The Physiology of Teleology

[_Tarski]

I

nfinity is a line? You mean time? Sounds like you haven't thought the possibilities out.
You sound like you accept the notion of absolute time (contra relativity).
Do you think that the spacetime continuum is Aritotolean? Galilean? Lorentzian?

Infinity is in-finite time, a forward motion of time on into the future whose leading edge continues indefinitely. If that movement goes in the opposite direction, from the point of origin and on into the past indefinite, then one faces eternity. Existence has no end point, but no point of origin either. Whether time has an end or not is somewhat superfluous, as existence continues regardless. No, time is not absolute, at least in our universe. In others?

I accept relativity theory, but this only says that the rate at which time moves forward changes relative to the speed at which an observer is traveling. Eternity is, of course, outside of time, but I'm not sure this cancels the concept of infinity. A point can keep expanding indefinitely even its not being measured. In other words, one could still mark time if one wanted to (someone living in the Celestial Kingdom 19 billion billion years from now, could still, if asked, say "I've been here 19 billion, billion years" even though his perceptual frame of reference is timeless. He could do this because other phenomena still exist outside of that eternal frame of reference, and nothing prevents such a being from being aware of those relative time/space relationships. God, in LDS theology, is not "trapped" in his eternal frame of reference. He is aware of the other relative time based reference frames)

And just so you know, I know you're doing nothing more than playing with words and logic here and that you don't intend this argument to really go anywhere, nor do you intend on actually trying to understand LDS theology with any degree of open mindedness to the possibility of discovering some concepts that might at least stimulate your imagination and generate some new, original thinking on your part and open up some new possibilities other than those you have normatively assumed to be true about the world

Just so you know.

You are wrong about me. I already had a Ph.D. by the time I quit the church and I studied the religion quite extensively.
I am not just playing with words. I am trying to get you to realize that you are arguing with concepts that you do not have a deep understanding of.

In particular, your ideas about time are naïve at best.

[_amantha]

4. It follows from this that purpose (teleology) and meaning (understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose) are inherent and intrinsic aspects or reality irrespective or whether or not there is a coherent, organized universe available within which self aware intelligences can be conscious of their owe individual teleology and capable of acting upon the meaning they perceive.

How does this follow? "Meaning" is a word--a human word. So without humans how can there be meaning?

[_grayskull]

meaning(understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose)

thanks amantha. I didn't realize he had any kind of definition of the word "meaning". So the predestined sinners to Calvin's hell have "meaning" since they understand and have knowledge of their purpose (for example, to be viewed by the saved so the saved might appreciate their respective state).

[_amantha]

meaning(understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose)

thanks amantha. I didn't realize he had any kind of definition of the word "meaning". So the predestined sinners to Calvin's hell have "meaning" since they understand and have knowledge of their purpose (for example, to be viewed by the saved so the saved might appreciate their respective state).

There are all kinds of meanings out there. Whether the universe has meaning apart from us humans is a question only meaningful to humans for all we know.

[_Coggins7]

I am not just playing with words. I am trying to get you to realize that you are arguing with concepts that you do not have a deep understanding of.

But, you see, you don't know any more about them than I do, and your smug self satisfied smarm does nothing to alter that central reality. All I'm trying to do is theorize regarding what I think the Gospel is trying to say regarding some very fundamental underlying realities in the universe. You know no more about that at any conceptual depth than I do. Your Ph.D does not impress me in and of itself as you apparently think it should. My Father was a Ph.D, and I was around tons of them as a kid.

You may be quite smart within your own little niche, but this neither implies wisdom or the kind of intelligence one needs to expand beyond one's own truncated perceptual cubicle. Nor does it mean you have any imagination, and as Einstein said, "imagination is everything", and its certainly required in the Gospel. Frankly, the various theories we humans have about things like time are only games children play on rainy afternoons compared to the actual infinity of knowledge that exists. Time, like many other natural phenomena, probably isn't, at its core, as much like we conceive it to be as we now believe. I'm highly skeptical of the kind of torturous hairsplitting those like you engage in in an attempt to make Gospel concepts dance on a pinhead. I can't possibly create a strongly coherent theory of the fundamental nature of reality, nor can you. My post, as I pointed out in the OP, was more explicative than a set of logical arguments. It was a set of extrapolations based upon what I think Gospel doctrine may imply about some very fundamental things.

I can't debate you on mathematical theory, as I have little knowledge there. But, then again, you have nothing to say mathematically regarding much of what I've said either, as neither you or any other human being really understands even a particle of what the universe is really like at its most fundamental levels.

Its no wonder you left the Church tarski. A God complex like the one that afflicts you and Dawkins can tend in that direction. Indeed, Dawkin's book should have been titled The God Complex instead of The God Delusion.

I am, however, fully aware of just how theoretical and speculative theoretical physics and pure mathematics can be, so don't patronize we with clever word play.

[_Coggins7]

4. It follows from this that purpose (teleology) and meaning (understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose) are inherent and intrinsic aspects or reality irrespective or whether or not there is a coherent, organized universe available within which self aware intelligences can be conscious of their owe individual teleology and capable of acting upon the meaning they perceive.

How does this follow? "Meaning" is a word--a human word. So without humans how can there be meaning?

And words mean things. I'm really not following your argument, which apparently is that The term "meaning" is a word. Humans use words. Therefore, without humans, there are no words. Hence, without words that convey meaning, meaning disappears from the universe.

Is this a kind of Postmodern analysis of my argument, or just verbiage? Meaning exists in the universe because there is an eternal plan and purpose to consciousness and existence, which God conveys to his children. He tells us we can become like him if we follow certain rules and conform ourselves to certain principles.

Subjectivist materialist rationalizations regarding humans aloneness in the universe (with all that implies for the manner in which we comport ourselves while here) only write the fundamental problem in larger script.

[_Tarski]

I am not just playing with words. I am trying to get you to realize that you are arguing with concepts that you do not have a deep understanding of.

I have a better understanding than you.

But, you see, you don't know any more about them than I do, and your smug self satisfied smarm does nothing to alter that central reality. .

All I'm trying to do is theorize regarding what I think the Gospel is trying to say regarding some very fundamental underlying realities in the universe. You know no more about that at any conceptual depth than I do. Your Ph.D does not impress me in and of itself as you apparently think it should. My Father was a Ph.D, and I was around tons of them as a kid.

The point of mentioning the Ph.D. in mathematics was to simply alert you to the implausibility of your accusation that I had no logical ability.
You are the one that made logic an issue.

You may be quite smart within your own little niche, but this neither implies wisdom or the kind of intelligence one needs to expand beyond one's own truncated perceptual cubicle. Nor does it mean you have any imagination, and as Einstein said, "imagination is everything", and its certainly required in the Gospel.
.

You don't know what kind of imagination I may or may not have.

Its no wonder you left the Church tarski. A God complex like the one that afflicts you and Dawkins can tend in that direction. Indeed, Dawkin's book should have been titled The God Complex instead of The God Delusion.

cute.

I am, however, fully aware of just how theoretical and speculative theoretical physics and pure mathematics can be, so don't patronize we with clever word play

There is no clever word play in what I am asking.

So reality is real huh? OK. (Is that word play or just content free?)
Do you have an argument or a point?

[_Coggins7]

If you do not, in actuality, understand what Beckwith is saying, and what I and Light have been saying about that fundamental point, then your logical abilities are indeed, severely limited. Or, is it that you;re a pretending not to understand the really quite simple logical contradiction here, all in the name of a very sophisticated wall of voodoo around the possibility of the Church really having something to say about the metaphysical materialist position?

[_Tarski]

If you do not, in actuality, understand what Beckwith is saying, and what I and Light have been saying about that fundamental point, then your logical abilities are indeed, severely limited. Or, is it that you;re a pretending not to understand the really quite simple logical contradiction here, all in the name of a very sophisticated wall of voodoo around the possibility of the Church really having something to say about the metaphysical materialist position?

You are unduly impressed with Beckwith little argument. In fact, I am quite certain that it is unsound.
The problem is that he foists a specific theory of meaning on his reader. If one adopts Dennett's theory of meaning then there is no problem.
On does not need a notion of intrinsic meaning or purpose. What one needs is a notion of natural meaning and an understanding of human nature as proposed by, say, MIT's Steven Pinker.
Dawkins is free to adopt whatever values he wishes. He is also free to argue for his values and to persuade. He can attempt to show that his values are consonant with human survival, already established values and basic edification (in Richard Rorty's sense).
One does not need a foundationalistic approach to such things. Rather one appeals to solidarity and human freedom.

[_The Dude]

You are still arguing with Coggins about Beckwith? Oh Jeezus, the end result is always the same. He simply cannot be convinced that his product is unsound, and like the worst salesmen, he has an endless appetite for your time.


I only clicked on this thread because I saw Tarski had posted.