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

[Black Rose]

But I do understand the path which you've outlined. It's what most Christians go through in fact.

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'

a false lead to begin with, which means effort is wasted on things that mean nothing to you because they were not for you but taught half way so you do not know what they even mean.

those people who have faith to begin with must only be shallow exemptions of people who did not see the world as hell from the beginning.

with the end of suffering people will no longer need something that never was there who had nothing to begin with.

or in that case love which is real not imaginary.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

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

Wow. Wouldn’t that include 100% percent of what is achieved by culture, education, politics and the like?

Or are you trying to say that intent is one thing, while purpose is another?

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

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.

I’m unaware of any one and only one version of evolution, much less a dogmatic one. But then again all dogma is dying. Didn’t you hear? God is dead.

If you have an open mind, check out: Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck’s version of evolution.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

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

I guess you have never heard of Free Will vs. Determinism? Who's your daddy?

 

[Black Rose]

i do not see how psychological torture fulfils life purpose in any way
it is something that shall be eradicated when everything becomes monitored by ai

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

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.

Be carful who you try to smack down, you have not address the specific argument. If you want to smack it down, address the point about Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics: that teleology is developed in accord with understanding how to apply the mean between extremes.

Metaphysics? Psssh!

 

[Yellow]

I’m unaware of any one and only one version of evolution, much less a dogmatic one. But then again all dogma is dying. Didn’t you hear? God is dead.

If you have an open mind, check out: Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck’s version of evolution.

While you appear to be saying "if you have an open mind" the same way a boy would call his peer a "pussy" as a means of manipulation, you are forgetting the basics of science education.

See, the principle of science lies in the scientific method and the collection of observable data. This means that what is accepted as "most likely to be correct" can change marginally or drastically over time. It is the duty of every scientist to remain open to what the data suggests.

Larmarckism is a great example of an idea that made sense for a while, until data showed that it was a bit off. When we discovered the existence genes and how inheritance works on a cellular level, when we discovered that both inheritance and the environment affect the development of an organism, we had little choice but to put Lamarckism on the special shelf for beautiful, but not-quite-right ideas, and we moved on. I suspect that we will always teach new students about Lamarck's contributions to the field, so that we can appreciate what came from his ideas.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

While you appear to be saying "if you have an open mind" the same way a boy would call his peer a "pussy" as a means of manipulation, you are forgetting the basics of science education.

See, the principle of science lies in the scientific method and the collection of observable data. This means that what is accepted as "most likely to be correct" can change marginally or drastically over time. It is the duty of every scientist to remain open to what the data suggests.

Larmarckism is a great example of an idea that made sense for a while, until data showed that it was a bit off. When we discovered the existence genes and how inheritance works on a cellular level, when we discovered that both inheritance and the environment affect the development of an organism, we had little choice but to put Lamarckism on the special shelf for beautiful, but not-quite-right ideas, and we moved on. I suspect that we will always teach new students about Lamarck's contributions to the field, so that we can appreciate what came from his ideas.

Current Lamarkian controversies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics

Even if Lamarck didn’t have any good ideas to still guide us with, the point I am most concerned about is that teleology is the most important thing to any scientific conjecture or ethical development. Note I’m not using “ethic” in the current fashion. You can’t explain experience without teleology. Science is founded on experience, and experience is developed by learning to make a conjecture, called a mean by Aristotle, between extremes.

 

[onesteptwostep]

a false lead to begin with, which means effort is wasted on things that mean nothing to you because they were not for you but taught half way so you do not know what they even mean.

those people who have faith to begin with must only be shallow exemptions of people who did not see the world as hell from the beginning.

with the end of suffering people will no longer need something that never was there who had nothing to begin with.

or in that case love which is real not imaginary.

Just like a child when he goes off away from his family. The thing is, he comes back home to discover..

 

[Black Rose]

Even if Lamarck didn’t have any good ideas to still guide us with, the point I am most concerned about is that teleology is the most important thing to any scientific conjecture or ethical development. Note I’m not using “ethic” in the current fashion. You can’t explain experience without teleology. Science is founded on experience, and experience is developed by learning to make a conjecture, called a mean by Aristotle, between extremes.

first extremes must exist, then you must be aware of their intersection.
when you encounter another extreme you find similarity and so know its opposite.
doing so a coordinate system is made in any area where you map new relations.
new maps fill in new relations from imagination.
some relations appeal more to people than other relations.
some animals can abstract them such as dolphins recognizing their mirror image.
most animals can't recognize such things.

 

[Black Rose]

Just like a child when he goes off away from his family. The thing is, he comes back home to discover..

i am not confident Jesus is on a physical throne waiting for me... sad people remain sad.

 

[onesteptwostep]

:]

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

first extremes must exist, then you must be aware of their intersection.
when you encounter another extreme you find similarity and so know its opposite.

The point about Platonism is that “opposition” is a very artificial idea. It held sway in logic for thousands of years until Godel. We discern more from the phenomenon when we choose to put it in terms of experience that can be manipulated, by artificial means such as the opposition that math and logic can give us, to intuit out hidden relations.

 

[Black Rose]

i do not know how asymmetry is discovered only that negative space reduces what is unknown to see what those things are which are hiding.

 

[Yellow]

Current Lamarkian controversies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics

Even if Lamarck didn’t have any good ideas to still guide us with, the point I am most concerned about is that teleology is the most important thing to any scientific conjecture or ethical development. Note I’m not using “ethic” in the current fashion. You can’t explain experience without teleology. Science is founded on experience, and experience is developed by learning to make a conjecture, called a mean by Aristotle, between extremes.

It's a nice article. Of course, a fair chunk of what is brought up can be attributed to other established concepts like the maternal cellular and environmental contributions to the development of a zygote/fetus, and the complexities of gene expression. Also, it's easy to loosely attribute epigenetics to unicellular organisms when they reproduce so rapidly and often asexually.

Perhaps with time and further study, most of these ideas will provide substantial contributions to the field. In the meantime, the article has a few too many statements such as "..few studies have been conducted outside of the laboratory setting...", " ...it is unknown whether these differences are present in their germline...", and most importantly, "no systematic study of epigenetic inheritance has been conducted" for the general conclusions to be accepted with "open arms" just yet.

Since you cannot be swayed from your assertions regarding teleology, it's no longer worth addressing. Further, the multiple references to well-known philosophies for authority continue to appear non sequitur.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Further, the multiple references to well-known philosophies for authority continue to appear non sequitur.

It’s obvious, post Godel, that there is more to implicature than systemic derivation. (That’s a reference to your non sequitur accusation) Also stated as, good conjecture is not derivative. Maybe formulated as, your paradigm needs shifting?

You won’t find the content of my argument in a previous philosopher, at least that I am aware of. I use reference’s as shorthand to show the relation of teleology to scientific conjecture. Find someone who has done that and I will learn something new.

 

[redbaron]

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.

What point are you getting at?

Just say it and stop being disingenuous.

 

[onesteptwostep]

How would rationality or empiricism help you morally in that kind of scenario?

 

[redbaron]

Just make your point.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The point isn't to be made, it's to be realized.

 

[redbaron]

What an absolutely pathetic copout.

~

This scenario is:

A. Irrelevant to the world we live in, so no matter what I answer it doesn't contradict anything I've said.
B. Lacking information. It can't even be answered rationally in its current state.

For example, whether I would report it or not depends on far more than any sort of morality.

Why did the fight break out?
Was I involved?
Who instigated it?
Was it accidental or intentional?
Was the fight justified?
What part did I have in it?
Can anything even be done about it now?
What good will come of reporting it?

There's dozens if not hundreds of questions and considerations that any rational person would consider before making the decision of whether or not to report it. The answer to this question isn't a simple matter of morality.

I already know your point here is to try and highlight that empiricism/rationality is an insufficient method of deriving morality, because you "must" resort to teleology to come up with an answer, right? No.

I've seen dozens of people try and use their own version of this scenario to try and make what they think is a good point in discussions like this, yet all it does is highlight their incompetence in dealing with matters of rationality.

Now try making your point again without resorting to misleading debate tactics.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Who said anyone was resorting to teleology for morality? (Did I?) We could help shape morality by the study of teleology, maybe, I could see that as being possible (though somewhat perplexing).

I'm merely highlighting that rationalism and empiricism has their limits, that's all. I don't see why you're seeing this as being argumentative. I'm not making a statement that the study of evolution itself is bad, nor the process of it, even.

---
The question is a matter of morality, because it's through the ethical rationalizations that you choose to argument your moral choice, whatever that moral choice is.

But the point is, it's not in the rationalizations you've gone through in your head that allows you to make that choice. The choice in the end comes from you. From an outsider, would it be any different if you had chosen what you've chosen in the end without rationalizing? If you did the same action without the rationalization, would you be vindicated?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'm merely highlighting that rationalism and empiricism has their limits, that's all. I don't see why you're seeing this as being argumentative. I'm not making a statement that the study of evolution itself is bad, nor the process of it, even.

Really?
And you found it necessary to mention regarding mathematics and evolutionary biology?

Am I or anyone else to believe that there's not an ulterior motive of proselytising or else and instead you just chose to derail the thread at a pointless whim?
Which is more likely? I think it wasn't all about that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

bla 2 da bla

 

[redbaron]

I'm merely highlighting that rationalism and empiricism has their limits.

There. That wasn't that hard, was it?

Yes, rationalism and empiricism deal only with the real world. If you consider that to be a limitation though, then it's your mind that's truly limited.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Maybe the one who recognizes its limitations is the one who is in a sense, truly free.

^_~

 

[redbaron]

Everyone here recognizes and has already acknowledged that there's limitations on empiricism, just that it's not relevant to the discussion about evolution. So what are you even on about?

Pretending as if you're not trying to make any sort of argument when it's blatantly clear that you actually are pushing an agenda is fucking disgusting.

If your only point was to point out that there's limitations on evolution, why would you prattle on about a whole bunch of redundant and irrelevant shit for 4 pages in a thread?

Wait, are you religious?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I feel like I'm exhausting the thread, so I will bow out. No need to condemn, intent is not for sale. As for who started, only records leave of their trace. May your cats bring many a blessings.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Everyone here recognizes and has already acknowledged that there's limitations on empiricism, just that it's not relevant to the discussion about evolution. So what are you even on about?

But it is relevant to a discussion about evolution. It shows the difference between evolutionary mechanisms that drive variation due to external causes such as environmental resources and competition, and internal causes such as fruitful scientific conjecture (i.e. final causes).

 

[redbaron]

I feel like I'm exhausting the thread, so I will bow out. No need to condemn, intent is not for sale. As for who started, only records leave of their trace. May your cats bring many a blessings.

Yeah I'd probably bow out as well if I'd just been exposed as a proselytizing fuck.

Funny that you're neglecting to answer whether or not you're actually religious. At least Wonkavision's preaching was transparent.

But it is relevant to a discussion about evolution. It shows the difference between evolutionary mechanisms that drive variation due to external causes such as environmental resources and competition, and internal causes such as fruitful scientific conjecture (i.e. final causes).

How does identifying cases of conjecture in empirical science necessitate allusions to teleology and appeals to Einstein again?

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

How does identifying cases of conjecture in empirical science necessitate allusions to teleology and appeals to Einstein again?

I wouldn’t want to be redundant and it’s obvious you can’t read. Do not expect me to entertain your verbal garbage if you don’t have the integrity to follow the discussion.

 

[redbaron]

I wouldn’t want to be redundant

Bit late for that. The tiara of redundancy has long since been firmly enshrined upon thine head.

and it’s obvious you can’t read. Do not expect me to entertain your verbal garbage if you don’t have the integrity to follow the discussion.

Speaking of having the integrity to follow the discussion, you still haven't answered my question in this post.

Now that we're here though, let's find out if you can redeem your integrity enough for me to bother entertaining your verbal garbage. That's assuming you can read, of course.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Bit late for that. The tiara of redundancy has long since been firmly enshrined upon thine head.

Speaking of having the integrity to follow the discussion, you still haven't answered my question in this post.

Now that we're here though, let's find out if you can redeem your integrity enough for me to bother entertaining your verbal garbage. That's assuming you can read, of course.

I keep answering that question. Perhaps you should change your moniker to Red Herring.

 

[redbaron]

Except you don't. You've rambled on about nihilism and regurgitated some stuff from Einstein and Aristotle, but you've never answered the question.

You've still not demonstrated why teleology is apparently essential to self developing beings for cultivating values. I know plenty of people who cultivate a wide range of values and none of them really have to resort to teleology to develop those values, so what gives?

If it's so essential to cultivating values, how come so many people manage to do so without it?

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Except you don't. You've rambled on about nihilism and regurgitated some stuff from Einstein and Aristotle, but you've never answered the question.

You've still not demonstrated why teleology is apparently essential to self developing beings for cultivating values. I know plenty of people who cultivate a wide range of values and none of them really have to resort to teleology to develop those values, so what gives?

If it's so essential to cultivating values, how come so many people manage to do so without it?

Let me say it like this. Hume’s Law shows that we are perpetually stuck in the problem of induction, with no certainty about our self or the future. We do, however, act correctly from time to time. The gazelle zigs while the tiger zags, and is afforded another opportunity to reproduce, Ceteris Paribus.

Animals with little cognitive function don’t rely on thinking, but instinct, in order to maintain an equilibrium with their environment. I’m not suggesting that this is their intent. This would be the domain of King’s theory of evolution. Darwinian evolution throws competition into the mix, and with scarce resources we get another form of evolution.

Intelligent beings overcome the stability or instability of environmental factors by being able to guess correctly about some future state, hence culture. Conjecture is just a fancy word for guess, and the guess is about some design that may or may not obtain. Sometimes the guess is beneficial and sometimes it is not. The history of science is the history of either failed or outgrown theories. It’s a process. Scientists make conjecture for the purpose of learning new information.

The conjecture about future states is teleological. I don’t think this is resorting to teleology, but showing the reality of teleology in any development of values such as scientific conjecture. If you think people manage to do without it, perhaps you should rethink your position. If you don’t believe it, then for what purpose do you keep inquiring? Are you thinking or acting on instinct? If you are thinking, what is your end goal? If you don’t have an end goal, then you are not thinking, but acting on instinct. Either one is ok, and sometimes you can tell the difference about other peoples states.

 

[Black Rose]

Scientists model human reasoning in the brain's prefrontal cortex

 

[Black Rose]

any goal is achievable, why pick a particular goal?
how do we decide if a goal is good or bad?

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-tests-new-artificial-intelligence-chatbot-2015-6

 

[redbaron]

Nice words, but you still haven't outlined what actual values someone can arrive at through teleology that they couldn't arrive at without it.

Scientists make conjecture for the purpose of learning new information.

A noble interpretation. I'm a lot more skeptical of the reasons behind most scientific conjecture that I come across to be honest.

The conjecture about future states is teleological. I don’t think this is resorting to teleology, but showing the reality of teleology in any development of values such as scientific conjecture.

Yeah and? Scientists put a lot of effort into avoiding the misapplication of teleology to naturalistic phenomena. They call each other out on it, they do peer reviews to avoid that sort of thing specifically because teleology isn't relevant to science and only serves to mislead.

For all the reality of teleology in the development of values, you still can't seem to come up with a single example of these mystical values that are apparently possible to cultivate only through teleology.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah and? Scientists put a lot of effort into avoiding the misapplication of teleology to naturalistic phenomena. They call each other out on it, they do peer reviews to avoid that sort of thing specifically because teleology isn't relevant to science and only serves to mislead.

Indeed, this was like quite a big problem in evolutionary biology before I think

please could lapiz lazuli be banned from posting more stuff without actually answering shit ffs

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Nice words, but you still haven't outlined what actual values someone can arrive at through teleology that they couldn't arrive at without it.



A noble interpretation. I'm a lot more skeptical of the reasons behind most scientific conjecture that I come across to be honest.



Yeah and? Scientists put a lot of effort into avoiding the misapplication of teleology to naturalistic phenomena. They call each other out on it, they do peer reviews to avoid that sort of thing specifically because teleology isn't relevant to science and only serves to mislead.

For all the reality of teleology in the development of values, you still can't seem to come up with a single example of these mystical values that are possible to cultivate only through teleology

I’m not prescribing teleology, I’m describing it: i.e. Hume’s Law. Besides, without teleology it’s like believing the theory that given enough time, enough monkeys and typewriters, that one of the monkeys will write a novel to the degree of Shakespeare’s artistry. If we keep evolving past our current state, then it is the product of pure deterministic forces and no free will.

“For all the reality of teleology...” Is that a concession?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I’m not prescribing teleology, I’m describing it: i.e. Hume’s Law.

Teleology is a study of purpose in a form of post facto description.

If you are arguing that any not entirely instinctual action has a goal and goal equals purpose. Then it is always true, since any application of reason or thought, is described by language and therefore follows from the beginning to the end and any "ending" can be called a goal or purpose that way.

Then teleology only analyses the anthropocentric realm and is based on several factors, including the purpose of analysing the purpose (which influences the interpretation), current idea and definitions of behaviours and goals, which are subject to change, as well as the effective completeness of information that is available.

It is important to note that no human action is disconnected from instinct, any decision is at least partly motivated by a prime desire for an outcome, which cannot be assigned its purpose, only after it's clear in terms of meta-knowledge of elements of that person's world, it can be said that they did x to achieve y and that y was their purpose.

It is a descriptive model of human action, so how it is any relevant to natural processes that gave rise to the world, except for humans who can have their purpose defined.

 

[redbaron]

Yes you're essentially mirroring the subjectivist approach: "Everything is ultimately subjective teological!"

Doesn't make it relevant or necessary to every single discussion though. Just because you can apply subjectivity or teleology to anything, doesn't mean that it's necessary or even pertinent to do so.

Since you're not prescribing it though, I guess I should thank you for pointing out the glaringly obvious to the rest of us?

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

You can’t define someone else’s teleology, but the fact that when you think about things you experience what for lack of a better description, is teleological. It’s like the Copernican Revolution in Philosophy. If we can’t objectively determine knowledge, then knowledge conforms to our subjective drives. If that is glaringly obvious to everyone, then you live in utopia. I have made the distinction that teleology is not applicable to describing mechanisms used in Darwinian theory, but then again, I haven’t been advocating Darwinian theory.

 

[onesteptwostep]

You'd sort of have to be a philosophy major or someone really versed in philosophy to understand that analogy, though.

rb doesn't have an academic-historical understanding of teleology, most of it's modernist-contemporary layman proposition. Considering that he probably has never left his native australia I don't think it's fruitful to converse further either, especially with his flaring verbal savvy. :P

Like I said in the early pages, you'd probably have to give out a lecture.

anyway I'm outta here~ many a cat blessings

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You'd sort of have to be a philosophy major or someone really versed in philosophy to understand that analogy, though.

rb doesn't have an academic-historical understanding of teleology, most of it's modernist-contemporary layman proposition. Considering that he probably has never left his native australia I don't think it's fruitful to converse further either, especially with his flaring verbal savvy. :P

Like I said in the early pages, you'd probably have to give out a lecture.

anyway I'm outta here~ many a cat blessings

This sort of presumptuous trolling and provocation is harmful to anyone involved with you.
I'm warning you, never again should you belittle people who tried to understand whatever it was you wanted to convey.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

You'd sort of have to be a philosophy major or someone really versed in philosophy to understand that analogy, though.

rb doesn't have an academic-historical understanding of teleology, most of it's modernist-contemporary layman proposition. Considering that he probably has never left his native australia I don't think it's fruitful to converse further either, especially with his flaring verbal savvy. :P

Like I said in the early pages, you'd probably have to give out a lecture.

anyway I'm outta here~ many a cat blessings

I should listen to you. Or, revert to snark, I need brushing up.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Thread in nutshell.
Blah blah blah, everything is subjective, duh.

Reason : teleolology, duh.

Circular algorithm for the future derails:
Insert vague pop-philosophy
Explain with teleology
Wait for split...done!

In the split, defend with whatever (no rules apply)
If cornered, refer to teleology.

Be sure to remain condescending and provoke, so that it may be inferred the questioner is of dubious importance if takes bait.

 

[Black Rose]

You can’t define someone else’s teleology, but the fact that when you think about things you experience what for lack of a better description, is teleological. It’s like the Copernican Revolution in Philosophy. If we can’t objectively determine knowledge, then knowledge conforms to our subjective drives.

the foundation of knowledge starts with reality and you can know things others do not know by thinking differently.

it seems insights would be transferable by intelligence

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

the foundation of knowledge starts with reality and you can know things others do not know by thinking differently.

it seems insights would be transferable by intelligence

In rare cases. That’s why I joined this board, in the hope of finding other human beings where this can happen.

 

[Black Rose]

In rare cases. That’s why I joined this board, in the hope of finding other human beings where this can happen.

i recommend post 191