Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
The Case for Teleology
    #11481564 -



Early philosophers commonly held advanced ideas about teleology.

Is it possible to have a purpose-driven species in a universe which is itself non-purposeful? Similarly, is it possible for an unconscious process like evolution to give birth to conscious beings? Following from this, it may not be practical to extrapolate evaluations of purpose, meaning, or consciousness if the notion is unexplainable outside the phenomenon of language. At present, these seem to depend on non-objective definitions.

The following thought process follows from a series of assumptions. What are some of the implications here? Are there noticeable strengths or weaknesses in the observations? Does the logic appeal more to intuition or rationalism?

******************

The universe is said to be comprised of ongoing phenomena that is marked by a tendency towards increasing degrees of complexification. It appears that through change and evolution, it is novelty-conserving; that is, initial changes however small or timely, resonate through the rest of the system in observable alterations, physically and chemically for example. Natural phenomena, viewed from the lens of systems theory, appears to favor change that emerges from chaotic systems and "black swan" events. Although stability is threatened by emergent properties of active systems, by default the behavior of the universe is not static. Meaning thus, the universe is a sympoetic system, it is open and interactive at nearly endless levels of interdependent relationships and processes, most of which lies outside of our detection, by both our senses and our creative technologies.

Is there room or justification to discuss the possibility of teleology then? The philosophy of Alan Watts, I believe, would shy away from such an interpretation by pointing out that our experiential version of reality is causal and linear, but may not necessarily represent a similar backwards-forward direction (or purpose) in the universe.

One metaphor to illustrate that the map is not the territory, is reflecting on Ram Dass's account of the Upanishads. "That which makes the tongue speak but cannot be spoken by the tongue; That which makes the eye see, but cannot be seen by the eye."

So, extrapolating our ideas and opinions here to a meaningful account of nature seems to me to be, unavoidably, another behavior or process of nature. Further, any manifestation from the human enterprise of creativity will always carry with it a cosmological blueprint of the past and the future events in the universe.

I could ramble on, but I'll wait for responses. Thanks for reading.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Arden]
    #11481639 -

:laugh:So, extrapolating our ideas and opinions here to a meaningful account of nature seems to me to be, unavoidably, another behavior or process of nature.

It's like I always say sometimes. "This forum is for entertainment purposes only";):satansmoking:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Icelander]
    #11481801 -

Thanks for pointing that out, Icelander. I once phrased something similar in a paper that I wrote for a critical inquiry class. The professor just complained that while the statement may be true, that the idea isn't very useful or meaningful. (Or, perhaps it was the only somewhat-vague notion that he could selectively muster a criticism for :wink:).

I thought it implied a lot, not just towards our definition of nature and how we construct its boundaries, but in describing the origin and place of our behavior. In a lot of discourse communities, it is becoming increasingly popular to discuss modernity (especially in terms of technology) as unfathomably different and distinct from previous displays of nature.

But isn't that the point? I tried to hint at that in the preceding paragraphs. In my opinion, it just seems that the engine driving all of this change, whatever its ultimate 'essence', is in the business of creating that novelty and instability (insert 'dangerous' human/ecological behavior) that we think is so baffling and crazy, or prophetic.

Forgetting to take a look around may be no different than amnesia!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Arden]
    #11481855 -

Oh I agree.:satansmoking:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Icelander]
    #11481982 -

I am going to have to apologize, im tired, kind stoned, and kinda shit this one out, maybe ill revise it later, but i think i might have made a little bit of sense....... maybe


I can agree with that. Though I find that fate, existence, the passing moment possesses an odd deliberant nature. To find everything novel or profound is almost contra-nature almost ridiculous and enigmatic (at least comparatively on earth), what we would assume as a luxury, whereas the expedient basis of nature omits the opportunity for this feeling of novelty for obvious utilities. It is like the human is most receptive to self realization in a very odd way. I do not want to sound all sentimental about it, some of it is probably a side affect of raw luxury of time and increased sense for pain and pleasure. But assigning order is hard to do.

But nonetheless the human has a capacity to just sit and marvel at things, things like acid and such just seem to exaggerate this ability, often... It seems that we have to receive it as such to be healthy, no? That is, we are so increasingly aware, we are faced with an opportunity to be overwhelmed in a depressed or impressed fashion. No doubt our analytic powers have raised us up from the beast but also in the wake of a bounty we can find joy from many manifestations. Even then I would say part of this scope of the mind can inflect totally inward, into sensations that cause a great nausea... though they seem sometimes necessary. Feeling out ones illusion of the duality of the often schizophrenic mind to the body is a bit alarming.

I remember a few mushroom trips that really bring out a visceral sense of body with a very odd sensation of mind seemingly examining itself (or sometimes even wanting to project itself) sensationally one might see with more abruptness see the totality of our intellect as a body - as harnessed "mechanical form" (most evidently to our usual mode of thought but of course, but I feel like there is another side to the conscious mind) - into extended reality. I think Spinoza got something right when he thought of the abilities of ideas to impose a bit of “comprehension considered under an attribute of extension – or considered under an attribute of thought” is quite remarkable. Words are mere concepts; you are not your name or anything like that (easy example) . Things like that almost get me nauseous (mentally, especially while tripping on something like psilocybin). Anyway, and it seems from a feeling of existential crisis we feel compelled to think a little about teleology (to some extent! depending on your desire for truth) or we might just repress it (which I have a hard time deciding which is best, surely the more subtle approach doesn’t have a social utility at least overtly). I think in the sciences we often stick to cleanliness, because it is a very public arena... so that is quite logical.

Though I think it is fair to "induct" - infer - read subtle signals about what animate existence is. It appears we like to say, we evolved, life evolves, it randomizes and conforms, etc... etc. I agree but I think there is something a little bit more that can and maybe ought to be said. Admittedly thinkers like Nietzsche have promoted something like the 'will to power' as the driving force... which entails, will to freedom, to life... many things wrapped into one. Something of a body being grown, formed, kneaded, and self perfected... out of what spark? Some magic equation fulfilled and progressed? But it seems like we can’t posit a wildly different system of being than this, in the wake of its apparent terribleness or awesomeness at least through this type of existence one is free and can act and create, be, do anything in your natural abilities…. Some perfection could be that we as engaged in it will never feel out any socalled previous state, an apriori knowledge from here at least. But whatever. But often thinking about this it seems sort of disgusting, is this force for freedom for a randomized chance at freedom a mistake? It is kind of fearful to think about the brute insanity behind this... though then it goes back in forth with a reckless wisdom, and suffering is hard to equate to failure. We don’t like lofty ontological stuff and teleological stuff because what we might find out is that many of our sensibilities (cultural and personal) are going to someday going to be raptured no matter what we comment on,.. and then the voice rises up that says, well maybe you really wanted it maybe you'll never die you'll just wake up another random outcome and maybe it was for the best… but is this just another luxury. Who has it right?! :shrug: :eek:

:lol:

:gethigh:


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: andrewss]
    #11482013 -

So this is what it's like for you when stoned?

Try rehab.:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Icelander]
    #11482090 -

Thanks for the comments, andrewss.

I found the following statement pretty revealing:

Quote:
We don’t like lofty ontological stuff and teleological stuff because what we might find out is that many of our sensibilities (cultural and personal) are going to someday going to be raptured no matter what we comment on,..


Which could make our behavior and ideas seem trivial, or actually, if they are instrumental and inseparable from the activity and direction of the universal processes - in that case we should feel almost exalted, as it certainly imbues feelings of awe in addition to explaining a lot. The problem here is that with such zealous momentum, the original meaning becomes an umbrella which we toss all of our unexplained phenomena under.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Arden]
    #11482151 -

"Life has no inherent meaning and everything happens because it can" -Veritas


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Arden]
    #11482239 -

I think that all attempts to ask ultimate questions are flawed. Philosophy should be about understanding how words and concepts relate to eachother. Science should be about modelling our reality. Ethics should be about understanding the constraints of our social models.

None of them should aim to answer questions about where the universe came from, the nature of its cause, or the nature of its purpose, if it has one.

Of course, we can think about what it means to have a purpose and what this implies. But in doing so all we realise is that - if the universe has a purpose, then it means some mind is giving it that purpose. What is this mind? Does this mind exist? Does the universe really have purpose?

theyre unanswerable.

I don't think this is dismal, I just think it tells people to look at their present existance rather than trying to find the parameters of their life. (where did they come from.. where will they go afterwards). Life is limited. We have only so much time to ask questions, find answers, experience, and interact with the world.

I don't see the point in believing in anything, except when interacting with the world. Whilst sitting at home, the universe should really be considered a massive uncertain enigma. When interacting though, it helps to believe so that the action can follow through. Belief is thus functional.

There is no functionality in a belief about aspects of the universe that we can never interact with


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11482291 -

I don't see the point in believing in anything, except when interacting with the world.

:thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Icelander]
    #11484270 -

Icelander said:
So this is what it's like for you when stoned?

Try rehab.:lol:



hahahaha :lol:

i should start smokin meff, I'd prolly really get goin then! :awesome:

Arden said:
Thanks for the comments, andrewss.

I found the following statement pretty revealing:

Quote:
We don?t like lofty ontological stuff and teleological stuff because what we might find out is that many of our sensibilities (cultural and personal) are going to someday going to be raptured no matter what we comment on,..


Which could make our behavior and ideas seem trivial, or actually, if they are instrumental and inseparable from the activity and direction of the universal processes - in that case we should feel almost exalted, as it certainly imbues feelings of awe in addition to explaining a lot. The problem here is that with such zealous momentum, the original meaning becomes an umbrella which we toss all of our unexplained phenomena under.


I dig it.... though your last sentence confuses me, well at least in that it could be considered universal, or something...


Lakefingers said:
Icelander said:
"Life has no inherent meaning and everything happens because it can" -Veritas


And to think you quote dead people you don't know in the Quotes sticky.

*


Anyhow, I come into a lot more theology and natural science-oriented thinking here than I do in the thoughts that I have been following and that arise in relation to my daily life.

That in itself is interesting, and a topic you guys touched upon: the for whom.

- Apparently not for Arden's teacher nor Andrewss "we" (who don't like lofty...). And perhaps the case for theology is admissible in my courts, but only out of public view.


Explain your self a bit more, if ya could...



--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Edited by andrewss (11/19/09 09:31 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11484326 -

Noteworthy said:
I think that all attempts to ask ultimate questions are flawed. Philosophy should be about understanding how words and concepts relate to eachother. Science should be about modelling our reality. Ethics should be about understanding the constraints of our social models.

None of them should aim to answer questions about where the universe came from, the nature of its cause, or the nature of its purpose, if it has one.

Of course, we can think about what it means to have a purpose and what this implies. But in doing so all we realise is that - if the universe has a purpose, then it means some mind is giving it that purpose. What is this mind? Does this mind exist? Does the universe really have purpose?

theyre unanswerable.

I don't think this is dismal, I just think it tells people to look at their present existance rather than trying to find the parameters of their life. (where did they come from.. where will they go afterwards). Life is limited. We have only so much time to ask questions, find answers, experience, and interact with the world.

I don't see the point in believing in anything, except when interacting with the world. Whilst sitting at home, the universe should really be considered a massive uncertain enigma. When interacting though, it helps to believe so that the action can follow through. Belief is thus functional.

There is no functionality in a belief about aspects of the universe that we can never interact with


I would never deny the practical wisdom in much of what you said. Though one can balance a little something in there, IMO, though an easy counter example is the case of the religious - it gives a more cosmic justification for ones trials and such, it helps sustain certain people... CERTAIN, and one cannot deny its uses there, however some might suspect it's "needs" as self fulfilling prophecies...


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology *DELETED* *DELETED* [Re: andrewss]
    #11484401 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Lakefingers]
    #11484540 -

Alright... I suppose I got ya... I would say primarily the person spouting off a view, though in many of the less than dogmatic types that get lofty ones views certaintly have a tendency to evolve. To me I do not really take my lofty ramblings THAT seriously, they are like mind exercises primarily.... at bottom I am a skeptic, and how can one not be when getting very lofty. Though at bottom I find wordy explanations ironic due to a little mistrust of words in me. Though I wont totally discount what I think and write about in the more ultimate subjects, philosophy itself is very much luxurious in a sense.

Quote:
So, extrapolating our ideas and opinions here to a meaningful account of nature seems to me to be, unavoidably, another behavior or process of nature. Further, any manifestation from the human enterprise of creativity will always carry with it a cosmological blueprint of the past and the future events in the universe.


I like that, it hits on a reality. Though the meaningful account thing is hard to describe. I think one nice feature of the "will to power/life/freedom" (and this seems sort of dress up of the already occam's razor chiseled theory of "evolution") etc can indeed warrant a story in the human minds attempts to explain... a sliver of understanding of this "will" - at least we are and look around and see its expressions - and as such it is an exertion, self perfecting, over coming, running with its dice rolls and chance happenings, influx and wildly diverse.... But of course I keep talking about this, so that says something, though I agree often this is almost absurd to make public discussion.

Or maybe not hehehe, you decide, or maybe decide to omit any verbiage surrounding cohesive hows in biology/etc.


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Edited by andrewss (11/19/09 10:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology *DELETED* [Re: andrewss]
    #11484734 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Case for Teleology [Re: Lakefingers]
    #11485584 -

Yeah... and I guess teleology is incredibly hard to think about. I suppose I would lean towards the intrinsic sort. But even then :shrug:


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The science of social interaction.
( 1 2 all )		 Larrythescaryrex 2,612 23 01/16/03 06:50 AM
by sirreal
* One Case against Chi Power
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 3,949 43 11/15/03 03:28 AM
by Oook
* Uniao de Vegetal Wins Ayahuasca Case Swami 772 4 08/26/02 04:47 AM
by postalboy
* The Second Coming of Christ!!
( 1 2 3 all )		 johnnyfive 5,295 40 01/29/03 09:14 AM
by johnnyfive
* Spirituality and Anger
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Swami 5,985 104 10/09/09 09:17 PM
by falcon
* Psilocybin Social Studies: What would happen if you... World Spirit 1,729 13 07/31/03 02:47 PM
by CosmicJoke
* Does God want me to believe?
( 1 2 3 all )		 trendalM 2,424 55 05/09/03 08:06 AM
by trendal
* Implications of the Big Bang Origin and Fate of the Universe
( 1 2 3 all )		 Source 6,951 41 09/07/04 11:01 PM
by gettinjiggywithit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,384 topic views. 1 members, 286 guests and 25 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.