuscated)

I think you're more focused on the concrete implications of evolution rather than its abstract implications, like ontology. That's where I see the relation.

If you can't prove how your abstract implication connects to reality, then you live in a fantasy world and I can call you mad.

I'm saying that blablalogies(Latte) are a derived observation/thought of/about reality/unreality. An attempt at modelling at best and a faulty generalisation or cultivating obfuscation at worst.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

This is the essence of the problem that we are currently at, politically speaking. The deconstruction of religious ontology is leading to the deconstruction of, for lack of a better phrase, “common sense” ontology and scientific ontology: i.e. the advent of Nihilism.

I would have to part ways with you 1step, ontology has everything to do with empirical studies. It is what allows science to be related to politics. As Nietzsche noted, Nihilism plays out in the rise and fall of civilizations.

so you're saying we're going sciencey too fast and need to dilute this flood of harsh unspiritual knowledge with a little of that good old superstitious dumbsey-doo. but don dumbsey-doo is in a wheelchair now with dementia and can't put up a fight against the tide anymore. so we need philosophical discourse itself to cater to the pretense that certain out-moded analytical perspectives still hold equal merit, cause otherwise don dumbsey-doo might get hurt and grumpy and the foundations of our civilization may shatter and chaos ensue. don't nudge that equilibrium. don't touch it. it works just fine. it eats its own sphinctre. it expends more calories eating its own sphinctre than is possible for any organism to accumulate. it works just fine. it's doing its thing. we should be apprehensive of enlightenment since the force of habit exists and makes people take offense at new truths. atheism might not be so fine and dandy after all - for did you know: philosophy has shown that it (unlike precisely 0 things) takes a little time and effort to get used to!? could you imagine! also this time and effort exists in reality. fascinating results.

you call it "teleology" and "ontology" and stuff to conceal the utter inane depravity and moral bankrupcy of what it is you're actually proposing: that our analysis should be an attempt to mediate between tradition and progress, which of course is a futile project because you'll need to mediate between tradition and your mediation etc... it can easily be shown to asymptotically approach conservatism. it's an absurd, vapid, self-defeating, dishonest non-position to assume. there can be no pursuit of truth limited by respect for tradition.

did i miss anything? i will happily disclose my full reading of your post if anything i've stated remains unclear. i fear that the prescriptive implications i've drawn from your post may perplex you, but keep in mind that you've framed your observation as a political issue in order to justify your confounding and obscure application of philosophical verbiage in a scientific context.

it seems to me that the "ontology" of evolution has way more to teach in the domains permeated by teleology, than the other way around.

i wish i could be more snappy about how completely wrong you are.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Is it impossible to provide a simple explanation of why it is that something is important?

If you can't prove how your abstract implication connects to reality, then you live in a fantasy world and I can call you mad.

You can't really 'prove' how an idea relates to an idea, but I did talk about some of them in a lot of my posts. I said evolution relates to naturalism, empiricism, rationalism, atheism, nihilism and postmodernism. Extending to what Lazui said, he also talks about how nihilistic thought, nihilism, can lead to relativism.

If ideas aren't a reality.. well then that's your worldview. In my worldview, ideas exist, as much as how math formulas exist. Ideas are as important as the mechanical studies of reality and of the laws the we derive from them. In other words I hold both philosophy and natural law in high esteem.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

Teleology is not relevant to a Nihilist view of reality, and not everyone is a Nihilist. Teleology doesn’t explain very much in terms of mechanisms, but it is essential to the thought of self developing beings who are in the process of working toward cultivating their values.

a materialist/naturalist/mechanist understanding of evolution doesn't contradict or compete with teleology in this sense; it just shows us how processes of self-development occur.

i fail to see how teleology in this minimal sense is irrelevant to a nihilist view of reality.

i also fail to see how the historical concept of teleology is necessary in context. i'm pretty sure anyone who reads up on evolution will intuitively understand that organisms are self-developing beings, with or without the word "teleology" attached to it. i disagree with your notion that teleology is a precious intellectual commodity which we are running critically short on due to the triumph of evolutionary perspectives, and which is therefore required so as to moderate the discourse and reach a more holistic, temperate conclusion. quite the opposite in my view: evolution eludicates and strengthens the intuitive idea of teleology, of emergent intelligent systems, of intrinsic purpose.

maybe you need to make clearer distinctions. for example you seem to be conflating two meanings of teleology (extrinsic/absolute versus intrinsic/perspectivist purpose), as well as two meanings of nihilism (strict metaethical nihilism versus nihilism as demographic diagnostic ~"anomie"). the product is equivocation in the case of teleology, where you are invoking one meaning when you claim that it's incompatible with nihilism, and the other when you claim that it's a valuable supplement to the theory of evolution. in the case of nihilism, the conflation is not blatantly operative but still calls for clarification because whatever argument you're making seems to be directed at nihilists and you're setting up a minefield for us.

 

[Black Rose]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

You can't really 'prove' how an idea relates to an idea, but I did talk about some of them in a lot of my posts. I said evolution relates to naturalism, empiricism, rationalism, atheism, nihilism and postmodernism. Extending to what Lazui said, he also talks about how nihilistic thought, nihilism, can lead to relativism.

If ideas aren't a reality.. well then that's your worldview. In my worldview, ideas exist, as much as how math formulas exist. Ideas are as important as the mechanical studies of reality and of the laws the we derive from them. In other words I hold both philosophy and natural law in high esteem.

no one says the implications of F=MA is nihilism or post-modernism so why should evolution be different. The only reason you mention them is in the context of how supposedly dumb people in history have used them not whether it is true that these implications matter or do not matter because instead of explaining the concepts you just make statements that can be interpreted to mean that evolution is not factual because if they were true then by implication they mean something bad happens in a philosophical explicitation. Teleology has no meaning to chimps as much as it does to humans because chimps cannot understand their own existential goals. Telelogy only has meaning to a person who knows that they have it. F=MA is not teleological its causal but this does not mean that a falling rock is a nihilist. Only humans can be nihilist but not because they understand causality but because they reject that they have goals other than animal instincts. Until you get to homosapiens no animal can be a nihilists because no animal knows anything other than instinct. Evolution can not have any philosophical implications until humans arrived otherwise, it is just a causal chain of events without teleological direction because animals don't understand philosophy and can't be nihilists. If you deny evolution or natural selection it can not be because of its implications because it has none other than the choice of human teleology because only humans are aware of teleology. Postmodern explanations has nothing to do with the implications because even mentioning it reduces teleology to a red herring. Teleology only has relevance to human philosophical awareness not the denial of causality. No one is denying philosophical awareness so why bring up anything to do with evolution and nihilism if you cannot explain how they fit together.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Posts moved to Philosophy section.

There is nothing wrong in discussing such ideas, but they cannot detract from other topics.
If you feel something spiritual or philosophical is missing, then feel free to start your own thread in the appropriate section.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You can't really 'prove' how an idea relates to an idea, but I did talk about some of them in a lot of my posts. I said evolution relates to naturalism, empiricism, rationalism, atheism, nihilism and postmodernism. Extending to what Lazui said, he also talks about how nihilistic thought, nihilism, can lead to relativism.

You can, it's called explanation.
Throwing a bunch of nouns around is baffling. You could as well say, no because:reasons and I could reply no because: biology and insert logic.
I didn't mean a coherent proof, I was expecting brief answers.

If ideas aren't a reality.. well then that's your worldview. In my worldview, ideas exist, as much as how math formulas exist. Ideas are as important as the mechanical studies of reality and of the laws the we derive from them. In other words I hold both philosophy and natural law in high esteem.

This is strawman. I don't claim ideas don't belong to reality, I said that they don't represent the reality, only attempt to model or generalise it.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

... No one is denying philosophical awareness so why bring up anything to do with evolution and nihilism if you cannot explain how they fit together.

Right, the process of evolution itself doesn't have to do much nihilism. But Darwinism, an idea that extrapolates from evolution, is connected to nihilism. Without Darwinism, atheism wouldn't have gained as much ground as it does today. And it's from atheism, the idea, that nihilism finds fertile ground. I'm not saying evolution = Darwinism = atheism = nihilism. I'm saying their relevance and their 'widespreadness' of thought can be traced back to those things.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This is strawman. I don't claim ideas don't belong to reality, I said that they don't represent the reality, only attempt to model or generalise it.

No the last part was just me rambling, they aren't in any sense arguments. My bad if they seemed like they were.

I was expecting brief answers.

I think the Darwinism thing is a good example; are you not getting it? I'm just asking.

----

I think the history of ideas and the physical implications of several of those ideas are enough to see why teleology is important/relative. I mean if you want to get really general about it, the enlightenment is one. The abolition of slavery is another. Hmm... if you contrast western civilization and eastern civilization it's easier to understand imo. One example would be how kings in western civilizations traditionally didn't kill other kings, especially after the rise of monotheism. In the east, murder of other leaders were somewhat of a commonplace. Japanese clans are an example, as with Korean despots and Chinese/Mongol rulers. Diplomacy becomes more of a grip on power rather than for genuine peace and so forth. Harmony is placed above morality. The priorities are sort of shuffled up. What I'm saying aren't really arguments in a sense, they're just more like observations. Without some of the events in the past we would've never had the level of ethics or morals that we are intuitively conscious of today.

 

[Black Rose]

And it's from atheism, the idea, that nihilism finds fertile ground.

If God is an agent is seems plausible that we have more than animal instincts but looking externally for God only leads atheists to deny God and rightly so because any God that exists if God is an agent must be conscious as to be finite yet aware of what he is in the abstract as to how God acts in this world. "If you have seen me you have seen the father"

 

[onesteptwostep]

Hmm I'm too sober and tired to understand what you wrote, but I'm gonna go on a hunch and say 'yes'.

I think Wittgenstein was right when he said 'whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think the Darwinism thing is a good example; are you not getting it? I'm just asking.

I see what you mean in the context of creation of ideas. Science does fuel atheism, I'm not sure how does atheism fuel nihilism. Other than lack of readily believable lies in the form of organised religion, doesn't leave people with much alternatives for growth and less of them find some other meaning rationally or even go back to religion once they conclude it's right.

Nihilism goes a long way, the bushido code was foremost nihilist, any war and any systematic killing is nihilist, any production of armaments, etc. It existed well before Greeks started discussing such things.

These things are central to the human sphere of politics, ethics, morals and philosophy and we can discuss them as such.
If anything, they emerge from observations of evolution and world, not the other way around and that was my point.

I mostly rely on secular humanist approach to life, that is, such theories if not validated or found in reality, can still be viable on a personal level as beliefs, ethics or otherwise, but can't be based on falsities. I can appreciate spirituality or even aesthetics of religion, I do however reject false promises that are sometimes sold under the guise of morality, such as "If you are good, then something good will happen to you" and any other attempt at coercion or trickery. In my view a person doesn't need any promises or proof of it being rewarded, when I'm helping someone, I don't expect reciprocity, I fully realise that I'm making a sacrifice and I probably won't get it back.

I could ramble on but I see you agree that the considerations of teleology and such were belonging to another place than discussions of evolution and empiricism. I hope I won't be on someones blacklist now that it's known I'm not a nihilist .

 

[onesteptwostep]

Ah well technical nihilism started ages ago, sure, but I doubt it was cemented or well known in the minds of the everyday person until evolution came around. Without Darwinism and the rise of atheism, I don't think nihilism would have gained ground in the mind of the everyday like today. Atheism generally is a prerequisite for nihilism, after all.

Hmm no the problem I see with humanism is that there is no objective basis in which you follow your ethical code. It's by the use of traditional ontologies that we arrived to our current level of morality and ethics. If one forgoes that, I feel, in the future we're going to have difficulties in deciding what's good for ourselves.

Again, in the bigger scheme of things, we may have to sympathize with people like Nixon or the Japanese Imperial emperor if we were humanistic. If you take the humanist route, you're bound to turn Machiavellian. Morality becomes a powergame rather than morality for its own sake.

I could ramble on but I see you agree that the considerations of teleology and such were belonging to another place than discussions of evolution and empiricism. I hope I won't be on someones blacklist now that it's known I'm not a nihilist .

Nay, I still feel they're much connected. Evolution can still be idealistic though, as opposed to pure empiricism (which is an philosophical offshoot of materialism); it doesn't logically follow that evolution leads into atheism. Theistic evolution is one counterexample. I'm in no way calling anyone a nihilist, you don't have to worry on that ^^

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

so you're saying we're going sciencey too fast and need to dilute this flood of harsh unspiritual knowledge with a little of that good old superstitious dumbsey-doo. but don dumbsey-doo is in a wheelchair now with dementia and can't put up a fight against the tide anymore. so we need philosophical discourse itself to cater to the pretense that certain out-moded analytical perspectives still hold equal merit, cause otherwise don dumbsey-doo might get hurt and grumpy and the foundations of our civilization may shatter and chaos ensue. don't nudge that equilibrium. don't touch it. it works just fine. it eats its own sphinctre. it expends more calories eating its own sphinctre than is possible for any organism to accumulate. it works just fine. it's doing its thing. we should be apprehensive of enlightenment since the force of habit exists and makes people take offense at new truths. atheism might not be so fine and dandy after all - for did you know: philosophy has shown that it (unlike precisely 0 things) takes a little time and effort to get used to!? could you imagine! also this time and effort exists in reality. fascinating results.

you call it "teleology" and "ontology" and stuff to conceal the utter inane depravity and moral bankrupcy of what it is you're actually proposing: that our analysis should be an attempt to mediate between tradition and progress, which of course is a futile project because you'll need to mediate between tradition and your mediation etc... it can easily be shown to asymptotically approach conservatism. it's an absurd, vapid, self-defeating, dishonest non-position to assume. there can be no pursuit of truth limited by respect for tradition.

did i miss anything? i will happily disclose my full reading of your post if anything i've stated remains unclear. i fear that the prescriptive implications i've drawn from your post may perplex you, but keep in mind that you've framed your observation as a political issue in order to justify your confounding and obscure application of philosophical verbiage in a scientific context.

it seems to me that the "ontology" of evolution has way more to teach in the domains permeated by teleology, than the other way around.

i wish i could be more snappy about how completely wrong you are.

If you believe that there is an order to anything, then you have an ontology. Do you think gravity is real? Then you have an ontology. Your language most obviously signifies your post modern attitude, but to even have this conversation you have to have some sort of ontological presuppositions. Thats all I’m defending up to this particular post.

I’ve read you latest post at 12:49 and I’m not sure where you’re going with it.

“maybe you need to make clearer distinctions. for example you seem to be conflating two meanings of teleology (extrinsic/absolute versus intrinsic/perspectivist purpose)”

I would say this distinction is Sophistry. I am not aware of any extrinsic absolute connotations of teleology. Such perspective give the illusion of an absolute morality, and then this gets confused with teleology. I’m addressing teleology in the sense of the development of an Aristotelian mean, and as stated by Aristotle, this function is subjective. This gives a clue how some intelligent beings can intuitively make ethical decisions where complete objective evidence is lacking, and this is in support of my view of Lamarckian evolution.

 

[JimJambones]

I don't assign any meaning to evolution, for I wouldn't even know where to begin. What does it mean to be alive? Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is the purpose of evolution? I wouldn't expect to find an answer to such questions as they seem outside our abilities to answer them. Every religion seems to have their own answer and they all seem unsatisfactory, and stifling, to me. I would rather know how we came to be and evolutionary theory seems closer to the truth than those of revealed religions.

I'm a thinking, feeling being composed of atoms formed by stars long gone. I don't know how life came to be, but I think it is worth the exploration and the knowledge seeking to figure this out. I think life is even more incredible knowing the age of the universe and the time required for humans to have evolved. The atoms that compose me are constantly recycling with the environment and when I die, all of my atoms(as if I own them) will become parts of other life systems and maybe someday be part of another world with a different kind of life.

I don't like to concern myself with whether there is a god or not, but I start with the premise that all that came to be has arisen through the laws of nature. I find it liberating and consoling.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I don't like to concern myself with whether there is a god or not, but I start with the premise that all that came to be has arisen through the laws of nature. I find it liberating and consoling.

^ But why did we come from the laws of nature?

 

[JimJambones]

^ But why did we come from the laws of nature?

Does there need to be an answer to the why? The how or what came before the big bang seem more interesting.

 

[onesteptwostep]

But just because finding out how we came to be is more interesting doesn't mean that there could not be a purpose. Right? I mean logically speaking.. :P

 

[Yellow]

First, I propose a new INTPf rule:
If BOTH Brontosaurie and Red Baron are arguing against your idea (even if they are picking at different parts), you are required by law to take break and reconsider your stance.

Just sayin'... Those dudes are like anti-soulmates.

Second, I know I'm late to the party, but if no one said it already, teleology is applied to evolutionary biology by and for the uninformed. It is easier to explain evolution to the uneducated in the same way that you explain rain to a child "so the flowers will grow". It's slightly more pervasive than it should be, but the concept has been so heavily resisted that it's hardly surprising. Nevertheless, there is a purge going on right now to remove the teleological language from the beginner's material because it's counter-productive.

Then theres implied teleology. It will take a few more years, until the older generation retires. For example, Richard Dawkins, though he makes an effort to avoid it, is terrible when it comes to implied teleology. It's like he's so used to talking to idiots that he can't help himself anymore.

And I realize its harsh to call people idiots for not possessing basic scientific literacy, but if you are going to have opinions about data, you have an obligation to review the information available to you.


The point is, evolution as a field of study, as a theory supported by a plethora of data, and as a collection of observable biological mechanisms, is not teleological.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

First, I propose a new INTPf rule:
If BOTH Brontosaurie and Red Baron are arguing against your idea (even if they are picking at different parts), you are required by law to take break and reconsider your stance.

Just sayin'... Those dudes are like anti-soulmates.

Second, I know I'm late to the party, but if no one said it already, teleology is applied to evolutionary biology by and for the uninformed. It is easier to explain evolution to the uneducated in the same way that you explain rain to a child "so the flowers will grow". It's slightly more pervasive than it should be, but the concept has been so heavily resisted that it's hardly surprising. Nevertheless, there is a purge going on right now to remove the teleological language from the beginner's material because it's counter-productive.

Then theres implied teleology. It will take a few more years, until the older generation retires. For example, Richard Dawkins, though he makes an effort to avoid it, is terrible when it comes to implied teleology. It's like he's so used to talking to idiots that he can't help himself anymore.

And I realize its harsh to call people idiots for not possessing basic scientific literacy, but if you are going to have opinions about data, you have an obligation to review the information available to you.


The point is, evolution as a field of study, as a theory supported by a plethora of data, and as a collection of observable biological mechanisms, is not teleological.

Are you saying that teleology can be objectively validated? Any such validation seems ad hoc, and as problematic as using cause and effect as anything except as a heuristic to inquiry. Could you explain?

Would you deny Lamarckian aspects of evolution?

 

[onesteptwostep]

The point is, evolution as a field of study, as a theory supported by a plethora of data, and as a collection of observable biological mechanisms, is not teleological.

Right. But the assumptions extrapolated from them are readily seen in the minds and attitudes of the people. The scientific illiterate can use it to justify their religious beliefs, like young earth creationists, but the same scientific illiterates can use it to justify their atheism.

Dakwins doesn't have a good grasp on philosophy, all he makes are extrapolated assumptions from research to justify his atheism. He has consistently shown that he lacks understanding of Christianity, though he makes some good points on Islam. His discussions with apologists, theologians and other religious authorities have shown that he is clueless when it comes to ontology. A more respectable biologist would be someone like Edward O. Wilson. The 'four horsemen' out of the UK are lightweights.

edit: welp. okay you don't have to answer me, seems like lazuli got here first x_x