Jump to content

The purpose of human life is reasonably a scientific, aka non-theistic topic!


thoughtfuhk
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You are the one who is confused. Teleonomy does not mean "purpose in the realm of science/objectivity." (It means a lack of purpose despite appearances.)

The fact that you have to redefine/invent the meanings of words in order to try and defend your opinions perhaps suggests that your opinions/beliefs are not well-founded.

You are, of course, free to have your own belief about the purpose of life. But you cannot (a) pretend it is the only propose and (b) pretend your belief is supported by science.

Anyone can make up their own purpose for life (as there isn't an objective, or "real", purpose) and they would all be just as valid as your idea.

  1. I need not redefine anything as such.
  2. Opening line in Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning
  3. Another line from Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "It would seem useful to rigidly restrict the term teleonomic to systems operating on the basis of a program of coded information."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Thus far no evidence has been provided for this supposed misreading.

Several people have pointed out why the definitions of the word do not agree with what you say. With evidence cited both from your own sources and from other sources.

10 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

It is not very scientific to avoid research discussions, and merely rely on dictionary definitions!

It is entirely reasonable when the problem is that you are making up your own definitions for words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

You appear to think that people are unaware of it because they know what it is and you don't.

  1. On the contrary, many people had argued as if teleonomy didn't exist. Teleonomy may describe organic goal-directness, contrary to the teleological argument.
  2. Example, where user Moontonman argued of purpose merely in the realm of the "supernatural":  "Not if the hypothesis calls on a word used in place of supernatural to describe something equally illusionary. Teleonomy only describes an illusion of purpose, which much like the supernatural, is not falsifiable... "
Quote

Except they say that teleonomy does not involve purpose. Contrary to your claims in the OP.

I am curious if you actually see the definitions saying something different, or if you are just ignoring what they say and pretending they agree with you. 

But it looks your purpose is to troll the forum.

  1. Where is it supposedly mention that teleonomy is supposedly lack of purpose.
  2. Could you point show us where in the opening line of teleonomy your opinion supposedly exists?

 

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thoughtfuhk said:
  1. I need not redefine anything as such.
  2. Opening line in Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning
  3. Another line from Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "It would seem useful to rigidly restrict the term teleonomic to systems operating on the basis of a program of coded information."

APPARENT purpose means there is the appearance of purpose even though there is no purpose.

This is confirmed two sentences later, where it goes on to say: "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention."

So your own source says that there is NO PURPOSE in teleonomy. Otherwise a new word would not have been needed.

If you again claim that these sentences mean the opposite of what they say then I will have to report you for trolling.

And your second quote says nothing about purpose.

1 minute ago, thoughtfuhk said:
  • On the contrary, many people had argued as if teleonomy didn't exist. Teleonomy may describe organic goal-directness, contrary to the teleological argument.
  • Example, where user Moontonman argued of purpose merely in the realm of the "supernatural":  "Not if the hypothesis calls on a word used in place of supernatural to describe something equally illusionary. Teleonomy only describes an illusion of purpose, which much like the supernatural, is not falsifiable... "

Is English a second language? If so, I can make some allowance for that.

If not, you appear to have severe reading comprehension problems. Moontanman does not say that teleonomy doesn't exist, he is saying that it is used to refer to cases where purpose doesn't exist.

2 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Where is it supposedly mention that teleonomy is supposedly lack of purpose.

See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Several people have pointed out why the definitions of the word do not agree with what you say. With evidence cited both from your own sources and from other sources.

I am yet to detect any such expressions as valid. What I said is that there exists scientific purpose, namely teleonomy. Others have consistently argued against this scientific purpose, in favor of some supposedly "real" or "actual" teleological purpose. In other words, people here have been willing to posit that purpose is merely "real" or "actual" in the realm of religion, instead of science as teleonomy underlines.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is entirely reasonable when the problem is that you are making up your own definitions for words.

Contrarily, I've largely been duplicating Wikipedia/teleonomy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

On the contrary, many people had argued as if teleonomy didn't exist. Teleonomy may describe organic goal-directness, contrary to the teleological argument.

I must have missed that. I have not seen any claim that teleonomy doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

What I said is that there exists scientific purpose, namely teleonomy.

As that is not what teleonomy means, according to all sources (including your own) I have reported you for trolling.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

APPARENT purpose means there is the appearance of purpose even though there is no purpose.

This is correct.I was going to post as such.

 

1 minute ago, thoughtfuhk said:

I am yet to detect any such expressions as valid. What I said is that there exists scientific purpose, namely teleonomy. Others have consistently argued against this scientific purpose, in favor of some supposedly "real" or "actual" teleological purpose. In other words, people here have been willing to posit that purpose is merely "real" or "actual" in the realm of religion, instead of science as teleonomy underlines.

Contrarily, I've largely been duplicating Wikipedia/teleonomy. 

You don't know what you are talking about and your understanding of the words you use is seriously wanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

APPARENT purpose means there is the appearance of purpose even though there is no purpose.

This is confirmed two sentences later, where it goes on to say: "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention."

So your own source says that there is NO PURPOSE in teleonomy. Otherwise a new word would not have been needed.

If you again claim that these sentences mean the opposite of what they say then I will have to report you for trolling.

 

And your second quote says nothing about purpose.

  1. Apparent purpose does not mean that.
  2. Ironically, the subsequent sentence means that teleonomy constrasts teleology, where purposeful goal directness is concerned with the divine/human intention.
  3. This doesn't mean teleonomy constrasts purpose, it means it contrasts purpose when concerned with teleology!
  4. And yet you accuse me of mangling English? Ridiculous!<_<
Quote

Is English a second language? If so, I can make some allowance for that.

If not, you appear to have severe reading comprehension problems. Moontanman does not say that teleonomy doesn't exist, he is saying that it is used to refer to cases where purpose doesn't exist.

See above.

  1. Bender unavoidably mentions that actual purpose is constrained to religion. (i.e. teleonomy doesn't exist!)
  2. Quote from Bender: "This is getting repetetive and boring. Please stop misquoting respected scientists. Archeo-purpose is not real purpose, much like teleonomy, which is specifically invented to be able to use purpose-oriented language in the absence of purpose. If you want actual purpose, it is teleology you are looking for."
19 minutes ago, Strange said:

There aren't any. It is just that thoughtfuhk is unable to understand English.

That you are unable to understand basic sentence structure, does not suddenly warrant that I am "unable to understand English" !

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is correct.I was going to post as such.

That is demonstrably false. Well, it's "correct" if you misread as Strange did. 

Quote

You don't know what you are talking about and your understanding of the words you use is seriously wanting.

See my underlining of Strange's misunderstanding above.

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:
  • Apparent purpose does not mean that.

And yet a large number of well-educated native speakers of English disagree with you. 

No well-educated, native speakers of English agree with you.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

As that is not what teleonomy means, according to all sources (including your own) I have reported you for trolling.

  1. Teleonomy does in fact concern purpose in the realm of science rather than religion.
  2. Wikipedia/teleonomy "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention."
  3. You persistently misread the sentence above; for that teleonomy contrasts purposeful goal directness, as typically expressed in the realm of teleology wrt divine/human intention, does not mean that teleonomy contrasts purpose/goal directness overall!
  4. Why do you think the description opens with: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures .."?
  5. Clearly, teleonomy contrasts not merely purpose and goal-directness, but instead, it contrasts purpose and goal-driectness when it comes to typically unevidenced nonsense, such as teleology wrt divine/human intention.
  6. You have a ridiculous command of English, and so do your comrades here! :mellow:
Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thoughtfuhk said:

You have a ridiculous command of English, and so do your comrades here!

As you are obviously a non-native speaker, I think you should listen to the people who are telling you that your understanding of your second language is wrong. (At least one of whom is a professional writer.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet a large number of well-educated native speakers of English disagree with you. 

No well-educated, native speakers of English agree with you.

 

 

I can't force you to own up to your errors. It's time to re-evaluate your command of the English language, as far as I detect.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

As you are obviously a non-native speaker, I think you should listen to the people who are telling you that your understanding of your second language is wrong. (At least one of whom is a professional writer.)

Professional writers may make errors too. (Unless they possess omniscience, a property we don't detect to be scientifically feasible!)

You ought to own up to your errors.

Nitpick: English is not my second language.

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and we already closed down threads discussing AGI (because they went nowhere) with the admonition not to bring it up again, so I'm dismayed that it seems to be playing a prominent role in this conversation.

We're done here.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.