That's OK. I don't take the smoke-without-fire too seriously. It's par for the course, for philosophers who explore the outer limits of human knowledge, where angels fear to post their unpopular opinions.I was in joke-mode, so don't take what I said as an argument. — Bitter Crank
your bitter pessimism — Gnomon
But there is a strong trend, especially in the fields of Complexity & Cosmology to present (non-divine) scientific models of Teleology. — Gnomon
As the articles below illustrate, it's not just little ole me that sees signs of directionality in the world's development, from a simple Singularity to the cosmic complexity we see today. — Gnomon
Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward. — Gnomon
That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. — Gnomon
The Stanford entry below provides names & opinions. :smile:
Teleological Notions in Biology :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/ — Gnomon
Great! I was just playing with your screenname. :smile:Wait wait. On the topic of evolution I'm not at all bitter or pessimistic. — Bitter Crank
Yes. I provide links to expert opinions in all of my posts, to provide support for my layman's opinions. As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview.I believe this is not true. Do you have some references? — T Clark
As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview. — Gnomon
Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward.
— Gnomon
That evolution is progressive is hard to deny.
— Gnomon
As I noted, I believe these statements are incorrect. — T Clark
References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. — Gnomon
For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke: — Gnomon
I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. They are not scientific factual assertions, but personal philosophical perspectives. My opinions may sound confident, because I have given them a lot of thought, and presented my thesis on a webpage. Besides, I have replied to similar "claims" repeatedly ad infinitum on this forum. For example, the post linked below in the FreeWill thread treats the Teleological argument without specifically mentioning it.That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done. — T Clark
I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. — Gnomon
Denial is easy; understanding is hard.I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny. — T Clark
Denial is easy; understanding is hard.
Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. — Gnomon
It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events. — Gnomon
Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. — Gnomon
Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. — Gnomon
As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. — Gnomon
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological. — Gnomon
You put your finger on the difference between my general philosophical worldview and your specific scientific paradigm. I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. Someone once asked him where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do. — T Clark
I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. — Gnomon
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle — Gnomon
Yes, really. :smile:No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo
I'm sorry if I blasphemed your idol by calling him "soft". I meant no disrespect. Instead, I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. For those not conversant with the arcane conventions of mathematics, he described his thought experiments in metaphorical imagery, such as trains & elevators. Would you like to suggest a less offensive way to denote the difference between pragmatic demonstrative science and theoretical speculative philosophy? :nerd:And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of. — T Clark
Yes, really. — Gnomon
The authors of the ACP book I quoted go beyond the mere evidence of a "selection effect" to imply that Darwin's aimless "Natural Selection" was found, on a cosmic scale, to be -- lawfully and seemingly intentionally -- directed toward the emergence of animated Life, and eventually of intentional Mind. — Gnomon
But. don't blame me --- if your settled worldview is threatened by positive Evolution. I'm just the reporter of good news for the future of the living & thinking Cosmos. — Gnomon
No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo
I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. — Gnomon
But the inference of Purpose is a debatable opinion. Simple erratic causation, like billiard balls bouncing around due to an earthquake is clearly accidental. But when those balls go straight into pockets, we may reasonably look around to see where the impetus came from. In the game of pool, the Prime Cause of that progression is obvious : the man with a stick, and a smile or frown on his face. — Gnomon
Upward? Upward? Surely you must be joking, Mr. Gnomon — Bitter Crank
The strong anthropic principle is different. It states that the improbability of the conditions we find ourselves in here means that the universe must have been set up to promote the evolution of humans or someone like us. It's the fine tuning argument. — T Clark
Right, and as already noted its completely speculative and baseless, and the fine-tuning argument in particular rests on a claim about probability that can't be sustained. The only form of the anthropic principle that is credible is the so-called "weak" anthropic principle, which is more or less just a tautology. — Seppo
Oh really? The book I reviewed is indeed not "generally accepted". And the authors were aware that they were going beyond the conservative interpretation of WAP, to propose a more radical perspective. So, they support their conclusion with a lot of technical data that was way over my head. If you are more into the math, maybe you can critique them on scientific facts instead of their unpopular interpretation. Obviously, their proposed new paradigm of cosmology is not accepted by the old guard who defend a more traditional reductive worldview. :smile:No, not really. The anthropic principle, at least in the form that is respectable/generally accepted, is basically just a tautology, — Seppo
I agree that your emotional response to a brief overview of a complex scientific proposal is "a mess". But, until you read the book itself you have no grounds for concluding that I'm misrepresenting the meaning of a book on cutting-edge Cosmology. The authors were physicists, and expanding Darwin's notion beyond its limited biological application up to a universal & cosmic scale. What you say is "well-established" is what they intended to dis-establish. Theirs is a Cosmological Argument based on 20th century science instead of medieval theology. Their rationale is an attempt to scientifically explain the emergence of homo sapiens, instead of dismissing such an improbable event as a mere random accident of impersonal Fate. :cool:I'm hoping that you're misrepresenting them, because this is a mess. "Natural selection" was not found "on a cosmic scale" because natural selection in Darwin's sense, and in the sense that is actually well-established, pertains to a selection effect on biological organisms — Seppo
Your emotional reaction to blasphemy of revered Scientific Truth sounds similar to Muslim's outrage at any criticism of the Holy Koran. Science is not "settled" or static. Like sharks & evolution, Science must progress or die. I don't agree with all of the authors' speculations. But theirs is not a "religious" or "pseudoscience" notion. It is not presented as an argument from authority, but from evidence. And is always open to counter-evidence. In any case, your scandalized outburst is not a philosophical critique. It sounds more like a religious defense of divinely revealed Truth. :nerd:Ah yes, I reel in terror from the daring and heroic Internet Truth-Speaker, wreaking havok on our "settled worldviews" with his speculative religious philosophy and pseudoscience.. — Seppo
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.