I think you should add Chaos theory to the list:
Systems have three modes of operation: - predictable (linear) - chaotic (nonlinear) - random (random) — 3017amen

Amen, brother! In my worldview, our space-time existence is due neither to A> random spontaneity, nor to B> linear divine command & response, but to a combination of law & disorder*1. My hypothetical First Cause is not a humanoid superman who creates via magic, but a universal Principle of EnFormAction that is inherently creative. The Prime Cause of space-time Reality is also not a cosmic accident of pulling itself up by its own non-existent bootstraps. Instead, it's more like the ancient notion of eternal Chaos, with Potential for en-form-ation (creating new forms), from which actual space-time forms (material things) emerge. The typical concept of Chaos is of much-ado-about-nothing : completely feckless random buzzing. But the scientific version of Chaos theory is based on the discovery that even directionless disorderly systems (such as genetic mutations) have the Potential to create some pockets of logical (linear) order that may prove functional.

Plato's Chaos Theory : For Plato the primeval chaotic stuff of the universe has no inherent preexisting form that governs some course of natural development toward the achievement of some goal, and so the explanatory cause of its orderliness must be external to any features that such stuff may possess.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

Those perceptions, beliefs, desires and intentions provide for a basic duality of the intentionality of the mental: the duality between mind-to-world and world-to-mind. — 3017amen

I haven't read the referenced book, so I'm not sure why it limits the reason-for-being to "Spontaneity" and "Randomness", in which the cause of any novelty is unknown or irrational, perhaps a mysterious "hidden variable". In my theory, the hidden variable is Intention. Plato's Chaos is not a "cloud of un-being", but the Source of all existence, which I call "BEING" to distinguish it from created beings. It's equivalent to a creator god, except that it is totally abstract and mathematical, with no human characteristics. And yet, its Eternal Potential obviously included all of the concrete stuff of reality, and the emergent human characteristics. The power of Intention is a necessary inference from the observation of creative teleological progress in evolution. But,no, I don't know what the Omega Point will be.

*1 Law & Disorder : the mechanism of Evolution -- random change and evaluated selection.

I'm not sure if that's useful. — Marty

Would you like to contribute a different metaphor for Cosmic or Human Teleology that is more useful than a step-by-step-process directed toward a specific functional goal (mechanism)?

That seems like a false dichotomy. — Marty

It wasn't a dichotomy, but an invitation for you to offer a different option.

Note: At first, I thought you might have some relevant ideas about Teleology, and the Meaning of Life, that I was not familiar with. But, we've been going in circles here. Do you have anything positive to contribute to the topic of this thread, other than negative "what-it's-not" detours? :cool:

I don't see why using Google's definition is useful when addressing philosophical concepts. You think that Google is going to define mechanism in any way that's analogical to how the mechanists did? — Marty

Apparently, the term "mechanism" violates your understanding of mental processes. Functionally, a mechanism is just a specialized process or procedure that produces a desirable output (teleological goal) from relevant input (raw material). If you object to the analogy of "mechanism", would you prefer to think of Inference as "magic"?

Maybe you can show me a non-Google definition of "mechanism" that will illustrate what your specific objection to it is. I personally don't have any qualms about referring to mental processes, such as Logical Inference, with the analogy of a physical mechanism. Obviously, metaphysical Logic is not a physical mechanical device, but the Brain is a physical computer that follows logical procedures to produce useful information (goal) about the future implications of relevant activities in the here & now (raw material).

Computational Theory of Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind

Mind as Machine : https://www.amazon.com/Mind-As-Machine-Cognitive-Two/dp/0199241449

Who are "The Mechanists"? How did they define "mechanism" that's different from the Google description of an artficial or natural goal-oriented process?

PS___I just came across this definition of Metaphysics, that might be relevant here :
"Bohm expressed the view that "metaphysics is an expression of a world view" and is "thus to be regarded as an art form, resembling poetry in some ways and mathematics in others, rather than as an attempt to say something true about reality as a whole"

"David Bohm" on @Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm?wprov=sfta1

Well, then, we're just equivocating on what a mechanism is. What's your definition of it? — Marty

This was my definition of the "mechanism" of logical Inference : "Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism." It's a mental procedure or process that produces reasonable inferences. The mind is a machine by analogy.

This is Google's definition of "mechanism".
1. a system of parts working together in a machine; a piece of machinery.
2. a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.

Here's examples of Logic metaphorically described as a "mechanism" :
Philosophy of Logical Mechanism : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0987-8_17
Teleology and Logical Mechanism : https://www.jstor.org/stable/20116567?seq=1

You don't need knowledge of an ultimate purpose in order to demonstrate teleology. You can just restrict it to goal-orientated functions. — Marty

How then do you define "teleology", without "purpose"? An animal may have a short-term purpose of survival from day to day. But each daily goal is merely one instance of the long-term purpose of avoiding death. The end goal is implicit in the proximate goal. No?
Telos : an ultimate object or aim.

We may be talking about the same thing, but in different terms. I sometimes refer to Evolution as "teleological", because its behavior seems to be goal directed. But I don't "define" that teleology in terms of the ultimate end state, which is unknown to me. I just say that the arrow of Time, and the upward trend of evolutionary complexity and organization are pointing in the direction of some final goal. See page 2 of the EnFormAction Hypothesis blog post linked below.

Teleological Evolution : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Purpose can serve as a form or the basis off of what the telos does (direction). — Marty

What is "the telos"? Is it a reference to some kind of collective human will? Is that "telos" random, or does it have some particular goal (purpose) in mind? Apparently your usage is drawn from some theological or philosophical doctrine that I'm not familiar with. For the Greeks, "telos" was the goal or purpose of a process, not a global mind or divine Will.

Telos : https://www.telospress.com/tag/friedrich-nietzsche/

However, dualist principles support a world of immaterial Forms independent from material existence, which act as the cause of material existence. Can you see how this allows for time prior to material existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I am both a Monist (the universal "substance" is Information), and a Dualist (in the real world Information exists in both physical and metaphysical forms).

In your reply to "tw", you equated Metaphysical Forms with the Laws of Nature. I agree. But in my own worldview, I go even further, to equate Metaphysics (mental forms) with the enforming power of Nature : what scientists call Energy, and what I call EnFormAction. The material aspects of reality are continually being transformed by immaterial energy. Energy is invisible and intangible, until it is embodied in material form. We only know that Energy exists, by inference from the behavior of matter.

Since the universal substance of the universe is invisible/intangible Information/energy, it occupies no Space and is the cause of Time, as it creates Change in the material world. If that is indeed the case, then there is no reason to doubt the possibility/probability of a timeless state "prior to material existence". That being the case, there is good reason to infer some kind of metaphysical Enformer to create our physical world system. :nerd:


Metaphysics : 2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

EnFormAction : Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (AKA : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to give birth to our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformer : A hypothetical First Cause, logically necessary to kick-start the space-time process we call Evolution. Not to be confused with traditional anthro-metric deities. ("Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

There's obviously a distinction between intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology. You don't need intention for a teleological cause. — Marty

I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain "intrinsic teleology and extrinsic teleology". Are these distinctions necessitated by some specific doctrine? Daniel Dennett has a doctrine called the "Intentional Stance" that he uses to counter doctrines of Teleological Evolution -- Including my own. :cool:

Evolution, Teleology, Intentionality : https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/evoltele.htm

Accidental "causes" are non-intentional , but also non-teleological : no goal. Intentional causes are teleological by definition : goal directed. "To Intend" is to focus on (turn toward) a specific objective. n'est-ce pas? :nerd:

I don't understand how ego-driven activity isn't teleological. — Marty

Who said it wasn't?

And I don't understand how inferences are a mechanism. — Marty

Inferences are the product of a metaphorical step-by-step logical "mechanism", not a physical mechanism.

This isn't disproving teleology. — Marty

Who said anything about "disproving" teleology. Maybe you have a different definition from mine. I do see signs of teleology in evolution, but I don't have any knowledge of the ultimate Purpose of the process. That would require divine revelation, rather than philosophical inference. I assume there was a First Cause, but all I know is He/r methods, not He/r intentions.

Philosophical Teleology : the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

Theological Teleology : the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

Enformationism Teleology : 1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level — Possibility

Sounds like "raising consciousness" by "opening the third eye". Does that kind of dimensional "enlightenment" come from deep mindless meditation, or can it be achieved by mindful reasoning? :nerd:

We can’t measure them - we can subjectively relate to possibilities, and perceive the potential manifested from this interaction.
To observe is to look at theevidence in time, the thing or event. — Possibility

"Subjectively relate to possibilities" sounds like extrasensory perception, or simple imagination. If the "evidence" is invisible --- "But they are not observed, nor do they happen" --- how can we "look" at it, and how could we "perceive potential manifestations"? To me, "potential" is un-manifested. So, again the notion of multi-Dimensional Awareness does not compute for my puny 4-dimensional brain. :brow:

Either way, let's say that mechanism was there. It doesn't seem like you have some way to disambiguate why certain empirical events are teleological and others are not. You can postulate that one presupposes a mind having an intention, but that seems to be appealing to some psychological state, not empirical events. — Marty

The human brain certainly has the necessary "mechanism" for inference : for putting 2 and 2 together and inferring 4. But even many animals have that innate ability. And, as noted in the discussion of predators, their application of the ability to predict the near future is self-serving. I'd call that Ego-Teleo-Logy. Tele- means "far", and -logy means "knowledge". So, it literally means knowledge far ahead of now --- specifically, knowledge that is pertinent to me, and to my purposes.

Apparently the human big brain allows us to extend our knowledge of future possibilities much farther into the future than other animals. But even so, such predictions seem to be limited by the Inverse Square Law of physics : the intensity (accuracy) of a prophecy gets weaker as the distance (in time) gets greater. So, human teleology is not very useful for anticipating events beyond a couple of weeks. The farther-off the event, the more general the picture. Beyond a few years, prophets and prognosticators are reduced to predicting history and tautologies.

So, Cosmic Teleology, in the sense of this thread, requires a Mind that is not limited by physical restrictions. But, that would also entail the power of intention : purposeful behavior that is self-serving. The OP was concerned with " the teleological paradox: the parts having purpose but the whole (apparently) lacking purpose." Hence, limited human teleology can only serve short-range purposes or intentions. Only a Cosmic Deity could accurately anticipate "empirical events" billions of years in the future. Consequently, our little short-range self-serving purposes can only overcome the paradox by somehow also serving the Greater Purpose of the Ultimate Teleologist --- with knowledge that is pertinent to all. Which is apparently what most religions are trying to do by simply sucking-up to (worshiping) the One Who Knows All. But, their scriptural guesses about the Ultimate Purpose are also limited by the Law of Illumination --- hence, the paradox. :smile:

But they are not observed, nor do they happen - we perceive potential which points to their possible existence, — Possibility

???Does not compute.
If I don't observe a thing or event, how could I perceive any potential that is relevant to those non-entities? By extrasensory perception, or pure imagination? Are these "six-dimensional structures" what most of us call Ghosts? If they are invisible & intangible & infinitely possible, how could we measure their non-physical dimensions? :brow:

Dimensional awareness, connection and collaboration manifests as relational structure. — Possibility

A "relational structure" is what I would call "metaphysical Information". It consists of mental relationships with no physical substance : a Platonic Form or Idea or Geometric Ratio. How is "Dimensional Awareness" different from Physical Perception or Metaphysical Conception? How are invisible Dimensions measured and numbered? :chin:

Is the concept of "Dimensional Awareness" related to Multiverse/Many Worlds/String Theory speculations, or to Rob Bryanton's 10th Dimension conception, or to Gevin Giorbran's Everything Forever notion --- which, although way over my head, inspired my own website of Enformationism with the suggestion of Time within Timelessness. :nerd:

So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level. — Possibility

Again, how is this mysterious kind of "awareness" different from ordinary mundane knowledge gathering? Again, some relevant real-world metaphors might help me to "see" or "perceive" the purely abstract structures you're talking about. Einstein saw the unseeable by imagining metaphorical scenarios, such as riding on a light beam. :cool:


Imagining the 10th Dimension : https://www.tenthdimension.com/

The 10th Dimension : https://thetartan.org/2012/11/12/scitech/ten-dimensions

Everything Forever : http://everythingforever.com/

PS___ I can grok multidimensional curved space & time in graphic images, but not in mathematical symbols, because I don't speak the language of abstract relationships.

↪Gnomon
Piaget wrote that the nature of nature was to overcome itself, the point being that from Piaget's point of view there is no dichotomy between the aims of humanity and those of nature. There is no divide at all. We are nothihg but a further development of the aims of nature itself as self-transformation. Nature is artifice through and through. — Joshs

Whoa! Curb your enthusiasm for Humanistic Naturalism. I doubt that Piaget made such an absolute equation of Nature & Nurture. His opinion was more of an "ought" than an "is", and was intended to overcome the "dichotomy between the aims of humanity and those of nature" that he observed in the Western Culture of his day.

There was in fact a divide between Nature and Human Culture for 14 billion years. And, after a few thousand years of homo sapiens, we are still learning how to align human-centered aims with those of impersonal nature. In my personal view, Nature has its own teleology, within which humanity may be necessary --- or not. It's too soon to say for sure. At this point in time, there is still a clear distinction between Nature and Human Artifice.

I don't understand the teleology of Nature well enough to make such a bold statement as "we are nothing but . . ." Yet for my own purposes, I assume that the emergence of humanity --- if not the ultimate goal of evolution --- was at least a step on the ladder. :smile:


Man vs Nature : https://www.livescience.com/16388-climate-change-debate-man-nature.html

I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know. — Possibility

OK. But that spherical reference went right over my pointy head. :razz:

Not necessarily, because I’m not referring to an entity as such - and I find that naming it in this way can limit our capacity to approach an understanding of what it is we’re referring to. — Possibility

If the "dimensional awareness" is not an "entity", what is it, a phenomenon? I don't know what my "G*D" is. All I know is what it does : enform, create, etc. What does your DA do? :smile:

Entity : "a thing with distinct and independent existence."
Phenomenon : "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question".

Out of curiosity, what other inherent contingencies do you envisage? — Possibility

Technically, any effect that follows a cause is a contingency, because, in a randomized system, the future is unpredictable. But imaginative humans can project past patterns or trends into the near future, in order to plan for what's likely to happen --- for probable possibilities.

Also, some contingencies are totally unexpected, and have greater effects than others. One example is the asteroid impact (literally out of the blue) that killed-off the dinosaurs and allowed tiny mammals to thrive. Was this an accident, or was it a step in some cosmic plan to evolve a bipedal animal with hands and big brains? Looking forward from the Big Bang, such an event would seem unlikely. But, in retrospect, it seems almost inevitable --- at least to those who see Cosmic Patterns in mundane events. Astrologers had the right intuition, but the wrong "science".

A contingency is unexpected, so it's hard to prepare for. But Evolutionary Programming makes use of the innate creativity of contingency to derive creative solutions to current problems. Scientists emulate Progressive Creation by plagiarizing the Evolutionary Algorithm and the Genetic Algorithm from the programming of natural selection. It's the existence of those directional algorithms that leads me to infer that a programming "entity" or "phenomenon" set the Big Bang on its course to some Final Contingency : the Problem Solution. :cool:

Contingency : "a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty".

Evolutionary Programming : http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/evolution/evolutionary_programming.html

Algorithm : "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations",

Billiard balls appear to operate only on a two-dimensional plane, but this isn’t the case - they’re three-dimensional objects. — Possibility

Come on, "-billi-"! Don't complicate my simple mundane analogy with cubic possi-bili-ties. :grin:

Teleology describes an apparent purpose or programming, but I think it really just points to relational structures beyond our current level of awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

If the "relational structures" that cause the appearance of purpose or programming are beyond the reach of human senses, then we might as well call it by the common name for such entities : God. But, just to indicate that I'm not talking about any of the traditional anthro-metric deities, I spell it G*D ( * stands for unknown). For me, G*D is the prime relational structure that I refer to functionally as the Enformer. That's because Information is relationships and ratios. And everything we know is Information.

The "apparent" program of Nature cannot be completely open-ended, since the physical universe has a limited lifespan. So, in my theory, The End is not completely specified, but is open to course changes due to inherent contingencies. And one kind of contingency is human Free Will. Therefore, yes, we agree that the specific Form of The End is not pre-specified, AFAIK. Which suggests to me that it's the ever-learning evolutionary process that is important.

Tomorrow I may expand upon the notion of "apparent teleology", but for now, Namaste! :cool:

"The willful purpose of a single human is made manifest in the person's behavior. We can intuit their intentions from their actions. " ---Gnomon
And how is this done? This "intuiting"? You just see? Non-inferentially? Why is it that when we "see" in whatever way we do, we omit certain properties that're teleological from certain behaviors/functions and not from others? What is it about our seeing that creates a projection, and in order types of perceptions veridical precepts? — Marty

Intuition is sub-conscious inference. It's sometimes described as "the brain on autopilot". It's how we do most of of our routine everyday thinking. It's also how most animal thinking works. The brain is an inference machine, it is constantly creating a narrative of what happens in the environment, and guessing what will happen next. For example, predators must be able to anticipate their prey's typical evasive tactics, in order to be one step ahead of them. Without this ability to predict the short-term future, cheetahs would never catch an antelope, who can run almost as fast, and usually have a head start. Moreover, from experience, the cheetah can infer that the "purpose" of a zig-zagging antelope is to foil the cheetah's "purpose" --- its intention.

Humans have an advantage over cheetahs in that they can consciously collect data, and then logically or mathematically predict the future state of a system. Such formal inference reaches a conclusion via analysis of evidence, then logically progressing the current state into the "foreseeable" future (via imagination). For example, if a human predator wants to "bag" an antelope, he uses the accumulated data & deductions of previous humans to shoot a bullet that moves much faster than the antelope. But, even with that technological edge, the hunter still must use subconscious inference to know just how much to "lead" the antelope, in order to predict where it will be when the bullet arrives at the same spot.

So, we assess the future, and make our teleological plans on the basis of collected evidence of how the system in question (SIQ) works (normal behavior). Then we use conscious calculation (formal inference) to predict the future state of the SIQ (target or goal) at the time our personal system is in the right place at the right time. Even then, we must make intuitive adjustments to the rational estimate, in order to make allowances for unknowns and uncertainties (abnormal behavior).

However, some astute observers & intuiters deliberately omit certain signs of Teleology, because they don't like the implications that the future is pre-determined by some intentional agent --- a programmer outside the system --- rather than being completely random & unpredictable. So, they focus their calculations on "certain properties" that are irrational and unpredictable. Consequently, unlike the cheetah, they don't take into consideration the fact that the target has predictable tendencies that can be exploited to reach "veridical" projections. Teleology skeptics are motivated to ignore signs of certain systemic tendencies that might lead them to conclude that the system was governed by intention. Laws and conditions -- Yes, but teleological intentions -- No. Hence, the "projection" of the future they "see" is missing certain "veridical precepts" that could point to Intention in Evolution. :nerd:


How Does Intuition Work ? : Intuition is not a bug, but a feature of our psychology. Yet it is part of our brain’s ability to comprehend our territory, inner and outer, not something detached ‘out there.’ The messages we receive are important, just not magical.
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-does-intuition-work

Just because you have an input and output of anything doesn't mean that things don't occur for a specific functional purpose. Just because "things occur" doesn't mean that they don't have a guided purpose or a way expressing what they are. You can create a speculative judgement of what certain types of behaviors mean in terms of a universal concept. — Marty

If the Output is equal to the Input, there is no sign of Purpose, only Function. The distinction between "Function" and "Purpose" lies in what happens between the Input and Output.

A billiard ball normally transmits the input force to the next ball without any thought or intention. But if a ball suddenly changed course, ignoring the Aim of the shooter, we could assume from its behavior that the ball had developed a mind of its own. Or that it had been programmed to change direction in mid-course. Such things don't "just occur" without some reason, some internal purpose. Purpose and Programming provide internal guidance to a target.

"To Purpose" is to intend, and intention is the key to teleology. It requires a look ahead to some future possibility, a value judgment, and an action to set a course in the preferred direction. Only the intentional agent knows for sure what the reason (intended goal) was. Nevertheless, an onlooker might "create a speculative judgment" of the meaning or purpose of that otherwise inexplicable course change. We infer the intention by the results of the action. If the end is not in sight, we can still infer intention by recognizing a steady tendency in an otherwise random background.

A Teleological process follows from an intentional act. Which is why Atheists deny any signs of intention or purpose in Evolution. Goal-directed natural activity would imply a "universal concept" : a value judgment of a preferred outcome. Which, in turn, would necessitate the setting of a non-random course within Possibility Space toward a specified goal, or in any consistent direction (e.g. the Arrow of Time) . Such a purposeful process would require Laws to limit the ways things & events interact, and it would need some kind selection filter to weed-out anything on the wrong course. So, Natural Laws and Natural Selection are signs of Intention. :nerd:

Signs of Purpose within randomness :
Tendency
Intention
Consistent

I think a conceptual ‘God’ is a useful reference in discussions of teleology - in many ways it keeps us from assuming that we’ve already figured it all out. — Possibility

Thanks. That is exactly what I have in mind, when I bow to necessity for a First Cause that set Nature on its current course. The law-guided program of natural evolution has eventually produced conscious agents with wills of their own. And the collective will of humanity is directed toward -- what we imagine to be -- the welfare of homo sapiens. It's only in the current generation that we have learned the hard way, that --- although we may have the power --- it's self-defeating to fight Nature. So the welfare of humanity is inextricably linked with the course of Nature, and with the teleological destination of the whole universe --- whatever that might be. We are passengers on this vehicle, but we can make ourselves as comfortable as possible in our little milieu, which may eventually expand beyond the Blue Marble. :smile:

I wonder if the the metaphors of violence, competition and force here are unconscious. Sounds vaguely fascist to me. I think removing the divine shtick and leaving the self-organizing teleology could help fix this. — Joshs

The forceful wording was tongue-in-cheek, because I'm aware that some people view humans as a cancer on the natural world. So those "trigger words" might get a rise from "tree-hugging liberals". But it also stated a harsh truth, that humanity has "selfish goals" that are different from those of indifferent Nature. In that sense, humans are indeed forcing their will upon the natural order. So, the term "teleology" was referring to the future orientation of human planning, not necessarily to any long-range plans of deity.

Hence, the metaphors of "violence, competition, and force" were appropriate from a historical perspective. It's only in recent years --- perhaps since the "blue marble" images from space --- that humans have decided to curb their selfish Will to align better with the "will" and "teleology" of Nature. Even so, humans have become the new driving force of Evolution, and are collectively steering the world toward a future that is anything but natural --- if proponents of Technological Singularity are correct, the future will be increasingly artificial. And imagining a return to the Garden of Eden is wishful thinking. :cool:


Technological Singularity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tree-hugging liberals : phrase in quotes is also tongue-in-cheek. I'm a bit of a tree-hugger myself, but I'm also realistic -- not fascist -- about the "nature" of humanity. :joke:

What success we enjoy as a species, we owe ultimately to our capacity to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. This is what we seem uniquely built for. — Possibility

Well put! Humans collectively are the apex Witnesses, Weavers, and Workers of the World. Our job, our role in the evolving universe, is to know & appreciate the wonders of the world; to assist in its construction by bringing together disparate things (enzyme, catalyst); and to work together toward making it a better place to live (communion, concert, harmony). Some thinkers have proposed that the divine purpose of humanity is to act as the eyes, ears, and hands of God in the world. In that sense, we are the Demiurge, assisting the Designer in creating an ideal world (Utopia) from the raw materials of Nature. Of course, others, with no sense of teleology, opine that humans are a cancer blighting the beauties of impersonal inhuman Nature --- rosy red in tooth and claw.

How are we doing, so far? Humanity emerged on the scene late in the progression from Max Potential of the Singularity to the current half-baked state of affairs. So, our Science is just beginning to wrest control of the laws of nature, in order to impose our collective Will on the foundations of reality, and to erect a super-structure of ideality, of human teleology. To explore the Possibilities of raw Potential. :nerd:

How is it that an object, a human, every part of which has purpose, itself as a whole, lacks purpose or, more accurately, if a human has purpose, why hasn't it been discovered? — TheMadFool

I would make a distinction between the mechanical function of a body part, and the teleological purpose of the whole person. Function is simply a consistent input-output ratio. You input Energy and get useful Work as the output. But human Purpose implies Ambition or Aspiration. It requires the ability to imagine a possible future state, and to control functional body parts in such a way as to achieve that preferred outcome. Human purpose is not merely motivated by physical energy, but by metaphysical intentions.

The willful purpose of a single human is made manifest in the person's behavior. We can intuit their intentions from their actions. But the Purpose Problem for collective humanity is usually based on the assumption of a role & goal that is assigned by a higher power, not by the individual's will-power. The Bible revealed the divine purpose of humanity in Genesis : to serve God as gardeners & shepherds, following orders without asking any "why" questions. In other words, the purpose of humanity is to serve as will-less functional slaves for God's Will : "Thy will be done . . ." However, "Unprofitable servants" are expendable, as illustrated in the story of Noah's Flood.

God's ultimate teleological Purpose for the created world seems to be similar to that of a typical absolute ruler of human societies : Kings, Pharaohs, War Lords, Dictators, Tyrants. His servants tend the gardens & flocks, and bring him "sacrifices" for his sustenance and pleasure. So he can "walk in the garden in the cool of the day". In this scenario, God's purpose is to enjoy the power & glory provided by his servants. The servant's Purpose, then, is basically his inherited or assigned job description, or Function, as Gardener, Shepherd, etc.

For those who don't accept the biblical stories though, you are left without a divinely designated purpose or role in the Grand Plan for the planet. That is the dilemma addressed by Existentialism, which by contrast with scripture, viewed humans as Freewill Agents. Hence, each of us must define the Purpose or Meaning of our own lives. Therefore, if you need an ultimate goal to make your life worthwhile, you'll have to "discover" your teleological Purpose for yourself. As for the ultimate destiny of the world, your guess is as good as mine.

Probably, most of us will just continue to do what we are already doing, without giving the teleological destination much thought. They may be too lazy or apathetic to work for themselves, so merely wait for orders from above. A few self-motivated individuals, though, will define their own teleological destiny --- at least to the extent that they can control the contingencies of the indifferent world, that doesn't share their motives. What's your teleological target? :cool:

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.

So far, this book is the only one that I've read on the subject, I do believe that there are others as well. — IvoryBlackBishop

Aristotle wrote the book on humor in the Poetics : contrasting Tragedy with Comedy. Everything since has been footnotes to Aristotle. In his discussion of rhythm & meter he even anticipated the modern comedian's summary : "it's all in the timing". But the basic distinction between Tragedy & Comedy is the attitude of the observer : when a slap-stick Marx Brother gets poked in the eye, his tragedy is my comedy. :cool:

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:

How has it been established that the cause is supernatural? — CeleRate

By simple Logic. If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural". But that definition also applies to the hypothetical Multiverse : if it exists, it is supernatural -- above and beyond Nature.

But, if you mean by "established" that a particular First Cause hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, then that is another question altogether. And I assume you know the answer. The current most popular alternative to the God-theory is the Multiverse hypothesis, in various permutations. But no consensus.

theists still have to establish that the primer mover is a personal God — CeleRate

Theists "establish" the personal characteristics of their invisible God, by Faith in the revelation of their sect's scriptures. But, since I have no faith in their scriptures, I have no knowledge at all of my so-called G*D except logical necessity. An effect must have a cause, and a beginning must have a Starter, hence the BB must have had a First Cause : either Dumb Luck or Intelligent Creation.

I'm questioning how it is justified that there are just two options — CeleRate

As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? If you are not scientifically serious, you can make a sci-fi list of a> god-like aliens from outer space, or b> ancient high-tech civilizations like Atlantis, or c> a pantheon of super-human gods like the Greeks and Hebrews. Wikipedia has a list of creation myths from around the world. if you want to believe in one of them, you are free to do so. But if you prefer a philosophically cogent answer to the First Cause question, you will have to choose from two opposite solutions : Accident or Intention. :nerd:

Creation Myths : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

It still could be a creation event. I'm just not sure what theists think this grants them if it is. — CeleRate

For some Theists, scientific evidence is irrelevant. But for Intelligent Design advocates, the discovery that the expanding universe can be traced back to the beginning of space-time validates their belief in Special Creation. They also make much of the implication that all the finely-tuned initial conditions and the governing Laws of Nature were pre-set at the beginning to produce a "flat" curve of expansion. Which may be one reason why Alan Guth developed a mathematical theory of Cosmic Inflation to explain how matter & energy got evenly distributed, so that life & mind could emerge and replicate. But that even more radically instantaneous pre-bang event (fractions of a second) just added more evidence that it was a miracle. From nothing, a new world appeared : Presto! Voila! So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support, but can be interpreted as a 21st century technical description of an ancient mythical explanation for how & why the world exists.

This is a false dichotomy. It's not as if it has been established that the only two options are a non-contingent (world or universe?), or a contingent one that depends on an immaterial creator. — CeleRate

What other options do you see to explain the BB besides : A> Random Accident by Coincidence (quantum fluctuation) in a self-existent Multiverse, or B> Intentional Instantaneous Creation of Nature by a self-existent SuperNatural Creator? In "A" the Universe is contingent upon a self-existent eternal process (e.g. Multiverse). In "B" it's contingent upon a self-existent eternal immaterial BEING. Both assume that the Potential for Life & Mind was inherent in the pre-BB existence. "A" assumes the existence of something like Democritus' eternal imperishable Atoms as the physical substance of reality. "B" assumes the existence of eternal immortal Memes (Ideas) as the metaphysical substance*1 of our world.

*1 Aristotle's Substance : A> Temporal Perishable Things (contingent accidents); B> Eternal Universals, Forms, Archetypes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
"The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
"Aristotle divides the world into two categories: substances and accidents- substances are the most fundamental." https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-substance-theory/

I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present. — CeleRate

Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism. It requires a Deistic G*D to get the ball rolling, but then the process of Intelligent Evolution keeps it moving in the right direction. The theory may or may not be "true", but it makes allowances for Life, Mind, & Qualia that are unexplained by the conventional theories of modern Science.

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

I haven't seen any claims by astronomers, but what do cosmologists say? — CeleRate

Google search on "cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe.

How does this qualify as a specific reason? — CeleRate

The embarassing question of how & why the universe originated from an unknown and unknowable pre-existence is definitely a motivating "reason" for cosmologists & philosophers to entertain the possibility of Specific Creation, and to reject it categorically. One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. Some Atheists immediately began trying to find a plausible "reason" to justify their original assumption that the universe is eternal, thus un-created. They simply modified that assumption to re-define our "universe" as a merely a local instance of a Pluriverse --- which came to be known as the "Multiverse". They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. But some "hard science" Cosmologists (Paul Davies) chose to face the "facts", and accept their implications.

What evidence? — CeleRate

Please don't play ignorant. In the Information Age, the evidence is easily available for those who are looking for it. But one man's evidence is another man's nonsense. It all depends on your perspective, your worldview, your belief system, and your ability to adapt your beliefs to new facts. :cool:


PS__The "Creator" I refer to is an abstraction based on logical inference, not a concrete entity known directly by revelation. It's the "god of the philosophers".

There's also no specific reason presented to think it was created. But if created, created by what? — CeleRate

There is a specific reason to think the universe was created. Before the Big Bang theory, scientists could just assume that the physical world was eternal. In fact Fred Hoyle, who coined the derisive term "Big Bang", argued in favor of a steady state of creation as opposed to the singular "act of creation" implied by the expanding universe evidence. But the evidence in favor of BB convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, just a few billion years ago. So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it.

As for "created by what?", here's a link to a blog post on the topic "Coincidence or Creation?" And the "Click Here" link goes to a continuation of that topic on the blog forum. The "what" may not be what you expect. :smile:

It seems to me we need to accept some of the miracle claims as real, although we don't necessarily have to attribute them to God and we are free to choose which ones to believe in. Miracle claims within history books don't bind us in conscience to believe anything. — Gregory

If you accept one "miracle claim" in an ancient text, on what basis could you reject other claims? We may be "free to choose" randomly, but that's not an informed or reasoned choice. The whole point of skepticism is to protect your own belief system from erroneous information.

That's why most of us judge the veracity of "historical" events, first -- as the opinions of fallible humans, and second -- in the context of our personal worldview. If you already believe in supernatural intervention in world affairs, you may be inclined to accept a miraculous claim, unless you have reason to be skeptical of the person recounting the story. You may reject his general worldview, because it differs from yours in some details. For example, if you are a Bible believing Christian, would you also accept stories of miracles in the Quran? If you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected, would you also believe that Muhammad rode a winged horse (buraq) to heaven?

As you say, just because miracles are presented in "scriptures" as-if they were actual historical events, readers are not bound (except by Blind Faith) to believe them without some verifiable corroborating evidence. That's why some dubious Christians and Muslims expend a lot of energy trying to find non-scriptural support for their belief in recorded miracles. Ironically, some even try to explain them in terms of natural forces (e.g. parting of Red Sea by earthquake), just to make them sound sensible, even though that waters-down the miraculous aspect. :nerd:

We wouldn't have to argue anymore about what the truth is. A group of people guessing at random would settle all debates once and for all. Perhaps I'm missing something. Comments... — TheMadFool

"A group of people guessing at random" would require millions of guesses to get close to the correct answer. But a small group of experts, who are presumably already closer to the truth, could narrow down the possibilities just as well or better. There's nothing spooky about the WOC phenomenon. It's just mathematics, specifically statistics. Similar effects are used in computer calculations and communications. Wikipedia summarizes how WOC works as "noise cancelling", and notes that juries require a dozen opinions in order to get closer to truth than a single judge. Bayesian statistics make use of a similar phenomenon for increasing the accuracy of guessing. Unfortunately, whether the opinion is rendered by computer or crowds, we can still argue about such an abstract concept as "Truth". :smile:

Wisdom of Noise Cancelling : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

Although I believe miracle claims are a specific category of history, this raises questions about all history. What are the motives of the writers and did they get the facts right? — Gregory

Obviously, the usual motive of Old Testament prophets was not to dispassionately record history, or to predict events thousands of years later. Instead, like modern pulpit preachers, they were admonishing and reprimanding their fellow countrymen who were straying from the strait & narrow path of their tribal religion. To drive home the point, they predicted swift & certain consequences of sin. They used allegories and metaphors to illustrate the strained relationship between God and Man. But those metaphors were never literally "true", and were intended for a specific time & place. Yet later interpreters liberally re-interpreted the intention & application of the remonstrations to suit their own time & place & purpose.

As for the miracles, most ancient peoples assumed that their gods and divine agents were capable of performing miracles. So, they either were awed by tricksters, or accepted miraculous stories on faith in second hand knowledge. Such faith in religious authorities was true for the ancient Greeks, and is still true for worldly cynical Americans. The difference is that now, with TV cameras and cell phones everywhere, we have the ability to document such supposedly supernatural events. But, it still requires a bit of skepticism to see the "trick" behind the miracle. :wink:


Re-interpretation of Prophecy : https://www.amazon.com/Revelations-Visions-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation/dp/0143121634

Indian Levitation Trick : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6cOmJjuh9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8seNaEg-3K4

Do you believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, seeing the future, mental telepathy, reincarnation, miracles (big and small), and the like? Do you given any credence to the teachings of various prophets and religions? Do you have a summary somewhere I could read? — CliveG

No. Actually, I do believe that many people sincerely believe in such things, because they have experiences that they interpret as supernatural or paranormal. But, since my brain is rather boringly pragmatic rather than idealistic, I seldom experience any of the wonderful miracles reported by other people. I see fictional Ghost Whisperers on TV with "passed-on" loved ones standing right there in living color. But ghosts in the real world are invisible, and must be "seen" via extrasensory perception, or detected by electromagnetic technology, which can be interpreted only by experts. Generally, most people don't actually experience paranormal phenomena, but get their information second-hand from "experts" or "adepts".

Even when I was very young, in a fundamentalist religion, I suspected that the Bible was not the word of God. I won't go into that long story here. But it took me until the age of thirty to finally come-out as an unbeliever. Everyone I knew was a believer in some kind of god. So I had to choose either tribal truth or my personal truth : faith or reason. My extra-biblical studies confirmed that biblical prophecies were "fulfilled" only by typical fact-fudging.

However, after years of private study of Science & World Religions & Philosophies, I eventually came to believe that the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the real world is creation by a First Cause of some kind. Unfortunately, just as I have no experience of ghosts, I also have no personal experience of G*D, or gnostic knowledge of the divine. So my "belief" is not a matter of passionate Faith, but merely an acquiescence to dispassionate Logic. I just take the G*D theory as more likely than the Serendipity (random chance) explanation for my existence. I don't expect my logical G*D to "save" me, or to grant three wishes, or to amaze me with miracles. So I approach the world Stoically, like a recovering alcoholic (recovering from addictive Faith) : "G*D grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

If you are really interested in how someone can believe in G*D without Faith or Revelation, my Enformationism website might help to explain. However, it's not a dramatic human interest story, but a boring philosophical thesis : no spooky Souls haunting moody neurotics, just mundane Selves trying to make sense of a wondrous world in ordinary ways. :cool:


Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I thought you may want some "proof" in the way of personal evidence from some-one who is grounded but has had infrequent but remarkable experiences — CliveG

Unfortunately, another man's subjective experiences are not proofs, but assertions to be taken on faith. Yet it's undeniable that people who strongly believe in some ideology can have remarkable effects on other people. For example, Marx & Lenin preached about the coming Utopia of Communism, thereby motivating millions of people to sacrifice their lives for a political dream. But, since there are many incompatible ideologies out there, I must "work out by logic what is probable". Similarly, I am skeptical of the Make America Great Again propaganda, because it contradicts my experience, and learning, of how nations rise & fall. Of course, I could be wrong. Remarkable things do happen. :cool:

A being is a temporal existence, whereas a timelessness, formless existence would need to be inclusive of all possible instances of being, ever. — Possibility

Yes. That's why I refer to the presumed Creator of space-time as BEING. Not a creature, but the unlimited potential for creation of creatures. BEING is not a person or thing, but a Principle : "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning". G*D is not a proven or provable fact, but an Axiom : "an unproven statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true". These principles are beyond the ability of humans to explain, so they must be taken for granted like the axioms of geometry. Fazed by such fundamental abstractions, Nobel physicist, Eugene Wigner, wrote an article on The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

Both Science and Religion have their principles. Hinduism has postulated up to 24 cosmic principles. And Science has a variety of principles that Galileo called "Laws of Nature", assuming that the God of the Bible was the Law-giver. I don't accept the out-dated biblical descriptions of God, but I have no better solution to the problem of Being, of Existence, than to assume that some eternal Principle, including "all possible instances of being", caused the space-time world to be. Beyond that Axiom, I know nothing about BEING.

In fact, I would argue that knowledge/information = creation. — Possibility

In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to the creative Principle or Law or Potential or Energy that motivates & controls the Evolution of the world as Enformy and EnFormAction. But my thesis assumes that G*D didn't know the outcome of this experiment in possibility. Instead, S/he programmed the System with parameters to guide it toward a hitherto unknown destination. This is what I call Intelligent Evolution : a Creative Process, not a one & done Creation. :nerd:

Enformy, EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

In my experience, God is part of the dream of the Ultimate Intelligence. — CliveG

Our experiences of "reality" are quite different. My world is boringly normal & natural compared to yours. I can only explain your dream-like worldview as due to deeper perception, or more theatrical imagination. Anyway, my abstract G*D model is also boring, although super-natural. :cool:

Grandiose. I presume it is a reference for me to consider. — CliveG

The link to "Grandiosity" was a reference to Caesar-wannabe Presidents and Anthropomorphic Gods who require regular ego-pumps to keep their self-image inflated. It was not a reference to you. :cool:

We are an illusion where anything is possible, but the laws of physics rule most of the time. God is thus ALMOST onmi-all but not quite. — CliveG

For an eternal entity, it's true that anything is possible, but only that which is temporal and physical is actual. So, for our actualized world, G*D is "dreaming" of a system with fixed laws. Any different rules would produce different worlds. From our perspective, in the world that we "imagine" to be Real, G*D is also an imaginary entity --- we don't know G*D directly, but only by inference --- that we use to explain why the world exists and persists as it does.

The afterlife is where souls go before reincarnating. — CliveG

I have no personal experience of Afterlife or Reincarnation. So I can't judge the veracity of your assertions.

but have had many supernatural experiences. — CliveG

I have had no "supernatural experiences" at all. And most of what people call "supernatural" is merely a misinterpretation of mundane experiences that don't fit their expectations. The only thing I refer to as "supernatural" is G*D. And that's because a Creator is logically superior and external to the Creation.

We differ in that God appreciates worship as a form of respect — CliveG

My G*D has no physical human characteristics, such as emotions or egotism, because they are produced by the physical body. Human rulers, like Donald Trump, have inflated self-importance, that needs to be pumped-up on a regular basis. Many religious people assume that God requires regular reinforcement of praise & worship from his subjects.

Reality is often not what it may seem. — CliveG

I agree. But my experienced and imaginary reality is different from yours. It's boringly normal and natural. :cool:

I have retained skepticism of everything. — CliveG

It's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs, but hard to be critical of your own. :smile:


Grandiosity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity

1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name. — 3017amen

It's not Religion, as a general human aspiration, that gives God a bad name, but the variety of antagonistic religious sects that defend divergent definitions of the deity. They all may be correct in essence, but go astray in the details. For example the pre-Babylonian Jewish concept of Monotheism viewed God as a singular universal abstract principle --- similar to Brahma or the Tao --- to the exclusion of other gods, such as Jesus, Holy Spirit, or Satan. Unfortunately, in order to make that featureless abstraction more appealing to the average worshiper, Priests have promoted a covert polytheistic Tribalism. Which leads to the quarreling orthodoxies of world religions, based on the Us-versus-Them implications of Jew vs Gentile, Islam vs Unbelievers, and Baptists vs Catholics. Unfortunately, although a direct revelation from God would clear-up all the messiness of sectarian religions, all so-called "scriptures" are the opinions of fallible men. So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. That's why I have adopted the BothAnd philosophy. :cool:

BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

Gnomon - I really don't think I can do this question justice right now...but the essential idea is that the actual entities composing reality are "occasions of experience" (a la Whitehead)...little "droplets" (perhaps) of experiential reality which all interact with one another to a greater or lesser degree depending on the complexity of their "aggregations". Some "aggregations" are just that - e.g. a rock or a solar system - others are organized composite units or organisms - like a human being for example - discrete individuals. — Siti

Although, years ago, I had difficulty following Whitehead's abstract argument in Process and Reality, I could see that he was talking about some of the same concepts that I was beginning to consider in my own thesis of Program and Reality : i.e.Enformationism. For example, the distinction between inert "aggregations" and animated "organisms", is based on the difference between Parts and Wholes. He just used his own unique terminology, such as "occasions of experience" where I coined my own Information-based terms : "Enformy" --- Creativity, which includes converting physical interactions into psychic experiences.

From his analysis of the temporal process of reality, Whitehead concluded that some timeless Eternal Objects (Forms?) must necessarily exist in some sense. And the most fundamental of those EOs is the notion of "World Soul: which he also called "God. Ironically, in order to define "God" in "Anthrodecentric" terms, he had to humanize the deity into an "erotic" experiencer. Yet that physical attribute is not compatible with metaphysical Timelessness or Omnipotence. Which is where his "dipolar" deity differs from mine. Since my G*D is infinite and eternal, S/he must by definition encompass all possibilities. Nevertheless, like ANW's Eternal God, my Enfernal G*D is "Dipolar" : potential for both Good and Evil.

However, since Whitehead was an old man when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, and long dead when the Cosmic Microwave Background evidence was discovered, he assumed that the Real World was eternal. But now that we know the space-time World is not eternal, we must shift our God-paradigm from Natural (within space-time) to Extra-natural (prior to BB). That's because he was correct in his assumption that eternity is the default state of being, but wrong about the eternity of Reality. Therefore, I think an informed ANW would now agree with me that the deity is not simply a "creature of creativity", but the ultimate Creator. :smile:


Eternal Objects : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/04/06/whitehead-eternal-objects-and-god/

Anthrodecentric : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/08/22/anthrodecentrism-the-genesis-and-meaning-of-a-word/

Dipolar Theism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipolar_theism

The Pail of orthodoxy is a theological term for Christians. — christian2017

Off topic :
Apparently, the "pale of orthodoxy" is a recent innovation that was devised to justify the inter-faith Ecumenical movement of the 20th century. Before that liberal tendency emerged, zealous Christians had no scruples about criticizing the orthodoxy of other Christian sects. A few years ago, a Baptist preacher in my state calculated (on the basis of predestination and his own brand of orthodoxy) exactly how many people in the state were going to heaven. The predicted final score made the Jesus team appear to be losing to the Satan team. Ironically, a lot of self-professed Christians were on the hell-bound list. :cool:


Pale of Orthodoxy : https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2009/06/outside-the-pale-rjs.html

Paleo Orthodoxy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-orthodoxy

Hell Bound Christians : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/09/19/southern-baptists-take-heat-for-saying-46-in-alabama-are-bound-for-hell/7f7a27f0-6f1e-43f9-9933-f0c8cd707eb1/

What i'm saying is to some degree "collective soul" doesn't completely (completely) fall outside the "Pail of Orthodoxy". — christian2017

That's a common problem in religious discussions : whose orthodoxy are we talking about? Orthodoxy for Catholics would be different from that of Baptists, which would also be different from Mormons. But ironically, regarding the evolution of the world, Calvinism is similar to the orthodoxy of Materialistic Science . Most scientists assume that the ultimate end of the universe was predestined at the moment of creation (i.e . Big Bang). Hence, the notion of freewill is a fantasy. Others interpret the same evidence to conclude that the final destiny of the universe, and of its individual creatures is open to individual choices.

Just to be fair Calvinism doesn't always imply a cruel vindictive or hateful view of "people enjoying themselves" — christian2017

Of course, most non-theologians in the Calvinist tradition don't take predestination literally. It seems too cruel and pointless for a good god to create a world full of hell-bound souls

"collective consceeeence" — christian2017

FWIW, my worldview is not the same as typical New Age collective consciousness cosmologies. :nerd:

4 Ways Calvinism Differs From Lutheranism :
https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/christian-theology-calvinism-lutheranism/2016/01/25/id/710818/