|
On May 30 2012 03:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 03:47 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2012 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean). The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits. edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry.
other possible configurations of the fundamental forces
AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken. It's an open question because we have no way of knowing sans proof that they are actually true. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "actually" true. They are theoretical entities which are currently adequate to describe observed phenomena without anomalous results. I think a lot of people are unclear on the relationship between theory and proof - people tend to go around demanding that people "prove" things, which is, strictly speaking, not something one does in science. I don't understand what you mean here. What is "they"? Metaphysics? Metaphysics is different from epistemology... Show nested quote +
He was implying that there was a purpose for life existing. I was suggesting that there didn't need to be one, and that if there was one sughgesting so would need more support than currently being given to be considered equally valid. Which could just be my love of Ockham's razor, but I think its pretty legit.
Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood what you were discussing. Evolution is certainly not teleological in the vulgar sense in which I think he intends it. It seems to me, however, likely that evolutionary systems often produce consciousness, and it is my feeling that there are not any paradigms of consciousness which are radically different from our own. In this sense, evolution, whenever it produces consciousness, always produces roughly the same kind of consciousness, and is thus in some highly qualified sense teleological.
I meant "actually" like 'observed' or proved instead of true. Like you can't tell that they are possible until you see them happen, even though that has no actual affect on the outcome. I think we are on the same page because I agree with what you wrote at least.
I totally fucked up metaphysics. "Above physics" and all that - sorry I meant supernatural.
And I very much agree that simple systems can create complex meta-systems (pretend I'm using that correctly). The blue-brain project seems to imply this. And I agree that it is 'teleological' in the sense that it is defined, or its possibilities are. But not designed.
Possibly related: Its like a leaf falling from a tree. There are so many places for it to fall that predicting its landing spot is almost 0% (huge tree). But its gonna hit the ground, no matter what.
Sorry for language errors I am not classically trained.
|
On May 30 2012 04:37 seppolevne wrote:
Sorry for language errors I am not classically trained.
Hey, no worries man, I think we are on the same page.
I hope I don't seem like I am picking nits; I can't help being a philosopher it's a sort of compulsive behavior 
edit:
And I agree that it is 'teleological' in the sense that it is defined, or its possibilities are. But not designed.
I think this is a very good way to put it!
|
Hyrule19221 Posts
|
Another way you can think about evolution is that it contains purpose within itself, rather than being informed by purpose exterior to it.
|
On May 30 2012 04:31 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 04:24 Sovern wrote:On May 30 2012 03:54 sam!zdat wrote:On May 30 2012 03:47 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2012 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean). The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits. edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry.
other possible configurations of the fundamental forces
AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken. It's an open question because we have no way of knowing sans proof that they are actually true. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "actually" true. They are theoretical entities which are currently adequate to describe observed phenomena without anomalous results. I think a lot of people are unclear on the relationship between theory and proof - people tend to go around demanding that people "prove" things, which is, strictly speaking, not something one does in science.
Discussing metaphysics does not imply that they exist outside of the mind.
I don't understand what you mean here. What is "they"? Metaphysics? Metaphysics is different from epistemology...
He was implying that there was a purpose for life existing. I was suggesting that there didn't need to be one, and that if there was one sughgesting so would need more support than currently being given to be considered equally valid. Which could just be my love of Ockham's razor, but I think its pretty legit.
Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood what you were discussing. Evolution is certainly not teleological in the vulgar sense in which I think he intends it. It seems to me, however, likely that evolutionary systems often produce consciousness, and it is my feeling that there are not any paradigms of consciousness which are radically different from our own. In this sense, evolution, whenever it produces consciousness, always produces roughly the same kind of consciousness, and is thus in some highly qualified sense teleological. What created evolutionary systems and evolution in the first place and why? They are emergent from chemistry. edit: I like to think about it as being a Very Good Idea.
They are emergent from chemistry doesn't answer any of my questions though.
On May 30 2012 03:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 03:32 Sovern wrote:
What purpose does life have for the universe to create it and why is organic matter capable of coming together to form life and be able to evolve and create life with all kinds of features and differences in structure. Why why and why?
Well this is certainly the wrong question to be asking. Why do you assume that life must be inherently teleological? What is the meaning of "purpose" as you use it here? Again, I'll refer you to the article on emergence, which is a more sophisticated idea than "mere probability."
I assume that life must be "inherently teleological" or in laymen s terms have purpose and an original design because why else would organic matter or any matter for that purpose come together to form life? What does the matter gain?
I know that its a bad comparison but you don't see comets forming together with other planets to create advanced forms of planets that evolve over time into something more complex. Everything in the universe has reasoning behind it regarding why and how it does things but in evolution I cant figure out why matter would form together and evolve in the first place and then follow it up with a process of evolution. It serves no purpose to any physical laws and no purpose to the universe itself which is why I believe that it had to of been programmed to be that way.
Basically, matter is matter. Why would matter want to form together to create life and then evolve over a process known as natural selection? Stars explode and organic matter forms with a programmed order of evolution in place only to one day go back to being dust and resonating with all of the other matter in the universe. So, why would matter want to form to create life in the first place, what usefulness does it have to "organic" matter itself for it to even start that process?
Why wouldn't organic matter just resonate with the rest of the universe like the rest of matter or does the universe have a mind of its own and think that its a good idea to have a process programmed into it to create one day intelligent life that can have the discussion that we're having right now and observe its beauty firsthand.
To re clarify anyone that questions my religious beliefs, I am an agnostic. I do not know if any God's exist and I don't follow any religions.
|
Well, in a sense, emergence does mean that it is "programmed" into matter.
Once you have accidentally created a self-replicating structure, evolution takes things from there.
These proto-replicators most likely arose in tidal pools of long organic molecules, subjected to repeated processes of desiccation and hydration. They probably arose a huge number of times and dead ended for various reasons which I'm sure you can imagine.
This is why it is a "Very Good Idea." Once it has happened, because of what it is, it keeps happening.
So yes, the properties of matter are the precondition and "program" (emergently) the life process.
edit: what do you mean by "what does the matter gain"?
It almost sounds like you are applying bourgeois conceptions of utility and profit-motive to matter itself, which is a new one even on me. In literature we would call this the "pathetic fallacy" (from pathos; I'm not calling you "pathetic" for committing it).
edit again: and the fact that it seems like the development of these replicators would be highly unlikely is irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1) the universe is a big place and 2) the weak anthropic principle.
edit edit edit:
They are emergent from chemistry doesn't answer any of my questions though.
Well, it answers your question precisely; perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Did you read the article?
|
On May 30 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:
Well, in a sense, emergence does mean that it is "programmed" into matter.
Once you have accidentally created a self-replicating structure, evolution takes things from there.
These proto-replicators most likely arose in tidal pools of long organic molecules, subjected to repeated processes of desiccation and hydration. They probably arose a huge number of times and dead ended for various reasons which I'm sure you can imagine.
This is why it is a "Very Good Idea." Once it has happened, because of what it is, it keeps happening.
So yes, the properties of matter are the precondition and "program" (emergently) the life process.
edit: what do you mean by "what does the matter gain"?
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter? An explosion (The Big Bang)? Why would it keep happening though, I cant wrap my had around why the proto-replicators would even want to form together to create life in the first place, why wouldnt they just sit idle. They had to be programmed or emergence like you said.
As for what I mean by "what does matter gain", to re clarify my point, what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust if the universe continues to expand or winds up super hot and condensed possibly in a liquid state as the big crunch theory proposes.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about, its not as simple as things that need no explanation such as a star dying or a planets rotation around the sun. Why would matter create such a complicated process to form life if eventually it will all be dust anyways? Something so complicated makes no sense to do unless (this is my opinion) it has purpose which I do believe that we do. To look in the night sky knowing that we were created from star dust is something truly amazing and that is enough purpose on its own in my opinion (if the universe truly had a conscious mind).
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
On May 30 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:Well, in a sense, emergence does mean that it is "programmed" into matter. Once you have accidentally created a self-replicating structure, evolution takes things from there. These proto-replicators most likely arose in tidal pools of long organic molecules, subjected to repeated processes of desiccation and hydration. They probably arose a huge number of times and dead ended for various reasons which I'm sure you can imagine. This is why it is a "Very Good Idea." Once it has happened, because of what it is, it keeps happening. So yes, the properties of matter are the precondition and "program" (emergently) the life process. edit: what do you mean by "what does the matter gain"? It almost sounds like you are applying bourgeois conceptions of utility and profit-motive to matter itself, which is a new one even on me. In literature we would call this the "pathetic fallacy" (from pathos; I'm not calling you "pathetic" for committing it). edit again: and the fact that it seems like the development of these replicators would be highly unlikely is irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1) the universe is a big place and 2) the weak anthropic principle. edit edit edit: Well, it answers your question precisely; perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Did you read the article?
I know all about the evolutionary anthropological principle and the cosmos anthropological principle but matter still had to have been programmed to form together and create life in the first place. My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance?
|
I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao
|
Hey guys, I really like the discussions happening, just remember to respect each others opinions because we all have no idea but theories.
Updated the Community Edits page, if you feel that there should be other additions or you want something there, pm me and I will decide if it should be put on.
Thanks guys
|
On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote:I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other. This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think. Show nested quote +
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter? Show nested quote +
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence. Show nested quote +
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao
I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is weird (to me at least).
EDIT: Just read about the pathethic fallacy and I'd have to say that my questions dont line up with it. I don't personify or give human quality's to matter, I'm just wondering how and why organic matter was pre programmed or "emergence" to form life?
|
On May 30 2012 09:05 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote:I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is what I'd like to call pathetic though (although not a "fallacy").
I just said how I wanted you all to stay respectful, it's bolded in the main thread, if you post again in this thread and insinuate or flat out imply that they have a pathetic idea based on a topic no one understands, I will report you for derailing my topic and abusing others ideals.
Thank you
EDIT:
This also includes the person who is in the argument on the vice verse, both of you need to take this to PM's or leave it here now.
Thanks again
|
On May 30 2012 09:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:05 Sovern wrote:On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote:I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is what I'd like to call pathetic though (although not a "fallacy"). I just said how I wanted you all to stay respectful, it's bolded in the main thread, if you post again in this thread and insinuate or flat out imply that they have a pathetic idea based on a topic no one understands, I will report you for derailing my topic and abusing others ideals. Thank you EDIT: This also includes the person who is in the argument on the vice verse, both of you need to take this to PM's or leave it here now. Thanks again
Nice stealth edit, I'd never call anyone pathetic. Stay classy my friend. You can just pm people instead of derailing a debate.
|
Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly
Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics.
"My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance?
Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29"
Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are,
Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent
Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky"
It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now),
The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either.
So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this.
Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know
Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end.
You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack)
The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion.
In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now.
Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events.
All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain
Matter does not have a "purpose".
|
On May 30 2012 09:12 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On May 30 2012 09:05 Sovern wrote:On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote:I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is what I'd like to call pathetic though (although not a "fallacy"). I just said how I wanted you all to stay respectful, it's bolded in the main thread, if you post again in this thread and insinuate or flat out imply that they have a pathetic idea based on a topic no one understands, I will report you for derailing my topic and abusing others ideals. Thank you EDIT: This also includes the person who is in the argument on the vice verse, both of you need to take this to PM's or leave it here now. Thanks again Nice stealth edit, I'd never call anyone pathetic. Stay classy my friend. You can just pm people instead of derailing a debate.
-.- You do see that your edit is after mine right, meaning you changed it when I took notice, and you do realize mods have all edits of the posts and can see what you originally typed... Meaning that when I report you, which I will if you keep posting spam in my thread, that they will see that not only were you derailing, you also lied about it publicly.
NEW THREAD UPDATE EVERYONE,
PLEASE READ
Thank you,
PS, Thread back on topic. Thank you everyone.
|
On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote:Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics. "My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29" Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end. You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose".
You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality).
As for the OP, why the rudeness? As someone that respects the Buddhist philosophy and is eager to learn more about it you could show a little more respect.
|
On May 30 2012 04:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 04:37 seppolevne wrote:
Sorry for language errors I am not classically trained. Hey, no worries man, I think we are on the same page. I hope I don't seem like I am picking nits; I can't help being a philosopher it's a sort of compulsive behavior edit: Show nested quote +
And I agree that it is 'teleological' in the sense that it is defined, or its possibilities are. But not designed.
I think this is a very good way to put it!
Pick all the nits you want, not that you are. I spend enough time in my head to need all the reality checks I can get, thanks ^^
|
On May 30 2012 09:50 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote:Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics. "My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29" Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end. You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose". You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality). As for the OP, why the rudeness? As someone that respects the Buddhist philosophy and is eager to learn more about it you could show a little more respect.
You in no way have to be a "slave to your genetics". You are a conscious creature who is in self-apparent control of one's actions. Find out what you want, what you truly want, and make that your purpose. Why borrow one? It could never be as personal as your own. Choosing to live a lie confuses and depresses me. Each their own I suppose.
|
On May 30 2012 09:50 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote:Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics. "My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29" Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end. You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose". You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality).
Our life has as close to no impact on the universe as humanly imaginable. In the grand scheme of things, we are just matter, and we dont serve a "purpose" in the sense of impact on the universe. We are however evolved, highly intelligent beings, that can have a sense of purpose within our community (namely here on earth with other human beings). To think life lacks purpose because the universe isnt greatly impacted by us is a common anthropomorphic error human beings make. There is enough purpose in life just impacting those closest to you positively. You could spread your influence to more by helping those not as close to you.
Every interaction you have with people will resonate with them, and effect them. If you live a good, happy, healthy, loving life, and positively effect those around you, that effect will be remembered and passed on. Our purpose is to live, and to love, and to spread that to those around us. I dont care if I impact the universe or not, I dont care if I die and turn to dirt and thats the end (which is what I believe happens), there is enough purpose to the ~80-85 years people spend here on average where that doesnt even matter.
|
On May 30 2012 10:24 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:50 Sovern wrote:On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote:Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics. "My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29" Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end. You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose". You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality). Our life has as close to no impact on the universe as humanly imaginable. In the grand scheme of things, we are just matter, and we dont serve a "purpose" in the sense of impact on the universe. We are however evolved, highly intelligent beings, that can have a sense of purpose within our community (namely here on earth with other human beings). To think life lacks purpose because the universe isnt greatly impacted by us is a common anthropomorphic error human beings make. There is enough purpose in life just impacting those closest to you positively. You could spread your influence to more by helping those not as close to you. Every interaction you have with people will resonate with them, and effect them. If you live a good, happy, healthy, loving life, and positively effect those around you, that effect will be remembered and passed on. Our purpose is to live, and to love, and to spread that to those around us. I dont care if I impact the universe or not, I dont care if I die and turn to dirt and thats the end (which is what I believe happens), there is enough purpose to the ~80-85 years people spend here on average where that doesnt even matter.
If you believe what you said in your first paragraph than I feel bad for you. That is a very depressing and demeaning mindset. I believe that without a mind to see its beauty the universe does not exist. Our mind creates the universe, so without us the universe is meaningless and the roles reverse as we make the universe significant.
I also believe that we weren't by mere chance and aren't just "matter". We can simplify everything and call it just matter but that does nothing but make everything seem depressing and its downgrading in my opinion.
|
The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
