Oh my bad. I must not have caught that typo. Self-Consciousness possesses the ability to contradict the natural law because it manifests the will. But it Isn't inherently contradictory. As in "if this then that." It is also a non-sequitor to think that this disproves teleology and such. Considering they are not logically opposed. — Riley
I never said anything one can do is with the natural law- — Riley
"There's nothing that the eyes can do that's not part of their nature."
Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified — Riley
And no, that is a false-comparison to say appealing to teleology is equal to appealing to god. — Riley
However, you can stop the goal of this species — Riley
Thats false in the way I used the word. And I specifically added 'telos' as well. We already discussed that the eyes are for seeing, the heart for pumping - in which you made no objection. Unless you desire to take Hume's approach of causation, I see no reason for you to object either. — Riley
We already discussed that the eyes are for seeing, the heart for pumping - in which you made no objection. — Riley
What kind of stupid answer is that? Where did I isolate the object from the rest of the world? — Riley
Why can thing which has an end include that which it can do. — Riley
. . . Including stopping beating? I just disagree that this is teleological. — Riley
There is no primary thing which something does.
One word... evidence. — Riley
I'm asking you to provide evidence. — Riley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.