quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But that sense "of a greater purpose" is a figment of the mind, not a quality of the universe. You believe that there is purpose to the universe because you are reifying what Daniel Dennet calls the "intentionalist stance" - the perception that all objects in the universe behave the way they do due to some inherent, volitional essense. The point is that no object in the universe has such a purposeful essence: that is an illusion created by the mind to make the behaviour of objects easier to apprehend. Consider the psychology of children: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/blo...om07_index.html Essentially (according to the book I'm reading at the moment, at least), most of the higher mental processes have their genesis in social and emotional cognition in our early years of development. The capacity to apprehend and communicate basic emotions in a social context allows for the capacity for language, which allows for the capacity for logical thought, which allows for the capacity for complex, abstract thought of the scientific and philosophical variety. The point is that most thought - conditioned as we are to imagine that the "logical mind" and the "emotional mind" are separate entities - is shaped by our history as a "social" animal. As a result, we are conditioned to attribute emotional and/or behavioural qualities to inanimate objects that of course possess neither. None of us really grow out of this way of seeing the world, but many of us do learn to distinguish between where the mind ends and where the world begins. If you ask me, this is the only real difference between the mind of the the theist and the mind of the scientist. Both the theist and the scientist attribute conscious or purposeful behaviour to inanimate objects, for instance. Both the theist and the scientist can talk of the "order" of the solar system, the gravitational "attraction" of the bodies within it, or how "perfectly situated" one of these planets is to sustain life. The difference is that the scientist recognises that the concepts of "order", "attraction" and "perfect situation" are contrivances of the mind rather than properties of the universe. The theist, on the other hand, presumes that these concepts must actually be properties of the universe: afterall, how could the human mind perceive "order" unless it were an inherent property of the universe? The failure of the theistic mind, then, is the inability to decouple empirical observations from the emotional states that inexorably frame them. The next time you look out into the universe and find purpose there, Krypton, you can answer me this question: on what basis do you presume this "purpose" to be a product of the universe, rather than your own mind?

Thank you for that very interesting view. I had never heard of this childlike psychology.

Wouldn't the simple existence of order imply a purpose? And with order, an 'orderer'? Order cannot just spontaneously happen.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Thank you for that very interesting view. I had never heard of this childlike psychology. Wouldn't the simple existence of order imply a purpose? And with order, an 'orderer'? Order cannot just spontaneously happen.

Order does not imply purpose. Where is the logical connection?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Order does not imply purpose. Where is the logical connection?

Then where does order come from? Does it spontaneously create itself? My answer is No, order comes from a purpose to have the order.

___________________

If energy flows into a system then there can be order. Water droplots forming into snowflakes has nothing to do with purpose

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Wouldn't the simple existence of order imply a purpose? And with order, an 'orderer'? Order cannot just spontaneously happen.

I don't think you quite got my point.

Firstly, I didn't say that order existed in the universe, I said that it is natural to perceive order in the universe. When we examine the motion of the planets, for instance, there is an elegance there that can seem almost purposeful. My argument, however, is that this illusion of "purpose" (and/or "order") is a product of the mind, rather than of the universe itself.

Secondly, as I have said to you before, there is a distinction that must be made between "order" and "stability". The word "order" immediately implies a level of organisation or intention, which is why - I presume - you are so quick to jump from the concept of "order" to the concept of "orderer". As I said to you in this thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist.

The distinction - if it is anything more than semantics - is that order implies some sort of external force or energy, whereas stability implies a balance or a minimal exertion of energy.

Let's go back to the motion of the planets, for instance. We now know that gravity isn't a force of attraction, it's a force of distortion. The Earth doesn't revolve around the sun because of some confluence of factors that "luckily" allow the planet to orbit the sun in an "orderly" manner (as though the possibility of it being sucked into the sun was somehow equally likely), but rather because it is taking the "path of least resistance" around the distended space caused by the gravity of the sun. Given the motion of our planet and the shape of the space it occupies, the orbit of the Earth is therefore a product of "stability" (the most balanced, sustainable and probable outcome) rather than "order" (which implies an unnatural balance maintained only through determined prescience).

The same logic (of "stable" structures) can be applied to any natural system you care to name.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think you quite got my point. Firstly, I didn't say that order existed in the universe, I said that it is natural to perceive order in the universe. When we examine the motion of the planets, for instance, there is an elegance there that can seem almost purposeful. My argument, however, is that this illusion of "purpose" (and/or "order") is a product of the mind, rather than of the universe itself. Secondly, as I have said to you before, there is a distinction that must be made between "order" and "stability". The word "order" immediately implies a level of organisation or intention, which is why - I presume - you are so quick to jump from the concept of "order" to the concept of "orderer". As I said to you in this thread: The distinction - if it is anything more than semantics - is that order implies some sort of external force or energy, whereas stability implies a balance or a minimal exertion of energy. Let's go back to the motion of the planets, for instance. We now know that gravity isn't a force of attraction, it's a force of distortion. The Earth doesn't revolve around the sun because of some confluence of factors that "luckily" allow the planet to orbit the sun in an "orderly" manner (as though the possibility of it being sucked into the sun was somehow equally likely), but rather because it is taking the "path of least resistance" around the distended space caused by the gravity of the sun. Given the motion of our planet and the shape of the space it occupies, the orbit of the Earth is therefore a product of "stability" (the most balanced, sustainable and probable outcome) rather than "order" (which implies an unnatural balance maintained only through determined prescience). The same logic (of "stable" structures) can be applied to any natural system you care to name.

Our ability to reason makes us able to evaluate the universe as is. If our perception of the universe is is limited to illusions of the mind, why bother trying to perceive it?

Stability is a result of order. Because the universe follows rules, which gives it order, then it is stable. The rules give it order, and as a result, an equilibrium, a stability. Aren't rules made to give order? It seems like our universe follows very exact and complex rules. So, according to your arguement, this observation is just an illusion in my mind?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Our ability to reason makes us able to evaluate the universe as is. If our perception of the universe is is limited to illusions of the mind, why bother trying to perceive it?

Our perception isn't limited to illusions of the mind, it's shaped by illusions of the mind. Everyone - atheist, creationist, or otherwise - has a mind that wants to bend information to fit the way of thinking to which it has been accustomed: for evolutionary reasons, minds are generally most comfortable thinking in emotional or social terms, but this does not exhaust the ways in which perceptions can be shaped by neural processing. In all cases, we have to be careful to distinguish between properties of reality and properties of the mind.

So, on that note, could you answer the question I asked at the end of my first post?:

quote:

The next time you look out into the universe and find purpose there, Krypton, you can answer me this question: on what basis do you presume this "purpose" to be a product of the universe, rather than your own mind?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Stability is a result of order.

No, order is a subversion of stability. By my definition, stability constitutes a natural balance that cannot be overcome without recourse to external energy, whereas order constitutes a balance that cannot be sustained without recourse to external energy. In a universe in which the first law of thermodynamics applies, we can talk of stable systems (where the energy of all the elements the system reach a natural stasis) but not of ordered systems (where an external energy source is necessary to maintain the stasis).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Because the universe follows rules, which gives it order, then it is stable.

Other way round: the universe is stable, which gives us the illusion of order, which permits us to create "laws". The laws we divise are an attempt to explain the stability we find. The stability we find is not, therefore, the consequence of of our "laws".

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The rules give it order, and as a result, an equilibrium, a stability. Aren't rules made to give order? It seems like our universe follows very exact and complex rules. So, according to your arguement, this observation is just an illusion in my mind?

Um, does it seem like "our universe follows very exact and complex rules"? Absolutely: that's my point. To both the theist and atheist it seems that way. While the atheist can recognise that the words "rule" or "law" are just useful ways of describing natural patterns that are objectively and consitently true in our experiences, the theist presumes that "rules" or "laws" must therefore be an inherent property of the universe itself: in the "social" mind, afterall, a rule cannot exist without someone there to create or enforce it! As I said, "The failure of the theistic mind, then, is the inability to decouple empirical observations from the emotional states that inexorably frame them". We are conditioned to think in social terms, so we may therefore be conditioned to think that "rules" are created and enforced by a conscious mind. The stable patterns of the universe, however, obey no such logic. The "order" or "purpose" you perceive is a function of your mind, not of the universe.

If you disagree, I'm open to all the empirical evidence you can find.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/