To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[Elind]

Yes I'm aware of such notions. But this analogy is unsuitable because plots are by definition only found in novels. If this were not the case, I could suggest that the ink and paper are props in a bigger universal novel. I can't do this however without asserting a "novel" on a cosmic scale. Something which is classic anthropocentricism.

Purpose is different, it can be observed in the empirical data occuring external to the human mind. "Novels" can't be observed in the empirical data, without an implicit requirement/reference of the human mind to identify them.

Did you study self referential ("recursive" in programmer terms) theology?

 

[punshhh]

It can? How so?

Events have effects (specialization of cells in colonies lead to improved survival; plants poison the atmosphere with oxygen creating a niche for animal metabolism; asteroid kills dinosaurs; all eventually contributing to the subsequent existence of homo sapiens). But how is objective non-human purpose detected or measured amid all that?

There are plenty of examples in the behaviour of insects. For example ants building rafts(of their bodies) to cross water courses, or termites building mounds to regulate the temperature of the brood chamber.

This was going on before humans evolved, proving that it is not a human centric abstract idea. It is out there and may be outside the phenomenal world we are aware of to.

Note, I have not and will not claim that random physical events in the cosmos are being directed by a god like being.

 

[punshhh]

So, philosophy (thought) about reality is distinct from existence?

Realism is a practical consideration, given our circumstances. Philosophy of existence is metaphysical and must escape our local circumstances using reason alone.

 

[punshhh]

Did you study self referential ("recursive" in programmer terms) theology?

I have no formal training in theology, or philosophy for that matter.

 

[MuDPhuD]

There are plenty of examples in the behaviour of insects. For example ants building rafts(of their bodies) to cross water courses, or termites building mounds to regulate the temperature of the brood chamber.



This was going on before humans evolved, proving that it is not a human centric abstract idea. It is out there and may be outside the phenomenal world we are aware of to.



Note, I have not and will not claim that random physical events in the cosmos are being directed by a god like being.

These are examples of biological imperative driven by the engine of natural selection to the singular end of survival/reproduction. In that limited sense, I agree they are actions with a purpose.

Similarly, one could say that an unbalanced stone which falls from a ledge has a purpose, to reach its lowest possible energy state. Natural selection is simply a matter of chemistry following the laws of physics.

Thus "principle of purpose" = laws of physics

 

[bruto]

Realism is a practical consideration, given our circumstances. Philosophy of existence is metaphysical and must escape our local circumstances using reason alone.

I have no formal training in theology, or philosophy for that matter.

Q.E.D.

 

[punshhh]

These are examples of biological imperative driven by the engine of natural selection to the singular end of survival/reproduction. In that limited sense, I agree they are actions with a purpose.

Similarly, one could say that an unbalanced stone which falls from a ledge has a purpose, to reach its lowest possible energy state. Natural selection is simply a matter of chemistry following the laws of physics.

Thus "principle of purpose" = laws of physics

Yes you can put it that way if you like. Just like the way Lord Ishvara breathes in and out the cosmos eon by eon in his breath. It's just the laws of physics/nature. laws of which science is as yet unaware.

 

[tsig]

Yes you can put it that way if you like. Just like the way Lord Ishvara breathes in and out the cosmos eon by eon in his breath. It's just the laws of physics/nature. laws of which science is as yet unaware.

New laws have to encompass the old ones.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Realism is a practical consideration, given our circumstances. Philosophy of existence is metaphysical and must escape our local circumstances using reason alone.

Yeah, right. In other words reason as thinking decides what reality real is. If you think reality is X, it is true, because it only requires that you can think it.

punshhh, this form of rationalism has never worked on its own, because everybody believing in the idea that they can through thinking alone determine what existence is only end up thinking that they are profound and don't realize thinking on its own can't cause anything to happen.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Yes you can put it that way if you like. Just like the way Lord Ishvara breathes in and out the cosmos eon by eon in his breath.
It's just the laws of physics/nature.

laws of which science is as yet unaware.

Completely unaware...
Other than our current understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, physiology, metallurgy, electronics, cosmology, etc...

..but the other stuff we don't know anything about.

 

[Leumas]

Realism is a practical consideration, given our circumstances. Philosophy of existence is metaphysical and must escape our local circumstances using reason alone.

I have no formal training in theology, or philosophy for that matter.

Q.E.D.

Indeed!

Are you not aware of philosophy?

It appears you are not aware.

What you are under the impression is philosophy is nothing but pure sophistry.

To be able to tell if something is one thing and not the other you have to know the characteristics of both to be able to distinguish between them.

You have somewhere along the line been duped and somehow been taught sophistry as if it were philosophy and never ever even been exposed to actual real philosophy.

That is why you think your sophistry is philosophy.

So all philosophy is sophistry then? I thought so.
What about the philosophical analysis of empirical data, is that allowed?

 

[punshhh]

Q.E.D.

I'm a natural.

 

[punshhh]

Completely unaware...
Other than our current understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, physiology, metallurgy, electronics, cosmology, etc...

And what do those tell us about the origin of the so-called Big Bang Event(BBE) and reality external to that?

..but the other stuff we don't know anything about.

I know science can't take us past the BBE, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss it, or consider it as an object, like all other objects.

 

[Leumas]

And what do those tell us about the origin of the so-called Big Bang Event(BBE) and reality external to that?
I know science can't take us past the BBE, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss it, or consider it as an object, like all other objects.

Yes it can... but even if it cannot it still is not a sufficiently wide gap to constitute an "idealist other realm" where the "principle of purpose" can crammed in.

 

[punshhh]

Yes it can... but even if it cannot it still is not a sufficiently wide gap to constitute an "idealist other realm" where the "principle of purpose" can crammed in.

That's not science, that's philosophy. Where are the instruments and what is being measured, tested?

Well you can ignore any purposes that are out there all you want, but that won't change the reality of the situation. I have demonstrated that purpose is not just a peculiarity of the human mind, it is a causal relationship. This being the case, it cannot be ruled out.

 

[punshhh]

Yeah, right. In other words reason as thinking decides what reality real is. If you think reality is X, it is true, because it only requires that you can think it.

No, reason can accept what reality is and work out the logical or rational ramifications.

punshhh, this form of rationalism has never worked on its own, because everybody believing in the idea that they can through thinking alone determine what existence is only end up thinking that they are profound and don't realize thinking on its own can't cause anything to happen.

Thinking is free of having to cause things to happen in order to be valid or worthwhile. All the things that are required to be done in the world can be addressed and dealt with using practical thinking, pragmatism, social and cultural convention etc. But that is not all there is for the mind, it has no constraints atall on what it can consider. Provided one keeps ones feet on the ground, so to speak, one can explore the faculties of the mind.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
Thinking is free of having to cause things to happen in order to be valid or worthwhile. All the things that are required to be done in the world can be addressed and dealt with using practical thinking, pragmatism, social and cultural convention etc. But that is not all there is for the mind, it has no constraints atall on what it can consider. Provided one keeps ones feet on the ground, so to speak, one can explore the faculties of the mind.

So you can think in effect anything you like?

 

[tsig]

So you can think in effect anything you like?

So can I and so can any man, the question is, will reality conform to what you call it?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So can I and so can any man, the question is, will reality conform to what you call it?

No, you can't and you are irrational, delusional and crazy if you persist in this belief, but since you are not that, you can figure out how it is that you can't think anything you like.

 

[Leumas]

That's not science, that's philosophy. Where are the instruments and what is being measured, tested?

I have no formal training in theology, or philosophy for that matter.

It looks like you do not have formal training in science either!

Well you can ignore any purposes that are out there all you want, but that won't change the reality of the situation. I have demonstrated that purpose is not just a peculiarity of the human mind, it is a causal relationship. This being the case, it cannot be ruled out.

Where? When? Citation please!