User Illusion

The user illusion is the illusion created for the user by a human–computer interface, for example the visual metaphor of a desktop used in many graphical user interfaces. The phrase originated at Xerox PARC

Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. This notion is explored by Tor Nørretranders in his 1991 Danish book Mærk verden, issued in a 1998 English edition as The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size — Wikipedia

Self Model

People are thus what Metzinger calls naïve realists, who believe they are perceiving reality directly when in actuality they are only perceiving representations of reality. The data structures and transport mechanisms of the data are "transparent" so that people can introspect on their representations of perceptions, but cannot introspect on the data or mechanisms themselves — Wikipedia

The last quote needs a brief explanation. Assuming physicalism, every thought, from day-dreaming to logical analysis, every action, from picking one's nose to throwing that javelin that wins the gold medal, is actually, in layman's terms, electrical phenomenon in the neurons but try as one might, we can't access brain phenomena at that level at all. Can you for instance become aware of the action potentials (electrical phenomena) in the neurons of your eyes and visual cortex as you read this post? You can't, try it. On the off chance that you can, visit your nearest neuroscience research center. :joke: In other words, consciousness is some kind of graphical user interface (GUI) much like the desktop on your laptop or PC. Its purpose seems to mirror that of a GUI - to make using the brain & the body easier, after all, there's this interface (consciousness) that makes this possible. Reminds me of driving - after a couple of years of it, we can drive without actually being aware of driving, it becomes automatic and turning left/right almost feels the same as raising your hand or stamping your feet. You get the picture, right?

Consciousness is an illusion — Daniel C. Dennett

Again, I'm asking for specifics. It seems that irrationality has been the dominant form of thought for most of human existence. In what areas has rationality failed where irrationality has succeded? Rationality includes the idea that you might not be right, and that you can only be right after making all possible mistakes. Have we made all possible mistakes? If not, then how has rationality failed? — Harry Hindu

First off, I concede that rationality is the best tool at our disposal - it's made all the difference! We owe rationality for the massive transformation we've undergone from savages to civilization in the blink of an eye in terms of geological time. However, if only as an exploratory enterprise, it would do us a whole lot of good if we begin looking for alternatives that are as good as rationalism or better or if neither at the very least enriches our lives by offering us radical, more truthful, more useful perspectives to examine our world with.

I know it sounds rather foolish to hope so much from a state of mind (irrationality) that has proved to be the undoing of many lives past and present but such things happen not necessarily because there's something wrong with irrationality itself but an error in the in the way we wield it. We need to draw a distinction between a tool and the skill in using it for the fault may lie in the latter than in the former.

You asked for specifics and I refer you to the philosophical universe if I may call it that - every thesis has an antithesis. Tell me, is this a sign that rationality has succeeded or does it make philosophers want to rethink their strategem? Mind you, I'm not claiming rationality should be immediately done away with, rather I mean to point out that it won't hurt trying out other avenues; we're stuck anyway, right?

What about scientific progress? Has the progress of ethics been based on irrationality (racism) or rationality (inclusiveness - and understanding that we are all human beings of equal worth)? — Harry Hindu

I'm afraid racism and other problems that plague society are still as virulent as they were centuries ago, they're like dormant volcanoes that can erupt at any moment and the "progress" you mention will be reversed faster than you can say Jack Robinson! I don't call this progress. Au contraire, the better situation that we find ourselves in can be more appropriately ascribed to reliance on allegedly irrational systems like religion and the like. So much for ethics and rationalism.

Seems to me that these "philosophers" are just impatient and want to declare that they have the answers without having had to work at it. — Harry Hindu

You might be right. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who's tried faer best and failed and someone who's not tried at all - as far as results go, they're indistinguishable.

A few tips I picked up but rarely use:

1. Embrace nuance & complexity (hard)
2. Avoid fallacies (harder)
3. Be skeptical (easy)
4. Keep an open mind (easy)
5. Focus on form & content (hard)
That's all for now. Remember, these pointers are for ideal conditions but the usual way philosophizing is done is completely random, at least for me.

their positions can change to the opposite sign — Echarmion

You started it! kinda back and forth until both sides are utterly exhausted or one side is wiped off the face of the earth or a truce is established or they unite against a common enemy or an asteroid takes them both out. :lol:

Clarification: there are other races being left out of the equation here - it's not just blacks vs whites, what happened to people of other colors?

A quick drive-by of the Wikipedia entry on The Tragedy Of The Commons confirmed my initial suspicions, its about social dynamics - how individuals must balance self-interest against group well-being. The two seem to be pitted against each other in an almost irreconciliable way which makes me wonder how humans ever got together as small tribes as they must have in our obscure prehistory.

I consider the tragedy of the commons as a quintessential feature of human social organization - we couldn't have developed society, big and small, in a regulatory vacuum. What I mean is social existence necessarily involves a system of rules that members of a group/tribe/society must, in a sense, promise to adhere to if they value living together as an extended family which society is.

The pinnacle of society is to be found in insects like bees and ants and every single entomologist studying them has written volumes upon volumes on how strict/iron-clad their social structures are - there are rules and no ant or bee is ever found to break them. The point to note is the existence of rules and to some extent how they're adhered to 100%. There is no ant or bee version of the tragedy of the commons and that should be a big hint as to how we can tackle the problem. I suppose politics enters the scene at this point.

. I don't care whether its a red future or a blue future, but I do care there's a future — counterpunch

:lol:

I don't know if there's a red future or a blue future, but I do know there's a future.

If I receive pleasure as a byproduct of helping other people that's a far different sort of egoism than if I'm swindling them out of their money or possessions. — Erik

That resonates with me and is a far better formulation of altruism than my own. Indeed, we can frame altruism as cases where personal gain is a secondary goal and egoism/selfishness as that when self-benefit is a primary goal. You can even look at it from a point of view that makes the profit of others as primary/secondary, the former being altruism and the latter egoism.

That's kind of an exposition on reasoning and not really to the point, though. — thewonder

I found it interesting, the parts that made sense to me though. I didn't know Soviets had a thing for paradoxes (contradictions). I suppose living under a regime that depended on keeping people confused 24/7 for its existence played a part or, some would say, did its damage on the psyche of the Soviet peoples. It's really difficult you know, getting mixed signals from other folks is not my idea of a fun way to spend one's precious time. Perhaps, as Schopenhauer thought, "...the world as not organized in a rational way." Lao Tzu (Taoism) had more or less the same impression of reality - it simply can't be comprehended in its entirety, bits and pieces may be but never as a whole. Does that make sense?

There's a way of interpreting the Golden Rule on relying upon empathy and a way of interpreting it as a kind of alturistic Egoism. It just depends upon who is invoking it and within what context. You can either think that you should treat others well because of that, were you to be in their shoes, you would want for them to do the same, or out of that you assume that social relations should be predicated upon generalized reciprocity. — thewonder

I don't deny that the Golden Rule could be altruistic egoism but notice the egoism in it. It, in a sense, lets the cat out of the bag - empathy, though about other people's feelings, either makes more sense seen from a selfish perspective or is nonsense given that it's impossible to feel what other's feel (hence the Golden Rule's form as inherently self-centered).

It is as follows (and is a prime example of shitty writing): "I don't see colour", a very famous phrase used in the approach of colour blind racism. It’s essentially the idea that the only way to end racial discrimination is by ignoring the reality of their race. This is an issue because by saying you don’t see colour, is saying that you don’t see people of colour. The need for color blindness implies that there is something shameful about the way people of colour and their culture are made we shouldn’t talk about or not see and dismisses the issues which people of colour face. It was an ideology created by white people who are uncomfortable talking about race which does much more bad than it does good. — ToothyMaw

This reminds me Ted Chiang (sci-fi writer b. 1967) short story on something he calls calliagnosia, a condition in which the person undergoes a neurological procedure that renders faer unablde to see beauty. He attempts to explore bias against unattractive people :point: Lookism and I'm wondering if there's any link between racism and lookism. Is one the corollary of the other or are the two completely different issues? I suppose all forms of discrimination are ultimately about standards of propriety, appearance, beliefs, etc. - one particular subgroup of the human family feels offended or animosity against other subgroups who fail to meet standards deemed acceptable or good to them.

What I gleaned from Ted Chiang's short story is that the whole issue (lookism specifically but racism ain't so different) is far too complex to lend itself to an easy solution. Too many people from different backgrounds have a stake in it and as they say, you can't make everyone happy.

to say "I exist" one must exist. — 180 Proof

Look here

There's a way of interpreting the Golden Rule as a kind of alturistic Egoism if you think about it. It's within your interests to be treated well and, therefore, within your interests to treat others well through a kind of a generalized reciprocity. It could be interpreted as being empathetic, but also from a standpoint of some form of Egoism. — thewonder

"Altruistuc egoism" sounds like an oxymoron à la "bitter sweet" but hey, there are times, many in my own life, when the latter is precisely what the doctor ordered (apt) and so the former too must be meaningful in its own way,

Also, it looks like the Golden Rule is a tacit admission that one can't really get to know how others feel i.e. empathy is an empty concept; after all isn't that why it enjoins us to behave towards others in ways that you would want others to behave towards you. If empathy were truly possible, if we could actually understand others' feelings, the Golden Rule would be, "do unto others as others would want done unto them." :chin:

What is the role of empathy in ethics nowadays? — Shawn

I always thought empathy was the initial impulse behind ethics. — Tom Storm

The Golden Rule

Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)

Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)

What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form) — Wikipedia

Google definition of Empathy ( n ): The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

The Golden Rule is allegedly ubiquitous - found across all cultures in one form or another - and that's remarkable for the simple reason that it indicates, if nothing else, all people have strikingly similar intuitions on ethical matters.

Is the Golden Rule based on empathy? It doesn't seem to be based on the feelings of others per se but implicit in it is the view that one's own feelings are a good guide to that of others.

So far so good but empathy is a double-edged sword because if you understand how others feel, you know how to hurt them too. I've seen many people use that to devastating effect, on myself and others too. Sad but true.

Descartes is doing a little bit more than a tautology. He talking about a necessary aspect given a particular existing event. That's to say if there is an experience, there is an individual or entity aware of soemthing — TheWillowOfDarkness

The cogito is the latter. If the former, it would read, "I think, therefore I think." — Hanover

@180 Proof

To three of you:

One common critique of the dictum is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking" — Wikipedia

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard calls the phrase a tautology in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript.[48]:38–42 He argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into the premises "'x' thinks" and "I am that 'x'", where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.[49] — Wikipedia

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived. — Wikipedia

My own take of whether Descartes' so-called argument is a tautology is similar in vein but to be specific I believe Descartes is committing the petitio principii fallacy (begging the question).

First, let's state his argument in the most charitable way possible:

1. Thinking
2. If thinking then, thinker
Ergo,
3. Thinker

Second, we must remember that Descartes' main assumption - the impetus if you will for the cogito argument - is radical doubt which I interpret as a method that questions the truth/certainty of every belief that one may have and if any such is doubtful, to discard it until by this method of elimination one arrives at (a) belief(s) that is true and beyond doubt. Descartes' claims that this method of doubt manages to undermine every belief except one - his own existence for, he reasons, to doubt implies a doubter and that doubter is none other than himself [cogito, ergo sum].

Also relevant is Evil Demon, its modern incarnation being brain in a vat. As per Descartes there's the possibility that world, external reality as it were, could be an illusion created by an evil demon to deceive us but then, he reasons, even if that were true, there's got to be something that's being deceived and that something is us (him). [cogito, ergo sum]

Notice here a key suppressed premise which is that for every action, there has to be an actor performing that action e.g. drinking, drinker; walking, walker; talking, talker, and so on. You get the picture. I'll make the suppressed premise explicit here:

1a. If action, actor.

This suppressed premise (1a) is required to support premise 2. If thinking then, thinker but where does he get the evidence for it? From the same reality whose reliability he doubts, the same reality he believes could be an illusion created by an evil demon (deus deceptor). That he suspects reality to be an illusion (created by an evil demon) amounts to poisoning the well of reality as it were and instantly makes any and every argument based on it utterly worthless. It would be like drawing conclusions about reality as we know it by watching (say) an Avengers movie (an illusion) - you know how that's going to end, right? In short, Descartes can't prove the suppressed premise 1a. If action, actor, using reality because he can't prove that this reality isn't an illusion.

Hence, the only reliable piece of information that's available to him, that he claims he can't doubt at all, that he can use to prove the suppressed premise 1a. If action, actor, is his own thinking but now the problem is if he infers a thinker (actor) from thinking (action), he's assuming the very thing he wants to prove (premise 2) - a petitio principii.

For clarification, I'll make Descartes' argument explicit below:

1. Thinking [premise. If one defines thinking as experiencing mental phenomena, this premise is true]

1a. If action, actor [suppressed premise. Descartes' can prove this using the only reliable piece of information he has viz. that he's thinking but then he can't infer there's a thinker from thinking because that is exactly what needs to be proven (premise 2 below) - begging the question. Remember he can't rely on reality as it could be an illusion (deus deceptor)]

2. If thinking (action), thinker (actor) [from 1a above but as you can see this can't be proven]

Ergo,

3. Thinker [conclusion but the argument is now unsound as premise 2 hasn't been proven]

Why is someone's illogical refusal to accept a logical conclusion a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the conclusion? — Hanover

I considered that possibility but it doesn't add up. In my humble opinion, just as Descartes reasoned to the conclusion "I exist", those who suffer from Cotard delusion also reason to the conclusion "I don't exist." How good the reasons are is a different story perhaps worth looking into.

I was also contemplating on the therapeutic utility of the cogito argument on patients with Cotard delusion.

philosophical danger — Jack Cummins

Right! Reminds me of horror movies - there's always one character, usually a girl, who feels compelled to go to the room that she's been warned not to go to! I hope I'm a cat, cats have 9 lives but the problem is I don't know how many I've already used up. :smile:

From your link:

People are thus what Metzinger calls naïve realists, who believe they are perceiving reality directly when in actuality they are only perceiving representations of reality. The data structures and transport mechanisms of the data are "transparent" so that people can introspect on their representations of perceptions, but cannot introspect on the data or mechanisms themselves — Wikipedia

The user illusion is the illusion created for the user by a human–computer interface, for example the visual metaphor of a desktop used in many graphical user interfaces. The phrase originated at Xerox PARC.[1]

Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. This notion is explored by Tor Nørretranders in his 1991 Danish book Mærk verden, issued in a 1998 English edition as The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. — Wikipedia

Dennett says that only a theory that explained conscious events in terms of unconscious events could explain consciousness at all: "To explain is to explain away". — Wikipedia

Mind weighing in.

What about us grateful cunts? — T Clark

What about us just cunts? :rofl:

My focus was on the over-abundance of religious and political discussions on this forum - both of which are rife with irrationality and emotional outbursts, not unlike what you see all over FB and Twitter. — Harry Hindu

:up:

I believe that the biggest danger is that when we are thinking about the self — Jack Cummins

Why, may I ask?

Having said something, one has expressed a distinction that makes a difference.

Descartes' "I exist" is, at best, a tautology; he concludes only what his conclusion already necessarily presupposes. Saying "I exist", therefore, doesn't actually say anything.

Cotard's "I do not exist", a delusion, is a pathology; otherwise, as a statement (rather than a feeling) it's a performative contradiction, which says nothing.

In other words, the latter cannot be said and the former need not be said: neither expresses a distinction that makes a difference. — 180 Proof

:up: Will get back to you if I think of something interesting but don't hold your breath. :lol:

What areas are you talking about, specifically? Why would rationalism/irrationalism work in some areas and not others? What makes these areas different in why one works and the other doesn't? — Harry Hindu

Did you read the links I gave? I'm not completely sure about this but to be fair to irrationalism, rationalism hasn't much to show for its roughly 2 millennia old reign. In some circles, that would be considered a monumental failure, no?

Look at these threads in this forum itself,

Does philosophy make progress? If so how?

Is there something like the [sic] progress in philosophical debate?

Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all?

Just the tip of the iceberg of threads on philosophical "progress."

I guess some philosophers simply gave up on rationality in utter frustration and wanted to try something new à la alternative medicine which has a similar reason for its popularity which is failure of allopathic treatment regimes and that "something new" is irrationalism.

My focus was on the over-abundance of religious and political discussions on this forum - both of which are ripe with irrationality and emotional outbursts, not unlike what you see all over FB and Twitter.

Try defending Irrationalism without using rationality. — Harry Hindu

Well, that's the catch isn't it? Rationalism recommends irrationalism, if not everywhere, at least in some areas where millennia of rational inquiry has nothing to show for it. Just saying.

You're right about needing to avoid a Facebookization of the forum. I second that but with a certain amount of guilt I must say; after all I could be one of the people involved in this most undesirable transformation.

The fact that there aren't any rules doesn't mean that no rules can be established now or in the future. Or that we can't discuss the possibility — Apollodorus

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct. — EricH

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct. — EricH

Well put, sir/madam, well put! A gold star to you for your eloquence.

Any philosophy forum that doesn't incorporate logic is a failed philosophy forum. When you can't differentiate the content of your site with what we see on FB and Twitter, what's the point? — Harry Hindu

Not to contradict you but take a look at :point: Irrationalism (Britannica)

[Irrationalism is the position] that reason is inherently defective and incapable of knowing the universe without distortion... — Britannica

and also :point: Criticism of Rationalism (Wikipedia)

... Arthur Schopenhauer, describes the world as not organized in a rational way — Wikipedia

what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property? — EricH

You're making an unfounded assumption, in fact this question commits the complex question fallacy. By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules but that, as history will attest to, is an utter falsehood - the entire history of humankind, though it began peaceably I suspect, is that of conquest. Conquest is, as we all know, an euphemism for wanton killing, extreme violence, genocide, and so on. We would be doing ourselves a big favor to heed Cicero who in a moment of deep insight uttered the words, Inter arma enim silent lēgēs (in times of war, the laws fall silent), you know, just in case history repeats itself.

All is fair in love and war — John Lyly (Euphues)

:lol:

I have come across some Buddhist accounts which certainly challenge the idea of the self — Jack Cummins

This is the sticking point I believe. I should've thought about it earlier. I recall someone saying quite a few years ago that Descartes' didn't quite get to proving the existence of a self i.e. the "I" in "I think therefore, I am" isn't what most people would call a self and is, according to the objectors, best described as only a thinking thing. The reasons (for the objection) were, if memory serves, drawn from Buddhist sources, specifically the notion of Anattā. If not, they should have.

On the flip side, in the Cotard delusion, it isn't clear whether the person experiencing is referring to a self with the same meaning as used by those who objected to Descartes' argument or whether it refers to a thinking thing. If the latter, then the Cotard delusion taken with Descartes' cogito argument would amount to a frank contradiction.

A must watch! It's the opposite of the martial arts maxim of "hitting where it hurts the most."

Hit where it hurts the least - Israeli Defense Force Motto

But overall I think the quality is very good considering that the only entry criteria is a valid email address and promise to abide by the rules. — Wayfarer

This definitely might be a factor if posts are of poor quality but then there's this paradox: if one must make quality posts, one must be an experienced poster; if one must be an experienced poster, one must, at one time, be a beginner; if one is a beginner, one usually makes bad posts; conclusion: if one must make quality posts, one (at some point) makes bad posts! :joke:

Has this site gotten worse? — hypericin

Or...have you gotten better?

I'm betting on you having improved in which case this site ain't no longer going to be of any benefit to you. You've graduated from this forum sir/madam, Congratulations! It's time to look for greener pastures. Good luck and do drop by when you feel like it and share your new-found knowledge/wisdom with your poor cousins (us). :smile:

life kept me away until fall 2019. — 180 Proof

Our loss, not yours!

Public service announcenent:

DON'T SNIFF GLUE, FOOL. — 180 Proof

I want to, one of these days :smile:

If X is non-random, then X possibly has or does not have a telos. Stop affirming the consequent, Fool. — 180 Proof

The statement, "If X is non-random, then X has a telos or X doesn't have a telos" [making the logical structure more explicit] is a tautology [the consequent is itself a tautology and is always true and if the consequent of a conditional statement is always true, the entire conditional is true but only as a tautology]. Since your statement, beautifully and lovingly crafted as it may be, is a tautology, its truth is not dependent on any other proposition i.e. it can't be an empirical claim and empirical claims are, whatever else they may be, definitely not tautological - they need to backed up with evidence, strong evidence preferrably.

Coming to my argument, the premise that I used is, "if the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random"

1. If the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random
2. X is observed to be non-random
Ergo,
3. The hypothesis that X has telos is true confirmed

The above argument actually doesn't commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent because, it avoids/refrains from concluding that "the hypothesis that X has telos" is true. Instead it, like all scientists worth their salt, concludes that the antecedent of the conditional - the [scientific] hypothesis in question (here that X has telos) - is only confirmed. A subtlety that I failed to notice until now. Thanks for your valuable help.

:point: Science's Useful Fallacy (Affirming The Consequent)

:ok:

Found this informative:




An honest account of one of the world's unsolved problems in language that's funny and yet not irreverent, serious but yet not depressing.

can you tell by looking at evolution if it's purposeful? — frank

There's a Western version and an Eastern version to the answer as I will explain vide infra,

1. Evolution is non-random. Non-randomness is a feature of phenomena that have purpose i.e. if x is purposeful, x will be non-random. Evolution, according to 180 Proof and Banno, is non-random. Affirming the consequent fallacy, yes, but that's how science works and scientists call it confirmation of a hypothesis which in this case is evolution is purposeful (substitute x with evolution). This is the Western version.

2. Evolution is random. Randomness is a "good strategy" I'm told but only under certain circumstances such as when faced with unpredictable, themselves random, challenges. In such cases, and I believe the environment life faces is unpredictable - the dinosaurs were wiped out by a random asteroid - evolution's best telos is to have no telos which is another way of saying, every telos available is game. This makes evolution robust enough to handle any and all contingencies. This is the Eastern Version.

Keep going. You continue to make my point. — Banno

C'mon man! You know better: Science's Useful Fallacy

He is evidently profoundly ignorant of chaso theory, stochastics, etc. — 180 Proof

Mea culpa! :grin: I guess there's no point pursuing the matter any further although, in my defense, it has to be said that chaos theory isn't relevant. Chaos theory is about deterministic systems that exhibit randomness. I thought we were talking about non-randomness :point:

Of course "evolution" is non-random — 180 Proof

Okay. Good luck with all that nonsense and pseudo-science. Non-random =/= purposeful. :roll: :rofl: — 180 Proof

:lol: If you don't mind spending a little more of your valuable time, I want to ask you a question which is whether or not the following statement is true/false,

1. If x has a telos then x has to be non-random

?
Exclude from the discussion the paradoxical possibility that the telos is no telos in which case even randomness can be taken to be purposeful. A Taoist take on the issue - seems relevant if one were to claim that evolution has no telos because it's random - but that's another story altogether. It gets complicated really quickly I'm afraid but set this aside for the moment and please answer the question and don't forget to back up your decision with good reasons.

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed — Gnomon

If 180 Proof comes to the conclusion that the statement 1. If x has a telos then x has to be non-random (above) is true, I'm afraid we're forced to admit that the hypothesis evolution has a telos is, as they say in science, confirmed.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. — Gnomon

Unnecessary in opinion. In my humble opinion, to know evolution has a purpose/telos is the first order of business. Finding out what that purpose comes later. Imagine evolution's telos is a gift. There's the information that there's a gift (there's a telos to evolution) and the second piece of information is what that gift is (what evolution's telos is). You can know that there's a gift for you without knowing what that gift is.

Fool affirms the consequent. — Banno

All scientific theories that are said to have been confirmed commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In fact it seems necessary that scientific arguments be framed in such a way that this fallacy is committed for if not they couldn't be falsified and I believe falsfiability is a big deal in science. See vide infra

Falsification of a scientific hypothesis
1. If hypothesis T is true then prediction P must be observed
2. Prediction P is not observed
So,
3. Hypothesis T is false [falsification of hypothesis T; only possible with premise 1 framed as it is]

Confirmation of a scientific hypothesis
1. If hypothesis T is true then prediction P must be observed
2. Prediction P is observed
Ergo,
3. Hypothesis T is confirmed

Of course "evolution" is non-random — 180 Proof

Debatable but I'm running with your claim that it is non-random.

Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable — 180 Proof

Irrelevant. All that matters is the claim, yours, that evolution is non-random. Why? Well, non-random behavior is an essential attribute of telos, aim, objective. You, yourself, are living proof of telos - a purposeful being - and pray tell how best to describe your actions? Random/non-random? Non-random of course.

Chaotic systems — 180 Proof

Irrelevant. Focus on non-randomness as a feature you claim evolution exhibits/displays.

Non sequitur. Your analogy is fatuous, Fool — 180 Proof

You asked me to state what the purpose (telos) of evolution is but that isn't necessary. My purpose, from the very beginning, was simple and to the point: generate as scientific a hypothesis as possible, make predictions based on it, and find out what that leads to. For your convenience, I repeat my stand on the issue in the form of a scientific hypothesis:

Scientific method:

2. Hypothesis: Evolution is teleological

3. Given the hypothesis evolution is teleological, evolution should exhibit non-randomness

4. If evolution exhibits non-randomness then the hypothesis evolution is teleological is confirmed

5. Observations show that evolution exhibits non-randomness [according to you and Banno]

Ergo,

6. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed — TheMadFool

So if "evolution" has a telos (A) cite the observational evidence and (B) describe it's fulfillment or end-state (à la an Aristotlean "final cause") — 180 Proof

I did cite the observational evidence. Look at the rough sketch of a scientific hypothesis above which states that evolution is teleological and the evidence is what you've been claiming is a fact viz. that evolution is non-random.

That out of the way, I must emphasize that I don't have to tell you what exactly the purpose (telos) of evolution is. All I need to do is show/demonstrate that has one and it has one if you insist that evolution is non-random. A better analogy than the one I offered comes from everyday life - you know everybody, at least normal people, have a purpose but you may not know what that purpose is.

you're just talking out of your bunghole and the discussion can't go any further. — 180 Proof

A possibility that grows likelier given that you disagree with me strongly. Nevertheless, I feel I'm on the right track on this issue.

Well then, Fool, answer my question on nature's evolutionary "teleology" which should be quite easy considering you think it is "confirmed" — 180 Proof

Thanks for the kind gesture of resuming the discussion with me. I'm grateful. A few things we need to be clear on before we proceed.

1. All teleological phenomena are things that exhibit non-randomness

Ergo,

2. If evolution is teleological, non-randomness in it should be observable

Now, comes the scientific hypothesis and scientific because an observable prediction is being made. See vide infra,

Propose scientific hypothesis: Evolution is teleological
Prediction: Non-randomness in evolution

Scientific method:

3. Given the hypothesis evolution is teleological, evolution should exhibit non-randomness

4. If evolution exhibits non-randomness then the hypothesis evolution is teleological is confirmed

5. Observations show that evolution exhibits non-randomness [according to you and @Banno]

Ergo,

6. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed


Knowing something is teleological doesn't necessarily mean that something's telos is known. Knowing that there's a man in the room doesn't mean I know who that man is. Two different epistemological situations.

the heliocentric model — 180 Proof

The status of the heliocentric model, an astronomical hypothesis, is CONFIRMED.

Time to get to the interesting bit now...

A scientific hypothesis, evolution is one, makes some assumptions and based on them some predictions. If the predictions bear out, the scientific hypothesis in question is said to have been confirmed and if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is falsified.

Now, let's suppose that evolution is teleological is a scientific hypothesis. We now need some observable predictions and that is nothing but non-randomness. Ergo, the following scientific argument,

9. If evolution is teleological then we should observe non-randomness in evolution [hypothesis & prediction]

10. If we observe non-randomness in evolution then the hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed
11. We do observe non-randomness in evolution
Ergo,
12. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed.

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Metaphor commingles with the literal in this thread. The question seems to be reasonable, a product of a sensible person but, not to exclude myself from those who think this way, something's off about it all.

It's like asking if the mind can actually see things, just as the eyes do, when someone says something like, "I see your point."

Perhaps, this thread is a genuine call to examine metaphor in language: they could be relatable means by which to express one's thoughts ("to grasp a concept" sounds so familiar that one can almost feel the concept in your hands); they could indicate a deep connection between experiences that, on the surface, seem poles apart ("that someone's mind is rigid and inflexible" crosses the boundary between the physical and the mental, two worlds thought to differ radically from each other); they could be telltale signs of confusion of the highest order (when it's difficult to comprehend something, a favorite technique is to resort to metaphors, in essence an account of the unfamiliar/unknown in terms of the familiar/known); they could be features of language (style of communication); etc.