Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

[How does one go about exploring, let alone quantifying, the non-physical? ]
Aren't we already doing that when we talk about mental states like beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions and knowledge?

We talk about all kinds of things, whether they actually exist or not.

Are you suggesting that mental states don't actually exist?

[Alias]

[We talk about all kinds of things, whether they actually exist or not. ]
Are you suggesting that mental states don't actually exist?

No - whether they exist or not includes pebbles, cinema and guardian angels among the many things we can talk about.
"Talking about" can mean speculation, gossip, story-telling, debate, description, mockery, reportage, vilification, nostalgia...
It's not scientific investigation.

[Mosesquine]

I just wanted to go back to the reason I posted in this thread in the first place.

The teleological arguments are, by definition, the arguments for theism such that the things in the world are created by purposes (i.e. telos, in Greek), or sometimes called 'design arguments for theism'.

The OP assumes that all teleological arguments are arguments for theism. However, it has come to my attention that Thomas Nagel is an atheist who rejects theism, and yet he is pursing the possibility that teleology may do a better job than materialistic evolutionary naturalism, to explain our world.

The main focus appeared in the OP is about attacking the teleological arguments for theism, not about discussing Thomas Nagel's atheistic ones.

[Thinking critical]

Thinking critical: Reason, purpose and intention it seems are simply not a necessary property of existance.

Not necessary for existence, but necessary for life and it's evolution.

I see no evidence to suggest this may be the case. Just as gravity requires no intentional purpose to cause all celestial bodies in the cosmos to form in the shape of spheres, why would the evolutionary process require any such intention in order for life to emerge? Natural selection explains perfectly how simplicity evolves into complexity without the necessity of a predetermined purpose.
As for the origin of life, living matter emerging front non living matter, until this can be completely understood all we can do is speculate in regards to what sort of process makes this possible. We (humans) currently know of only one life genisis, our own. We have absolutely no idea what other forms of life exist, what other conditions life can survive in....envoking and agent who operates with processes familiar to our own (reason, purpose and intention) in the absence of so much knowledge reduces the quest for knowledge to a philosophy of ignorance.

[Felix]

Thinking critical: "Natural selection explains perfectly how simplicity evolves into complexity without the necessity of a predetermined purpose."

I said nothing about "predetermined purposes," only intentional behaviour (conscious or not), which can be seen throughout Nature.

Natural selection does not explain why the simplest life forms should evolve into more complex ones when doing so would greatly decrease their reproductive and adaptive capacity. For example, it is estimated that cyanobacteria have thrived on earth for over 3 billion years. Such simple organisms are far and away the fittest in terms of survival, and so according to the principles of natural selection, the evolutionary process should have ended there - no survival advantage, only disadvantages, could be gained from increased complexity.

[Thinking critical]

Thinking critical: "Natural selection explains perfectly how simplicity evolves into complexity without the necessity of a predetermined purpose."

I said nothing about "predetermined purposes," only intentional behaviour (conscious or not), which can be seen throughout Nature.

To me intentional behaviour requires a predetermined purpose, the predetermined purpose is what drives or motivates the behaviour.

Natural selection does not explain why the simplest life forms should evolve into more complex ones when doing so would greatly decrease their reproductive and adaptive capacity. For example, it is estimated that cyanobacteria have thrived on earth for over 3 billion years. Such simple organisms are far and away the fittest in terms of survival, and so according to the principles of natural selection, the evolutionary process should have ended there - no survival advantage, only disadvantages, could be gained from increased complexity.

There is no law in evolution which states genetic variation will increase the chances of survival, natural selection explains that certain genetic variations can be advantageous to a species in a particular environment and other genetic variations can have the opposite affect, it is more probable that the individuals with the favourable variations will live long enough to reproduce as opposed to the other.
There is no inconsistency in the claim that natural selection explains the evolution of simplicity to complexity simply because, basic life forms still exist. If the Cyanobacteria's environment has remained reasonably unchanged for the last few billion years there would have been nothing to drive them to extinction or prevent them from flourishing.
Again there is no law in evolution that states one species is driven to extinction once speciation has occurred.

The problem with your argument is the use of the word "should" as in "simplest life forms should evolve into more complex ones". It's not matter of what evolution should do for who are we to make this claim? It is simply a case of what evolution does[/] do.

[Alias]

I said nothing about "predetermined purposes," only intentional behaviour (conscious or not), which can be seen throughout Nature.

Behaviour happens only after the entity exists and has a character. Behahaviour, therefore, is no indication as to why the entity exists or how its character was formed. Behaviour is uninformative as regards the primary causes or ultimate destiny of things that currently exist.

Natural selection does not explain why the simplest life forms should evolve into more complex ones when doing so would greatly decrease their reproductive and adaptive capacity.

Natural selection is one of the processes driving evolution. Another factor is change in the environment, whereby an established life-form that was well adapted to the old conditions finds itself less capable in the new ones; in this case, a variant with a minute degree greater complexity might gain the advantage. Another factor is overcrowding when conditions have favoured a particular adaptation and competition for resources grows fierce, in which case, the ability to feed on an unaccustomed substance would an advantage to the life form with a more complex metabolism. In other overpoluplated situations, the advantage might go to the variant that is able to migrate to another location. And so on.

[Felix]

Natural selection is one of the processes driving evolution.

I am aware of the arguments for natural selection, and as I suggested, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a mindless, random process could lead to such an increase in the complexity of life forms - variations in simple life forms, yes, but the sheer creative and progressive fecundity of Nature suggests to me that it cannot be a totally mindless and aimless process, especially since Natural Selection has no answer as to why simple life forms should even arise in the first place.

[Alias]

Well, if it can't, it probably dosn't. If if it couldn't, it probably didn't.
Back to Gawd.

[Thinking critical]

Natural selection is one of the processes driving evolution.

I am aware of the arguments for natural selection, and as I suggested, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a mindless, random process could lead to such an increase in the complexity of life forms - variations in simple life forms, yes, but the sheer creative and progressive fecundity of Nature suggests to me that it cannot be a totally mindless and aimless process, especially since Natural Selection has no answer as to why simple life forms should even arise in the first place.

Richard Dawkins in my opinion explains the history of simple life forms evolving to complexity more eloquently than anyone else I have read. He uses the analogy of the journey up mount improbable to explain how very slight genetic variations and mutations can gradually improve an animals ability to survive. For example: shorter legs improve acceleration and longer legs improve top end speed, changes to an eye can increase focus, distance or ability to see in the day or night better. These multiple gradual changes increase genetic information which equates to increased complexity; each gradual improvement is a step up mount improbable.....along this journey there maybe be side steps and steps down as species become extinct and genes lost with them. After 3 odd billion years or so it makes sense and is even more probable than not,that eventually more and more complex life forms, such as ourselves should emerge.

As for the origin of life itself, this has zero impact on the explanatory power of natural selection, N.S explains the origin of species and diversity of life.....it is not contingent on having an explanation for the origin.

[ThomasHobbes]

I am aware of the arguments for natural selection, and as I suggested, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a mindless, random process could lead to such an increase in the complexity of life forms - variations in simple life forms, yes, but the sheer creative and progressive fecundity of Nature suggests to me that it cannot be a totally mindless and aimless process, especially since Natural Selection has no answer as to why simple life forms should even arise in the first place.

That is how is it whether you like it or not. The alternative is more ridiculous.
There is no "sheer creativeness". Your emotive language is blinding you to the basic facts of the situation. Take a look at your appendix, and tell me what the hell gawd was doing when he left it there.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I am aware of the arguments for natural selection, and as I suggested, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a mindless, random process could lead to such an increase in the complexity of life forms - variations in simple life forms, yes, but the sheer creative and progressive fecundity of Nature suggests to me that it cannot be a totally mindless and aimless process, especially since Natural Selection has no answer as to why simple life forms should even arise in the first place.

That is how is it whether you like it or not. The alternative is more ridiculous.
There is no "sheer creativeness". Your emotive language is blinding you to the basic facts of the situation. Take a look at your appendix, and tell me what the hell gawd was doing when he left it there.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-10/s ... gan/693946

[Felix]

That is how is it whether you like it or not. The alternative is more ridiculous.

Which alternative? I can think of a few. The one I spoke of, that Nature functions in an intelligent way, is far less ridiculous than the idea that Nature is a mindless and aimless process that just happened to produce conscious creatures.

[Felix]

That is how is it whether you like it or not. The alternative is more ridiculous.

Which alternative? I can think of a few. The one I spoke of, that Nature functions in an intelligent way, is far less ridiculous than the idea that Nature is a mindless and aimless process that just happened to produce conscious creatures.

[Felix]

Don't know how I managed the double post.... a lapse in my intelligent nature I guess.