-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Teleonomy vs. Teleology
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Based on these definitions, I'm firmly in the teleonomy mindset.
Based on these definitions, I'm firmly in the teleology mindset.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Okay. Then you must accept that all your "intentional" acts are only apparent (not actual). IOW, any goal-directed behavior you perceive either in yourself or others must necessarily be deemed illusory.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
But why haven't you voted?
I did. Aren't we winning 2 to 0??
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
No, I do not 'must' accept this. My purpose is subjective to my goals. I may to redefine teleonomy or come up with a new term, but your definitions are hardly all inclusive.
new term = the fact or character attributed to the purposefulness of living organisms.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
I think somehow my vote did not register, or I messed it up. I have now voted.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. It was my fault. I'm the one who didn't vote.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Then you're waffling. Previously you stated: "Based on these definitions, I'm firmly in the teleonomy mindset" (your words, not mine).
What does this mean? It means that apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms are just that - apparent.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Yes, I am revising my statement to my opinion. I am adjusting my view, a consequence of considering your argument. I am neither teleonomic, nor telolgogic. The terms do not describe the range of possibility. This question has been educational to me and perhaps will continue to be so.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
What are the other possibilities?
By the way, you might want to consider one of my related threads entitled "The Argument "For" and "Against" Creative Intelligence (Human or Divine)".
Neither, I would go with Self Organization.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
1) Purpose is everywhere.
2) Purpose is nowhere.
3) Purpose is in some places.
Purpose is subjective. It does not exist outside the self. My purpose is REAL TO ME.
2) Purpose is nowhere.
3) Purpose is in some places.
Purpose is subjective. It does not exist outside the self. My purpose is REAL TO ME.
This brings us to the question of how does atoms and electrons functioning independently and each just following natural law experience as an organic one that has subjective feelings. I can't make sense of it when following reductionist thinking.
Both, neither, and other.
I voted "don't know," largely because I don't feel my perspectives can be pigeonholed into one category or the other based on such terse and inadequate definitions.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
That's the teleonomic view. Any apparent purpose exhibited in the world (including your own thoughts, acts, and behavior) is purely illusory.
Skwim
Veteran Member
From Wikipedia
"Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history, from adaptation for reproductive success, or generally, from the operation of a program."
No mention of illusion. And, I've never thought of evolution as being goal directed. So, even if notions such as evolution being goal directed are mistakenly regarded as an illusion by some, it's not one I share. Your brand of teleonomy wouldn't fit me. Therefore, I need a "neither" option.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
This speaks to noting other than the apparent use of biological structure and function. It in no way can be contrasted with Teleology. This is not even open for debate. It merely says "the lungs has an apparent purposefulness, this appearance of purpose we call teleonomy." It doesn't speak to whether there is a REAL purposefulness. It merely acknowledges that there certainly APPEARS to be a purpose to lungs, heart, blood, etc.
This does not even speak to the subjective purpose I spoke of earlier. It is not talking about MY purpose as a sentient being. It is talking about the purpose of the carapace of a crawdad. It has zero to do with sentience, or the purpose of the universe. I apologize for not recognizing what this was really saying earlier.
Do you believe the lungs have an apparent purpose? If so then you hold to teleonomy!