5) Nature is purposeless
Generally true, but lack of purpose does not mean completely random. Having said that, it could be argued that plants have a determination/purpose to survive despite having no mind or the concept of purpose.
Lausten wrote:If things are real only if they can be described with sensory experience, then we're in big trouble. How do you describe space, time, energy? When you start saying things like "1" only exists in your mind, you're entering a world of philosophy. Most people would just dismiss you as weird. You're also correct, but that doesn't really matter. It just doesn't work as a comment on "purpose" to say it is only a concept, or only exists in your mind, or whatever it is you're saying. Why does that make it not "real". For something not real, people sure do spend a lot of time talking about, searching for it, questioning others about it. Call it bullshit all you want, it won't make you popular at parties.
If things are real only if they can be described with sensory experience, then we're in big trouble. How do you describe space, time, energy?
Do you have an argument against my points that we can focus on?
Enlightened Liberal wrote:What does popularity have to do with truth? Do you have an argument against my points that we can focus on?
Yes, and I fail to see what this has to do with the conversation. Are we going to have a discussion about what is true, or what people think is true?Most of us deal with the results of the work, that is, we own a smart phone, we don’t care how it works or how it was developed. Maybe you care, but most don’t.
Under the known evidence, telepathy is just as impossible as it is for me to jump out of a window and fly under my own power. If you mean to quibble over "impossible" as "absolutely impossible and no further evidence can change my mind" as opposed to a more colloquial impossible as "highly unlikely under the known evidence", then you are correct.Lausten wrote:... then say “scientism says telepathy is impossible” and he’s developed enough of a sound argument that a few people will believe he is on to something.
Lausten wrote:You’re doing the same thing with the words “purpose” and “real”. You can’t invalidate my sense of purpose simply by saying you can’t measure it. Maybe you can't measure it with an instrument, but you can measure it over a very long period. You can compare someone who has a sense of purpose to someone who doesn't and see what they accomplish.Enlightened Liberal wrote:What does popularity have to do with truth? Do you have an argument against my points that we can focus on?
“Are we going to have a discussion about what is true, or what people think is true? “
“worse than silly, untestable and unfalsifiable, too confused to be intelligible, worse than meaningless”
Lausten wrote:“worse than silly, untestable and unfalsifiable, too confused to be intelligible, worse than meaningless”
This is what I take issue with, and it contradicts measurability, which you agree to, so I’m the one who is confused. Pretty much everyone has some sense of purpose and can come to some agreement on the meaning of the word, so calling it silly is, well, silly.
Lausten wrote:The original point from Sheldrake was that nature has a purpose. Animals have minds, even lower functioning creatures and plants have intentions, although they are instinctual, so it's a matter of where you draw the line. It's just such a slippery term. Sheldrake is probably headed toward assigning a consciousness to the universe, which I'm definitely against.
However, even without minds to observe it, to a plant, the sun has a purpose. But I'm getting into hair splitting, and I'd rather not do that.
EL wrote:I do not think to most reasonable readers that "nature has a purpose" is equivalent to saying "many animals in nature believe in purposes of the things around them".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest