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

Leumas said:
It looks like you do not have formal training in science either!
Click to expand...
Right, so where is the evidence for the multiverse for example? Which instrument measures or tests it?




Where? When? Citation please!
Click to expand...
It was just a moment ago, remember what I said about ants and termites, they exhibit purpose. This is proof that purpose occurs outside the mind of humans. If humans had never evolved, purposes would have been carried out regardless.
 
punshhh said:
Right, so where is the evidence for the multiverse for example? Which instrument measures or tests it?





It was just a moment ago, remember what I said about ants and termites, they exhibit purpose. This is proof that purpose occurs outside the mind of humans. If humans had never evolved, purposes would have been carried out regardless.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They exhibit emergent behaviours.
 
punshhh said:
Yes, within certain constraints of the brain. And you can think it develop it and communicate it, all without effecting any other aspect of your life.

Mental freedom.
Click to expand...

Anything is not within certain constraints. You are in practice contradicting yourself, not that it matters to you because you can and will in all likelihood ignore it, but some of us do notice and knows that it matters.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Anything is not within certain constraints. You are in practice contradicting yourself, not that it matters to you because you can and will in all likelihood ignore it, but some of us do notice and knows that it matters.
Click to expand...
Oh so you meant anything including perhaps an infinite (ad infinitum) number of things which are inconcievable to the human mind?

In which case the answer is no not anything.
 
wea said:
not an adaptive behaviour, developed phylogenetically?
Click to expand...
punshhh said:
Sounds like human purposes, when observed externally(external to the mind).
Click to expand...
I don't rule out that human purposes be phylogenetical, as a matter of fact

ETA: by the way, you can backtrack such ideas at least to "Die Rückseite des Spiegels", and even before
 
Last edited:
wea said:
I don't rule out that human purposes be phylogenetical, as a matter of fact
Click to expand...
Then it's irrelevant, both exhibit purposes. Also any other agent (agency) out there may well exhibit purposes.

ETA: by the way, you can backtrack such ideas at least to "Die Rückseite des Spiegels", and even before
Click to expand...
Is there any need to back track?
 
With the meaning of the "principle of purpose", I'm in an impasse (see #283; or #259, admittedly "low level" :); or abaddon's "emergent behaviour"; or Leumas' "agent detection"). What is a productivity that can be accredited to idealism, according to you?
 
Last edited:
wea said:
With the meaning of the "principle of purpose", I'm in an impasse (see #283; or #259, admittedly "low level" :); or abaddon's "emergent behaviour"; or Leumas' "agent detection"). What is a productivity that can be accredited to idealism, according to you?
Click to expand...
It would be the world as we know it, in its entirety.
 
wea said:
ok, excluding this one and salaries as philosophy teachers :)

ETA: just noticed in this thread by punshhh
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10619290#post10619290
that you are no idealist. I'll change the question to: what is a productivity that can be accredited to ... whatever your position is.
Maybe bruto's still applies :)
Click to expand...
Personal development and some benefit to the plight of human kind, rather than a hindrance.

This, of course, becomes more difficult to gauge if there are purposes behind our known world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom