Purpose

[JacksBratt]

I know I am conscious (ala Rene Descartes) and it follows that there must be something out there to perceive, because that is what consciousness is, by definition. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

You cannot show any evidence that there is something out there to percieve if it is all in you head. When you are dreaming, there is no real people, places, things, feelings or logic for that matter. It is all a creation of your mind. It cannot be shown to anyone that it is material because it is not. Everything you percieve could be as such. Just like in the movie inception. They only had one little test to prove when they were back to reality. However, in the end that was even open to question.

Like I said, I am certain that there is a material world but proving it is like proving spirituality.

 

[Linuxgal]

Life in both cases is a noun. Live is a verb. Nouns are a person, place or thing. Life is a thing.

I think that going by the dictionary it may be so. However, by analogy a Broadway play such as "Wicked" is a noun in a generic sense, just as humanity is a noun, but each individual performance is a verb, and each individual human life is a verb as well. This is a very important distinction, rooted in daojia, or philosophical Taoism.

 

[Linuxgal]

You cannot show any evidence that there is something out there to percieve if it is all in you head. When you are dreaming, there is no real people, places, things, feelings or logic for that matter. It is all a creation of your mind.

I'm sure that you enjoy such speculations. Sometimes little boys smoke pot and go, "Whoa, man, what if the whole universe is just a computer program?" It doesn't matter much to me. I've operated for forty-nine years on the premise that there is a real world out there to perceive. Another twenty or thirty, then out, and I won't even know that I was ever here, just like everyone who came and went before me.

 

[Resha Caner]

... I won't even know that I was ever here, just like everyone who came and went before me.

At least that's what you're banking on.

 

[JayFern]

I won't even know that I was ever here, just like everyone who came and went before me.

At least that's what you're banking on.

Then why don't you show her why she might be wrong about that? or are your dreams and hopes all you have?

Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean squat, has anything ever happened for you just because you wanted it to happen? it never has and it never will for any on us, don't you think it's about time you woke up to that fact.

 

[juvenissun]

Being able to assign and work toward goals (purpose) is probably beneficial to organisms, so it may well have an evolutionary basis. That is not the same as saying that evolution itself has a purpose.

Evolution produced eyes, but evolution does not see.
Evolution produced brains that can support goals, but evolution does not have goals.
Erosion produced canyons that have a depth, but erosion does not have a depth.

Processes can produce an result with features they do not themselves possess.

Correct. But it shows a trend. And we have to explain the reason of the trend. You can bury your head in the sand and only see the process, but not the result.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

your picture is cute, and i like seattle and linux, but you're married.

still, it is a good and right prayer(right?) to pray the Father that He allows you to know, even twenty or thirty years from now if need be,
the truth.

so be it. He will work it out now.

but be aware, if you rebel against Him (no worries if you rebel against all the churches you've ever heard about probably - especially the 'big' one-
their not on His side ; just beware, don't rebel against the Creator Himself or His Son Yahushua)

I'm sure that you enjoy such speculations. Sometimes little boys smoke pot and go, "Whoa, man, what if the whole universe is just a computer program?" It doesn't matter much to me. I've operated for forty-nine years on the premise that there is a real world out there to perceive. Another twenty or thirty, then out, and I won't even know that I was ever here, just like everyone who came and went before me.

 

[Linuxgal]

At least that's what you're banking on.

Well, you're banking that Zeus isn't the big guy too. If he's large and in charge, he mightn't like your dalliance with Jesus and Yahweh. Might send you to Tartarus and have you rolling stones.

 

[Linuxgal]

your picture is cute, and i like seattle and linux, but you're married.

Did I wander into some kind of sacred meat market?

 

[AV1611VET]

If he's large and in charge, he mightn't like your dalliance with Jesus and Yahweh.

Who's "Yahweh"?

 

[Linuxgal]

Who's "Yahweh"?

Wow.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, you're banking that Zeus isn't the big guy too. If he's large and in charge, he mightn't like your dalliance with Jesus and Yahweh. Might send you to Tartarus and have you rolling stones.

Indeed, I am banking on that - just like I'm banking on the U.S. military to hold off threats from ISIS to raise the flag of Allah in the White House. So, whether Zeus exists or not, I'm going with the god I know to exist.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed, I am banking on that - just like I'm banking on the U.S. military to hold off threats from ISIS to raise the flag of Allah in the White House. So, whether Zeus exists or not, I'm going with the god I know to exist.

And you are free to do so.

 

[Linuxgal]

Indeed, I am banking on that - just like I'm banking on the U.S. military to hold off threats from ISIS to raise the flag of Allah in the White House. So, whether Zeus exists or not, I'm going with the god I know to exist.

How do you know he exists, do you gotta feeling?

 

[justlookinla]

How do you know he exists, do you gotta feeling?

How about the existence of the impetus which created humanity?

 

[sfs]

I think that misrepresents the history of it. An army of people led by Peirce tried to "prove" the scientific method. After many years of failing Popper precipitated the, "Ah nuts, maybe we can't prove it," movement. That his alternative has its flaws in no way invalidates the change in attitudes he effected.

He certainly contributed to the demise of that effort, although I think people like Quine would have done it in anyway. But effectively criticizing one set of ideas doesn't mean one's own ideas have been embraced.

That's a very bold (and honestly, very naive sounding) statement. It belies a philosophy of its own.

Philosophy is a formal, professional activity, one in which I do not engage.

I didn't ask for a philosophical defense, but a theoretical basis.

I have no idea what a theoretical basis for a philosophical statement would look like if it weren't also philosophical.

All your statements are leaning on intuition, not a codified justification.

I have tried to make all of my statements descriptive of the beliefs of others, in particular of working scientists. As such, they have sod all to do with either intuition or justification.

Since you didn't respond to Sober, I assume we have not discussed him before. FYI, he has spent most of his career trying to establish that correlation is causation for evolution, and he's not being very widely accepted as successful. If a smart guy like him can't do it, I'm skeptical it's going to happen any time soon.

As I've said too many times to count, my experiences in mechanics led me to a similar, "Ah nuts," conclusion about using correlation to establish causation. It works most of the time, and when it doesn't you go back and try again ... but that's hardly something one proudly trumpets as a "method". It's little better than guess and try.

I've never trumpeted the scientific method. I don't think there is any such single entity. I don't really care if philosophers can justify the success of science or not.

My entry into this thread was to point out that Popper didn't change the way science was done in any appreciable way, at least not that I'm aware of. That's all.

 

[Resha Caner]

He certainly contributed to the demise of that effort, although I think people like Quine would have done it in anyway. But effectively criticizing one set of ideas doesn't mean one's own ideas have been embraced.

I think this is the wrong game to play. It's like saying Newton had no positive impact on science because his idea of a fixed frame was wrong and is no longer embraced. Newton pointed science in a new direction, as did Popper.

And, again, one could say: Well, Hooke, Leibinz, et. al. would have eventually got there without Newton, but one could make such a supposition about any historical figure - a statement that can't be falsified.

I despise such things - like the "well the Arabs had algebra before the Europeans" bent and all such things like it.

I have no idea what a theoretical basis for a philosophical statement would look like if it weren't also philosophical.

Your statement was philosophical? It's your statement I'm asking you to establish - you who doesn't engage in philosophy. If you're going with, "As long as it works" and poo-poohing any supporting models I'm disappointed.

I've never trumpeted the scientific method. I don't think there is any such single entity. I don't really care if philosophers can justify the success of science or not.

That's one statement I'm glad to hear.

My entry into this thread was to point out that Popper didn't change the way science was done in any appreciable way, at least not that I'm aware of. That's all.

I disagree. Note the number of scientific papers that mention falsification, and then look at the number of discussions on falsification that mention Popper.

 

[Resha Caner]

How do you know he exists, do you gotta feeling?

This isn't really the place for such a discussion. If you're honestly interested in understanding my answer, it would be better for you to start a separate thread. And I would need to understand your perspective on daoism - I think that's what you mentioned.

Even then, experience will be a better teacher for you than I can ever be in an Internet forum, and I could make some recommendations for you in that regard.

However - and even though your question comes across as flippant - I will answer that I know as evidenced by my personal experiences, which are just as sensory based as your experiences of the material world.

 

[bhsmte]

This isn't really the place for such a discussion. If you're honestly interested in understanding my answer, it would be better for you to start a separate thread. And I would need to understand your perspective on daoism - I think that's what you mentioned.

Even then, experience will be a better teacher for you than I can ever be in an Internet forum, and I could make some recommendations for you in that regard.

However - and even though your question comes across as flippant - I will answer that I know as evidenced by my personal experiences, which are just as sensory based as your experiences of the material world.

Experience?

What type of experience?

Everyone does not have the same experiences or interpretations as you do and I am sure you realize the same.

What recommendations would you give people to experience the same personal interpretations as you do?

 

[Resha Caner]

Unfortunately, as far as I know, only the creation/evolution part of this forum is open for non-Christians to post in, and even here, if an atheist drifts too far off-topic, someone like justlookinla threatens to bring in the moderators, forcing me, to defend my posting privileges, to risk no further dialogue with that person.

You can post in any of the Discussion & Debate forums except the Unorthodox Doctrine forum. Yes, there is the rule about no apologetics, but honestly that's such a vague rule I'm not sure what it really means. I think it basically means that if it looks like you're trying to convert me to daoism, they'll stop the discussion. The Philosophy forum is probably the broadest in terms of subject matter.

It all depends on your level of interest. If nothing else, you can always start a discussion group or send a PM.