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

[onesteptwostep]

@blarrarun

No I'm not belittling anyone, (nor is Lapis Lazuli from what I'm reading)- it's just that when people engage in topics they have no background understanding in (i.e. history), they tend to repeat laymen assertions over and over.

To put it crudely, it's like trying to explain macro-evolution to an ear-covering YEC. No background understanding of the topic at hand. It's as frustrating for us to try to explain it as it is frustrating for you to understand something you have no historical understanding in.

And no one here wants a lecture, we can all agree on that.

 

[redbaron]

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

Actually I do. I just don't use it to proselytize.

I've also left native Australia plenty of times and the majority of my family are immigrants from different corners of the world. Thanks for the attempted condescension though. Not that I'd expect anything better from an undercover missionary.

If we can’t objectively determine knowledge, then knowledge conforms to our subjective drives.

Which ultimately means nothing, and is also why things like empiricism exist. So that we actually can derive to a decent degree of certainty which things are or aren't objective in nature.

Anyone can reduce anything to subjectivity if they want, but that gets us nowhere. Just because you can reduce something to the point of total subjectivity doesn't mean you're contributing any sort of understanding to a discussion or idea by doing so.

Subjectivity is just pointless in most discussions because anything's possible. And if anything's possible and nothing can ever be wrong, you haven't explained a thing.

I mean, you're not even wrong.

If that is glaringly obvious to everyone, then you live in utopia.

Glaringly obvious to everyone in this thread.

 

[redbaron]

No I'm not belittling anyone, it's just that when people engage in topics they have no background understanding in (i.e. history), they tend to repeat laymen assertions over and over.

I agree, you should cease talking about Evolution and Quantum Mechanics immediately.

By the way, are you religious onestep?

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

i recommend post 191

191 is the reason I referred to the Copernican Revolution in Philosophy.

“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.”

The only clarity I would add is that teleology does not assign a purpose to others behavior, so I agree with the post and it is consistent with what I am saying.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Right, you met people who are immigrants. But have you lived in their cultural milieus to understand their worldview? Interaction doesn't mean anything, nor does 3 month Visa travels.

edit: ah. well i see what you did there, sneaky sneaky.

---

As for your question though, I don't want to take sides, nor supply ammunition for possible ad hominem, or ad 'omg, the religious'ism. There's a good reason why international leaders don't reveal their religion or their lack of. e.g. the leaders in the UN and various int'l musicians.

 

[redbaron]

Awesome Red Herring. So people can't understand evolution and teleology if they haven't lived in other countries? Boy, that's rich, but don't let that stop you from proselytizing and neglecting to make any actual argument of substance though.

Wait, weren't you leaving the thread though onestep? Also, are you religious?

 

[Black Rose]

191 is the reason I referred to the Copernican Revolution in Philosophy.

“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.”

The only clarity I would add is that teleology does not assign a purpose to others behavior, so I agree with the post and it is consistent with what I am saying.

if only individuals can decide for themselves what their purpose is, this in relation to science can not be refuted in the aspect that with science we transfer knowledge not purposes. My goal in science it too know not define my ultimate purpose. Science is subgoal but still objective / transferable.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

No I'm not belittling anyone, (nor is Lapis Lazuli from what I'm reading)- it's just that when people engage in topics they have no background understanding in (i.e. history), they tend to repeat laymen assertions over and over.

To put it crudely, it's like trying to explain macro-evolution to an ear-covering YEC. No background understanding of the topic at hand. It's as frustrating for us to try to explain it as it is frustrating for you to understand something you have no historical understanding in.

And no one here wants a lecture, we can all agree on that.

I am offended, I really should value my time more, but I did spend a lot of it trying to listen to what you have to say.

I was told I'm too young or too inexperienced to understand, both are fallacious ways of telling people off without presenting meritorious argumentation, if you have any academic background in philosophy, you would be familiar with rhetorics, how rhetorics as methods of influencing conversations are distinct from logical discourse and how arguments should be formed properly. You may be aware, then it would mean you are purposefully ignoring and harming us, people who dedicated their time to listen to what you had to say.

So far you haven't left even a lingering impression of being an authority, your sparse references to external sources, were either fallacious appeals to authority, ad hominems, strawmans, appeals from ignorance, or simply non sequitur. After making this many errors and even playing willful ignorance and denying your errors, you are either trolling and playing dumb, you are inexperienced yourself, or possess a very uncommon sense of humour that led you to believe it's fine to play on our expense.

Thank you for putting your words crudely, so that idiots such as myself may understand. Get off this case, no one here was covering their ears, you had nothing to give from the beginning, or you realised it's pointless to even try.

This is bullshit, if you have a lecture, bring it on, I have invested so much time it's beyond reparable, so you might as well try to redeem anything, but there is nothing, nothing going for whatever it was that you wanted to imply, or sneak in into a collective consensual error.

If you don't realise how much harm you have done, then you are not worth to reply to further.

 

[redbaron]

As for your question though, I don't want to take sides, nor supply ammunition for possible ad hominem, or ad 'omg, the religious'ism.

Yeah because you know it'll expose you as the proselytizing fraud that you are. Pathetic.

I agree with Blarraun. Go ahead and try to lecture us. With the amount of time you've spent dancing around making any kind of falsifiable argument, you could have written two lectures.

But you haven't produced shit because you're just as uneducated, if not more uneducated than any of the rest of us.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Many cats, many blessings. I do respect what you have to say baron, but not on this issue, my line is drawn.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Subjectivity is just pointless in most discussions because anything's possible. And if anything's possible and nothing can ever be wrong, you haven't explained a thing.

Being limited to subjective justification for knowledge is different than rabid relativism.

 

[redbaron]

Many cats, many blessings. I do respect what you have to say baron, but not on this issue, my line is drawn.

Another charlatan scurries away on the shoulders of feigned indignity.

What a surprise.

 

[Black Rose]

Being limited to subjective justification for knowledge is different than rabid relativism.

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.

looking at my post 207

if my purpose is in a future state that i choose my value of knowledge changes that future state. I can not know my future state only be aware i will have one and knowing i have a future state know that science will give me more options to choose from a wider range of goals.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

looking at my post 207

if my purpose is in a future state that i choose my value of knowledge changes that future state. I can not know my future state only be aware i will have one and knowing i have a future state know that science will give me more options to choose from a wider range of goals.

Interesting. I would not say that your purpose is IN a future state. That would be fatalism. Rather your purpose is in the present state looking into the future state of possibilities. This is why it is an evolutionary principle. Genes that guess the best get promoted to future contingencies.

 

[Black Rose]

to simplify teleology is simply awareness of making your own choices.
i do believe that machines will have their own teleology as an emergent feedback loop program derived from cognitive structure.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

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.

There is objective knowledge as well as subjective, unless you would like to say there's no objective side, I won't argue with that, because I would have to apply objective methods to even meaningfully address you, at which point it would only depend on your will to accept, whether we would make any progress.

I'd go as to say that any subjective knowledge and any objective knowledge, can be thought of as a spectrum of probabilities and potentials, with objective things having a lower bound at 99.9% of manifestations over time, with anything below belonging to the subjective or inherently random or noisy realm.

I would say it's an assumption to think of either sub or objectivity as being relevantly disprovable with our current understanding or tools.
Arguing something else may persist outside of verifiable bounds, while probably always true, doesn't contribute to topics included in the verifiable realm, unless used as a tool to create a perspective or reasons for caution, or create another discussion set in the realm of unknowable, which can still be valid and even more so with technology approaching magic in the not so foreseeable futures.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

There is objective knowledge as well as subjective, unless you would like to say there's no objective side, I won't argue with that, because I would have to apply objective methods to even meaningfully address you, at which point it would only depend on your will to accept, whether we would make any progress.

You have the right intuition, most sane people do not doubt that there is objective knowledge, but justifying your belief in something and saying it is objective is a lot trickier. One example, 300 physicists signed a document to try to get Einstein theory of relativity disproved. Sometimes you just can’t make a rational decision.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

to simplify teleology is simply awareness of making your own choices.
i do believe that machines will have their own teleology as an emergent feedback loop program derived from cognitive structure.

If consciousness is so controversial in humans, how can we expect a machine to have it?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You have the right intuition, most sane people do not doubt that there is objective knowledge, but justifying your belief in something and saying it is objective is a lot trickier. One example, 300 physicists signed a document to try to get Einstein theory of relativity disproved. Sometimes you just can’t make a rational decision.

The fact of existence is undeniable, it is one of the things that you could say is always true as long as you can think about it, you have proof it still holds.

Now, I think it may be possible to view beliefs as human derived concepts, rather than real tangible things, then it would be human error to tangle up in explanations of belief just because they acquired language.

Einstein doesn't matter here, I don't understand why you insist on mentioning him. Science is an attempt at describing what is, humans attempt to confirm what they think is and so on. Einsteins theory over the century proved to be erroneous, but a step in the right direction nonetheless, his ideas still hold generally, if they hold, it may be said they are objectively true on a subset of reality.

Complete objective truth in a complete reality is unfathomable at this stage.

 

[Black Rose]

If consciousness is so controversial in humans, how can we expect a machine to have it?

i recognize it in myself
i should recognize it in others
the technical aspect is structural fluidity

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

The fact of existence is undeniable, it is one of the things that you could say is always true as long as you can think about it, you have proof it still holds.

Now, I think it may be possible to view beliefs as human derived concepts, rather than real tangible things, then it would be human error to tangle up in explanations of belief just because they acquired language.

Einstein doesn't matter here, I don't understand why you insist on mentioning him. Science is an attempt at describing what is, humans attempt to confirm what they think is and so on. Einsteins theory over the century proved to be erroneous, but a step in the right direction nonetheless, his ideas still hold generally, if they hold, it may be said they are objectively true on a subset of reality.

Complete objective truth in a complete reality is unfathomable at this stage.

The term “exist” has a very problematic history. What people, philosophers or scientists, are referring to when they say something exists has variation to it. One early distinction is John Locke’s Primary Quality and Secondary Quality distinction. It goes uphill from there.

What a bunch of Einstein haters! That was my second reference to him, and the first direct one at that. The first one was a link to his views of religion and science.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

i recognize it in myself
i should recognize it in others
the technical aspect is structural fluidity

Can you feel another’s pain? Have you ever been deceived by a human? At this point a machine can’t lie, but I think that would be a possible algorithm.

 

[Black Rose]

Can you feel another’s pain? Have you ever been deceived by a human? At this point a machine can’t lie, but I think that would be a possible algorithm.

it may not have feelings if it is a virtual intelligence but it will be psychologically intelligent.
what would give it the ability to see red or smell grass would be an artificial brain made of jello just not dna protein jello as physical implementation.

 

[Seteleechete]

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

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?[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.

---
@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.

Wow the amount of logical fallacies in this post made me abandon this thread for days.

The very idea of rationalism is taking consideration of all elements of a system and then determine which elements work in it or not. That rationalism leads to apathy is utterly irrelevant and doesn't make it any less true. Yes rationalism has a hole called purpose and religion fills that hole but that is again irrelevant as those ideas filling the hole are as you said False. Positive or not they are still living a delusional existence.

Is that all to life? I don't know, neither do you and as we don't know, that question cannot be answered and isn't answered by lies. Humanity is all those things you mentioned and more, potentially a "soul" could exist but all those things making up humanity can be analysed and explained every action I take, every thought I have has rational circumstances behind them even if I don't know what those circumstances are, the existence of higher/supposedly supernatural beings is no excuse, that explanation is still rational in the end.

You want there to be something "more" to justify your existence, newsflash that's just you wanting to feel good and not justifying anything.

You want humanity and life to be something precious and special and above basic logic, newsflash it isn't.