I'm not arguing anything. I've been asking you Darwinian questions, as well as Metaphysical one's , both of which you cannot seem to provide clarification for... . — 3017amen

I've answered both questions. And math not being suitable for dodging coconuts doesn't need clarification. It's bizzare that you even ask.

So then why does math have survival value when it's not needed?

And after you answer that, I'm still waiting for clarification on the Metaphysical questions LOL

So then why does math have survival value when it's not needed? — 3017amen

You mean why does it have survival value if you cannot dodge coconuts with it. It has value in other ways, such as war and farming.

And after you answer that, I'm still waiting for clarification on the Metaphysical questions LOL — 3017amen

I already told you my view. What else do you want to know?

You mean why does it have survival value if you cannot dodge coconuts with it. It has value in other ways, such as war and farming. — Malice

But abstract's have no Darwinion advantages do they ? Help me understand that empirically if you are able...

already told you my view. What else do you want to know? — Malice

Well you just said, in so many words, that more or less it's because that's what you thought. But no objective analysis. Or did you support it empirically through emergent or evolutionary processes? I didn't see where you did.

Let me try to summarize, and then if you can, plug in your scientific method:


Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking [survival] questions (about being hungry and thirsty)?

Does the pack of lions survive on instinct or a sense of wonderment?

How should wonderment evolve?

What should it evolve toward, a greater understanding of something?

What would be examples of those some thing(s)?

Too, since I'm thinking you must have these answers, go ahead and empirically explain other Metaphysical phenomena like Love and the Will as well, if you are able:

How does Love provide for survival when instinct is only needed to procreate?

How does the Will provide for survival when an animal survives on instinct?

Maybe try a logical syllogism, I think that would be the most succinct way to make your case.

Just trying to help LOL

But abstract's have no Darwinion advantages do they ? Help me understand that empirically if you are able... — 3017amen

There is nothing in evolution that says you should only be biologically capable of learning new things that are immediately beneficial for your survival. You might as just use people reading comic books as evidence against evolution, I don't know why you're stuck on this particular thing. — Malice

You're just going in circles now. I responded to this already. Do you have a counter-argument?

I'm shocked !! Are you saying you have no answers to these questions?

I'm shocked !! Are you saying you have no answers to these questions? — 3017amen

You must be trolling this thread. Nobody is this obtuse.

With all due respect, it actually appears to be the exact opposite.

For example, I asked many existential questions for which you've responded with one-liner's, tantamount to, if you don't mind me saying, equivocal double speak and/or rhetorical gibberish.

For example, specifically, you initially touted the fact that you could provide empirical evidence to support your claim that, in this instance, metaphysical phenomena and other mental constructs such as mathematical abstracts, can be explained (through natural selection). Now I am asking for specific answers to specific questions.

And thus far, you've provided no evolutionary support, let alone any empirical evidence from cognitive science, to help explain these properties or features from consious existence.

I'm indeed concluding that your goal is to troll this thread.

That's an assertion based on presupposition. How do you establish a first cause beyond asserting it? Even if you are granted a first cause premise there's no justification presented for it being a supernatural cause. — CeleRate

It's based on the same assumption that Plato and Aristotle made. In my thesis, I refer to the necessity of a First Cause as an Axiom (self-evidently true). Look it up. The "supernatural" aspect is merely logical inference. That's what philosophers do; this is a philosophical forum. You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics.

Meta-Physics : "Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Plato/Aristotle First Cause : The Cosmological Argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

If it was a supernatural agent, then what caused the supernatural agent? — CeleRate

You missed the stipulation in the earlier posts : both G*D and Multiverse are necessarily eternal and self-caused. No need for any other cause.

I asked for the reason that it was limited to two. It's not my job to support your claim. — CeleRate

I gave you my reasons via links in previous posts. It's not my job to read them for you. :nerd:

Meaning, you can't get inside of my head, and vise versa. For instance, I am male and you are female; the Doctor v. the patient, the artist v. the scientist, the teacher v. the student, ad nauseum. — 3017amen

Well then, it’s the one quote I don’t agree with - at least, not in the way you seem to be interpreting it. The way I see it, we can perceive to understand what we are not. That’s the whole idea of relating to the universe at a metaphysical level, and it’s the capacity we have as human beings: that we don’t need to actualise something in order to approach a more accurate understanding of it. It’s enough to perceive the potential, or even a remote possibility, to be what we are not, and to find value in what we learn from that. It’s fraught with uncertainty, sure, but that’s life - the alternative is ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

In pathology especially, I think this type of thinking limits our willingness to seek understanding of human motivations and behaviour that we find irrational, illogical, immoral, etc. By labelling these ‘pathological’, we isolate and exclude the information we might gain about ourselves and others if only we would include this potential within the scope of ‘normal’ humanity. This is why we are so often blindsided by seemingly isolated events - such as a man dousing his estranged wife and young children with petrol and setting them alight in their car on a suburban street. We call him a ‘monster’ instead of recognising that he was, until that moment, perceived as just another man - and in doing so, in concluding that we cannot understand, we limit our relationship with the potential unfolding of reality.

Anyway, the Metaphysical Will, I think, can be part of the philosophy relative to intelligent design. And our collective reasoning here thru induction, if I may say, has led us to the Will ( much like Love) seems to be that which requires understanding. A conscious phenomenon that acts on its own. The innate, a priori, thing from conscious existence that is part of our self-awareness. The natural need of doing or Being. Or, some say, the so-called tension of existence; conscious existence.

If that has any truth to it, then to define such a 'tension', could in-part explain the notion of existential angst in living this life. — 3017amen

I still get the feeling we’re not on the same page here. I don’t believe that either Love or the Will ‘act on its own’. They are both relational concepts that theoretically enable us to integrate all possible existence as long as we’re open to the information, not ‘forces’ that act in isolation. To explain the notion of existential angst, we need to seek understanding beyond these ‘forces’ we perceive, in the same way that we came to understand the interrelated processes of bodily systems and the seasons, for instance.

The term ‘intelligent design’ seems to imply a distinction between creator and created that we need to get past. Intelligence is a perceived potential to understand or comprehend, while ‘design’ is a perceived purpose or plan behind an action, fact or object. This is the extent of what is a priori - there is no knowledge or being, only capacity and intention for awareness, connection and collaboration. Whether we refer to this as the Metaphysical Will or Love or Enformation or ‘God’, it remains an expression of our relation to what we have yet to understand about existence - an acknowledgement of comparative ignorance, isolation and exclusion. The tension, the existential angst we experience, seems to me to come from a conscious effort to resist the fullness of that expression - in particular, to resist the inspiration to seek understanding, courage, wisdom, wonder and awe, etc from our relation. In doing so, we relate negatively to ‘God’ or the Metaphysical Will itself - to the relation as a ‘force’ - instead of acknowledging the infinite possibility of existence to which it points.

It’s a bit like our understanding of energy. We talk about energy as a ‘force’ and define its relation to the observable/measurable universe in a variety of ways. But energy is not a thing, but an expression of the relation of observed/measured objects or temporal events to their perceived potential. We cannot measure or observe that potential, only the relation. And yet we can, to some extent, calculate or perceive it and strive to understand it - more so now with quantum mechanics. In quantum physics, energy is a relation, not a force. It isn’t a ‘phenomenon that acts on its own’.

You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics. — Gnomon

If you won't construct a philosophical argument, and you won't rely on science to substantiate the truthfulness of any of your claims, then there's nothing to debate. Making bald assertions is not philosophy. Better luck next time.

You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing. And Ironic...the faithful arguing in bad faith. Lol, why is it that those who think they have the moral high ground never seem to demonstrate it?
I dont think hes a troll, I think he is a liar, and I dont buy his insincere politeness either. Completely Dishonest.

This thread is about ID, not the EOG. For example, we are talking about Metaphysics and Phenomenology. You seem preoccupied with EOG topics.

I suggest you start another thread on EOG and not troll this one like Malice has.

Just an observation, if you are an atheist, why are you so concerned with the EOG. I mean dude, is your belief system that weak. LOL

That’s the whole idea of relating to the universe at a metaphysical level, and it’s the capacity we have as human beings: that we don’t need to actualise something in order to approach a more accurate understanding of it. It’s enough to perceive the potential, or even a remote possibility, to be what we are not, and to find value in what we learn from that. It’s fraught with uncertainty, sure, but that’s life - the alternative is ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

Great points. We talked about how awareness can be liberating. However, I'm a little confused by your aforementioned statement that we needn't actualize something... . Meaning, I agree ignorance is dangerous in that it doesn't provide for growth, etc.. But in this context, are you suggesting that all people are born with the same talents?

I think that deserves special attention. I'll respond to your other points shortly, thanks.

I don’t believe that either Love or the Will ‘act on its own’. They are both relational concepts that theoretically enable us to integrate all possible existence as long as we’re open to the information, not ‘forces’ that act in isolation. To explain the notion of existential angst, we need to seek understanding beyond these ‘forces’ we perceive, in the same way that we came to understand the interrelated processes of bodily systems and the seasons, for instance. — Possibility

Okay. But if they are 'relational concepts', in what way are we relating to them? For example, you seem to be suggesting there is an 'out there' to relate or interact with. What are 'these forces'? Is that another term of the emotive phenomenon of fear?

The term ‘intelligent design’ seems to imply a distinction between creator and created that we need to get past. — Possibility

I would rephrase it to say and confirm your notion of seeking understanding. Meaning, the distinction between creator and created is to strive for understanding of not only the self (ourselves/consciousness), but also the Metaphysical Will in nature (or Spinoza's Pantheism, if you prefer).

In quantum physics, energy is a relation, not a force. It isn’t a ‘phenomenon that acts on its own’. — Possibility

Well, it's really reciprocal. Which is to underscore relationship's, and the need to integrate awareness and understanding of them. There is indeed an interconnectedness (good analogy).

If you won't construct a philosophical argument, and you won't rely on science to substantiate the truthfulness of any of your claims, then there's nothing to debate. Making bald assertions is not philosophy. Better luck next time. — CeleRate

I enjoyed the opportunity to respond to skeptical questions about a topic that is important to me (existence; ontology), and which is not addressed by pragmatic Science. That's the only reason I allowed you to continue to demonstrate your superior sophistry. But I could tell from the beginning that you weren't serious about hearing any "pro" assertions, as in my Enformationism "philosophical argument". Apparently you were only interested in trolling some Intelligent Design "idiots". This philosophical forum is important, because it allows us to "dialog" (not debate) with others who hold different worldviews. So, despite your anti-philosophy attitude, you have done us a service. Thanks. :cool:

PS___FWIW, I don't accept the Bible-based Intelligent Design theory. My theory is called Intelligent Evolution, and is science-based.
PPS___I apologize for responding in kind, with personally directed statements.

Great points. We talked about how awareness can be liberating. However, I'm a little confused by your aforementioned statement that we needn't actualize something... . Meaning, I agree ignorance is dangerous in that it doesn't provide for growth, etc.. But in this context, are you suggesting that all people are born with the same talents? — 3017amen

No - I don’t believe we are ‘born’ with talents, but rather born into environments in which our specific genetic and biological makeup enables the development of certain abilities or potential over others. Up to this point, each of us is a unique manifestation of a broad human potential, but our awareness is not bound by actuality. It is our ability as humans to communicate and interrelate abstract concepts, significance, value and potential in relation to past, present and future that enables us to understand what we are not. It looks like a ‘talent’ only in an environment where those around us are unaware that they also have this capacity, and so they fail to develop it.

But if they are 'relational concepts', in what way are we relating to them? For example, you seem to be suggesting there is an 'out there' to relate or interact with. What are 'these forces'? Is that another term of the emotive phenomenon of fear? — 3017amen

Yes. We’re not comfortable with the notion that energy as a relational concept points to ‘something’ beyond our understanding of a four dimensional universe - it’s the same with the Metaphysical Will. If there is indeed a fifth dimensional aspect to reality, then we appear to be no closer to achieving any form of ‘mastery’ over the universe than we were a thousand years ago. The humility of this realisation is part of the dread and anxiety that contributes to existential angst. We cope with it by conceptualising each relation as a thing ‘out there’ and relating only to that, effectively avoiding any relation to an entire aspect of reality that renders us humble by its complexity, and of which we are each a unique manifestation. The Will, Love, energy, potential, qualia, mathematics, language, emotion, logic - all of this points to a fifth dimensional aspect.

I would rephrase it to say and confirm your notion of seeking understanding. Meaning, the distinction between creator and created is to strive for understanding of not only the self (ourselves/consciousness), but also the Metaphysical Will in nature (or Spinoza's Pantheism, if you prefer). — 3017amen

Getting past the distinction involves striving to understand not only the self as a unique manifestation of the Metaphysical Will, but the unlimited possibility from which this Metaphysical Will is a reduction.

You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing — DingoJones

True. I've watched, read and participated in a lot of these debates. There is definitely a pattern, but it often gets the gears in my head moving. I was also surprised by the responses, I am glad someone else noticed.

Getting past the distinction involves striving to understand not only the self as a unique manifestation of the Metaphysical Will, but the unlimited possibility from which this Metaphysical Will is a reduction. — Possibility

Yes. Indeed. One other component of metaphysical will in consciousness and/or nature would be intentionality. Have you explored that concept?

The metaphysical question would be something like: can we feel the phenomenal character of the intention in nature as a sensory experience?

Although a question like that would be a bit ambiguous, you would most certainly have to start with defining, what does it mean to have intention; what is our intention.

Yes. Indeed. One other component of metaphysical will in consciousness and/or nature would be intentionality. Have you explored that concept?

The metaphysical question would be something like: can we feel the phenomenal character of the intention in nature as a sensory experience?

Although a question like that would be a bit ambiguous, you would most certainly have to start with defining, what does it mean to have intention; what is our intention. — 3017amen

I will admit that I struggle with philosophical discussions on phenomenal intentionality: the linguistic gymnastics involved with attempting to formulate an ‘objective’ structural relation of intentionality without acknowledging five-dimensional relativity is almost laughable. I can imagine similarly ridiculous discussions on formulating a concept of ‘world time’ as train travel became popular...

The way I see it, intentionality is relative to all aspects of subjective experience - it refers to a sixth dimensional aspect of reality, what I tend to refer to as ‘meaning’, or what matters. It can only be understood in an ‘objective’ sense from a perspective beyond value and potential: inclusive of immoral, irrational, illogical and impossible potentiality. All other attempts to understand it are limited by subjectivity, or ignorance of five-dimensional relativity.

As an example, I used to be an artist, and during that time my perspective of the world around me was highly aesthetic: ‘redness’ became a range of values attributed to shapes and lines on a 2D plane. Perceiving ‘redness’ as a property of objects in space was often detrimental to my work. More recently, I spent three months travelling around Europe, and on returning to Australia I was struck by how ‘grey’ everything looked while driving through the bush. The relative ‘green-ness’ I had attributed to objects had changed, even in that short space of time. It took a few months to restore this particular value setting in my visual experience.

This is not just a visual phenomenon. I can also conceptualise the world differently as a driver than as a passenger. I’ve even noticed that I conceptualise the world differently at a subconscious level according to hormonal cycles: prioritising internal affect over spatial relations, for instance. This is just a small indication of the relativity of my individual intentionality.