[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 29 KB, 500x667, god why.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7063349 No.7063349 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a philosopher who talks about a sort of deontological ethics, but from a biological background rather than a metaphysical one?

"killing is always bad because all living creatures don't want to be killed", is the sort of thing I'm talking about

>> No.7063352

>>7063349
Not exactly what you're looking for, but Nagel's Death is Always an Evil might interest you

>> No.7063371

>>7063352
I've been interested in Nagel for a while. I've heard little things here and there that really get me intrigued, but I've never gotten around to reading him. Is that an essay? I can't seem to find it on google.

>> No.7063665

>>7063371
Sorry, that's the name of the concept, not the work.

It's a lecture he gave entitled Death.

Here it is: http://dbanach.com/death.htm

>> No.7064316

or is killing always good because all living creatures want to kill? plot twist.

>> No.7064334

>>7064316
I assume that would be the sort of thing a philosopher might address.

>> No.7064337
File: 95 KB, 795x622, 1231906481429.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7064337

>>7063349
I think that most of the philosophers don't care about reality, almost all of them are influenced by some ethics, moral or ideology. But if there is one who don't ruminate and masturbate with human feelings and fear, i want to know.

>> No.7064346

In 1342, a man sacrificed his life in the name of the western canon. Before he was beheaded, he yelled "Drink deep from Piera".

Now that you have read these holy words, you have 8 hours to repost this in 3 different threads and you will will find find the purest most aesthetic prose within 8 days. If you should fail, this offer will never be available again

>> No.7064353

>>7064337
What I want to know is how you're dealing with human feelings and fear

>> No.7064360
File: 250 KB, 1024x1218, humean bean.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7064360

>>7063349
I know of one who would pre-emptively destroy such a philosopher.

>> No.7064375

>>7064353
I deal with them like they need to be dealt with. Its just like hunger of sex drive, just biological responses, to human necessities. Romanticise this is just a fetish.

>> No.7064382

>>7063349
That's impossible. What you can learn from a biological perspective is how life works. If you want to apply how life works to how life should work, you're already done, since life already obeys the 'rules of life'. Biologically speaking it's all in the game, whatever you can do you're 'allowed to do by life' and whatever you can't do you are not.

It basically leads to de facto moral nihilism.

>> No.7064402

>>7064382
That's not true. All attempts at ethics are already biologically based, most philosophers are either just unaware of the fact or don't address it. We desire a code of ethics.

Biology tells us what we are drawn to a repulsed by (as well as many other things), but the cool thing about the human mind is that we are cognizant of those facts and as such can apply values to certain aspects or abandon other aspects.

>> No.7064413

>>7064402
But if ethics aren't biologically determined, and they aren't because no is born into THE universal ethical standpoint, they are an emergent property, a construction by the organism in it's interaction with it's environment, like many behavioral patterns.

>> No.7064430

>>7064402
>That's not true. All attempts at ethics are already biologically based, most philosophers are either just unaware of the fact or don't address it.
The desire for ethics is biologically based in the sense that we are biological creatures. This does not mean that we can derive prescriptive ethics from studying biology.

>We desire a code of ethics.
You perhaps, certainly not all of us. Not even the majority of us really, most people just make shit up as they go along based on vague intuitions and common sense, they don't get to the point of codifying their preferences.

>Biology tells us what we are drawn to a repulsed by (as well as many other things), but the cool thing about the human mind is that we are cognizant of those facts and as such can apply values to certain aspects or abandon other aspects.
Sure, biology teaches us things about our drives in an observational sense. It does not provide us any legitimate means of cherry picking drives we like and deeming them to have prevalence over other drives.

In the end, whatever we do with the information biological studies provide us is purely arbitrary.

>> No.7064433

>>7064413
Ethics are not biologically determined, they are based on a common sense, that is based on cognitive responses of the human instinct.

>> No.7064437

>>7064430
You nailed it. Nothing to ad.

>> No.7064445

>>7064433
>cognitive response
Funny thing about reason, is that you can twist it to justify the things you want to do. A child molester is driven to reduce it's guilt, like any sentient animal is driven to reduce it's pain, and can use several cognitive faculties to achieve that, like rationalizations.

>> No.7064464

>>7064445
All(most) philosophy is just rationalization about and the lack of sense of our presence on this "reality".

>> No.7064471

>>7064375
Whatever floats your boat! I'm not even saying that philosophy solves these problems, because it doesn't. But knowing that such or such hormone is the cause to my angst really doesn't describe anything of my experience, whereas philosophy, sometimes, may.
I really can't see how you can expect philosophy to address reality without giving credit to ethics and feelings, which are part of said reality

>> No.7064474

>>7064464
3deep5me

>> No.7064482

>>7064471
But you could design drugs and shit to conform your perception of reality to something you'd find more desirable. Cut the philosopher-middleman and go straight for the underlying biochemistry.

>> No.7064500

>>7064471
>But knowing that such or such hormone is the cause to my angst really doesn't describe anything of my experience, whereas philosophy, sometimes, may.
It does, you're just not used to identify with scientific language describing your mental activity. You're familiar with the language of folk psychology, which is what philosophy mostly deals with. The language of folk psychology is more familiar and may therefore offer you more comfort or the illusion of insight, but it's also imprecise. It's correlation to actual cerebral events is sloppy at best. For example, when two people say "I'm depressed" they might be referring to widely differing brain states.

>> No.7064506

>>7064360

Just because you cannot derive an ought from an is does not mean you cannot impose an ought upon what is.

>> No.7064512

>>7064471
That's the thing, that's where im stuck. I understand what you're saying, and i understand that sometimes is better treat things in a human way rather than with a "scientific determinism" But i just can't accept, i just can't lie that way, i always want to hear the deeper truth, even knowing that in the and there is none. So, that's "my bus stop".

>> No.7064517

>>7064506
but you can derive an ought from an is, dont be stupid

>> No.7064525

>>7064517

I was talking to Hume's giggle pic.

>> No.7064536

>>7063349
To give you one answer, Frans de Waal works on the biological basis of morals. Sadly, I didn't really read him so I couldn't describe his work to you.

By the way, here are two other threads about ethics on a more philosophical (rather than biological) point of view :

>>7062167

>>7057966

>>7064482
Haha, that's a possible answer, indeed. Though for me it's quite a suicide equivalent. You take the soma and all is fine, tragedy disappears. But the very act of taking the soma would also be a tragic event for me

>>7064500
I'm not that a beginner, I'm kind of sad you speak to me like this! What I mean is that a brain state could explain what you're feeling, but it is not what you're feeling. Kind of like the "how it is like to be a bat" thing

>>7064512
Could you tell a little more? I'm not sure I truly understand what you're saying to me. Are you saying that in the end, you couldn't accept anything else than scientific explanation as it would be like "lying to yourself"?

>> No.7064541

>>7064525
but you took the Hume for granted, he is pretty wrong tbh

>> No.7064545

>>7064536
>Could you tell a little more? I'm not sure I truly understand what you're saying to me. Are you saying that in the end, you couldn't accept anything else than scientific explanation as it would be like "lying to yourself"?

Exactly what i'm saying.

>> No.7064579

>>7064536
>I'm not that a beginner, I'm kind of sad you speak to me like this! What I mean is that a brain state could explain what you're feeling, but it is not what you're feeling. Kind of like the "how it is like to be a bat" thing
The state of your brain is literally equals what you are feeling, unless you believe in magic.

>> No.7064666

>>7064541

Principle of Charity, grease chopper.

>> No.7064676

>>7064506
You can do so arbitrarily, yes.

>> No.7064700

>>7064545
Then if you're afraid of not being in front of the sad reality, really you could reconsider the thing : even the psychic reality is horrible!
I don't think it's less harsh than a biological explanation ; if you like pain you'll find yourself happy!

>>7064579
I'm not sure I expressed myself correctly. What I mean is that what you are feeling is not your EEG or your adrenalin rate. I'm not saying what you're feeling has nothing to do with the brain. Simply that, when one wants to talk about what he or she is feeling, philosophy, literature or psychology vocabularies may be more adequate than a biochemist one. That doesn't mean than what you are feeling isn't the translation of this brain activity.
It just means that to talk about psychological or social order, biological explanation isn't the only (or "closing") explanation. Psychological explanation or sociological explanation are a kind of reductionism when they exclude biological order. That doesn't mean that biology ends to explain in extenso sociological and psychological orders, that would be another reductionism. (This last reductionism disturbs me more than the precedent one, because it fails to see the tragic side of life - but that's just my opinion)

TL;DR : it isn't because we are biological being that biology explains everything. Otherwise, one could say that biology is just applied chemistry, which is applied physics, etc. And I dare you to give an account of the social reality of such or such ethnic group with electrons or string theory. I don't say it's impossible, but I bet there are must useful tools to do that (by example, ethnography).
The same thing applies to the pain of grief : you could say that "this is just serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine imbalance", but you would completely miss a whole point of this reality.

But I've got a feeling I am a little out of the original topic

>> No.7064737

daily reminder that the logical conclusion of moral skepticism based on evolutionary grounds is that we have no good reason to believe anything at all

>> No.7064770

>>7064700
>What I mean is that what you are feeling is not your EEG or your adrenalin rate. I'm not saying what you're feeling has nothing to do with the brain. Simply that, when one wants to talk about what he or she is feeling, philosophy, literature or psychology vocabularies may be more adequate than a biochemist one. That doesn't mean than what you are feeling isn't the translation of this brain activity.
My point is that it only seems more adequate since you're used to the inefficient terminology of folk psychology.

>that doesn't mean than what you are feeling isn't the translation of this brain activity.
>It just means that to talk about psychological or social order, biological explanation isn't the only (or "closing") explanation.
It is the only concise one. Our current common way of speaking about cerebral states is not unlike the way primitive man spoke about astronomy and meteorology. It's a bunch of clumsy metaphors and half arsed theories combined into what is mostly a very sloppy way of description. We're still relatively in the dark ages of cognitive science though, so it is to be expected.

>Psychological explanation or [...] just my opinion)
I see sociology and psychology mostly as temporary disciplines to be replaced by more concise ones as we gain more insight. Kind of like alchemy being a transition phase from witchcraft to chemistry.

>(This last reductionism disturbs me more than the precedent one, because it fails to see the tragic side of life - but that's just my opinion)
Sure, because it doesn't feel as poetic. Thor not being responsible for thunder sounds less poetic as well, for example.

>it isn't because we are biological being that biology explains everything. Otherwise, one could say that biology is just applied chemistry, which is applied physics, etc.
It is, though.

> And I dare you to [...] (by example, ethnography).
We're obviously not there yet, if we ever arrive there at all. We now have to settle for lesser approaches, but that doesn't mean that this ultimately wouldn't be the more concise one. I think it's important to realise this, that a lot of contemporary science and theory is just making due, especially in the less exact fields.

>The same thing [...] of this reality.
Given a precise enough description of the progress you would not miss a point at all, but to us it would feel like it would miss a point since we are used to a language that is more 'nourishing' emotionally to us because of our relation to it. That would be the ultimate intuitive problem with this, it would require a language that correlates to reality to a point that it feels alien to us, since we've been for a large part delusional sloppy beings until now. I think we could arrive at a point where more concise knowledge is no longer to our advantage as organisms and perhaps even detrimental to it.

>> No.7064796

>>7064676

Or with reasons, even if they are merely personal. The idea that because something, a moral principle, say, is ultimately (philosophically) 'ungrounded' it is therefore 'arbitrary' is as ridiculous as it is pernicious. We all live and act and make decisions in a world that preceded us, that imposes upon us the very need to act, or to refrain from acting. There's your ground, if you need.

>> No.7064799

>>7064770
>Kind of like alchemy being a transition phase from witchcraft to chemistry.
lol wut?
witchcraft wasnt considered a science

>> No.7064801

>>7063349
In "Sentience and Sensibility", Matthew Silliman argues exactly this, and I think he does it pretty convincingly.

>> No.7064914

>>7064770
>>7064700 here

If I could summarize roughly (and so, wrongly) our positions, I would take the grief example. Where you see a mistake and a delusion in the "feeling of something that misses a point" in a biological explanation of grief, I for myself feel, indeed, something that misses a point.
Sadly (or not?), I think we will never agree on this topic, that happens sometimes! Thank you anyway to have exposed your thought in such a clear way.

>> No.7064955

>>7064914
I think there is nothing missing in the apt description of grief if you do it from a biological perspective. Of course whether it is emotionally satisfying is a whole different thing, and I would also find it to come up lacking when I approach language from a point of my own emotional needs rather than scientific precision. I don't 'feel' satisfied with a scientific approach in the case of my own personal grief, but nevertheless view it as the most correct one.

But that is kind of the dilemma here. What we desire on a personal, subjective level from language is very different to the use of language that would correspond to our scientific worldview.

We have come at a point where our best descriptions of existence are directly at odds with the kind of descriptions of existence we long for.

There is a cognitive dissonance that arises here between our desire to accurately describe things and our desire to familiarly describe things. In this sense, you could say that beyond a certain point knowledge starts to undermine well-being.

I think this is one of the most fundamental problems we will face more and more in the contemplation of our relationship to the world as scientific progress continues.

>> No.7065004

>>7064955
I will be very off-topic I think, but, from what you're saying, it seems to me that you're attributing a value to your emotional needs or your desires (I know these are not equivalents, nor desires is equal to "The desire" as an unending process, but let's continue).
In a way, there's something for me in your discourse that is staying in what I see as an order of the desire. That's why I can't really understand or agree with what I perceive as a muzzling of this order in your analysis!

>> No.7065008

>>7065004 again
(What I mean, furthermore, is that this order of the desire is a sui generis object, thus needing a sui generis analysis)

>> No.7065059

>>7065004
>>7065008
I'm merely saying that the scientific perspective and the personal, folk psychology based perspective are at odds and will increasingly be so and that this will be problematic to people.

I'm not trying to theorise about a compatibility between the two, I'm more inclined to say they are fundamentally at odds.

>> No.7065110

>>7065059 >>7065008 here

I guess you are rather on a Bachelard side of epistemology? Just to know, in which field are you working?

>> No.7065126

>>7063349
Defend the assertion that it is inherently bad to do things that creatures don't want.

>> No.7065956

>>7064796
you are entitled to your own opinion.

>> No.7066050

>>7064500
>ignoring the problem of qualia and the mind-body problem
pls don't

>> No.7066057

>>7064506
Just ought because is, does not follow the premise of is not what, what an is, is an ought to is an nigga

>> No.7066065

>>7063352
>>7063371
>>7063665
>>7064316
>>7064334
>>7064337
>>7064346
>>7064353
>>7064360
>>7064375
>>7064382
>>7064402
>>7064413
>>7064430
>>7064433
>>7064437
>>7064445
>>7064464
>>7064471
>>7064474
>>7064482
>>7064500
>>7064506
>>7064512
>>7064517
>>7064525
>>7064536
>>7064541
>>7064545
>>7064579
>>7064666 nice trips
>>7064676
>>7064700
>>7064737
>>7064770
>>7064796
>>7064799
>>7064801
>>7064914
>>7064955
>>7065004
>>7065008
>>7065059
>>7065110
>>7065126
>>7065956
>>7066050
>>7066057
Nice opinion.

>> No.7066103

>>7066065
thanks, lad
nice qouting skills you got there

>> No.7066636

I don't think you understand evolution. Firstly, there are many cases in which a creature may want to be killed, or die. For example, suicide. Or those male spiders who get eaten by the female after mating.

Here's how evolution/biology works: those animals that are predisposed to avoid being killed are more likely to have the genes be replicated. And those that don't have that predisposition, aren't.

There is no want/don't want when it comes to almost all creatures. An ant does not want to not be killed. he simply does what he is programmed to do. If his father died from walking into a praying mantis claw, but he managed to sperm a female beforehand, it could be that his child will follow the same path, dying from a praying mantis

his friend on the other hand, his father just stood still, and waited for a female to come near then he raped her bitch ass. his genes are more likely to show in the future in this example

the point is that evolution has no goals or wants. it's like memes. if you're good at replicating, you're a good meme. this doesn't mean the meme wants to reproduce itself, just that those memes that reproduce themselves are more likely to proliferate than those that don't

what you see is apparently a meme spreading itself around the internet, as if it wants to be everywhere. but it doesn't. it's just the outcome of it's makeup.

take a me-me like "if you don't post x in 10 threads you will die". humans like to do these, so the meme gets reproduced. other meme might be delete me on sight. he will die quick. this does not mean the first meme wants life and the second wants death, it's just the blind aimless path of evolution

>> No.7066651

>>7066636
>For example, suicide.
I don't think you understand how natural selection works. Nothing selects for suicide. It's a quirk of humanity getting smarter than their instincts.

>> No.7066775

>>7066651

His point is correct, sorry. A major reason why evolution hasn't eliminated behavioral potential for suicide is because suicide is relatively rare in the sexually immature. If you're going to kill yourself, you're probably going to do it after the age when you could have had a kid anyway. The "goal" of evolution isn't to keep individuals alive, that is just ancillary to the actual process of gene transmission.

>> No.7068528

>>7066651
Nothing selects for it, but nothing selects against it either.

>> No.7068532

>>7066636
Quality post. For some reason 99% of people don't understand what natural selection entails.

>> No.7068643

>>7066636
>evolution has no goals or wants
funny, since you use intentional language a lot

>> No.7068668

>>7068643

Hard to get around. Just because someone uses metaphor to relate concepts doesn't mean you're meant to impute the metaphor onto the phenomena the concepts designate.

>> No.7068674

>>7068668
then you must be able to explain it without intentional terms, otherwise youre refuting yourself

>> No.7068696
File: 17 KB, 220x316, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7068696

>>7064316
now we're cooking with gas

>> No.7068700

>>7068674

What?

All language is metaphorical, so it is inevitable that confusions occur between how a thing is described and what a thing really 'is'. Science isn't immune to this; scientists are still stuck using the same language, the same metaphors the rest of us are. But it is understood that the caveat holds: these are just me metaphors we're using, they are not meant to be taking literally, but merely to aid understanding.

If the use of metaphor was self-refuting, language itself would be a huge contradiction, and communication impossible. It obviously isn't, so it's not.

>> No.7068727

>>7068700
it is self-refuting when you go on to say that it does x and y, but conclude that it doesnt do x and y, what is it then, that makes it be different to x and y?

if you say the difference is that x and y dont really happen at all, then youre begging the question.

>> No.7068783

>>7068674
You can explain it without intentional terms, it's just that for casual conversation sloppy terms are easier to use.

Does it bother you when people say 'the sun is coming up' as well?

>> No.7068797

>>7068783
>You can explain it without intentional terms
do it

>> No.7068816

>>7068797
Not that anon, but as those organisms which are more likely to reproduce ARE more likely to reproduce, the genes that are more likely to be reproduced are passed on. Among the next generation, again, the more likely to be replicated genetic code is passed forward. As the desire (within the organisms, not within evolution as a process) to pass on one's genes is something that can itself be genetically produced, it makes sense that, if it is produced through coincidence, that desire will become stronger through each successive generation since it's an incredibly significant factor in the likelihood of the genes being passed on.

Since we are organisms which have a desire to reproduce, and we are likely to project our desires onto others (including things which are not in themselves conscious) it makes sense we have difficulty describing evolution in non-volitional terms.

That said, I do believe there's a God and that evolution occurs because God wills it, just like everything else.

>> No.7068836

>>7068816
what i had in mind was the use of concepts that give the impression of evolution having certain ends, not exclusively of the volitional kind

that said, notions like "code" and "desire" presuppose things like "ends"

>> No.7068846

>Appeal to nature
It's like the last 2000 years didn't happen

>> No.7068864

>>7068846
>implying the term nature hasnt been deformed
you can even make the case that scientists appeal to nature

>> No.7068866

>>7068864
Scientists don't make ethical statements.

>> No.7068869

>>7068866
they make normative statements, which is what ethical statements are

>> No.7068879

>>7068869
They don't though, at least not in their capacity as scientists. I'm sure they have an idea which sports team ought to win in their free time.

>> No.7068884

>>7068727

Would phrasing the metaphors as similes assuage your doubts? Rather than Such and such is x, read 'such and such is like x.' There, no more 'self-refutation;' merely weakened language and more ambiguity than was already present.

>> No.7068922

>>7068797
Stuff happens, some stuff happens in a way that perpetuates, some stuff happens in a way that does not.

>> No.7068941

>>7068879
yes they do, something as medicine comes to mind
>>7068922
so basically goddidit, ok
>>7068884
if such and such is like x but it isnt x, what makes it different from x without presupposing that x cant happen?

>> No.7068976

>>7068941
>yes they do, something as medicine comes to mind
Saying "this drug helps against such and such" is not saying "people ought to take this drug". The later is normative statement. They may have such opinions, but it has nothing to do with their practise as scientists. A normative statement is an opinion or value judgement that, because it is not a statement of fact, cannot be proved or disproved. It is per definition not truth-apt and therefore outside of the domain of science.

>so basically goddidit, ok
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion.

>> No.7068983

>>7068941

Your question doesn't make sense to me.

>> No.7068996

>>7068976
>Saying "this drug helps against such and such" is not saying "people ought to take this drug"
it implicitly assumes that what the drugs helps against ought not to happen
>I don't understand how you come to this conclusion.
you didnt explain anything, that's what is wrong with Godidit answers.
>>7068983
how do you know x doesnt happen?

>> No.7069060

>>7068996
>it implicitly assumes that what the drugs helps against ought not to happen
It does not. Contraceptives do not imply antinatalism, for example.

>you didnt explain anything, that's what is wrong with Godidit answers.
You asked for a description of evolution without intentional terms, I gave you one, proving that it is possible. Then you proceeded to try to add unnecessary intention. I have no idea what your point is with this. Are you just blindly shitposting?

>> No.7069081

>>7063349

Man that's kinda cruel to make a shrimp look at a literal pile of roasted shrimp bodies. I know that posture probably doesn't indicate "oh god why" as far as its thoughts go but torturing a shrimp for a meme? damn.........

>> No.7069087

>>7068996

That's external to the question of whether or not the unavoidable use of metaphor is self-refuting. If you're asking 'how do you know intentionality is not present in natural selection' it is because it is a priori excluded, regardless of the language that suggests otherwise.

>> No.7069090

>>7069060
not all contraceptives are drugs though. and some drugs do imply some stuff ought not to happen

>You asked for a description of evolution without intentional terms I gave you one, proving that it is possible.
i asked for an explanation though, and your statement didnt explain anything.


>Are you just blindly shitposting?
are you?

>> No.7069109

>>7069087
>it is because it is a priori excluded
if it is, why?
i think i erred on using the term intentionality, the more apt term would be teleology

>> No.7069120

>>7063349
This picture made me somehow think of the syrian boat crisis. I guess thats what I see them as... crayfish.

>> No.7069123

>>7069090
>not all contraceptives are drugs though
I obviously meant the pill and such in this context. The point is that the drug is there to do a certain thing that may or may not be preferable to a person, there is no normativity here.

>and some drugs do imply some stuff ought not to happen
They do not, given that people have the right to refuse treatment. The drugs are there for the persons who want the option that certain things do or do not happen to them. There is no implicit statement that no one ought to want those things to happen to them. Drugs are tools and viewed as such in the medical profession.

>i asked for an explanation though, and your statement didnt explain anything.
Your notion of sufficient explanation seems to require intention, the very thing you requested me to do without in my description. I very briefly explained how evolution works, you seem to be looking for a why or wherefore rather than a how.

>are you?
I'm not. Your form of genuineness seems awfully like the type of insincerity a lot of people here use to enrage people though, as if you're deliberately being thick.

>> No.7069161

>>7069123
>The point is that the drug is there to do a certain thing that may or may not be preferable to a person
>They do not, given that people have the right to refuse treatment.
what the person wants is irrelevant for normativity. I dont need to know what someone's wishes are in order to say "hearts dont do that" or "bones arent supposed to crackle like that"

>Your notion of sufficient explanation seems to require intention, the very thing you requested me to do without in my description
i didnt say it required intention, but the fact that you cant give a coherent explanation for the phenomena kinda shows my point

>> No.7069165

>>7069109

Occam's razor, basically. It is not needed to explain the phenomena, and its inclusion produces more problems than it solves; so it is left out of the theoretical framework, and research proceeds without it.

>> No.7069172

>>7069161
I don't think you fully understand what a normative statement is. "Heart's don't normally function like this" is very different from "all hearts ought to act in this way" as an ethical statement. When a mechanic says "the engine isn't supposed to stop like that" when diagnosing what's wrong with your car there is no implied notion that no car should ever break down again from a moral perspective.

>i didnt say it required intention, but the fact that you cant give a coherent explanation for the phenomena kinda shows my point
What was incoherent about my explanation? It was very concise.

>> No.7069204

>>7069172
>"Heart's don't normally function like this" is very different from "all hearts ought to act in this way"
it depends, if the latter ensures survival of the person, then hearts ought to act in that way.
>What was incoherent about my explanation?
"stuff" is a pretty fucking vague term, barf can be stuff, candy can be stuff, every phenomena can be stuff. "stuff happens" can mean magic happens, so it doesnt explain anything

>>7069165
>It is not needed to explain the phenomena
of course it is needed, are you saying the words "code", "information", "function" arent what evolution uses to explain?

>> No.7069217

>>7068674
lol

>> No.7069231

>>7069204

A calculator 'uses' code, information, and functions to 'take' inputs and 'produce' outputs. Does a calculator possess intentionality? No. Is intentionality needed to explain how a calculator 'does' what it 'does'. No.

>> No.7069251

>>7069231
it has teleology. Extrinsic teleology, but it is teleology

intentionality is a kind of teleology

>> No.7069280

>>7069251

'Teleology' is just another metaphor, and again it isn't necessary to explain what's going on. It's no big thing to set up an algorithm that has a calculator giving itself inputs and producing outputs. It could do this indefinitely. But beware that just because the calculator required a intentional being to set it up, evolution does not. I am using--and pay attention now, because this is important--an ANALOGY to help explain a very specific point I'm trying to make. The analogy has (again, analogic) explanatory power only in this VERY LIMITED domain. Just because a calculator requires an 'intentional being' to create it, does not mean that 'nature' does. 'Nature' is perfectly 'capable' of 'self-organizing' in accordance with 'physical laws' into what we call 'organisms,' that 'obey' 'their own' order of 'natural law' that evolutionary theory attempts to describe and explain.

I know it's really, really, really hard--but I need you to just try, try try to not let all those metaphors confuse the fuck out of you like they do so many others and lead to believe that there is some extra-physical force motivating evolutionary processes. Can you try that for me? Please? Okay, good boy.

>> No.7069347

>>7069280
i never said evolution implied extrinsic teleology, i said that it becomes completely unintelligible without teleology

you basically dont want to accept teleology and handwave it's usage as a "metaphor" but cant help abusing the fuck out of it.

Nor will it help replacing teleology with teleonomy, since the only difference between them is the name. They are basically the same thing, Teleonomy is only used to avoid triggering darwinists

>> No.7069391

>>7069347

>it becomes completely unintelligible without teleology.

No, it doesn't.

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

There have been books and books and books written on this subject, and I am too high to try and explain exactly why you're wrong here. The Blind Watchmaker is an easy introduction. Start there. Git Gud.

>> No.7069416

>>7069391
of course it does, and pasting a link isnt an argument

>the blind watchmaker
i dont see how attacking Paley extrinsic teleology is attacking every kind of teleology. Aristotelian teleology doesnt work on assumptions such as complexity or the like.

>> No.7069451

>>7069416

A Markov chain is one model used to describe and anticipate probabilistic changes over time. Most functional evolutionary models are probabilistic models, which preclude intentionality from the get go. Can you see why? Think it through.

The Blind Watchmaker is an introduction to help get your head right, and if you would actually read it you'd find it addresses much, much more than just Paley.

>> No.7069485

>>7069451
>intentionality from the get go.
intentionality of whom regarding what action ?

>> No.7069493

>>7069485

Holy shit, you're a fucking idiot.

Of no one, regarding nothing, because intentionality doesn't even enter the fucking equation. Jesus Christ.

>> No.7069522

>>7069451
and how does it argue against teleology?

>read x
hohoho ok

>> No.7069560

It doesn't "argue against" teleology; ONCE AGAIN, TELEOLOGY IS SIMPLY PRECLUDED BY THE MODEL.

So, say you have three possible but indeterminate future states based on the current state and the parameters of your state space. The distribution of probability between these three future states is irrelevant for this explanation--what I want you to focus on is the fact that movement between the current state and any of the three future states is determined by probability, that is, a measurable CHANCE. Any of the three future states is POSSIBLE; but that possibility is determined precisely by the parameters of the state space and the factors of change contained therein. It's chance, basically. Weighted chance. But the "weight" here is coming from the environment, not anything intrinsic to, say, the organism.

A teleological process would move towards a determinate end. Evolutionary processes move through probabilistic space to no end in particular.

>> No.7069576

>>7069560
>ONCE AGAIN, TELEOLOGY IS SIMPLY PRECLUDED BY THE MODEL.
why? does it spook them?
>Evolutionary processes move through probabilistic space to no end in particular.
that there is chance in the world doesnt mean there isnt teleology, chance presupposes teleology

>> No.7069589

>>7069576

>that there is chance in the world doesnt mean there isnt teleology
>just because there are helicopters in the world doesn't mean they aren't operated by blue-dicked unicorns

The burden of proof is on you, you nut. You keep insisting that evolutionary theory requires teleology, but no evolutionary model nor evolutionary theorist I know of utilizes teleology in their explanations outside of loose metaphor when describing their content or discipline to laymen.

Show me why and at what points teleology is necessary to explain evolution.

>chance presupposes teleology

What the fuck, are you kidding? How?

>> No.7069639

>>7063349
"killing is always bad because all living creatures don't want to be killed"
nor want to starve to death nor want other highly reproductive species eat their food, I think is really stupid to even think about it

>> No.7069641

>>7069589
>no evolutionary model nor evolutionary theorist I know of utilizes teleology in their explanations outside of loose metaphor
are you going to tell me no evolutionary theorist uses "encoding" or "information"?

oh sure, these are just "metaphors" for "explaining to laymen", yet they cant take teleology out of their system completely, and every attempt to do so just makes it go somewhere else. The darwinist deals with teleology the same way a kid cleans his room, by hiding garbage in the closet hoping mommy doesnt notice.

>What the fuck, are you kidding? How?
consider the case of someone walking along a park stumbles himself upon a jar full of money buried on the ground, there is nothing intended on it, it was merely chance that someone found it, but this scenario only happened because of some teleological end. (the man intending to walk along the park and someone intending to bury the jar)

>> No.7069656

>>7069641

You've provided one scenario that does not even explain how chance PRESUPPOSES teleology--it merely poses a hypothetical situation where chance and teleology INTERSECT.

Give it another go, though.

>> No.7069659

>>7069641
>yet they cant take teleology out of their system completely

They can, and they do. Efficient causation is sufficient for all modeling and theoretical framing.

>> No.7069680

>>7069656
>it merely poses a hypothetical situation where chance and teleology INTERSECT.
it isnt an intersection, the chance event was reduced to two teleological events

>>7069659
>Efficient causation is sufficient for all modeling and theoretical framing.
explain how, from my understanding efficient cause alone results being unintelligible

>> No.7069709

>>7069680

>the chance event was reduced to two teleological events

It wasn't, actually. It is way too tedious to explain why. In any event, your scenario already ontologically presupposes teleological processes, which is begging the question ontological necessity (i.e. the existence) of teleological processes is precisely what you've been asked to demonstrate.

>> No.7069726

>>7069709
>It is way too tedious to explain why
see, this is where i know youre full of shit.

>the existence) of teleological processes is precisely what you've been asked to demonstrate.
here
-If there is efficient causation, there is final causation
-There is efficient causation
-So there is final causation

The only way we can make sense of efficient causation (A causing B) would be by taking a form of final causation (B being the end of A)

However, i am reluctant to continue explaining on the basis that you are probably too high and I dont want to waste my typing

>> No.7069731

>>7069726

Aristotle has really and truly fucked your head.

>If there is efficient causation, there is final causation

I deny this premise. What now?

>> No.7069733

>>7069731
give a reason on why you deny it

>> No.7069738

>>7069733

Give me a coherent account of why final causation is entailed by efficient causation.

>> No.7069742

>>7069738
there would be no way of accounting why efficient causes give rise to their effects if those effects werent the final causes of the efficient causes.

You can only make sense of A causing B if B is the cause of A

>> No.7069744

>>7069733
>>7069738

Not just "that it is" entailed. And appeals to Aristotle will not help you. "Aristotle said so" is not a defensible answer.

>> No.7069748

>>7069742

>You can only make sense of A causing B if B is the cause of A
>backwards determinism

Why?

>there would be no way of accounting why efficient causes give rise to their effects if those effects werent the final causes of the efficient causes.

Again, why? You are just restating the problem.

>> No.7069754

>>7069742

http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/hulswit/p-telhul.htm

Here, have some help.

>> No.7069851

>>7069742

>You can only make sense of A causing B if B is the cause of A

>A woman can only give birth to her infant if her infant gives birth to her.

>> No.7069869

Please guys, I'm getting lost in your argument

>> No.7070705
File: 62 KB, 610x396, DNR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7070705

>>7069204
>it depends, if the latter ensures survival of the person, then hearts ought to act in that way.
Nonsense, since survival is not inherently preferable.

>"stuff" is a pretty fucking vague term, barf can be stuff, candy can be stuff, every phenomena can be stuff. "stuff happens" can mean magic happens, so it doesnt explain anything
It is a very broad term. You can replace it with lifeforms in this case, I guess.