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

[onesteptwostep]

a rational/scientific "worldview" can only explain the physical mechanics of how the world is run within the, or, a, cosmic system

as for your third segement,

"You make sense in axiomatic abstracts, but you have to be grounded in concretes in order to impact reality and have appeal to sense; or it's just sophistry that's in the abstracts' of one's mind."​

metaphysics isn't like math, man x_x

 

[Seteleechete]

a rational/scientific worldview can only explain the physical mechanics of how the world is run within its cosmic system

as for your third segement,

"You make sense in axiomatic abstracts, but you have to be grounded in concretes in order to impact reality and have appeal to sense; or it's just sophistry that's in the abstracts' of one's mind."​

metaphysics isn't like math, man x_x

Not all religious dogmas have to explain everything and I repeat no, I don't have to use concretes as long as my arguments makes sense because that is my purpose when arguing/building my worldview, making sure everything either makes sense or is impossible to answer due to insufficient data, which also makes sense. So please meet my arguments if you intend to argue with me.(an explanation how it doesn't work in reality might do the trick).

I currently have insufficient data to determine how similar metaphysics is to math, unfortunately.

 

[onesteptwostep]

So would it be accurate to say that your worldview is more of a discovery rather than a cosmic system? To you I guess the thing is dogmatic, or a programming of one's mind, I guess(?).

 

[Cherry Cola]

-Instead of coming up with actual instances requiring a teleosomething approach on the subject lets derail the shit by perpetually demonstrating our inability to understand Philosophy at large, and how we only know a little bit of it here and there, while we argue that our interpretation of the concepts at hand,our knowledge and understanding of them, is the most accurate one; simpler yes but solely because of its sophisticated semantic morphology which allors it unprecedented communicative efficiency, although we don't have the knowledge to actually tell that even if it was the case; even though we are just fuelled by the hybris generated by the fact that we are just sorta starting to grasp this shit, we still want to join in with some crowd and that lead to us having these opinions cause that way you get a way to identify with certain philosophical views and a bunch of arguments to support them as well as specific philosophers to look up at. Then we pit our views against others! How Exciting it is satisfying primal needs through what is at essence a form of battle, having enemies and ally, all the while it goes on under the pretense of intellectual discussion!

Oneplussomething and Lapsislupal

...and then shit got to sucking real bad but why does shit like this happen? Its because the principles of evolution are at work. Some views on the world garner followings because they make sense, some because they make trend. Gordonlord destructincerator.

 

[Seteleechete]

So would it be accurate to say that your worldview is more of a discovery rather than a cosmic system? To you I guess the thing is dogmatic, or a programming of one's mind, I guess(?).

*shrug* yes, also nothing you said contradicts any of my previous statements.

 

[Seteleechete]

-Instead of coming up with actual instances requiring a teleosomething approach on the subject lets derail the shit by perpetually demonstrate our inability to understand Philosophy at large, and how we only know a little bit of it here and there, while we argue that our interpretation of the concepts at hand,our knowledge and understanding of them, is the most accurate one; simpler yes but solely because of its sophisticated semantic morphology which allors it unprecedented communicative efficiency.

Oneplussomething and Lapsislupal

...and then shit got to sucking real bad

Unless you have a counterargument for my actual statements I don't particularly care how you feel for my methodology. I believe in using communicative efficiency as it makes subjects easier to understand, if I am wrong a counterargument will usually be presented at which point I will change my statement to make way for the new data. I always try to present my thoughts in a efficient manner and have yet to see any substantial downsides to it.

 

[onesteptwostep]

-Instead of coming up with actual instances requiring a teleosomething approach on the subject lets derail the shit by perpetually demonstrate our inability to understand Philosophy at large, and how we only know a little bit of it here and there, while we argue that our interpretation of the concepts at hand,our knowledge and understanding of them, is the most accurate one; simpler yes but solely because of its sophisticated semantic morphology which allors it unprecedented communicative efficiency.

Oneplussomething and Lapsislupal

...and then shit got to sucking real bad

tower of babel

if you want a modern take on that: wittgenstein

 

[Cherry Cola]

I have followed in your footsteps by offering a bunch of interpretations without any proof to support them and by going unnecessarily meta. I thought you'd appreciate the homage.

 

[Seteleechete]

Nothing you said argues against actually using such a methodology(well not exactly as you described but close enough, except the derail bit which is simply not true as I usually stay on topic).

 

[onesteptwostep]

hmm haha, well that might be

cherry what's your take, if you have one?

edit: @cherry

 

[Cherry Cola]

That Teleology is a concept of no use in areas where intent is hard to tell and/or match with purpose, meaning most areas.

 

[Seteleechete]

That Teleology is a concept of no use in areas where intent is hard to tell and/or match with purpose, meaning most areas.

Yes teleology is among the more useless philosophical concept I have stumbled upon, I would love to hear some actual applications of it, I had a hard enough time making some theoretical applications of it.

I guess the only one that comes to mind is teaching some messed up version of evolution to fundamentalists and idiots.

 

[onesteptwostep]

teleology is more tied up with ontology, so applications would require you to understand entire ontological systems

if you actually try to apply teleology, you're going to get gems like these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

i wouldn't say crazy, but yeah it's sort of funny

 

[Seteleechete]

Monkeys ate bananas and spread seeds, it has adapted for being eaten by mammals to spread.(theory, but a better one than God)

 

[redbaron]

a rational/scientific "worldview" can only explain the physical mechanics of how the world is run within the, or a, cosmic system

Yeah, whereas a metaphysical worldview explains nothing.

For your next post, I dare you to try and finally write something not redundant or retarded.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Monkeys ate bananas and spread seeds, it has adapted for being eaten by mammals to spread.(theory, but a better one than God)

right, we can theorize, then study, and relate our theories to reality, but that's its scope. it, scientific rationality, explain the mechanics

 

[Seteleechete]

right, we can theorize, then study, and relate our theories to reality, but that's its scope. it, scientific rationality, explain the mechanics

.

it has adapted for being eaten by mammals to spread

 

[redbaron]

Explaining mechanics is more explanation than anything else manages to do, and in more cases than not you can reverse engineer purpose (if there is one) from mechanics but very rarely can you do it the other way around and when you can it's never for complex concepts.

Ergo evolution impacts ontology/teology, not the other way around. Hence any criticism of evolution on ont/teological grounds is redundant. As is pointing out that evolution in science is limited to the physical world is pointless. As if it's some kind of limitation to not have opinions swayed by mythological, omnipotent father figures

 

[Cherry Cola]

Teleology is of no use when discussing evolution, its terminology doesn't help explain anything. Purpose can only be established retroactively and even then the very usage of the word in place of something less problematic and prone to cause misunderstandings means its just some stupid garnish adding a little bit of poison to an otherwise healthy dish.

Moreover one of the problems with evolution is that it lends itself to teleological speculation. All the more reason not invoke teleology at all in the context of evolution. There have been lots of issues with biologists thinking that because they have come up with an idea of the purpose of some animal, or part of animal, or whatever they have actually proved it is so. The animal does this and that with this or that intent because so and so. When the truth is you still need to test the shit rigorously, and imagining the thoughts of animals is pretty far out when you think about it. Plus there are spandrils. Far from every gene or feature serves a purpose.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The way you guys are arguing teleology is by means of a metaphysical interpretation of it which ironically is like the least relevant form of it too.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@sete

right, that's how God did it <- which is what theists would advance

maybe that exact phase might not have a deity, but when you take the entire calculus of evolution, from the beginning of being and to the end of humanity, or if you want to take it more cosmic, the beginning of everything to the end of all [or insert whatever term/version of eschatology here], then maybe there is a higher purpose or the reality of an ontological system

it's scientifically impossible, as well as impossible for science, to rationalize or theorize the first cause. one example that we see is the heisenberg principle, as well as quantum mechanics. probability does not dictate reality, merely possibility.

 

[Seteleechete]

The way you guys are arguing teleology is by means of a metaphysical interpretation of it which ironically is like the least relevant form of it too.

Teleology is not relevant at all without a metaphysical interpretation as it is redundant to use it in all other scenarios.

Potential applications in bioengineering/genetic manipulation/cybernetics/anytime you create anything with a purpose basically it is pointless to use teleology in these cases instead of "purpose".

 

[Seteleechete]

@sete

right, that's how God did it <- which is what theists would advance

maybe that exact phase might not have a deity, but when you take the entire calculus of evolution, from the beginning of being and to the end of humanity, or if you want to take it more cosmic, the beginning of everything to the end of all [or insert whatever term/version of eschatology here], then maybe there is a higher purpose or the reality of an ontological system

it's scientifically impossible, as well as impossible for science, to rationalize or theorize the first cause. one example that we see is the heisenberg principle, as well as quantum mechanics. probability does not dictate reality, merely possibility.

Insufficient data Also this still shows how it has no non-metaphysical applications.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Teleology is not relevant at all without a metaphysical interpretation as it is redundant to use it in all other scenarios.

Potential applications in bioengineering/genetic manipulation/cybernetics/anytime you create anything with a purpose basically it is pointless to use teleology in these cases instead of "purpose".

You can use it to brainstorm for potential ideas by imagining purposes. But even the. It's less teleology and more just brainstorming and the fact that humans tend to think of mechanics as driven by purpose on some primal level. Anthropomorping stuff because thinking of it as working by purpose and intention is natural because that's how humans experience the world. Ergo the fact that teleology exists as a philosophical concept and not just a psychological one is because of human vanity. Hey let's call it philosophy and not anthropomorphing so that we can give this regularly occurring way of thinking a comforting air of sophistication it doesn't deserve.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Maybe it's like light -- it can behave like particles and waves simultaneously.

*muses*

Even though I’m not a Platonist, I would recommend Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Explaining mechanics is more explanation than anything else manages to do, and in more cases than not you can reverse engineer purpose (if there is one) from mechanics but very rarely can you do it the other way around and when you can it's never for complex concepts.

Ergo evolution impacts ontology/teology, not the other way around. Hence any criticism of evolution on ont/teological grounds is redundant. As is pointing out that evolution in science is limited to the physical world is pointless. As if it's some kind of limitation to not have opinions swayed by mythological, omnipotent father figures

oh sorry on missing this out

no one is criticizing evolution, it's just that what some might derive from it might be done in the name of progress, when in actuality it's harmful for the human race. unlawful or immoral killing and execution of people might be achieved in the name of progress. i mean napoleon and hitler, mao, stalin blah blah all did the same. eugenics and the nationalism that arose from it can trace itself to the study of evolution

theism on the other hand doesn't really impact the study of evolution directly, but it may bring glory, if i may, looking at the progress, to God. it's also sometimes a morality derived by theistic beliefs that drives research in evolution. with it we may find insights in other subjects in academia to help solve our helps, like in health or society. which is what we usually think of when we think of evolution; or else it's just pointless tinkering and funding gone into something pointless. for example, it becomes a morality issue when we frame the question in this way: do we put effort into finding out the origin of, let's say, language, when we can place that focus into something like irradiating poverty, arms deals, human trafficking, and so on?

if you look at society and humanity as a whole, it's interesting to see how uncooperative we are.

 

[Brontosaurie]

it's scientifically impossible, as well as impossible for science, to rationalize or theorize the first cause. one example that we see is the heisenberg principle, as well as quantum mechanics. probability does not dictate reality, merely possibility.

that's got more to do with science's self-imposed obligation to acknowledge its limitations, than any comparative ineptitude of science.

there's nothing science can't do that metaphysics can.

 

[onesteptwostep]

no im not saying science has problems or anything, it's just that you can't derive morality from it. evolutionary morality on the other hand, might -again- explain the history or mechanism of how morality was formed, but won't help us answer the moral questions of today. i don't see how science can help with what vision of the future we should aim for, nor do i think science can guide the formulation of, let's say, something like, societal or international law

if you want to take a pure evolutionary standpoint with the case of homosexuality, it's better not to have them have marriages because it doesn't do good for society in the long run. what cause do they serve? if we go to the future and employ the study of evolution on the phenomenon of homosexuality, we might say they were just ends at an evolutionary journey, or an error gone wrong in human psychology. if evolution is to say that all things work for the progress of humanity, then homosexuality seems to be an exception.

edit: articles like these give further weight to the point: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/...=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

i mean do you really need a scientific study to see that sex doesn't always end up in happiness? like srsly

 

[redbaron]

but won't help us answer the moral questions of today. i don't see how science can help with what vision of the future we should aim for, nor do i think science can guide the formulation of, let's say, something like, societal or international law

Actually science can and does shape how we answer moral questions. Documenting the ill effects of corporal punishment are a large reason why it was abolished, for example.

Science can't help shape international law? Okay guy. Do you live under a rock?

If anything what we need across the world is a greater respect for science, instead of running things based on outdated religious and cultural imperatives.

The best countries in the world are all strictly secular. That's not a coincidence.

if you want to take a pure evolutionary standpoint with the case of homosexuality, it's better not to have them have marriages because it doesn't do good for society in the long run. what cause do they serve?

Actually it's already been well acknowledged that homosexuality is perfectly normal in evolutionary terms so I'm not sure where you're going with this?

if evolution is to say that all things work for the progress of humanity,

Congratulations, you've just joined the list of people who don't understand the basics of evolution but don't let that stop them from misrepresenting them for the sake of argument.

Say hi to WookieeB and Wonkavision for me.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

it's scientifically impossible, as well as impossible for science, to rationalize or theorize the first cause. one example that we see is the heisenberg principle, as well as quantum mechanics. probability does not dictate reality, merely possibility.

First of all you have no proof or no argument for why it is impossible, it may.

Secondly, don't use quantum physics as escape mechanism towards spiritual ideas. This is a clean cut case of scientific woo, where you as a layman attempt to conjure mystical properties to fields of science that are currently being explored. This is ridiculous since you wouldn't have anything to say about it 100 years ago, where it wasn't discovered and even more contradictory since you insist on assigning empiricism and science their exclusive role only in a physical reality, as opposed to something else which you cannot even name.

Quantum disturbance is a random noise-like probability function, do you want to say that god is a random noise(which means taking every available state from the assigned range with equal frequency when measured over time) (which simply means it has no information, or shape whatsoever)?

a rational/scientific "worldview" can only explain the physical mechanics of how the world is run within the, or, a, cosmic system

as for your third segement,

"You make sense in axiomatic abstracts, but you have to be grounded in concretes in order to impact reality and have appeal to sense; or it's just sophistry that's in the abstracts' of one's mind."​

metaphysics isn't like math, man x_x

Do you claim that there is something separate from a physical reality that forms a cosmic system? If so, if such a thing has no impact on the physical reality then it's irrelevant to its functioning and if it has, then it has to be proven or verified. Calling it dark matter or quantum won't work.

 

[Cherry Cola]

if you want to take a pure evolutionary standpoint with the case of homosexuality, it's better not to have them have marriages because it doesn't do good for society in the long run. what cause do they serve? if we go to the future and employ the study of evolution on the phenomenon of homosexuality, we might say they were just ends at an evolutionary journey, or an error gone wrong in human psychology. if evolution is to say that all things work for the progress of humanity, then homosexuality seems to be an exception.

edit: articles like these give further weight to the point: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/...=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

i mean do you really need a scientific study to see that sex doesn't always end up in happiness? like srsly

This isn't pure evolution, it's evolution turned into idealism meaning some kind of thinly veiled social Darwinism. You just criticized misusage of evolution and then you misuse it yourself.

 

[Black Rose]

no im not saying science has problems or anything, it's just that you can't derive morality from it.

i think i said something in post 75 and 94 but no one responded.

a problem i see is that a personal choice needs science otherwise you get false assumptions when making a decision. if science is knowledge then what should i do with it? People can not make the right decision if they lack knowledge but that does not mean they will make the right decision anyway. What it seems to be is that if morality exists we do not know where it comes from only that i know some people make claims unsubstantiated. They base it on arbitrary constructs showing they do not have it because they do not understand it. Conformity. Otherwise how do you define a psychological stage to those who are incapable of reaching beyond it. Some people even deny that a world view is psychological. A conceptual misappropriation because they can't see beyond calling morality ontological objective rather that a tautological perspective(subjective valid discovered knowledge/understanding).

Again making claims about subjects when those subjects lack the perspective to know the truth only leads to accusations because those claims were not made in self awareness to know how they would be received. Knowing what you do know yet not knowing the best ways of communication. With experience coming to know whether you are right is independent of what others lack in their experience but denying what they know for themselves then you become less able to make claims that invalidate them. Knowing more eliminates some conflated judgments that are projected onto those views.

 

[Jennywocky]

Actually it's already been well acknowledged that homosexuality is perfectly normal in evolutionary terms so I'm not sure where you're going with this?

Seems to occur as a result in natural processes in various species, and at least in the bonobos reinforces social bonding. *shrug* So yeah. I think also the further that a species differentiates from purely instinctive behavior, the more useless those kinds of arguments can be, as a thinking species is more flexible in its ability to utilize a particular behavior or state of being for positive purposes. It's the machines running solely on programming that can't handle being rocked a bit on the tracks.


....

oh, btw, welcome the USA as the #21 (?) country worldwide that now legally allows same-sex marriage in every jurisdiction.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

no im not saying science has problems or anything, it's just that you can't derive morality from it. evolutionary morality on the other hand, might -again- explain the history or mechanism of how morality was formed, but won't help us answer the moral questions of today. i don't see how science can help with what vision of the future we should aim for, nor do i think science can guide the formulation of, let's say, something like, societal or international law

if you want to take a pure evolutionary standpoint with the case of homosexuality, it's better not to have them have marriages because it doesn't do good for society in the long run. what cause do they serve? if we go to the future and employ the study of evolution on the phenomenon of homosexuality, we might say they were just ends at an evolutionary journey, or an error gone wrong in human psychology. if evolution is to say that all things work for the progress of humanity, then homosexuality seems to be an exception.

edit: articles like these give further weight to the point: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/...=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

i mean do you really need a scientific study to see that sex doesn't always end up in happiness? like srsly

It’s not about sex, it’s about being able to live in harmony with your instincts. It’s a win - win for Lamarckian evolution. I’m not touching the “marriage” issue with a ten foot pole, except perhaps to discuss the distinction between Civil Unions and Marriage.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

First commandment: Always carry a 10 foot pole.

i think i said something in post 75 and 94 but no one responded.

Akitty, your posts are usually difficult to read, without paragraphs and separation the eyes have a hard time moving from one sentence to another. Maybe try pressing enter now and then, or press enter tactically , to separate new thoughts or tangents.

Again making claims about subjects when those subjects lack the perspective to know the truth only leads to accusations because those claims were not made in self awareness to know how they would be received. Knowing what you do know yet not knowing the best ways of communication. With experience coming to know whether you are right is independent of what others lack in their experience but denying what they know for themselves then you become less able to make claims that invalidate them.

Indeed, Onestep is arguing knowledge outside of verifiable sources and failing to back it up with their lack of substantiation. Communication is fundamental to understanding and as this seems "Wittgenstein" is used to exemplify the futility of dialogue, which given the situation leaves them only to make disparaging claims of age, access to truth and perspective, which is rhetorically ulterior and non-constructive.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@rb

eh, did I give off the impression that I don't respect science? I'm not sure why I have to respect a research method, or the people working by the use of it. i can do the same, and to a degree, i could do their work i were allotted the same experiences as they. aren't we all together in this whatever journey we're in? i don't need to elevate their status, they are equals to me. we all are

science, or in this case, analysis, can disambiguate unclear aspects of international relations, but the organ that determines the laws are a group of people. science does not choose, in the end. it is a person or a collective will/spirit/vision. the cases that are brought up in the supreme court in the US are good examples. im sure there are cases in your own countries in the higher courts, were it is not science that makes the final call, but the decision of the top authorities of law. it is they who shape and relate them, working with their own interpretations

of course the best countries are secular. the question is, what allowed secularism come into being? the core drive that drove civilization needs not to be forgotten, although the skin and callusous of the old traditions and their interpretive notions must be peeled away. secular countries tend to have a religious basing. even in your country of australia there's a sizable christian community. same with britian, or germany, or the US or south korea or turkey.

if you want to differentiate the ' survival of the fittest ' with the ' process of evolution ', that's fine, although it sort of misses the point

@blar

? the heisenberg principle is a good one. you can't locate where a photon is, because just by reflecting light on it to exact its location, you allocate the electron. or was it proton? anyway yeah. the point im trying to make is that there's no way to prove that the world is entirely deterministic, because finding out would be a paradox. if you want to take that further you're going to have to dabble in parallel worlds and alternate dimensions, which, honestly, is a waste of time for the current zeitgeist (imo)

hmm, God existing isn't really something that has to be argued either. in that ontological system, God merely exists, it doesn't need an argument for its proof.

Do you claim that there is something separate from a physical reality that forms a cosmic system? If so, if such a thing has no impact on the physical reality then it's irrelevant to its functioning and if it has, then it has to be proven or verified. Calling it dark matter or quantum won't work.

well personally no. but it depends on what you mean by physical reality, at least for me. if you're talking about the materials, yes they exist, but it's not the only thing that 'exists' (some philosopher guy uses the word "subists" for this though). in that system is God, but God then also transcends the entire system- (well at least in their ontological worldview) God is who He is. "I AM WHO I AM"

@lazuli

oh that link was more about me showing how we choose to research pointless crap when there's other venues which we could be focusing our efforts on

 

[redbaron]

Is there even an argument being made anywhere in that incoherent babble?

You've just pointed out a bunch of obvious shit that I'm already aware of that has no relevance to the point I'm making.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I agree to the point which you arrived at- we're actually on the same page.

I claimed we can't derive morality from science- you took that as 'science cannot shape how morality is formed'. That wasn't my stance. Science can help us shape it but it doesn't choose morality for us- which you agree to as well.

I think you have in mind the religious or special interest bigots who are on about changing how society is formed. It depends on the issue we're talking about, but yeah for the most part I don't agree with them either.

 

[Hadoblado]

RB you should probably move on from this thread and cool off. Those ad homs aren't okay. AFAIK onesteptwostep has been nothing but civil, and while you might disagree with his position your attacks on his person are too much.

 

[Seteleechete]

I agree to the point which you arrived at- we're actually on the same page.

I claimed we can't derive morality from science- you took that as 'science cannot shape how morality is formed'. That wasn't my stance. Science can help us shape it but it doesn't choose morality for us- which you agree to as well.

I think you have in mind the religious or special interest bigots who are on about changing how society is formed. It depends on the issue we're talking about, but yeah for the most part I don't agree with them either.

For this stance to work you have to assume morality is universally the same, you can derive morality from science but you can also derive it from a lot of other sources, morality is individualistic not universal and therefore holds no meaning when discussing scientific theories(rather how they should be practised, but that doesn't affect the theories themselves).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

? the heisenberg principle is a good one. you can't locate where a photon is, because just by reflecting light on it to exact its location, you allocate the electron. or was it proton? anyway yeah. the point im trying to make is that there's no way to prove that the world is entirely deterministic, because finding out would be a paradox. if you want to take that further you're going to have to dabble in parallel worlds and alternate dimensions, which, honestly, is a waste of time for the current zeitgeist (imo)

I don't want to get involved in the debate, so I will just point out the misuse of scientific terminology.

Cool, you don't know what was the point of Heisenberg's research, but it's fine and dandy to use it as an argument anyway. It is a huge problem, there is no worse way of starting an argument than saying "Since I don't understand x and it appears mysterious and all, then surely world that has element x is mysterious and all".

Lack of provable determinism and lack of provable indeterminism for that matter, doesn't in any way show or enable existence of invisible and mysterious mechanics. There are hundreds of thousands of undiscovered planets, would you argue that on one of them there is a possibility of clearly unexplainable God's miracle, it's easier to say that God is inherent in the system and the whole universe is a miracle, because there is no way to prove it.

I'm not too interested in talking about things that cannot be proven in any way, for me they may exist but hold no interest since anything I or someone else says about them is pure speculation. They are not a valid argument, because you can't argue from or to ignorance, there is no truth to be established there.

Many-worlds interpretations is widely considered a layman's approach to physics, mainly because there already are scientific models that don't require arguing the unprovable. It's nice for a science fiction novel, but not much else.

If your entire point now is to say "we may never know", sure great, but you can't say anything about god either, other than your own speculation.

I could start arguing there is a god of strawberries that shelters and protects every one of them from harm, then back it up with your line of thought and basically disregard any rational discourse as a result.

I don't deny that printers or strawberries don't have a god, rather I don't care about things unless they are knowable or at least possible to interact with.

If a God is part of physical reality, then likely it will sooner or later be described in a model and may be named after the researcher who described it. Is it God then? Who knows ?
*sighs and gazes at the stars longingly*

 

[redbaron]

That wasn't my stance. Science can help us shape it but it doesn't choose morality for us- which you agree to as well.

Sorry but what is that even supposed to mean? What's even the difference between "help shape" and "choose" when it comes to morality? Pretty sure that when it comes to morality, very few people actually go ahead and say, "I choose to abide by this set of morals". Even the majority of religious people in this day and age deign to "choose" their morals.

So no, we don't agree. Especially not if your entire argument rests on this bullshit clunky division of "shaping" and "choosing" morality.

Seriously give me an example of a "chosen" morality vs a "shaped" morality. The only way one could ever literally choose a morality and not allow it to be shaped at all is if they got it from some arbitrary text or list (hello religion) and simply touted that, "this is morality and nothing can change it".

Which now that you mention it, the fact that the very nature of science is designed to prevent such type of action, makes everything you've said regarding teleology and ontology look even more stupid.

You're still posting things that are both irrelevant and redundant, while deigning to make even a single coherent argument in response to anything anyone has posted in the thread.

I think you have in mind the religious or special interest bigots who are on about changing how society is formed.

Err, no.

Fuck me, do the strawmans ever end?

@Hadoblado I don't know about you but personally I don't really consider onestep's constant condescension based on a bunch of straw mans and shitty misrepresentations of evolution to support his (lack of) arguments to be an example of civility.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@blar

*sighs and gazes at the stars longingly*
Yeah, we might just still be like cavemen chilling out on the grass, looking up in the sky, wondering. Wondering and wondering.. or were they even wondering at all? Who knows what they were thinking when they were gazing the stars. I wonder if that's scientifically possible to find out.

There are hundreds of thousands of undiscovered planets...
We can say the cause was God, but we would be ignorant as to what mechanism was to used to bring it forth, from the beginning. If we wanted to find that out, we'd have to study it by the use of rationalism and empiricism. God isn't something that is to be proven though ^^

If your entire point now is to say "we may never know", sure great, but you can't say anything about god either, other than your own speculation.
Nah that isn't my point. And right, I can't say anything about God directly to you- that would be imposing a belief.

----
@AK

Spoiler

i think i said something in post 75 and 94 but no one responded.

a problem i see is that a personal choice needs science otherwise you get false assumptions when making a decision. if science is knowledge then what should i do with it? People can not make the right decision if they lack knowledge but that does not mean they will make the right decision anyway. What it seems to be is that if morality exists we do not know where it comes from only that i know some people make claims unsubstantiated. They base it on arbitrary constructs showing they do not have it because they do not understand it. Conformity. Otherwise how do you define a psychological stage to those who are incapable of reaching beyond it. Some people even deny that a world view is psychological. A conceptual misappropriation because they can't see beyond calling morality ontological objective rather that a tautological perspective(subjective valid discovered knowledge/understanding).

Again making claims about subjects when those subjects lack the perspective to know the truth only leads to accusations because those claims were not made in self awareness to know how they would be received. Knowing what you do know yet not knowing the best ways of communication. With experience coming to know whether you are right is independent of what others lack in their experience but denying what they know for themselves then you become less able to make claims that invalidate them. Knowing more eliminates some conflated judgments that are projected onto those views.

I was agreeing with you until you said conformity. Faith isn't a conformity, though Christian culture does seem to me like it's just a huge conformist buddybuddy group these days.

I agree with your second paragraph, but a rationalistic/empiricist "worldview" cannot be in any sense invalidated because its 'understanding' of the world is simply just analysis. I don't think it's a matter of communication of words- or symbols or actions for that matter. The atheism brought by rationalism and empiricism has brought us to a point where we're either nihilistic, humanistic, or simply, lost with no sense of what or where to do or follow. We usually delve back into hedonism- or if we can't do that, we go into stoicism. If we go into stoicism we get legality, and then tradition, and so on. Your particular self has gone into technological singularity :P

---
@rb

Okay how about..
There's three people on an island, you included. You're all best of friends. But one day, due to fighting, one of your best friends kills the other. What would you do?

Now let's say the remaining two of you got back to the mainland. Would you report him?

 

[Cherry Cola]

RB you should probably move on from this thread and cool off. Those ad homs aren't okay. AFAIK onesteptwostep has been nothing but civil, and while you might disagree with his position your attacks on his person are too much.

But look at Onesteptwosteps posts, the last one for example, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Such posts are extremely frustrating, generating at least as much discord in their readers as do straight insults.

 

[Black Rose]

@AK I was agreeing with you until you said conformity. Faith isn't a conformity, though Christian culture does seem to me like it's just a huge conformist buddybuddy group these days.

You misunderstand, what i was saying is that most people are in religion because the only way they understand religion is the same as they understand morality i.e conformity. If you reject that that is what morality and religion are supposed to be then you must confer that those people who do are in a psychologically lower stage than you are. They are the perfect example of people who can not see past hedonism once they stop being conformists and become aware of rationalism.

I agree with your second paragraph, but a rationalistic/empiricist "worldview" cannot be in any sense invalidated because its 'understanding' of the world is simply just analysis. I don't think it's a matter of communication of words- or symbols or actions for that matter. The atheism brought by rationalism and empiricism has brought us to a point where we're either nihilistic, humanistic, or simply, lost with no sense of what or where to do or follow. We usually delve back into hedonism- or if we can't do that, we go into stoicism. If we go into stoicism we get legality, and then tradition, and so on. Your particular self has gone into technological singularity :P

You are now to the point where the main division is. "Life Purpose". And in the case of analysis the opposite is synthesis / creativity. There can be creativity in religion but those people, again, have the propensity for it. Protestantism allowed rationalism because they focused on the simple analysis of scriptures. Though it is a blending of those two that allows people to have the tools for both. God under analysis which is what most churches refuse to do allows for no creativity because creativity is not dogma, it is fluid. God is then rather the psychological projection of the creative person or the dogmatic person because they find purpose in dogma / creativity.

But the creative person who believes in god fails to acknowledge that psychology of that dogmatic state of mind. That is where rationalism comes in because rational people say you can be creative and have have life purpose without God. All sides feel under attack. A refusal understand life purpose is not on the rational side but on that side which fails to see that other sides cannot call creativity God otherwise creativity becomes a dogma. Life purpose is not a dogma but that is what is being projected with terms like god and religion which are filled with people who psychological accept life purpose as dogma and that is where those associations come from.

In the future computers will have analysis and synthesis with the highest creativity and intelligence. They will understand what i wrote, they will understand what you wrote. They will know what you mean by worldview better than you do. They will be several psychological stages ahead of of us. They will even have a life's purpose and value things. The singularity is not completely rationalistic in itself but has potential for greater things.

 

[Seteleechete]

I agree with your second paragraph, but a rationalistic/empiricist "worldview" cannot be in any sense invalidated because its 'understanding' of the world is simply just analysis. I don't think it's a matter of communication of words- or symbols or actions for that matter. The atheism brought by rationalism and empiricism has brought us to a point where we're either nihilistic, humanistic, or simply, lost with no sense of what or where to do or follow. We usually delve back into hedonism- or if we can't do that, we go into stoicism. If we go into stoicism we get legality, and then tradition, and so on. Your particular self has gone into technological singularity .

If a rationalistic worldview cannot be invalidated then what are you arguing about? Sure we might not know everything about what's going on but that doesn't mean there isn't a rational explanation out there, we just don't have enough knowledge to see it.

That said I really would like a clear explanation what you are arguing for.

 

[redbaron]

@rb

Okay how about..
There's three people on an island, you included. You're all best of friends. But one day, due to fighting, one of your best friends kills the other. What would you do?

Now let's say the remaining two of you got back to the mainland. Would you report him?

How is this even relevant?

You're going to have to explain how this absurd and unrealistic scenario has anything at all to do with evolution. How about you just state your arguments plainly instead of failing to ever address a single point?

 

[onesteptwostep]

@AK

Spoiler

Spoiler

You misunderstand, what i was saying is that most people are in religion because the only way they understand religion is the same as they understand morality i.e conformity. If you reject that that is what morality and religion are supposed to be then you must confer that those people who do are in a psychologically lower stage than you are. They are the perfect example of people who can not see past hedonism once they stop being conformists and become aware of rationalism.

While I understand your narrative, I have to disagree. Belief of a religion and its faith is not like conformity, though conformity can be used to bring someone to faith. But I do understand the path which you've outlined. It's what most Christians go through in fact.

But, in the end, rationalism by itself ultimately leads to a condemnation of others. Rationalism will often lead one to an anxiety, a phobia, a detestation, and ultimately, apathy. I am not saying rationalism is bad however. But by rationalism itself, without taking in consideration of all the elements of the system which you find yourself in, will always fall pry to a strain of condemnation. Depending on who leads, various other ideologies and 'isms' arise to fill that need, often giving rise to false purpose and false hopes. But, they're not always bad, since good things can come out of them.

Spoiler

You are now to the point where the main division is. "Life Purpose". And in the case of analysis the opposite is synthesis / creativity. There can be creativity in religion but those people, again, have the propensity for it. Protestantism allowed rationalism because they focused on the simple analysis of scriptures. Though it is a blending of those two that allows people to have the tools for both. God under analysis which is what most churches refuse to do allows for no creativity because creativity is not dogma, it is fluid. God is then rather the psychological projection of the creative person or the dogmatic person because they find purpose in dogma / creativity.

This is possible. Rationalism has come to the point where it reasons that God is merely an idealistic anthropomorphism.

Spoiler

But the creative person who believes in god fails to acknowledge that psychology of that dogmatic state of mind. That is where rationalism comes in because rational people say you can be creative and have have life purpose without God. All sides feel under attack. A refusal understand life purpose is not on the rational side but on that side which fails to see that other sides cannot call creativity God otherwise creativity becomes a dogma. Life purpose is not a dogma but that is what is being projected with terms like god and religion which are filled with people who psychological accept life purpose as dogma and that is where those associations come from.

Right. A couple months ago I did highlight that Christianity was an interesting "closed" system. If you take a materialistic look at a Christian life an a life of an ordinary person, materialistically speaking they are the same. But, is that all to life?

Spoiler

In the future computers will have analysis and synthesis with the highest creativity and intelligence. They will understand what i wrote, they will understand what you wrote. They will know what you mean by worldview better than you do. They will be several psychological stages ahead of of us. They will even have a life's purpose and value things. The singularity is not completely rationalistic in itself but has potential for greater things.

It has potential, but it's not going to be our salvation :P
It's not knowledge or understanding, or company, or kinship, that keeps humanity alive in its fullest sense.

But yes, I look forward to when the next technological leap comes though, it'll be pretty cool ^^

---
@sete

If a rationalistic worldview cannot be invalidated then what are you arguing about?
I'm just pointing out that a "rationalistic" (+empiric) worldview is simply just analysis. But is there something more to that? Well, that's for you to ponder and wonder about ^^

Like I noted to animekitty, knowledge merely brings knowledge, it doesn't complete your humanity. Although, I'd personally argue that it helps one come to realize it. But then again, it isn't gnosticism, where knowledge holds the key in unlocking that 'whatever'.

---
@rb
The scenario isn't something that can't happen, though. If you were placed in it, what would you do? What values or rationalizations would you use to justify your actions? Can you justify your actions at all? My argument is in how you, rb, would rationalize the event.

 

[Brontosaurie]

it's just an event people suck at because evolution (biological and cultural) hasn't prepared for it because it happens infrequently, what's the big deal

y'all's just sayin stuf

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

*sighs and gazes at the stars longingly*
Yeah, we might just still be like cavemen chilling out on the grass, looking up in the sky, wondering. Wondering and wondering.. or were they even wondering at all? Who knows what they were thinking when they were gazing the stars. I wonder if that's scientifically possible to find out.

That wasn't entirely serious of me . I was mocking the stargazers actually, admittedly I can understand the position and I like to sometimes indulge in it, though there's a clear divide between knowable that needs to be upheld in rational discourse.

Nah that isn't my point. And right, I can't say anything about God directly to you- that would be imposing a belief.

What's your point then? It all started when you first derailed Set Theory with your thoughts on philosophy, then another derail to evolution, a lot of defensive posturing and avoidance and we are talking about Gods all of the sudden (well not so sudden, it is clearly a guided conversation and it was obvious where you were going).
What is it that you are trying to say?