Terrapin Station

You only have a goal if you think about something in terms of a goal. Are you saying that every single thought you have is in terms of a goal?

If you stop thinking about anything in terms of goals and purposes you're not going to have a goal of nihilism. You'd have to have "I have a goal of n...

No. It doesn't have anything to do with nihilism.

Of course. Simply stop thinking about anything that way.

If someone thinks about it that way. Again, goals and purposes are not the same thing, though.

The idea that (it's true that) a human should (or shouldn't) have goals or that there's a purpose to having goals. Or are you asking what category err...

There are no shoulds or purposes other than thinking about things in those terms. So you're looking for an answer that can't be had--it's a category e...

There's not just one reason for it. Some of it is just curiosity about other people and what their lives are like. Sometimes it's a way to live vicari...

"No such purpose" is a different phrase than "No purpose." "No such purpose" means that they do not have the purpose in question if it's not conscious...

How about trying to not come across like an annoying asshole? Maybe that would work.

When I watch that I'm just waiting for that part where I have to start shooting people. (I like playing video games.)

Sounds preachy and kind of elitist or snobby to me. I did read some of it, but it doesn't really appeal to me.

So in addition to your reading comprehension problems, you think you know what someone has in mind better than they do.

Saying I have no answer, when I'm giving you the answer but you're just saying it's not acceptable without explaining why it's not acceptable doesn't ...

I'm guessing, by the way, that there must be some apologist who forwards an argument based on the idea that traits (including abilities, etc.) that ar...

Morality also includes modalities such as "permissible," "recommendable," "optional," etc. With respect to things that are morally obligatory or imper...

I like a woman with teeth.

Re the post I just made above this, someone only has a purpose to fall in love and procreate if they intentionally think, "I have a goal or purpose to...

Re this, instincts aren't purposes. Purposes are ways that we consciously think about something. As I explained, it's a motivational, goal-directed ma...

As I say here, there is no why other than this: "The only reason that those things exist is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural process...

So let's do this first: This is why it's important to not bypass some posts. Re why humans can think about things in terms of purpose, I said this, in...

What I wrote was "The world in general has no purposes." In other words, outside of humans thinking about things that way, purposes do not obtain in t...

Sure. So start with that. What did you take to be a contradiction (presumably some P (some proposition) that I both asserted and denied)? Re that, I p...

They'll express that they're dubious about quantum mechanics supporting it if someone brings up that the consensus view in the sciences isn't that the...

No, it doesn't. I'm not saying that it's not present here, but you can't glean that it necessarily is from what I wrote. "Online forums like this" sim...

Right, and aside from you being an Aspie in your interpretation of that, it still doesn't explain this additional reading comprehension problem (see? ...

Good to know you've followed my interaction with all manner of different people for the past 40 years. No. Reading comprehension error. " "Free will o...

You're not even addressing most posts/most points or questions in those posts.

It's addressing the question in pointing out that asking about experience is irrelevant if one is positing that there are non-experiential things. In ...

If you're saying there is something that's not experiential then you can't say that all existents are experiential.

You're suggesting one. God or the source of order in your view. If there is such a thing, then that thing exists and not all existents have parts, etc...

So then you'd need to explain what you think is the non-straw man version of god(s) . . . and of course that will probably lead to new issues and new ...

It would seem to me that if there is a source of order, and the source of order does not have a beginning or end in time, and it's not composed of par...

The instrumental approach is explicitly not thoroughly deterministic. If you were to look up a definition of "stochastic processes," you'd find conten...

Yeah, positive. We could put money on it. If you can find a logic textbook that talks about burden of proof or "needing to defend" certain claims, you...

It's not though. The only reason that those things exist is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural processes can and did result in the for...

The conventions of logic don't actually have anything to do with ideas of "needing to defend" anything.

I just ate some kielbasa.

Per what?

It's properties of your brain--ways that your brain works. The brain structure and function that amount to properties in question arose because of gen...

Religious claims are no more sensible or plausible then what I proposed.

Same thing with the whole debate about the oranges growing inside of toothpick crystals etc.?

Purposes are ways that we think about things. It's thinking about something in a goal-directed way, where we have motivations for action related to go...

He just won't stop the misconception that traits only arise and persist if there's a survival value to them.

If someone were to say, "Oranges grow to full size inside pure energy crystals made out of toothpicks, where the crystals are 1,000 times smaller than...

Nah, all you have to do is admit that folks (on theistic side) are positing incoherent, insane-sounding nonsense. Also, for them to be making a positi...

There are existent things that we can't directly sense. I'm not saying anything about that when I say that the idea of nonphysical existents is incohe...

No, not at all. Teleology is goofy nonsense, precipitated by projecting the way we think about things onto the world at large. That's a common problem...

I'll go part by part. The first part? Because the notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

Yeah, it could change with a different definition, but unless someone explains that they're using some goofy definition, I assume they're using standa...