Teleology important for science

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
I think we will be able to eventually answer such a questions. Our personalities are shaped by our genes and experiences.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, because no matter how detailed information we can collect, good old “chaos theory” is too complicated to solve the equations in a precise manner. The N-body problem cannot be solved precisely. The differential equations are simply too complicated to be solved exactly. You can have very good approximations, but no precise solutions.

Of course these questions are totally irrelevant. Even if there would be an algorithm to solve them, no one would dedicate the time and resources to do it. The traveling salesman problem for a “large” number of cities (and 50 is a large number) cannot be solved precisely, not just today, but never. The algorithm is simple, but the necessary computation time is longer than the foreseeable lifespan of the Universe.

There are two sides here: is there an algorithm to solve the problem? And does the algorithm stop in time, so we can benefit from the answer?

Those who like to “badmouth” scientism don’t even know what they are talking about. However, as usual, the nincompoops are always the loudest. Best to put them on ignore. 🙂
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
I doubt it, because no matter how detailed information we can collect, good old “chaos theory” is too complicated to solve the equations in a precise manner. The N-body problem cannot be solved precisely. The differential equations are simply too complicated to be solved exactly. You can have very good approximations, but no precise solutions.

Of course these questions are totally irrelevant. Even if there would be an algorithm to solve them, no one would dedicate the time and resources to do it. The traveling salesman problem for a “large” number of cities (and 50 is a large number) cannot be solved precisely, not just today, but never. The algorithm is simple, but the necessary computation time is longer than the foreseeable lifespan of the Universe.

There are two sides here: is there an algorithm to solve the problem? And does the algorithm stop in time, so we can benefit from the answer?

Those who like to “badmouth” scientism don’t even know what they are talking about. However, as usual, the nincompoops are always the loudest. Best to put them on ignore. 🙂
Click to expand...
What if the nincompoops are so loud that they breach your ignore faculties?

What if they are traveling nincompoops who visit a “large” number of cities (50 or so,) such that the necessary computation time to reconstruct your ignore faculties in order to overcome their loudness is longer than the foreseeable lifespan of the universe? Does the algorithm stop in time so you could benefit from the answer? 🤓

Does the “N” in “N-body problem” stand for Nincompoop, i.e., Nincompoop-body problem ?

Inquiring minds and all that… :hmmm:
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
The traveling salesman problem for a “large” number of cities (and 50 is a large number) cannot be solved precisely, not just today, but never. The algorithm is simple, but the necessary computation time is longer than the foreseeable lifespan of the Universe.
Click to expand...
Then a scientist at CERN invented the world wide web so that salesmen don’t need to travel.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
xkcd.com/399/

(Unscientific types: big O notation indicates run-time.)
 
inocente said:
…But as you’re now arguing that science isn’t teleological, we’re agreed on the OP so not much else to be said. 🙂
Click to expand...
Science is not teleological in the sense that it doesn’t take into account consciously purposeful activity but biologists recognise the physical urge to survive in living organisms which implies a reference to the future.

Science is also motivated by the conscious intention of scientists to discover facts about nature and the physical universe. In that sense it is teleological, a fact overlooked by materialists and adherents of scientism…

If the existence of the universe is not teleological it doesn’t make sense to believe theism is true.
 
tonyrey said:
Science is not teleological in the sense that it doesn’t take into account consciously purposeful activity but biologists recognise the physical urge to survive in living organisms which implies a reference to the future.

Science is also motivated by the conscious intention of scientists to discover facts about nature and the physical universe. In that sense it is teleological, a fact overlooked by materialists and adherents of scientism…

If the existence of the universe is not teleological it doesn’t make sense to believe theism is true.
Click to expand...
If science cannot explain conscious intention, but rather gets derelict in its duty, and attempts to merely explain it away or merely account for how conscious intention might have come to be as opposed to what it is and how it works, then science has failed to explain and justify its own existence, which – as you say – is, in fact, a conscious and purposeful activity.
 
Peter_Plato said:
If science cannot explain conscious intention, but rather gets derelict in its duty, and attempts to merely explain it away or merely account for how conscious intention might have come to be as opposed to what it is and how it works, then science has failed to explain and justify its own existence, which – as you say – is, in fact, a conscious and purposeful activity.
Click to expand...
It baffles me how anyone can fail to understand that any form of rational activity, let alone scientific investigation, is necessarily teleological. Reverence for the success of science transforms it into the supreme form of knowledge which encompasses conscious intention - although how it does so is a minor problem which will of course be solved in due course. 😉

After all no other form of knowledge has produced such spectacular results - in Western culture - whereas the degree of self-control achieved in the East is far less significant… 😉
 
Peter_Plato said:
If science cannot explain conscious intention, but rather gets derelict in its duty, and attempts to merely explain it away or merely account for how conscious intention might have come to be as opposed to what it is and how it works, then science has failed to explain and justify its own existence, which – as you say – is, in fact, a conscious and purposeful activity.
Click to expand...
Is there any system of thought which can explain mind?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Thomistic metaphysics.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/08/think-mcfly-think.html
Click to expand...
I am familiar with that. In my opinion dualism is a system of thought which proposes mind as an aspect of reality. It cannot tell what mind is and how it works. So it is a failure.

Monism (materialism) also fails to explain the emergence of mind from brain activity.

To my understanding we will never understand what mind is. We cannot possibly understand how we understand hence we cannot understand what mind is because understanding is a faculty of mind.
 
STT said:
I am familiar with that. In my opinion dualism is a system of thought which proposes mind as an aspect of reality. It cannot explain the emergence of mind from brain activity.

To my understanding we will never understand what mind is. We cannot possibly understand how we understand hence we cannot understand what mind is because understanding is a faculty of mind.
Click to expand...
Even if we cannot fully understand what the mind is we can still discover facts about its power
which enable us to understand its significance and increase our ability to control ourselves by self-hypnosis.
 
STT said:
I am familiar with that. In my opinion dualism is a system of thought which proposes mind as an aspect of reality. It cannot tell what mind is and how it works. So it is a failure.

Monism (materialism) also fails to explain the emergence of mind from brain activity.

To my understanding we will never understand what mind is. We cannot possibly understand how we understand hence we cannot understand what mind is because understanding is a faculty of mind.
Click to expand...
How would you know what we can or can’t “possibly understand” before the fact? Seems to me you are engaging in some serious confirmation bias – along with arguing in a vicious (self-annihilating) circle.

We cannot understand how we understand because we cannot understand how we understand. How is that an argument?

It is like arguing we cannot be conscious of our own consciousness because we are our own consciousness. And yet self-awareness or self-consciousness is undeniable.

It would seem we are in an ideal position (first-hand experiencers) to delve into how we can and do understand.

Why entertain self-defeating propositions? We can’t understand, well…

… because we can’t understand.

Look up the word acedia and study the implications of that for a while.
 
tonyrey said:
Even if we cannot fully understand what the mind is we can still discover facts about its power
which enable us to understand its significance and increase our ability to control ourselves by self-hypnosis.
Click to expand...
I tried standing in front of a mirror and repeating in a slow, mesmerizing, voice: “You are getting sleepy… very sleepy…”

:yawn:

After a while, I achieved nirvana…

… my mind went blank and I woke up on the floor.

Any other ideas, Tony? :jrbirdman:
 
Peter_Plato said:
Even if we cannot fully understand what the mind is we can still discover facts about its power which enable us to understand its significance and increase our ability to control ourselves by self-hypnosis
Click to expand...
Over twenty years ago I read a book about self-hypnosis and decided to put it into practice. The first step is to push your abdomen out when you breathe in and relax every muscle in the body counting slowly up to ten, saying to yourself “When I reach ten I shall be fully relaxed”. You do this several times until you feel fully relaxed but you should also say to yourself “When I count down from ten I shall be wide awake when I reach zero”. Then comes the test. You put your arm on a fairly hot surface like a radiator and see how long you can keep it there. I did this for several weeks until one day I looked down and saw two small blisters on my forearm! I stopped doing it after that because I realised I had gone into a light trance. I find it useful if I can’t sleep or go to the dentist. Usually I don’t need an anaesthetic.

Three years ago I had an operation for a melanoma near my right ankle. The surgeon gave me an injection before taking a skin graft from my thigh and I told him I didn’t need another one. He was rather surprised and when he started cutting the flesh asked me whether I was all right . I said “It feels sharp but it doesn’t bother me”. After the operation he asked how I was feeling. Everyone in the room laughed when I said “Wonderful!” Such is the power of hypnosis…
Click to expand...
 
STT said:
Interesting and funny.
Click to expand...
I was surprised but pleased they had seen what an ordinary person can achieve with a little practice. The power of the mind is neglected in our materialistic society. In spite of being a Christian I was a pessimist for most of my life until I realised it’s a bad habit we can overcome with positive thinking.
 
tonyrey said:
Over twenty years ago I read a book about self-hypnosis and decided to put it into practice. The first step is to push your abdomen out when you breathe in and relax every muscle in the body counting slowly up to ten, saying to yourself “When I reach ten I shall be fully relaxed”. You do this several times until you feel fully relaxed but you should also say to yourself “When I count down from ten I shall be wide awake when I reach zero”. Then comes the test. You put your arm on a fairly hot surface like a radiator and see how long you can keep it there. I did this for several weeks until one day I looked down and saw two small blisters on my forearm! I stopped doing it after that because I realised I had gone into a light trance. I find it useful if I can’t sleep or go to the dentist. Usually I don’t need an anaesthetic.

Three years ago I had an operation for a melanoma near my right ankle. The surgeon gave me an injection before taking a skin graft from my thigh and I told him I didn’t need another one. He was rather surprised and when he started cutting the flesh asked me whether I was all right . I said “It feels sharp but it doesn’t bother me”. After the operation he asked how I was feeling. Everyone in the room laughed when I said “Wonderful!” Such is the power of hypnosis…
Click to expand...
There are several useful introductions to self-hypnosis online, e.g. :skillsyouneed.com/ps/self-hypnosis.html

The author doesn’t mention abdominal breathing which deceives the body!
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
The word “scientism” has some very specific overtones in some circles. It refers to a hypothetical stance that “science” can eventually explain everything, even such questions, why does Joe prefer tall blondes and Bill prefers short brunettes. Of course NO ONE asserts such nonsense. But no matter how frequently this problem is pointed out, there will be some people who are adamant to misunderstand science. The best thing is to put them onto “ignore”.
Click to expand...
Or as someone else might have put it, into a “basket of deplorables”? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Or as someone else might have put it, into a “basket of deplorables”? :confused:
Click to expand...
Or to respond that scientism amounts to the deification of science because it regards science as the ultimate explanation of everything including itself! 😉
 
tonyrey said:
Or to respond that scientism amounts to the deification of science because it regards science as the ultimate explanation of everything including itself! 😉
Click to expand...
Or, more likely a deification of self which bleeds over into science.

I think Lewis hits the nail on the head when he speaks of the three parts to morality:
  1. The relationships between moral agents
  2. The correct internal workings of each moral agent
  3. The purpose or ends for which moral agents exist
youtu.be/MtTeCyrgjIQ

It seems to me that Lewis is correct that the third (which is primarily concerned with the question of teleology) determines the nature and correctness of the other two. It also determines the correctness of the scientific endeavor.

Whether or not to conduct inquiry into something (science in a general sense) hinges upon whether such an inquiry is good in itself – not merely “good” for me or us, but actually good. If knowing about anything will lead to determinably bad ends, why would any moral agent will to know about such things?

The ends of knowledge – of what is to be known – can only be worthwhile if they are determinably good, which means we ought to be more concerned about the nature of the good than in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake; unless a case can be made that simply knowing a lot is, indeed, good for its own sake. Yet, even that requires an understanding of the good and that all knowledge qua knowledge will be good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top