compatibilism

[BigMike]

Of course this raises questions that revolve around teleology.

No it doesn't. Only a confused mind could make that association. Only a mind in disarray would make that connection.

Or a brain, or rather an organism that notices that every sentence implies teleology. Of course, this doesn't meant it was intended, but if you're going to be condescending, you might want to learn first how to take care of that which you are doing, otherwise it looks silly.

It was evident from what he said next that he was referring to God. In this day and age, I find that to be ridiculous. Sorry, I just can't help myself.

[Iwannaplato]

No it doesn't. Only a confused mind could make that association. Only a mind in disarray would make that connection.

Or a brain, or rather an organism that notices that every sentence implies teleology. Of course, this doesn't meant it was intended, but if you're going to be condescending, you might want to learn first how to take care of that which you are doing, otherwise it looks silly.

It was evident from what he said next that he was referring to God. In this day and age, I find that to be ridiculous. Sorry, I just can't help myself.

Well, if someone posits a reason for us having brains, says that the brain is hardwired to do something, it does bring up notions of a deity or race of aliens or some intelligence doing these things. Likely not your intent, but care in writing would probably avoid these things.

He is hardly a theist so he was not proposing there is a God, he's reacting to the implications in your language. There at least.

[Iwannaplato]

No it doesn't. Only a confused mind could make that association. Only a mind in disarray would make that connection.

Or a brain, or rather an organism that notices that every sentence implies teleology. Of course, this doesn't meant it was intended, but if you're going to be condescending, you might want to learn first how to take care of that which you are doing, otherwise it looks silly.

It was evident from what he said next that he was referring to God. In this day and age, I find that to be ridiculous. Sorry, I just can't help myself.

or here

Evolution has optimized our genetic material to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment. This is the essence of the phrase "survival of the fittest."

this also sounds like teleology. Nothing was done with a purpose in evolutionary theory - not at the genetic level. The problem with 'fittest' also is it actually goes against the previous sentence. Nothing it fittest unto itself. It adapts to the situation well or it does not, with lots of gradations in between. Our gut bacteria are doing quite well and it's a toss up which of us is fitter.

And it's really early to say whether we are fitter than organisms that thrived for millions of years.

I mean, I think I know what you are trying to say, but there was a teleological edge to the way you wrote it.

[BigMike]

Or a brain, or rather an organism that notices that every sentence implies teleology. Of course, this doesn't meant it was intended, but if you're going to be condescending, you might want to learn first how to take care of that which you are doing, otherwise it looks silly.

It was evident from what he said next that he was referring to God. In this day and age, I find that to be ridiculous. Sorry, I just can't help myself.

or here

Evolution has optimized our genetic material to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment. This is the essence of the phrase "survival of the fittest."

this also sounds like teleology. Nothing was done with a purpose in evolutionary theory - not at the genetic level. The problem with 'fittest' also is it actually goes against the previous sentence. Nothing it fittest unto itself. It adapts to the situation well or it does not, with lots of gradations in between. Our gut bacteria are doing quite well and it's a toss up which of us is fitter.

And it's really early to say whether we are fitter than organisms that thrived for millions of years.

I mean, I think I know what you are trying to say, but there was a teleological edge to the way you wrote it.

If I misinterpreted his intentions, please accept my sincerest apologies.

[bobmax]

The central point is that we can not only learn but also learn how to learn. Those who comprehend this also recognize that it serves their best interests. It is optimal for them to do so. We can only hope that our efforts to promote understanding will eventually take hold and lead to a better world in the long run.

For you, existence has no meaning, yet you hope for a better world...

What happens necessarily happens.
Yet you hope.

But who is it that is really hoping?

Do you feel the bubbling inside of you that wants to force determinism by breaking it?

Aren't you the one who gives meaning to existence?

[BigMike]

The central point is that we can not only learn but also learn how to learn. Those who comprehend this also recognize that it serves their best interests. It is optimal for them to do so. We can only hope that our efforts to promote understanding will eventually take hold and lead to a better world in the long run.

For you, existence has no meaning, yet you hope for a better world...

What happens necessarily happens.
Yet you hope.

But who is it that is really hoping?

Do you feel the bubbling inside of you that wants to force determinism by breaking it?

Aren't you the one who gives meaning to existence?

When you insist that existence has no meaning for me, I am forced to conclude that you are not referring to a materialistic conception of existence. Rather than leaving me to speculate, it would be more productive if you simply explained your existence philosophy. Are you talking about existence in terms of materialism, idealism, scholasticism, rationalism, empiricism, etc.?

[bobmax]

When you insist that existence has no meaning for me, I am forced to conclude that you are not referring to a materialistic conception of existence. Rather than leaving me to speculate, it would be more productive if you simply explained your existence philosophy. Are you talking about existence in terms of materialism, idealism, scholasticism, rationalism, empiricism, etc.?

I think that each of us develops our own philosophy.
Although, if our research is sincere, the philosophical essence is always the same.
Trying to classify someone's philosophy inevitably leads to a loss.

So the currents of philosophical thought can indicate a preference but never a belonging.
In fact, philosophy is not a religion.

I find affinity with pre-Socratic philosophy, with Taoism, Stoicism, Plotinus 'Neoplatonism, Karl Jaspers' philosophy of existence (not to be confused with existentialism or with Heiddeger whom I hate), non-dualism.
And I appreciate mystical thinking, a profound philosophy opposed by religions.

Materialism can be useful to start crossing the desert.
But great faith in the Truth is needed. To keep moving forward.
Because everything is becoming more and more arid.

In my opinion, you started the crossing.
You have faith.
But the temptation to grasp the physical "truth" and stretch it absolute is great.

So it is difficult not to force the game, ignoring contradictions that do exist.
Facing your own contradictions involves suffering.

[BigMike]

When you insist that existence has no meaning for me, I am forced to conclude that you are not referring to a materialistic conception of existence. Rather than leaving me to speculate, it would be more productive if you simply explained your existence philosophy. Are you talking about existence in terms of materialism, idealism, scholasticism, rationalism, empiricism, etc.?

I think that each of us develops our own philosophy.
Although, if our research is sincere, the philosophical essence is always the same.
Trying to classify someone's philosophy inevitably leads to a loss.

So the currents of philosophical thought can indicate a preference but never a belonging.
In fact, philosophy is not a religion.

I find affinity with pre-Socratic philosophy, with Taoism, Stoicism, Plotinus 'Neoplatonism, Karl Jaspers' philosophy of existence (not to be confused with existentialism or with Heiddeger whom I hate), non-dualism.
And I appreciate mystical thinking, a profound philosophy opposed by religions.

Materialism can be useful to start crossing the desert.
But great faith in the Truth is needed. To keep moving forward.
Because everything is becoming more and more arid.

In my opinion, you started the crossing.
You have faith.
But the temptation to grasp the physical "truth" and stretch it absolute is great.

So it is difficult not to force the game, ignoring contradictions that do exist.
Facing your own contradictions involves suffering.

And which existence has no meaning for me, in your view?

[bobmax]

And which existence has no meaning for me, in your view?

What has no meaning is only the Foundation.
If one misunderstands what the ground really is, then one mistakenly thinks that it has no meaning.

Existence is not Being.

Existence is possible only for Being, but it does not coincide with it, it only evokes it.
Existence is the original subject-object split. Being is upstream of the split.

Therefore, Being does not exist, Being is.
Not existing, Being = Nothingness

Being therefore has no meaning, because it allows every possible meaning.
Also the meaning of existence. Which is up to you to establish.

In fact you are the Being.
What else would you ever be?

[Iwannaplato]

It was evident from what he said next that he was referring to God. In this day and age, I find that to be ridiculous. Sorry, I just can't help myself.

or here

Evolution has optimized our genetic material to enable the owner to respond optimally to their environment. This is the essence of the phrase "survival of the fittest."

this also sounds like teleology. Nothing was done with a purpose in evolutionary theory - not at the genetic level. The problem with 'fittest' also is it actually goes against the previous sentence. Nothing it fittest unto itself. It adapts to the situation well or it does not, with lots of gradations in between. Our gut bacteria are doing quite well and it's a toss up which of us is fitter.

And it's really early to say whether we are fitter than organisms that thrived for millions of years.

I mean, I think I know what you are trying to say, but there was a teleological edge to the way you wrote it.

If I misinterpreted his intentions, please accept my sincerest apologies.

Well the apology wouldn't be to me. And then there is still the language issue. You're not asserting that there is something ententional about natural selection, mutation and genetic flow (I suppose we could throw in viral intrusions also), or?

[BigMike]

If I misinterpreted his intentions, please accept my sincerest apologies.

Well the apology wouldn't be to me. And then there is still the language issue. You're not asserting that there is something ententional about natural selection, mutation and genetic flow (I suppose we could throw in viral intrusions also), or?

That is correct: I am NOT "asserting that there is something intentional about natural selection, mutation and genetic flow (I suppose we could throw in viral intrusions also)." Quite the opposite.

[BigMike]

And which existence has no meaning for me, in your view?

What has no meaning is only the Foundation.
If one misunderstands what the ground really is, then one mistakenly thinks that it has no meaning.

Existence is not Being.

Existence is possible only for Being, but it does not coincide with it, it only evokes it.
Existence is the original subject-object split. Being is upstream of the split.

Therefore, Being does not exist, Being is.
Not existing, Being = Nothingness

Being therefore has no meaning, because it allows every possible meaning.
Also the meaning of existence. Which is up to you to establish.

In fact you are the Being.
What else would you ever be?

I'm sorry, bobmax. You almost had me believing that you were being completely serious there for a second.

[bobmax]

And which existence has no meaning for me, in your view?

What has no meaning is only the Foundation.
If one misunderstands what the ground really is, then one mistakenly thinks that it has no meaning.

Existence is not Being.

Existence is possible only for Being, but it does not coincide with it, it only evokes it.
Existence is the original subject-object split. Being is upstream of the split.

Therefore, Being does not exist, Being is.
Not existing, Being = Nothingness

Being therefore has no meaning, because it allows every possible meaning.
Also the meaning of existence. Which is up to you to establish.

In fact you are the Being.
What else would you ever be?

I'm sorry, bobmax. You almost had me believing that you were being completely serious there for a second.

The simple is always difficult.

Because you have to go deep.

Usually we are satisfied with the surface.

So maybe we study physical laws and convince ourselves that we have fully understood them.
But if you don't tackle the simple, in hand you have only sterile formulas.

How much effort did I have to put in to become an engineer...
To ultimately learn a few simple things, which hold everything up my technical knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

The simple is always difficult.

Yes, and the wet is always dry, the long is always short, the up is always down, and the left is always right.

Usually we are satisfied with the surface.

As tidy a description of Determinism as one can find. The simplest of theories, substituted into a profoundly complex question, and then treated as profound.

[bobmax]

I'm sorry, bobmax. You almost had me believing that you were being completely serious there for a second.

The simple is also difficult for the noise that tries to disturb you.

Like the comment from IC who quoted me above.

Noise itself is not bad, because it can give rise to new ideas.

However, if bad faith is likely, as in this case, it must be ignored.