Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural selection — punos

:up: Interesting. So, speaking from experience here, a rare event in me life, the soldier has the brains the general has the courage, the doctor knows way too much math and the engineer is interested in ferns. SLMARCBE.

I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness — T Clark

:up:

The radix of all philosophy is the desire need to know reality, in and for itself and/or as a path to success, not as a businessman, not as a king, not as an engineer, not as a doctor, but as a human.

Teleonomy? — punos

What's teleonomy?

The carrot is an illusion, the stick is not. The daucus carota subsp. sativus is what keeps us going, willing to play (the game of life). @180 Proof has a term for it. Ask him.

Our education must be complete whole.

It became necessary to publicly discuss sex after the STI disaster, the HIV/AIDS pandemic that swept across the globe. I found it rather odd that in a country like USA - at the leading edge of the sexual revolution - still had to tiptoe around the issue of sex education.

Well, in that case, let's hope it's a sex goddess with a bawdy sense of humor that will forgive us fools for not believing (i.e. thinking). — 180 Proof

:cool: And so we must contend with nature in all her glory - her candour and her cunning both are appealing despite they being frustrating.

The only way to escape our 3D world is using mathematics - we can probe higher dimensions with it and we already have, haven't we? Math is like periscope peering over our 3D walls - at what fantastic objects/beings might exist in higher dimensions. Even if we can't liberate ourselves from our 3D prison, we can at least appreciate the freedom of higher dimensional prisons. :lol:

:up:

I hope at the end of our personal journeys, we can all sit down around a warm fire and share a laugh over some drinks. "Remember the time you didn't believe in God?" "Yeah, and don't forget, you were the one who proved God doesn't exist!" :fire: :smile:

As @Gnomon elucidated, getting upset is about personal values, emphasis on personal. We're not really bothered by toe stepping until its our toes that are getting stepped on. In other words, ego is at the heart of the issue. Now by ego I don't mean one that's overinflated, even a normal level of self-love and self-respect is enough to make you fly off the handle. It's self-preservation and everyone has the right to defend himself/herself. My own policy is not to ruin someone's beautiful day, it's so rare, while hoping they feel the same about me.

:lol:

It's possible that the spiritual key was made by nature to keep us motivated to play the game (of life). There's no lock for that key, but we keep looking and "while you're at it, why don't you make some babies, eh?" says Momma Nature. What a mind job, oui? Did you know, heard it from an Iranian, that the Ayatollah of Iran gave each Iranian soldier an actual key, a key to heaven according to him, before they marched to their deaths during the Iran-Iraq war (1980s)?

It doesn't follow from feeling haunted by ghosts that, in fact, "ghosts are real", does it? :meh:

Hint: At least at the classical scale of everyday experience, the map (ideality) cannot determine the territory (reality) – e.g. a "Map of Middle Earth" does not entail that, in fact, "Middle Earth" exists — 180 Proof

Why would nature provide us with a key if there's no lock? That's wasteful, not to mention dangerous - this is not in keeping with the principle that nature is highly efficient, also greatly economical and survival-oriented. Could it be a(n) spandrel/exaptation?

@Wayfarer

To Descartes animals were p-zombies (he refused to accept that outward displays of pain in animals - their writhing, crying - were signs of an inner life). This belief greatly undermines his thesis that God is the one who provides the rock solid foundation - as a being who would not deceive us - for philosophy, because it's obvious that the distance between us and dogs is dwarfed by the distance between us and God. To God, we're not even a dog and if we can vivisect a dog, God could certainly do any damn thing He wishes to us, including but not limited to deception.

:up:

:lol:

Screening for genetic defects is, I believe, mandatory in some countries that have the facility.

??? — 180 Proof

If we have a spiritual side (the key), there hasta be a spiritual dimension (the lock).

Noted.

Well, one thing's for sure, we fear making mistakes and that discombobulates you and then you actually make a mistake, the one you most didn't want to, and that further discombobulates you, you make more mistakes - the death spiral terminates when your world comes crashing down around your ears, psychologically speaking. The vicious cycle consisting of two mutually reinforcing forces (fear and mistakes) has claimed many lives, young, old, men, women, even gods.

:up:

To me it's like having a key. There's gotta be a lock ... somewhere, oui? :rofl:

If you simulate a cannonball, the computer has to perform actual calculations for the trajectory. Is our universe (also) a computer?

:100: The spiritual is essentially, by its very nature, all the proof we need of the nonphysical, kinda like how being able to feel pain is proof that there's pain in our world.

Indeed, decidely computer-like, using a brute-force search algorithm.

Read the link. Hubert Yockey's position resonates with my own in that the transition from chemistry to biology is one of type and not degree (life isn't just a complex chemical reaction) i.e. the whole is greater than the simple sum of its parts (re holism @Gnomon). The same may be said of consciousness - it isn't just complex biology. He supports his thesis by pointing out fundamental differences between biology and chemistry vis-à-vis information; he discusses how (genetic) information is unique to biology and how preserving it, copying it, translating it (into proteins) is not part of everyday life of molecules in the world of chemistry. There seems to be further fact to biology and that is information (organic meaning). The amount of ink used to write a book i.e. the mass of of all the particles in gene can't be used to comprehend the meaning of the book (the protein that the gene encodes) i.e. there's something nonphysical about information. You put it succinctly as the digital-analog divide between chemistry and biology.

:up:

The retracing of the steps back as in Ariadne's thread is a feature of sequential processing. Nature's a parallel processor, like you seem to be implying. The Tree of Life sprouts many limbs simultaneously.

W + W = W² [Problem]
W + W = W² [Mistake]
Ergo,
W = 2 [Correct Answer]

:cool:

Here's food for thought: Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. Is Enformy a thing, or are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" :cool:

It appears that nature's strategy is Ariadne's thread. Go down one possibility branch. If it doesn't work, go back to the node from which it originated, try the other branch and if that doesn't work, assuming there are only two branches on that node, go to the next higher node, so and so forth. Remember though that each branch is a mistake (a mutation in an otherwise stable genotype).

Wrong, you are not right. :brow: You keep moving in a direction, making changes as you go along, hoping for a flash of inspiration or a breakthrough. It's rare that you can see a complicated proof in its entirety at the beginning. :cool: — jgill

I was hopin' for errors to lead to correct results. I believe @punos made a reference to accidental discoveries. For example, Roentgen carelessly leaves an X-ray source + a photographic plate + his wedding ring ( :wink: ) in a drawer and we now have X-ray machines, a godsend for orthopedicians around the world.

Danke for the link. Much appreciated.

Trial and Error?!
— Agent Smith

Utter reality, believe me! You make a sequence of mistakes, altering things as you go along, hoping the sequence converges to the result you're after — jgill

Two wrongs make a right?

2 + 184 + 453 - 2 = 637. I thought 2 was a 7 and I added it; I made the same mistake again (thought 2 was a 7), but this time I subtracted it and got the right answer. Some problems have a nature that mistakes cancel each other out. This is the nub of random error as opposed to systematic error.

Mathematics in a nutshell. The cleaning lady of a famous mathematician was asked what the guy did. She replied, "He scribbles on paper, scowls at it, and wads it up and throws it away." — jgill

:lol: Trial and Error?!

By mistake I refer to genotypes that cause morbidity and mortality e.g. sickle cell anemia which is a case in point because the sickle cell trait is strength in malaria zones like subsaharan Africa, but is a weakness in nonmalaria zones like Europe. For a European, the sickle cell trait is an illness, but for subsaharan Africans it's a lifeline against severe/complicated malaria.

Inly in respect if the question of how life originated. In all other respects it’s a perfectly naturalistic theory. We might never know how life originated. — Wayfarer

:up: To make the long story short, we're in the dark about the conditions on earth (temperature, pH, chemical content, etc.) approx. 4.5 billion years ago (our oldest fossils date back to that era).

Hi Jack.

That's a lot to digest mon ami. I suppose there's method to (nature's) madness. Does that sum up your thesis?

Allah Rahim (God is merciful) mon ami, Allah Rahim.

Aka intelligence. :clap: :100: — 180 Proof

Genes keep making the same mistake (mutation) over and over again ... that's life's little secret. :zip: don't tell anyone.

Panspermia is problematic in the same way as the argument for God as a cause is - simply kicks the can down the road.

:ok:

No challenge is too great for the cosmetic industry, so there is no such thing as "aesthetically-challenged" — Metaphysician Undercover

How true! I've seen some pretty ugly male singers though. I guess males have other things on their mind, like e.g. pretty women.