|
On July 15 2010 08:34 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 08:32 Gnosis wrote:
Then it would appear to be a legitimate question: why aren't organisms "programmed" to live longer, to reproduce many more times than they already do? If an organism produces the strongest of its kind, I fail to see how "once an organism reproduces, it's no longer needed" answers the question. what do you mean by "if an organism produces the strongest of its kind"? some live longer than others, and some reproduce more than others.
Sorry for the poor phrasing, I'll try to express it another way. If we think of evolution as involving reproduction (for the survival of a species), then why haven't species tended to evolve the "ability" to live to great ages, so that a species may reproduce more. In fact, wouldn't the survival of a species be all the more "secured" if procreation is possible from a very young age, while possible up to and through great ("old") age?
|
Simple. Because living long age is bad. Long lived beings can't adapt as easy to outside factors as short lived ones. The purpose of life in a deterministic sense of view is dictated by the genes, and they don't care how long you live. They will be passed with reproduction, and in that respect, they have indeed a long life. The better they are, the longer their life. And by life, i mean the time they exist.
|
On July 15 2010 08:48 Duelist wrote:
Simple. Because living long age is bad. Long lived beings can't adapt as easy to outside factors as short lived ones. The purpose of life in a deterministic sense of view is dictated by the genes, and they don't care how long you live. They will be passed with reproduction, and in that respect, they have indeed a long life. The better they are, the longer their life. And by life, i mean the time they exist.
To ask another question, then, why do they 'care" about being passed on?
|
|
|
On July 15 2010 08:58 Duelist wrote:
To exist.
To be redundant, why care about existing?
|
They care as much as virus. They don't control it. They come to exist by accident, as a mutation. If they happen to be a good mutation, and by good i mean good for themselves, for their survival and replication, since they might be good or bad for their bearer, they keep existing, otherwise they disappear.
|
the genes that survive and replicate, do survive and replicate. self-replicating systems have a tendency to propagate. you may as well be asking, "why does the earth care about rotating?"
|
So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
|
"That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really?
|
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote:
So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be".
An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care.
Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources.
|
On July 15 2010 09:14 Duelist wrote:
"That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really?
To learn.
On July 15 2010 09:41 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote:
So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct? Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be". An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care. Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources.
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
|
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
|
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:14 Duelist wrote:
"That's just the way it is".. that could be said about anything. I explained why genes are like they are. But if you want to know the last reason why they are like this i don't know. What's your point really? To learn.
I see. Well that's coherent with the nick.
On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:41 kzn wrote:On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote:
So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct? Not quite. Its "thats the way it has to be". An organism that doesn't care to survive, that doesn't care to reproduce, will not survive, and will not reproduce, when faced with competition from organisms that do care. Thus, the only organisms that are left are those that care. There is no reason "why" except that it is the only outcome possible in a universe of scarce resources. That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking.
About the "why does it care about surviving" i already replied, about the "why is it the way it is" It is the way it is, because it happened to be this way or because it was made this way by someone or something, if you believe in a greater power. If the universe had another set of rules, if an hydrogen proton would weight more, or the electric charge of an electron would be higher, or if the initial conditions of the earth that allowed the first living beings were different, the genes would be different. Scientists speculate those universes actullay exist, and belong to dimensions above the 4th, up to the 11th. Sometimes luck or lack of is a factor. Some animals could not exist today, because some predators happened to found to their last hatch of eggs.
|
On July 15 2010 07:18 Gnosis wrote:
What if I believe that suffering comes from a belief in impermanence, whereas happiness comes from proper desire, attachment, etc. Would Buddhism then tell me that my beliefs are errant, and that this is impossible?
You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant.
If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why.
On July 15 2010 09:48 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking. No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
In my mind this must come to be. Science will never be able to take the leap from objectivity to explaining subjectivity. And spirituality is no longer spirituality if it explains quantitative things. The only logical solution would be a unity. I would argue this would be the only way that we would have a satisfactory paradigm of reality.
|
Edited:
Ok, sorry. You start by creating a false dychotomy, because it's not science and religion, but science and phisolophy, being that religion and spirituality are actually close to irrelevant to this discussion, because faith based on random supernatural will very hardly be on the basis to prove or gain knowledge about anything.
Secondly, science for now cannot explain why because it is not advanced enough. We don't know yet every factual information there is to know about our universe and others if they exist. When we do, we will know at least how, and when it started. Depending on the how, the why might then be susceptible of being reasoned through.
Thirdly you introduced a possibly false fact. The "why" is not necessarily subjective. There may very well be a very objective reason, nothing but deterministic of why things came to be. It could be objective, logical.
Finally about this
"Respect my position and understand that whether or not you think I have a valid position does not mean that I do not."
That is true if, and only if, neither of our positions is sustained on facts, because as you know, aggainst facts there are no arguments.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2010 09:58 Duelist wrote:Just a small correction. Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 07:18 Gnosis wrote:
What if I believe that suffering comes from a belief in impermanence, whereas happiness comes from proper desire, attachment, etc. Would Buddhism then tell me that my beliefs are errant, and that this is impossible? You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant. If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why. On July 15 2010 09:48 kzn wrote:On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking. No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive. I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why for now and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science. In my mind this must come to be. Science will never be able to take the leap from objectivity to explaining subjectivity. And spirituality is no longer spirituality if it explains quantitative things. The only logical solution would be a unity. I would argue this would be the only way that we would have a satisfactory paradigm of reality.
Umm, what lol?
|
Bold parts 
|
On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 07:18 Gnosis wrote:
What if I believe that suffering comes from a belief in impermanence, whereas happiness comes from proper desire, attachment, etc. Would Buddhism then tell me that my beliefs are errant, and that this is impossible? You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant. If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why. Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:48 kzn wrote:On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking. No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive. I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science. In my mind this must come to be. Science will never be able to take the leap from objectivity to explaining subjectivity. And spirituality is no longer spirituality if it explains quantitative things. The only logical solution would be a unity. I would argue this would be the only way that we would have a satisfactory paradigm of reality.
Please do not edit my posts back to me. Respect my position and understand that whether or not you think I have a valid position does not mean that I do not. Please put some thought into your rhetoric and present arguments for why you believe so.
Saying science cannot explain 'for now' is the same as saying "God wills it". Its based on nothing actually factual.
|
On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote:
I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science.
The thing is, science can explain how things are. Philosophy might cast doubt on whether or not thats how they "actually" are, but it cant make that doubt anything to worry about.
|
On July 15 2010 10:15 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote:
I believe that here, between you and Gnosis, is the age old debate between science and religion. Science cannot explain why and religion cannot explain how. Perhaps, they are both wrong. Or more accurately, the best paradigm that would be able to explain how things actually are, would be a mixture of both spirituality and science. The thing is, science can explain how things are. Philosophy might cast doubt on whether or not thats how they "actually" are, but it cant make that doubt anything to worry about.
Oh really? Not even the fact that science itself, just like all other belief systems, has made underlying assumptions about reality. Science is not an 'objective' understanding of the world. It is more like a scientific philosophy. And in todays society we have something more like 'scientific materialism'.
Everything is based off of a first belief. For science it is that the world can actually be truly objective and that material things is all there is. If it is not material, then it must somehow be based off of material properties.
Science doesn't offer any justification for why this is. It merely makes the assumption that this is the way the universe is.
If you seriously disagree with me I will give you these works to possibly provide further information then what I will argue.
One major flaw of science is that it has not ever been able to solve the so called 'hard problem of consciousness'.
http://thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790
Books: Embracing Mind - Allan B Wallace
The first is the most accessible that are currently know of and the second is the best I know of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
