"Problems that are solvable in theory, but cannot be solved in practice, are called intractable."
-Computational Complexity Theory, Wikipedia


I do not think we are a waste product of the universe. I do not know exactly what what I'm supposed to do. I try to follow my heart. Before I tried to followed my instincts and failed. You can say that I was lead astray from the Sheppard. We are taught that some of the first Sheppards of the movement were among the prophets. I don't know if you believe in God or not, but whatever it is I won't waste my life on earth.

I know of a Quantum theorist who believes, or says, that we can know more than our 5 senses tell us... a priori knowledge is gained in lieu of the empirical. The fact that I based the last five years on false beliefs about myself and others doesn't mean that my life is over. I see it as a test to begin my life.

I do not know anything for sure, which is what makes me so naive.

I don't know if you believe in God or not, but whatever it is I won't waste my life on earth.

You don't need to believe in anything but yourself yet can be just as happy and contented. Many billions of people don't believe in anything but themselves and they all live very good lives. :)

There is an ultimate purpose for everything.

There is an ultimate purpose for everything.

And how do you know that ?

There is an ultimate purpose for everything.

Just being alive for billions of people is something that they exist for.

It’s all Ego

The ego urges for a purpose......outside the natural course of things there is no purpose for anything. The ego makes us think we need/want a purpose for our lives. When we can't come up with anything on our own we put a "god" or superior being in the driver seat and label the outcome "destiny".

Even "natural course" of things is round about way of saying "there is a purpose" for everything that happens.

From the far out perspective everything is just a cycle, a pattern of repetition. In the end (which from observation only means another beginning or new form) its just a cycle…existence is perpetual motion I personally can’t think of anything that comes to a true non-existing end (black hole?) Matter and energy cant be created or destroyed they can only change form.

So when you think of it all as having a purpose I guess the only purpose would be to continue the cycle.

It’s all Ego

The ego urges for a purpose......outside the natural course of things there is no purpose for anything. The ego makes us think we need/want a purpose for our lives. When we can't come up with anything on our own we put a "god" or superior being in the driver seat and label the outcome "destiny".

Even "natural course" of things is round about way of saying "there is a purpose" for everything that happens.

From the far out perspective everything is just a cycle, a pattern of repetition. In the end (which from observation only means another beginning or new form) its just a cycle…existence is perpetual motion I personally can’t think of anything that comes to a true non-existing end (black hole?) Matter and energy cant be created or destroyed they can only change form.

So when you think of it all as having a purpose I guess the only purpose would be to continue the cycle.

What do you mean by "ego" ? How can it drive anything ?

What do you mean by "ego" ? How can it drive anything ?

ego as in "I" or your own perspective of yourself. Im not stating as FACT just my opinion based on my observations, that the EGO or your perspective of "you" influences your decisions and views.

The Ego mean "I" and prefix for Egoistic, and egocentric "selfish". The ego is, me thinking "I" am imporant enough to have a specific purpose in the grand scheme of things whatever that is.

like i said im not going to state this as fact, just an observation I have that fits the popular understanding of "Ego"

I know that for me personaly when i really think of my intentions for anything I do, it is for the most part selfish. Even if i do something I don't want to do it has to benifit me somehow otherwise i wouldn't do it.

ego as in "I" or your own perspective of yourself. Im not stating as FACT just my opinion based on my observations, that the EGO or your perspective of "you" influences your decisions and views.

The Ego mean "I" and prefix for Egoistic, and egocentric "selfish". The ego is, me thinking "I" am imporant enough to have a specific purpose in the grand scheme of things whatever that is.

like i said im not going to state this as fact, just an observation I have that fits the popular understanding of "Ego"

I know that for me personaly when i really think of my intentions for anything I do, it is for the most part selfish. Even if i do something I don't want to do it has to benifit me somehow otherwise i wouldn't do it.

Yes

It’s all Ego
...


Totally correct.

There is no need whatsoever for any of us to be directed towards some purpose. Indeed, without the reflexive ability, the very idea would not even occur. Teleology is a crutch of the frustrated.

Totally correct.
There is no need whatsoever for any of us to be directed towards some purpose.
So you had no purpose in writing this? or it was a...hm...luxury to write it?

Indeed, without the reflexive ability, the very idea would not even occur. Oh, I think we might decide that other creatures had purposes.

Teleology is a crutch of the frustrated.
Actually I think that anti-teleology is an opiate in relation to frustration. Things just are, the shrug is the response to any rising frustration.

So you had no purpose in writing this? or it was a...hm...luxury to write it?

Don't confuse intent with teleology.


Oh, I think we might decide that other creatures had purposes.

I doubt it.


Actually I think that anti-teleology is an opiate in relation to frustration. Things just are, the shrug is the response to any rising frustration.

I disagree. The drive to impart everything with a goal is the result of misapprehension of activity.

Don't confuse intent with teleology.To say that you merely had intent is to attempt to be objective about yourself. Perhaps you experience your communication as merely a kind of reflex (not to be confused with 'as reflexive') but I somehow doubt it. In that intent, at least I have found so far in myself and others, is a teleological seed.
A teleological philosophy. Or did it really seem like when you duck to avoid a thrown rock when you responded?

I disagree. The drive to impart everything with a goal is the result of misapprehension of activity. I am not sure why you need to qualify the above with 'everything'. Wouldn't 'anything' also be true?

To say that you merely had intent is to attempt to be objective about yourself. Perhaps you experience your communication as merely a kind of reflex (not to be confused with 'as reflexive') but I somehow doubt it. In that intent, at least I have found so far in myself and others, is a teleological seed.


I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the term "teleology". Even stripped of its original theistic implications, teleology strictly implies that a present event can be explained in terms of its end goal (purpose, aim, what have you...). This was (historically..) a direct refutation of standard linear cause and effect. In any case, it is always implicit that there is an agent of direction.

To say that I "merely" (sic) had intent is in fact to be subjective about my action, not objective. The reflexive thought act is one where the individual in question post hoc analyzes one's behaviour. Given that we can, and do in fact make use of our reflexive ability, this alone is sufficient to deny teleology. Ultimately, if we can question our own motives, teleology is denied.


I am not sure why you need to qualify the above with 'everything'. Wouldn't 'anything' also be true?

If it weren't for the fact that teleology must be exhaustive, yes.

There is no need whatsoever for any of us to be directed towards some purpose. Indeed, without the reflexive ability, the very idea would not even occur. Teleology is a crutch of the frustrated.

That's the Taoist in you speaking, right?

That's the Taoist in you speaking, right?

lol

And the materialist.

Teleology would necessarily imply determinism, would it not?

I have to go now. Have fun and await me tomorrow! :)

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the term "teleology". Even stripped of its original theistic implications, teleology strictly implies that a present event can be explained in terms of its end goal (purpose, aim, what have you...). This was (historically..) a direct refutation of standard linear cause and effect. In any case, it is always implicit that there is an agent of direction.
I have to admit it is a word I have to look up each time I come across it. I was working with definitions such as:

(in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.

# The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
# Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.Also in the sense of design and purpose being present in nature.
To say that I "merely" (sic) had intent is in fact to be subjective about my action, not objective. I don't think you quite understood my point, no doubt because of how I communicated it. To me the distinction between teleology, at least in the senses I quoted above, and intent is that the former implies an underlying meaning that goes beyond the individual's hallucinated one. In a deterministic universe intent is an experience, but not really a valid explanatory term. At the very least it is a misleading one as it implies freedom and a starting point before an action, whereas the starting point is, well, back in the big bang. You could say one experiences intent but does not really have it in that model.
So when you said intent as opposed to teleology, I thought you were saying that you, looking at yourself, saw the aim of your action, but did not believe it fulfilled any overarching, or, dare I say it, objective purpose. But I don't think it is possible for us to believe that, at least consistantly. IOW to say I did what I did on purpose, but 'really' my actions have no (ultimate, objective) purpose, to me always seems disingenuous. Even if it correct and an honest reflection of that 'post hoc' THOUGHT. I capitalize 'thought' because I think people often choose one thought out of many and decide that that is who they are and what they believe.

IOW I think you think your post was of value, period. It had purpose, objectively. You may in reflection see this as absurd. As another creature - me - witnessing this action, I see no reason to assume this post hoc evaluation - which I referred to as trying to be objective - is 'really' what you believe to the exclusion of other beliefs.

You placed (sic) after 'merely'. Given that I spelled it correctly I assume you felt it was sufficiently odd in a context discussing objective and subjective as I did. I did not mean 'merely' in a value judgement way. I meant it as in 'is limited to' sense.

I have to admit it is a word I have to look up each time I come across it.

Fair enough.


I don't think you quite understood my point, no doubt because of how I communicated it. To me the distinction between teleology, at least in the senses I quoted above, and intent is that the former implies an underlying meaning that goes beyond the individual's hallucinated one.

Stated like this, I would have to agree with you. With the caveat that I don't necessarily believe that the individual's intent implies an "hallucinated" meaning (but that is an entirely different discussion..).



...
In a deterministic universe intent is an experience, but not really a valid explanatory term.

True, but only if teleology actually obtains. Else, false.



...
At the very least it is a misleading one as it implies freedom and a starting point before an action, whereas the starting point is, well, back in the big bang. You could say one experiences intent but does not really have it in that model.


Hmmm.
From this, and previous, I gather you're placing all this within the scope of a definition of reality that includes an ontologically objective sense.



...
So when you said intent as opposed to teleology, I thought you were saying that you, looking at yourself, saw the aim of your action, but did not believe it fulfilled any overarching, or, dare I say it, objective purpose. But I don't think it is possible for us to believe that, at least consistantly.


Sorry for not making myself clearer. You're correct now; I would agree with you completely on this.



...
As another creature - me - witnessing this action, I see no reason to assume this post hoc evaluation - which I referred to as trying to be objective - is 'really' what you believe to the exclusion of other beliefs.

When I specified the post hoc activity, I was strictly referring to the reflexive act. To think about one's thought, can only be a subjective activity.



...
You placed (sic) after 'merely'. Given that I spelled it correctly I assume you felt it was sufficiently odd in a context discussing objective and subjective as I did. I did not mean 'merely' in a value judgement way. I meant it as in 'is limited to' sense.

Excellent; then I interpreted your usage of it correctly.
I wanted to highlight the usage simply because I don't think it possible for us to think anything but intent (at least, with respect to reflexive cognition; obviously, in the right context, we can think without analyzing our thinking...).

Interesting to note again your subjective/objective distinction. Alas, again, that's another huge can o worms....

:-)

You don't need to believe in anything but yourself yet can be just as happy and contented. Many billions of people don't believe in anything but themselves and they all live very good lives. :)
That's pretty much all you can do isnt it.
If self-belief is the new theism (which it is) then it all begins and ends with whatever i decide the state of currently play is. Which nicely solves all the existential angst although unfortunately does make it slightly harder to guard against ego-mania.

Interesting to note again your subjective/objective distinction. Alas, again, that's another huge can o worms....
:-)
Yes, but don't assume it is mine. I find I react to what others seem to have as their distinction and use the terms as a handy temporary communication device. Whether this is a good idea or not, I truly was not putting forward the distinction or a specific version of it.

When I specified the post hoc activity, I was strictly referring to the reflexive act. To think about one's thought, can only be a subjective activity.

Well, sure. But I don't think we generally realize that or 'mean' that with our subsequent thoughts about ourselves. I mean every mental activity is subjective - by definition, though I find the distinction from objectivity odd - but they rarely pose as such.

I enjoyed your point, somewhere else, about there not being degrees of subjectivity. I am not sure I agree with it. In practical terms referring to the process, well, OK. But it does seem like there is a spectrum degrees of 'contact' - for want of a better term - with objects.

Teleology would necessarily imply determinism, would it not?
The theological one would, it seems. But I think you could have an open ended version. Where creature, say like us, have certain skills and tendencies of focus and interest that could be fulfilled, without limiting this to specific, down to the particular instant, predetermined acts.

Yes, but don't assume it is mine. I find I react to what others seem to have as their distinction and use the terms as a handy temporary communication device. Whether this is a good idea or not, I truly was not putting forward the distinction or a specific version of it.


Fair enough. I was perhaps too sensitive to your usage of "merely" then. To me, it seemed you were implying an intent beyond the immediate awareness of the agent in question (and thence, an 'objective' intent...).



Well, sure. But I don't think we generally realize that or 'mean' that with our subsequent thoughts about ourselves.


I do. But hey, that's me...



...
I mean every mental activity is subjective - by definition, ...



Per se, yes. But more often than not, the content and form of that mental activity is not purely subjective (I hesitate here to use objective, but most people would...).



...
though I find the distinction from objectivity odd - but they rarely pose as such.


Again, true enough, but that all depends on what one defines as being objective (or not).



I enjoyed your point, somewhere else, about there not being degrees of subjectivity. I am not sure I agree with it. In practical terms referring to the process, well, OK. ...


As above, contingent upon definition. My point in that discussion was to say that to argue for degrees of subjectivity necessarily implies objectivity. As you point out, internally, there can be naught but subjectivity. Nevertheless, as I note above, the form and content of our thoughts could be fairly described as being objective.



... But it does seem like there is a spectrum degrees of 'contact' - for want of a better term - with objects.

True enough. Similar to the old empiricist position that our subjective understanding is just once perspective on an objective reality ( a la Platonic shadows...). Note however that one cannot 'overcome' one's subjectivity, despite the nature of the object of its 'perception'. Regardless of how one chooses to approach the nature of the material (objective ?) world, one is always 'stuck' with one's limited understanding thereof.

With reluctance you sort of agreed with all my points. I found it very funny.
I don't think I have ever quite elicited that kind of response before, or no one has been articulate enough to convey it to me in any case. Kind of delightful. It had an undercurrent of 'I have some quibbles but nothing of a fundamental disagreement with this, but I have suspicions we do disagree fundamentally.' Or something like that. I am talking the feel not putting this forward as your position. In any case I enjoyed the push pull of it.
Fair enough. I was perhaps too sensitive to your usage of "merely" then. To me, it seemed you were implying an intent beyond the immediate awareness of the agent in question (and thence, an 'objective' intent...). No. And certainly not a transcendant one.

Per se, yes. But more often than not, the content and form of that mental activity is not purely subjective (I hesitate here to use objective, but most people would...). I'd be interested to hear your take on objectivity subjectivity. This is perhaps not the place for it. Perhaps I can come up with a thread. Or you can.

True enough. Similar to the old empiricist position that our subjective understanding is just once perspective on an objective reality ( a la Platonic shadows...). Note however that one cannot 'overcome' one's subjectivity, despite the nature of the object of its 'perception'. Regardless of how one chooses to approach the nature of the material (objective ?) world, one is always 'stuck' with one's limited understanding thereof.'Limited' already grants quite a bit and I agree. I think one could also use the more neutral word 'perspective' which can be also literal. Here we don't have to stress the 'limited' nature of it, but the fact that it is coming from a vantage. This is limiting, of course.

... In any case I enjoyed the push pull of it.

Likewise. It's refreshing to discuss without falling into rancorous ad hominem.



No. And certainly not a transcendant one.

Thank god for that.

(pun intended)



'Limited' already grants quite a bit and I agree. I think one could also use the more neutral word 'perspective' which can be also literal. Here we don't have to stress the 'limited' nature of it, but the fact that it is coming from a vantage. This is limiting, of course.

Indeed. I debated over perspective for awhile, but I kept coming back to Kant and apperception versus perception, etc.



I'd be interested to hear your take on objectivity subjectivity. This is perhaps not the place for it. Perhaps I can come up with a thread. Or you can.


Well, that debate has spawned here a number of times before, with the usual success. Sadly, it usually breaks down into a semantics debate (this of course, because the establishment of functional definitions aren't taken care of right from the beginning). Although I must say I do enjoy the whole delving into such a discussion, it's one that can easily and rapidly digress off into ontological and semantic arguments.

The fact that I based the last five years on false beliefs about myself and others doesn't mean that my life is over. I see it as a test to begin my life.

Just out of interst where do you think you went wrong, what were you false beliefs?

How could a person know what their purpose in life is before they have fulfilled it?
One must "arrive", die, and only at that point could one make statements about one's teleology. Prior to that, it is all speculation.

Considering this, what is the point in talking about teleology, other than to point out it is a speculation?

Teleology would necessarily imply determinism, would it not?

The theological one would, it seems. But I think you could have an open ended version.

How could "open-ended" qualify for a teleology? An open-ended teleology - isn't that a contradiction in terms? It's like saying "And the film will have an end whatever an end it will have."

There is no need whatsoever for any of us to be directed towards some purpose.

There is no need: but there is a desire. Humans are beings of desire.


Even stripped of its original theistic implications, teleology strictly implies that a present event can be explained in terms of its end goal (purpose, aim, what have you...).

A grandiose example of hindsight bias (in practice it is also in the form of expected, predicted hindsight bias) and the desire to make sense of the world.

But it's not something dumb: humans would go mad if they wouldn't try to explain to themselves how things are. For the most part, we cannot but think.


The reflexive thought act is one where the individual in question post hoc analyzes one's behaviour. Given that we can, and do in fact make use of our reflexive ability, this alone is sufficient to deny teleology.


Yes, we can see through our hindsight bias and other cognitive and memory biases.


Ultimately, if we can question our own motives, teleology is denied.

What if the truth is that we are delusional or evil? Because if we are, then we can question our motives all we want, our destined purpose will be the same. That is, if we had one to begin with. But if we are evil or delusional, we can't know either way. - I know, I'm bringing up horrible problems.

In discussions, it is usually taken for granted that people are basically good and relatively sane and capable. But that's just it: it is taken for granted that we are such. We can't actually prove whether we are such or not, yet it is an important piece of information to know either way, because the implications of either are very different.

There is no need: but there is a desire. Humans are beings of desire.

I agree. This is the difference between election and teleology.



A grandiose example of hindsight bias (in practice it is also in the form of expected, predicted hindsight bias) and the desire to make sense of the world.

No doubt it developed as such, but note that as an explanatory mechanism, teleology is an attempt to replace causality with the obverse directionality, and so, hindsight plays no part.



But it's not something dumb: humans would go mad if they wouldn't try to explain to themselves how things are. For the most part, we cannot but think.


Exactly. But this is entirely due to our reflexive ability. If it were the case that our own thoughts were private to us, we could do little but not think (or, we would have to vastly redefine what it means to us to say we think).



Yes, we can see through our hindsight bias and other cognitive and memory biases.


Or at the very least, can become aware of them.



What if the truth is that we are delusional or evil? Because if we are, then we can question our motives all we want, our destined purpose will be the same. That is, if we had one to begin with. But if we are evil or delusional, we can't know either way. - I know, I'm bringing up horrible problems.

Ah, it all comes back to Descartes. :-)

I would argue that, as long as we are capable of analyzing our own thoughts post hoc that we could at least begin to see a behavioural trend. Given that then, we could, theoretically attempt to deviate from that trend.



In discussions, it is usually taken for granted that people are basically good and relatively sane and capable. But that's just it: it is taken for granted that we are such. We can't actually prove whether we are such or not, yet it is an important piece of information to know either way, because the implications of either are very different.

People assume sanity and decency?

For shame.

:-)

I change my answer to metaphysical naturalism in regards to the very existence of human beings in the universe. It appears that we are being tested against our own beliefs and concepts (which make up our ego and self-image, only tangible in the mind) about ourselves and others. Kant said that there is an independent reality to experiential reality. Whether or not there is, we are in an illusion consisting self-concepts and false images.

Our instinct forms every intent. The fact that I've been touching myself for the last 8 years and only occasionally getting lucky, I can barely look at myself. Innocence is what we make it and the fact that I act "good" to deny it is evidence of the fact that I am not free of anything. To become free one must actually abandon the ego and the image (the concept of self based on a context-dependent (something about self completely conjured up) which results from the evaluation of one's own action). I can believe I am a wasted life because I wasted years of my life and have nothing but my right hand and I should give up in life. But that would be the ego speaking about me. I am not telling "myself" anthing because there is no "I" or "myself". "I" never did anthing to "me". And yes "I" failed when you want to apply the verb, "failed", to subject, "I".

The only thing saving my will to go on is a purpose. That I will be able to have a life and that I can say "I did this", "that is me.".

It is wrong to think of human beings as not innocent because then you will be telling yourself that you are not innocent. What is "innocence"?

How could "open-ended" qualify for a teleology? An open-ended teleology - isn't that a contradiction in terms? It's like saying "And the film will have an end whatever an end it will have."

There are several meanings to teleology. These are two that seem more open ended to me:

4. the belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature.
5. (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.

No doubt it developed as such, but note that as an explanatory mechanism, teleology is an attempt to replace causality with the obverse directionality, and so, hindsight plays no part.

Of course. Which can easily be witnessed in many theistic teleologies where the theist will simply refuse to consider that there might be such a thing as hindsight bias. Admitting this bias would undermine their teleology, the only way out then being to propose humans are evil, delusional, or that God works in mysterious ways.