Thread: Purpose

I firmly believe that organisms as complex formations of matter eventually have a purpose in the cosmos. From their complex composition to what they compose; organisms may be just another mechanical property of the universe.

Organisms, or humans to be more exact, can read the language of structure and as such should be able to manipulate that structure and play a vital role in it's existence.

But what does that mean? I think that is a major question people will be searching for in coming years.

What is our purpose in relation to the cosmos?


Would it not be funny to consider that all of our struggles through out the years, all of what we have stood for and believe was merely a means for matter enact something.

Originally Posted by Schizo

I firmly believe that organisms as complex formations of matter eventually have a purpose in the cosmos. From their complex composition to what they compose; organisms may be just another mechanical property of the universe.

Organisms, or humans to be more exact, can read the language of structure and as such should be able to manipulate that structure and play a vital role in it's existence.

But what does that mean? I think that is a major question people will be searching for in coming years.

What is our purpose in relation to the cosmos?


Would it not be funny to consider that all of our struggles through out the years, all of what we have stood for and believe was merely a means for matter enact something.

If you look at the way the human body works, with individual cells appearing to work independently yet in fact working towards the common goal of contributing to the overall survival of the total human being then yes, little things do indeed contribute to the existence of bigger things whether they realise it or not.

Meanwhile interesting link which touches on your topic

http://www.schoolofwisdom.com/cosmo.html

What I find even more fanscinating is consciousness, that at the atomic, and even up to the cellular level, consciousness does not exist; however, join everything up together and you have consciousness.

Maybe our part within the universe is to exist simply as the observer, to break down wave-function potentials.?

"Purpose" suggests we have a "job" to do for Somebody. Meh.

If we life have our way though we will rock this universe. I wouldn't hesitate to bigbang some portion or maybe all of it into greater fertility (when it comes to walls). On the other hand, if the universe is infinite (both ways) then perhaps life is an all-pervading factor unaccounted for?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

the human body works, with individual cells appearing to work independently yet in fact working towards the common goal of contributing to the overall survival of the total human being

You women and your commie cells. A cell is just a dumb helix factory for making more helixes. :P

Well, that's the opposite view no different ultimately. Matrioska dolls. Vessels within vessels within vessels. Gaia - what's next? Why do we instinctively look up not down?

Originally Posted by Pong

Why do we instinctively look up not down?

eh?

we do both as far as I am aware

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Pong

Why do we instinctively look up not down?

eh?

we do both as far as I am aware

I don't believe you would sacrifice the whole for the good of the parts. E.g. you don't wanna push daisies even if you'd equal a ton of daisies and diverse flowers besides. And you know human speciation is taboo.

For some reason we humans rather aggregate than diffuse. That's one way, of life.

Originally Posted by Pong

"Purpose" suggests we have a "job" to do for Somebody. Meh.

I believe that the "job" we are doing is not for a somebody (higher power) but rather a something (the mechanics of matter).

I believe you're right!

Life is an integral part of the universe. And we can imagine our (human) trajectory being hugely consequential, maybe infinitely so. Yeah, life belongs in the equation... but how?

Right now I'm thinking chirality wars, and fallout from. The 'ol right vs. left. Keeps the pot stirred. So either way we beat the common enemy entropy.

I think that we will cling to the belief we are unique and apart (supernatural), some time yet.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Pong

Why do we instinctively look up not down?

eh?

we do both as far as I am aware

I don't believe you would sacrifice the whole for the good of the parts. E.g. you don't wanna push daisies even if you'd equal a ton of daisies and diverse flowers besides. And you know human speciation is taboo.

For some reason we humans rather aggregate than diffuse. That's one way, of life.

Depends what you consider as the 'parts'

Most parents would sacrifice their whole for their 'parts', their parts being their children.

Meanwhile can you write with less.......and more...... thanks.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Pong

Why do we instinctively look up not down?

eh?

we do both as far as I am aware

I don't believe you would sacrifice the whole for the good of the parts. E.g. you don't wanna push daisies even if you'd equal a ton of daisies and diverse flowers besides. And you know human speciation is taboo.

For some reason we humans rather aggregate than diffuse. That's one way, of life.

Depends what you consider as the 'parts'

Most parents would sacrifice their whole for their 'parts', their parts being their children.

Meanwhile can you write with less.......and more...... thanks.

I thought the family is the whole, the mortal individuals the parts. Maybe it's cultural. Anyway, the whole vs. the part is one of those contradictions all life must struggle with, including entities we don't normally rate living, like Korea, television, and metric machine screws.

You could say standard metric thread is just a means to the screws' end of greater reproduction. Or you could say screws are expressions of metric, i.e. they serve engineering - an abstract not the thing itself. Who's the boss? Ever feel like a cog?

It just occurred to me that screws, since they'll occur anyway, better propagate through variation and even incompatibility. In my garage collection of odd screws, screws have obviously won the war. All I can do is allow fresh screws to fill out each species, each one endangered. It feels like they've conspired to fill the shelves.

Interesting topic.

I believe our purpose is to achieve harmony, internally within ourselves and externally with both the cosmos and the dimensions that exist beyond our cosmos.

Cheers,

Eisho

If you push your brand of "harmony" with fanatical zeal, Eisho, then OK life must keep in motion. But don't go all passive alright?

I don't think that there is any purpose for life's existence.
We humans are higher developed animals, nothing more.
We have, however, succeeded in developing in such a degree that we have built something we call "culture".
The purpose of human existence is an illusion. It is constituted by the symbolic order.
If there WAS a purpose, we shouldn't bother about what to do since the purpose is there and determined.
However, since there is no purpose, we all can make the best of us.
That there is actually no meaning in life can be seen by looking at some mental disordered people. The illusion in them breaks down to a certain degree and thus they are confused and depersonalized.
Their symbolic reality doesn't function as well anymore.

The "I" is a useful tool of us humans to apply in our lives.
We can ask for the purpose of the "I", or of consciousness, but we can't ask for the purpose of life, since there is none.

Originally Posted by Pong

If you push your brand of "harmony" with fanatical zeal, Eisho, then OK life must keep in motion. But don't go all passive alright?

:-D

No, there's nothing passive about what I practice and teach. The exact opposite in fact.

Cheers,

Eisho

It seems all to odd that the universe has worked out perfectly for humanity's survival. Maybe the only purpose we have is to take advantage of how fine tuned the universe is for us.

Yeah, sometimes I wonder, "Why was I born here & now... not born in like Antarctica two centuries ago."

if you were born in antarctica 2 centuries ago you'd have been a penguin

...and I wouldn't wonder. :wink:

I just think it is interesting how we can manipulate things; from the ground to atoms. Surely... given enough evolution in intelligence we could manipulate other things. If we were able too; you could say that intelligent life was a function of the universe similar to any system. Merely doing its part in some massive mechanical process.

You have to use a little bit of logical imagination in this and think on a really big scale.

Ok, so.

True
-Humans have evolved to a level of manipulating the environment on a large scale.

Probability
-Humans will evolve further to a level of manipulating the environment on a larger scale.

True
-The more a species changes their environment, the larger the possibility of playing a role in the huge changes that take place within that environment and neighboring environments.

Wishful Thinking
-The changes that we help bring about are good. Humans have a purpose by changing the universe for the better.

Conclusion
-A change for the good? What exactly would the purpose of our role lead to? Is there some kind of final perfection to the universe? I think not.
-Do we have an effect on the universe. I'm sure we do at least where we can observe it. Have we or will we change places in the universe that we have not seen yet. We cannot scientifically conlcude that without any evidence. Based on what we know so far, it is only probable. Have we or will we effect every part of the universe? This is the least likely conclusion as of the present.

-On the other hand, our ability to change and manipulate our environment is a very important part in contiuously preventing our extinction and it always has been among all lifeforms. We should be proud but cautious. If we go barreling into the universe changing things at will like a bull in a china shop and ignore the devistation we may be causing to these somewhat 'balanced' ecosystems, we may just unravel the very environment that we depend on for our survival. Can we cause our own extinction? Well, that is another topic, but we definilty can cause suffering. We see that now.

Request
-Please tell me where I am wrong before throwing more wishful thinking at me. I truely am wanting to get something out of this. Thank you.

That is if anyone does reply. I just noticed the last date on this thread. LOL Some huge effect I'm having on my environment!

The OP began

"organisms as complex formations of matter eventually have a purpose"

and then stuck this infinitely limiting condition on it:

"Organisms, or humans to be more exact..."


This is like proposing plants live everywhere on Earth and shape the planet in a big way, then narrowing "plant" to "carrots".

Originally Posted by Pong

Yeah, sometimes I wonder, "Why was I born here & now... not born in like Antarctica two centuries ago."

Well, maybe "You" were born in Antarctica two centuries ago. You were also born many quadrillions of times in other places, over the last few billion years. Though only now (in the last few decades or so maybe) have you been able to articulate to yourself that you were (and are), in fact, here at all.

So I am penguins then? :-D We are all penguins!



Funny tidbit: Of all homo sapiens ever born, approximately 1/6 are alive today.

Originally Posted by Pong

So I am penguins then? :-D We are all penguins!

Indeed.. maybe.. you are everyone, and everything. Maybe "you" and "I" are so integrated into our environment (and each other) that it really doesn't make much sense to segregate anything from the notion of "you" and "I". Maybe you have lived and died a quadrillion times, never having the faintest clue of who you were or what the universe was like. (But, I ask, is that even living? Or is it just.. a complex reaction of chemicals and structures that interacts with the environment, just like everything else?)

Maybe the notion of "you" is an illusion. Maybe free will is an illusion. Maybe "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Maybe a lot of things. Maybe not. But maybe.

Originally Posted by christian7west

What exactly would the purpose of our role lead to? Is there some kind of final perfection to the universe? I think not.
-Do we have an effect on the universe. I'm sure we do at least where we can observe it. Have we or will we change places in the universe that we have not seen yet. We cannot scientifically conlcude that without any evidence. Based on what we know so far, it is only probable. Have we or will we effect every part of the universe? This is the least likely conclusion as of the present.

Agreed 100%.

It is arrogant of us to think that we're special.
It is naive of us to think we're anything more than highly capable animals.
It is ignorant of us to think that any grand meaning we assign to our existence is anything more than a convenient way for ourselves to accept our hardships.

But the important thing, the positive thing, is that not having some grand purpose doesn't matter. It doesn't make life any less meaningful, for each individual. We still can enjoy our lives whether we're really smart animals, or the lab rats of some powerful alien researcher (or stuck in the Matrix).

In other words, it's completely irrelevant if we do have a purpose that we don't choose for ourselves. It's irrelevant because no-one has told us what that purpose might be (though some would say otherwise, but they have so many different ideas so they can't all be right), and no-one (other than other humans) is trying to make us fulfill any purpose (though anyone with spiritual beliefs would say otherwise), so if there is some purpose, it has no apparent influence on our lives which can't be attributed to immediate and worldly influences.

(Incidentally, why is there such a distinct lack of critical thought in a forum that's supposed to be about science?)

All well said, Introspect.

Now, there is more to consider here since you brought into the picture that "no-one (other than other humans) is trying to make us fulfill any purpose". There are many institutions (past and present) that have been developed by men with the purpose of converting others to believe in what 'they' have established as the purpose of mankind. Whether they are correct or not, these different institutions exist and many of them have endoured for quite some time. For myself, I have not determined whether these institutions are completely unecessary (even considering the amount of suffering they may have caused). If you ask yourself these questions you may find yourself in my dilemma: If these institutions are so destructive towards the human species or our environment, then how did they ever develope and remain in existence for long periods of time at all? After all isn't culture apart of human evolution as well? Wouldn't certain parts of a culture eventually disappear over generations when it no longer became an adaptive advantage just like a physical part of the human body? Or would it be something like our pancreas? Let me stop there and go back to finding a purpose for mankind if any.

Purpose: This presumed purpose pertains to the individual rather than the entire human species. - Our individual purpose is to survive long enough to have offspring and (for more advanced lifeforms) to bring up our offspring.

I realize that that purpose may not be a continuously conscious effort. The concious effort would more likely be something along the lines of pleasure, happiness, and/or satisfaction. I am not sure whether we can call thoughs purposes though.

Something else about this individual purpose to think about. If we went about living our lives for the sake of happiness which subsequently leads us to surviving long enough to have offspring (and , of course living long enough to bring up our offspring), wouldn't we collectively be living in a certain way that would cause us to make big changes within our environment and neighboring environment? If I remember correctly, isn't this the purpose that this thread was originally suggesting: that mankind is suppose to make big changes in the universe and that we can see our workings as a necessary mechanism within the evolution of the universe? Oh, now I have your attention wishful thinkers! Well, sorry, I still don't think that is our purpose.

But... this does take us back to what Introspect said about people who try to push a purpose on us. If you look at everything I just wrote, these people (or the institutions I just mentioned) have the logic correct... they just reversed it!

In the state of nature, individuals do not have an obligation to follow a purpose that was assigned to all mankind that will make the universe a better place. In actuality, all individuals have a natural drive (or purpose) to survive and produce offspring which in turn as a collective (mankind) causes changes within the surroundings (the universe if you must); changes that may remain for very long periods of time.

Now, back to these institutions. Although they may be wrong about our purpose, there may still be a good explanation for why they have remained part of our culture and continually spreading this backwards vision: to remind everyone all the time that we as a collective are inadvertantly causing all kinds of changes to our environment: an evironment that our existence depends so much on. It's like reminding everyone in the smoking section of a restraunt the location of all fire exstinguishers and where the fire escape route is!

Ok. Sorry so long. Anyone? I am open to criticism, but not bashing.

Originally Posted by christian7west

There are many institutions (past and present) that have been developed by men with the purpose of converting others to believe in what 'they' have established as the purpose of mankind. If these institutions are so destructive towards the human species or our environment, then how did they ever develope and remain in existence for long periods of time at all?

They developed as a by-product of evolution. They have remained in existence because parents and the church pass on those same beliefs to their children, a form of indoctrination.

After all isn't culture apart of human evolution as well? Wouldn't certain parts of a culture eventually disappear over generations when it no longer became an adaptive advantage just like a physical part of the human body? Or would it be something like our pancreas?

In a way, yes. Although evolution abhors waste, the organism's use of a certain attribute that increased it's chances for survival earlier in it's development would not just simply disappear when it no longer required it for survival after becoming a more complex organism. Religion is similar in this regard.

Purpose: This presumed purpose pertains to the individual rather than the entire human species. - Our individual purpose is to survive long enough to have offspring and (for more advanced lifeforms) to bring up our offspring.

For the most part, correct. Survival can also require the group or species depending on the requirement for survival. Of course, we can create our own "purpose" for living our lives.

If I remember correctly, isn't this the purpose that this thread was originally suggesting: that mankind is suppose to make big changes in the universe and that we can see our workings as a necessary mechanism within the evolution of the universe?

We are pretty much an insignificant speck on the hair, on the pimple, on the ass of the universe. It's somewhat doubtful we would have such an impact as to make changes to the entire universe.

Now, back to these institutions. Although they may be wrong about our purpose, there may still be a good explanation for why they have remained part of our culture and continually spreading this backwards vision: to remind everyone all the time that we as a collective are inadvertantly causing all kinds of changes to our environment: an evironment that our existence depends so much on. It's like reminding everyone in the smoking section of a restraunt the location of all fire exstinguishers and where the fire escape route is!

I'm reminded of what a specific institutions self-appointed spokesman once said:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians". ~~~Martin Luther King.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by christian7west

There are many institutions (past and present) that have been developed by men with the purpose of converting others to believe in what 'they' have established as the purpose of mankind. If these institutions are so destructive towards the human species or our environment, then how did they ever develope and remain in existence for long periods of time at all?

They developed as a by-product of evolution. They have remained in existence because parents and the church pass on those same beliefs to their children, a form of indoctrination.

Parents for the most part are intuitively following the thrid point I made about individual purpose: raising offspring. Since children know very little about reality and are vulnerable to all sorts of danger, the parents patiently teach their children morals that they find helpful until the children are aware enough to reason for themselves. At some point in adulthood, many of these beliefs are replaced by knowledge hopefully based on some evidence. The parent, of course, will teach their children the same morals that they were taught. Many times these morals are received from one of these institutiions. What the institutions have done is gathered up all the morals that the founders have found to be helpful (or maybe true) and tied them together within a belief system. What I am suggesting is that these institutiions did not make these morals up. They gathered them from villages and older texts and so forth and reastablished them in a belief system that may have very little evidence for what it is that they beleive. But the purpose of these institutions is not to reason about reality (although many people who are connected to the institution claim this. These people may have never really learned to reason correctly. Remember that reasoning is one of the more recent developents within human evolution and the many evolutionary stages of the cognitive ability to reason my not always be developed completely with every individual. Some individuals are more advanced then others). The institutions are more likely trying to create a protective moral system. It is a protective mechanism for the those who are vulnerable. It is similar to the nest that birds prepare for their eggs.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by christian7west

After all isn't culture apart of human evolution as well? Wouldn't certain parts of a culture eventually disappear over generations when it no longer became an adaptive advantage just like a physical part of the human body? Or would it be something like our pancreas?

In a way, yes. Although evolution abhors waste, the organism's use of a certain attribute that increased it's chances for survival earlier in it's development would not just simply disappear when it no longer required it for survival after becoming a more complex organism. Religion is similar in this regard.

I agree that body parts do not just simply disappear. Many times it will gain a new function rather than become unusable. This may be the same with these long living institutions, which gives me a second reason for their importance: the institution may have previously had a different purpose, but it's system became unnecessary. So, the institution managed to survive by taking on a new purpose (developing a protective moral belief system rather then to define reality or an earlier protective moral belief system.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by christian7west

Purpose: This presumed purpose pertains to the individual rather than the entire human species. - Our individual purpose is to survive long enough to have offspring and (for more advanced lifeforms) to bring up our offspring.

For the most part, correct. Survival can also require the group or species depending on the requirement for survival. Of course, we can create our own "purpose" for living our lives.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by christian7west

Now, back to these institutions. Although they may be wrong about our purpose, there may still be a good explanation for why they have remained part of our culture and continually spreading this backwards vision: to remind everyone all the time that we as a collective are inadvertantly causing all kinds of changes to our environment: an evironment that our existence depends so much on. It's like reminding everyone in the smoking section of a restraunt the location of all fire exstinguishers and where the fire escape route is!

I'm reminded of what a specific institutions self-appointed spokesman once said:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians". ~~~Martin Luther King.

I strongly disagree that reasoning is not part of the different Christian faiths. I do agree that many Christians are opposed to any reasoning that alters their belief system, but it maybe that these same people have not developed a good cognitive ability to reason and because of this are not capable of researching the history and development of the institution they belong to. There are also many in the institution that have gained prestige through spreading the belief system and are not willing to give up their power even after they find that their belief system doesn't coincide with reality. Still others have no interest in defining reality and find value in upholding a protective belief system. This type of Christian gives me a perfect example of a reasoning Christian. They have reasoned that their belief system saves innocent lives and prevents suffering despite the fact that the system does not reflect reality.

I am not hateful towards Christians who do not hold the same beliefs as I, but I have very little tolerance for anyone (Christian or not) who willfully will not hear anything that does not fit their belief system and then ridicule me and try to prove me wrong with so many of the popular lame arguments. I spent alot of time overcoming my conditions and facing reality. I expect to be heard with respect for what I have done to aquire the ability to reason.
Let us learn about reality together! If we have agreed on the purpose(s) of mankind, then we should take the rest of the debates to another thread.

Originally Posted by christian7west

Purpose: This presumed purpose pertains to the individual rather than the entire human species. - Our individual purpose is to survive long enough to have offspring and (for more advanced lifeforms) to bring up our offspring.

WOW! To some people on this thread its like I actually asserted myself as a theorist, then forced it down someones throat. Like Christian guy who seemed to take personal offense to it. Somewhere in this thread you stated a request to get something out of it... why the hell are you reading it in the first place, if you didn't like it you did not have to respond. You are the one who wasted your time responding to it... so basically get something out of yourself... =)

And I swear every person somehow thinks in some arbitrary way about having an effect on the universe and it being good or bad... like the universe f-ing cares about good or bad...

I read another post... it was something about carrots... WTF??? CARROTS! Who the hell cares about carrots... your telling me a RABBIT has the ability at this point in time to alter massive environments... INTELLIGENT LIFE!!!

Now back to Christian guy... who is like a F-ing PHD or something... in horticulture... something like that... GAYYYYY!!! Go whine to your mommy!!! And when you can actually think for yourself get back to me...

My statement on human purpose still stands as logically sound. If it is not true, it needs to be critiqued. Any other possibilities, anyone?

I have to main posts on this thread. Read them and reply. Thanks!

Schizo - what on earth is your problem? I'm surprised a moderator hasn't come in here and edited your post. If someone is saying something you disagree with, then argue his point, don't start calling him names like you're a two year old. In any event, your arguments are hardly intelligible, and would perhaps be taken more seriously if you fleshed them out a little better before laying them out for discussion.

Christian - from what I've read of your posts, it seems to me that you have three main points that you're putting forward:

1. Human religious belief systems are, at their core, trying to protect humans by establishing a moral structure.

2. Human purpose is to achieve reproductive success.

3. Through collective action, humans, by merely trying achieve reproductive success, will eventually have a significant impact on the evolution of the universe.

To the first point:
You are sort of pointing in the right direction, but you're looking there with rose colored glasses. Religious systems do indeed impose a moral structure on human societies (a moral structure with the muscle a supernatural being backing it up), a structure which promotes cooperation and cohesiveness within the group. This behavior has persisted because groups who cooperate well together can compete better against other groups, and garner more reproductive success for all the individuals involved. In other words, systems like this persist because they can dominate and remove competition very effectively. They are resistant to change and they are aggressive and hateful of "the other," anything that is outside of the group, because that is what they do. That is their purpose, if you will.

I am speaking in general terms, of course, and with changing times and a greater consciousness about our own actions and behavior, humans can strive to make the whole race a member of their group, to maintain a moral structure while excising the need to compete against and dominate each other. We can strive, but achieving will take time. The drive to compete and dominate is embedded deep in our genetic structure (as that is how we achieve reproductive success), and it will not be easy for the entirety of the human race to overcome.

To the second point:
If this can be called human "purpose," then it is also the purpose of all forms of life. (I personally prefer the word "function" to the word "purpose" in this respect - they can be considered to have a similar meaning, it's just that word purpose tends to bring to mind a greater design or structure that simply isn't there.)

To the third point:
I agree that is possible. But as per the second point, this possible future cannot be granted to humans only, but to all life, to any life that may one day evolve into a form that can do such things.

Ummm... get a sense of humor... = )


The only people who get offended by what other people say are the ones who let themselves be offended or have not understood fully the psyche of their own mind...

I could go on all day about my short comings or insecurities, I have learned to kinda live with them. If it makes you feel any better paralith I will go ahead and insult myself.

My penis would make you laugh...

IN the case of Christian guy... if you read his original post; he was plain rude... stating that my post was a waist of time; so in my perspective I had no choice but to insult him... it was like instinct.


Oh and umm paralith.... what are you like a elementary school teacher or something???

Not intelligible... haha


And here is a real question... what makes you an authority? Is it because you feel like your more intelligent or something...

The funniest thing is that you will probably reassure yourself that you are indeed more intelligent than me to factor out my response to you... so you can brush it off as my lack of intelligence... OH he is just being childish...

A simple question can be perplexing...

christian7west was never rude, and never stated that your post was a waste of time. In fact, I can't even that he disagrees with you in any significant way. He was only stating and elaborating on his opinions on the topic. In any case, it is childish in the extreme to feel like the only response to rudeness is further insult. That's how flame wars get started and they are pointless and off topic.

As for my "authority," I am merely stating what I think about the topic at hand. That is, after all, the purpose of a discussion forum. If you wish to largely ignore my discussion points, as you have with christian7west, then there's little I can do about it.

Originally Posted by Schizo

Oh and umm paralith.... what are you like a elementary school teacher or something???

........And here is a real question... what makes you an authority? Is it because you feel like your more intelligent or something...

Here is the thing, Schizo. What makes me the authority is that the owner of the site has seen fit to invest me with certain powers, a certain authority. As such it befalls to me to tell you - not ask you - but tell you to clean your act up.

Christian7 was not rude. He agreed with the bulk of what you said, categorised one small portion of your post as 'wishful thinking' and asked that you not offer any more 'wishfu; thinking'.
If you lack the maturity to handle a rigorously phrased contrary statement on one small portion of your thoughts, then perhaps you are in the wrong place.
If you lack the debating skills to disassemble Christian7's nonsense on this point, perhaps you are in the wrong place.
If you lack the sense of balance to recognise when someone is agreeing with 90% of what you say, perhaps you are in the wrong place.
If you lack the self control to think before you act, perhaps you are in the wrong place.

I hope I mistaken in my current assessment of you. I hope you are in the right place. If so you will take these remarks as a nudge in the right direction and we can get on with discussing the issues.

In that regard, be aware that what you are proposing is gaining in respectability by some powerful minds on the fringe areas of science. (Fringe areas are what become known as frontier areas after their validity gets some confirmation. :wink: )

Wow, that was alot of ideas all in one reply, paralith. there is lots that I agree with, but i also think that you have put some words in my mouth. I completely understand, since you are not sure where I stand on many of these subtopics that relate to the subject of this thread: purpose(s) of mankind.

I'll start with what I have NOT said:
-I did not say these institutions have moral structures that are 'backed up' by a supernatural being. (This would not be scientific. I do agree that many of these institutions believe this. I'm am not sure if you were saying I said this or if you were telling me this.)
-I did not say that these institutions are not destructive, such as your statement on the conquering behavior of these institutions. On my first post I did mention their destructive history. I may have not been clear. I have determined that they are not as destructive as they are constructive for mankind for the sake of determining a human purpose. I based this on the fact they these institutions have survived for long periods of time. I realize I am being vague. This thread is not about the injustices of religious institutions. Again, we can create a new thread for that.
-I did not say that humans are the only lifeforms that can change the universe.

Ok. Here is what I agree on:
-I agree with your statement about the conquering behavior of these institutions. I agree that one of the reasons why they create a moral structure is for social cohesiveness. I agree that they will dominate a and remove competition. I agree that one of the rewards is the time and space to have offspring. This picture you are creating for these institutions are no different than the behavior of humans in general and many other lifeforms for that matter. You are describing some of the mechanisms of evolution.
-I am also very anxious to agree to your third point. Many other species may evolve to reach the same abilities as humans. Indeed! Even a species that is the decendent of present day humans may be able to change parts of the universe long after we are extinct. ( I am not excited about the human extinction part, but I am aware of the possibility.) :-D

Here is what I disagree about:
-I disagree that mankind will 'overcome' the evolutionary mechanisms of high competition among closely related variations of a population. Humans will always have a destructive behavior towards their own species just like many other species do. I do not believe that this destructive behavior is as common as our constructive behavior towards our own species for the simple fact that we are still here and we may have even managed to overpopulate this planet.
-I disagree that humans have become more peaceful today than any other time. There may be times when there is more destruction going on among humans. All of these events throughout history and fluxiation of behavior can be explained by the mechanisms of evolution. Some of these mechanisms have to do with food resources, migration, coexisting human populations (and species in prehistory), geographical barriers, climate, and so many other aspects of the environment. Humans can change the environment, but humans cannot change it enough to overcome the laws of nature.
-I disagree that human nature's ability to reproduce cannot be seen as a purpose. I agree that it can also be seen as a function in relation to something else. It just depends on the context.

The purpose of human life is a great subject, and, yes, it is not as scientific as other subjects. I guess, the assumption is that:
-in order for there to be purpose in the universe, there must be an intelligent creator of the universe. Without this being a reason for the universe and everything in it does not exist.
I completely disagree with this! I have few assumptions of my own.
-Humans have a hard time understanding reality because humans often entangle their own characteristics into their perception of the universe as a whole and parts of the universe that they are examining. Humans ask themselves: how did it begin and how will it end? Who created all of this? Is there consiciousness here or there?
-Vice versa. Humans have a hard time grasping that there may be purpose, reason, or intent without a human brain conjuring it up. The abilities that brains have may exist elsewhere without a brain present.

I don't know. They are just assumptions. If there isn't any purpose, reason, or intentions in the universe whatsoever and humans have no relation to them, than why is life happening at all? What exactly is growth? Why is intelligent lifeforms devloping intelligence in the first place? Is the force behind all this just energy bouncing around until it settles into a piece of matter somewhere?

Is there a human purpose? Hmmm... I do like the word function better! ... I believe your right, paralith! When thinking scientifically, the word 'function' does fit better than the word 'purpose'.

The human species has a function within the universe. A human purpose develops within the human psychy when an individual human struggles to survive. (During an individuals struggle to survive it will have offspring that will carry on the inherited genetic makeup allowing the gentics to survive after individual death.) My previous statement was just a little backwards! Someone else touched on this when they said "an individual can create its own purpose."

It was (Q): "For the most part, correct. Survival can also require the group or species depending on the requirement for survival. Of course, we can create our own "purpose" for living our lives."

Ok. I restate my claim of purpose. It is close to Q's.
-A human individual will create their own purpose(s) in order to enforce their instinct to survive. The purpose(s) can change depending on where they are in life: before parenthood, parenthood, after parenthood.
-It makes sense that the purpose revolves around survival and reproduction. Do you agree?
-I do not clump together these personal purposes with purpose given by other individuals or institutions. We would have to use a more specific word or phrase for that in order to eliminate confusion.
-I also do not feel that there is an all encompassing purpose for mankind. that would be the function(s) of mankind! :-D

Thank you (Q) and paralith. Give feedback on 'purpose'. Who wants to start a new thread for the function(s) of mankind? As far as 'function' goes, everything I have said about the existence of institutions is relevant to the function(s) of mankind as well as the personal purpose(s) and given purposes of individuals.

My apologies if I seemed to make assumptions about your viewpoint. Thank you for the clarifications - fortunately, my thoughts were not at odds with any of them. =)

Originally Posted by christian7west

Here is what I disagree about:
-I disagree that mankind will 'overcome' the evolutionary mechanisms of high competition among closely related variations of a population. Humans will always have a destructive behavior towards their own species just like many other species do. I do not believe that this destructive behavior is as common as our constructive behavior towards our own species for the simple fact that we are still here and we may have even managed to overpopulate this planet.

On the point of "overcoming" the desire to compete and dominate, we may have to agree to disagree. The desire itself will always be present within us to some degree (until the basal mechanisms that instill those desires in us change), but I do believe that with conscious effort, and by raising our future children with such an educated conscious, we as a society may be able to largely cease such destructive activities. Or, if our knowledge of biology one day allows it, perhaps we will actually be able to remove the physical basis of our destructive tendencies from our children. At this point, who knows. But I have to admit, it is my personal dream that this can one day be accomplished.

-I disagree that humans have become more peaceful today than any other time. There may be times when there is more destruction going on among humans. All of these events throughout history and fluxiation of behavior can be explained by the mechanisms of evolution. Some of these mechanisms have to do with food resources, migration, coexisting human populations (and species in prehistory), geographical barriers, climate, and so many other aspects of the environment. Humans can change the environment, but humans cannot change it enough to overcome the laws of nature.

Taken as a whole, I would not say the human race is on average that much more peaceful today either. But I would also say that both extremes have also taken on more strength - those who are destructive have greater destructive power with the aid of modern technology, and those who desire and believe in the real possibility of global harmony have also been increasing in number over time. Something else that may make their amount seem less is the large variety of ideas that exist about how to achieve such harmony.

Can humans change "the laws of nature"? When it comes to our biology, I would not give a definite answer. Perhaps we cannot at the moment - but I do not think it impossible for the future.

-I disagree that human nature's ability to reproduce cannot be seen as a purpose. I agree that it can also be seen as a function in relation to something else. It just depends on the context.

The purpose of human life is a great subject, and, yes, it is not as scientific as other subjects. I guess, the assumption is that:
-in order for there to be purpose in the universe, there must be an intelligent creator of the universe. Without this being a reason for the universe and everything in it does not exist.
I completely disagree with this! I have few assumptions of my own.
-Humans have a hard time understanding reality because humans often entangle their own characteristics into their perception of the universe as a whole and parts of the universe that they are examining. Humans ask themselves: how did it begin and how will it end? Who created all of this? Is there consiciousness here or there?
-Vice versa. Humans have a hard time grasping that there may be purpose, reason, or intent without a human brain conjuring it up. The abilities that brains have may exist elsewhere without a brain present.

I don't know. They are just assumptions. If there isn't any purpose, reason, or intentions in the universe whatsoever and humans have no relation to them, than why is life happening at all? What exactly is growth? Why is intelligent lifeforms devloping intelligence in the first place? Is the force behind all this just energy bouncing around until it settles into a piece of matter somewhere?

Is there a human purpose? Hmmm... I do like the word function better! ... I believe your right, paralith! When thinking scientifically, the word 'function' does fit better than the word 'purpose'.

The human species has a function within the universe. A human purpose develops within the human psychy when an individual human struggles to survive. (During an individuals struggle to survive it will have offspring that will carry on the inherited genetic makeup allowing the gentics to survive after individual death.) My previous statement was just a little backwards! Someone else touched on this when they said "an individual can create its own purpose."

Such is why I have trouble with the word "purpose." It does indeed imply that there is a greater intelligence somewhere out there (whether it be a brain or brain-like or ectoplasmic, I really don't care) that is controlling and designing the universe. And until evidence for such a thing enters into the realm of science, I see no point in working on the assumption that it might be there.

As far as we can understand it today, life is merely an emergent property of the chemicophysical laws of the universe. Put the right stuff together at the right time and in the right place, it will interact according to certain laws, and this is what emerges. And once life began, an emergent process of life, evolution, began. When it becomes reproductively advantageous to evolve intelligence, then intelligence evolves. There is no need for a greater design or purpose in this. At least, I see none.

Now that humans have intelligence, I wholeheartedly agree that we can attempt to choose our own purpose. But that will be the only purpose we have. This is my belief, which is why I have chosen to display a certain Sartre quote in my signature.

Well, that's that.

Now, we can examine two types of purpose:
1. Self-proclaimed purpose
2. Our purpose defined by other individuals or institutions
a. Forced purpose for exploitation of individuals
b. Personally helpful purposes
c. Generalizing purposes for mankind

I guess, any purpose imaginable could be made up; possibily an infintive amount of purposes. This could take a while. :-D

I don't see how purposes could have an effect on human evolution.

There is a theory in Cultural Anthropology that talks about human evolution brought about the human ability to create culture. Then, in turn culture alters human evolution. Some believe that this is how we have advanced further than the rest of life.

It is possible that long term (2,000 years) focus of a large percentage of the planet on a particular purpose for mankind could have a small and insignificant effect on human evolution. This would be really stretching it, though. We wouldn't be able to find enough proof or even determine how it all historically happened. Besides, all the significant changes in human evolution happened over millions of years. Maybe we can question certain cognitive abilities since we are still learning about them.

I do agree that culture in general has had an effect on human evolution. I still am drawn to believe that the effect of culture is very small compared to all the rest of the factors: small enough to say that we don't have any real control over our evolution.

Well, I would say that culture has quite a large influence on our evolution, and it’s near equivalents in other animals the same. The broad term "culture" encompasses what traits are deemed desirable in sexual selection for instance. Memes are very important and a very potent driving force in evolution IMO, especially in “higher” social animals like ourselves. It can lead to some physiological and behavioural changes over an entire population over a relatively short period, IMO, which probably explains the wide variety of different human populations around today I think. So then in a similar way the prevailing “purpose” of the cultural group can shift dramatically in short order as well, depending on the perceived survival requirements of the group at the moment. In today’s world the particular brand of “purpose” on ascribes to can be determined by a myriad of influences, even more so with the world becoming smaller and all. These influences include the media, religion, parental influence, etc.

I agree with Kalster and would go further. Culture has a dominant effect upon our evolution. Lactose digestion in adults, for example, arose out of the domestication of cattle. The probable reduction in brain size over the last 15,000 years arose out of a 'self-domestication' of the species. The preservation of adverse genes within the gene pool through the applicaiton of medicine has had a profound effect on our evolution. Indeed, it is wholly accurate to say that our current evolution is culturally driven.

Originally Posted by Christian7west

I still am drawn to believe that the effect of culture is very small compared to all the rest of the factors: small enough to say that we don't have any real control over our evolution.

This may be the source of your confusion. There is no connection between the magnitude of the influence of culture on evolution and upon our ability to control culture. Both are currently outwith our control, though not outwith our influence.

If how we raise children is part of culture, and human children take an extraordinarily long time to mature (including physically), then perhaps we should add that to the list of cultural effects.

Actually the age of puberty is dropping very rapidly. This could be from improved nutrition (?).



Chinese grandmothers were once famous for their relative vitality. We thought it might have something to do with tea. But perhaps the traditional assumption grandmothers would actively care for grandchildren was working some selection against ...having a feeble grandma. Kids with feeble grandmas would not fair so well. Now with one-child-policy and no shortage of childcare we should see irrelevant grandmas grow prone to illness just as everywhere else, since they're truly done with the reproductive cycle.

The reasons I have deleted this post is due to malicious activity from another user on this and several other forums,

here is an example -

http://z8.invisionfree.com/DYK/index.php?showtopic=645

This forum is run by Jane Bennet and she also poses as admin and other members under pseudonyms.
She abused her position as admin by changing the content of my posts when i first joined and then proceeded on a personal vendetta of malice after a disagreement on this forum, which amounted to threatening & abusive e-mails and posts on forums.

Her research and activity i can only describe as being 'stalker' like.

Many apologies for having to do this, but this person has behaved very threateningly in a way i can only describe as worrying!

Here are some of the pseudonyms she uses -

Jane Bennet

Athene_noctua

JaneFairfax

And no doubt other names...

BEWARE - She appears to be NOT of sound mind.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by Pong

If how we raise children is part of culture, and human children take an extraordinarily long time to mature (including physically).

Ahem...just a slight correction.......

Male humans take an extraordinary long time to mature, if at all. In fact i would go so far to say that the majority of the male species of humans are neotonous.

I was thinking of the years of growth before we can fend for ourselves, like, vs. leopards and other snarlies of the proverbial savanna. The way we structure life to protect our children must have been partially cultural.

I get your point though Absum! .

I feel that all the branching off and scrutinizing... is unnecessary... in my opinion you have two main assumptions

One.... that intelligent life is a process of existence and as such effects existence in some way

Two.... intelligent life is a random system which ultimately has no effect on existence

Going off and breaking down human behaviors is truly not necessary.
Humans are not the focus... intelligent life is...


I will go ahead and apologize for the things I said... what can I say, I am afflicted with many mental illnesses, and being so I tend to follow delusions and think at certain times I have a reason for saying things...


Josh

Originally Posted by Schizo

I feel that all the branching off and scrutinizing... is unnecessary... in my opinion you have two main assumptions

One.... that intelligent life is a process of existence and as such effects existence in some way

Two.... intelligent life is a random system which ultimately has no effect on existence

As per assumption one, I don't think I would agree. Now, I would not say that intelligent life itself is a process, but that it is a result of the "processes" - i.e. the laws of physics and chemistry - of existence. And it does not necessarily follow that intelligent life will have an effect on those processes - I do not think our intelligence will one day enable to change the laws of physics.

As per assumption two - intelligent life is most certainly not random. Life in general may be based upon certain processes that are random but it is also based on others that most certainly are not - again, the laws of physics and chemistry, but also the directional force of the environment as acted out through natural selection. But I would agree that our effect on the most basic forces of the universe will probably be zero. We may come to understand them, even use them in ways nothing else ever has before, but they themselves will not change.

Going off and breaking down human behaviors is truly not necessary.
Humans are not the focus... intelligent life is...

No, unfortunately it IS necessary. You cannot divorce human intelligence from the biological organ in which it is based, the brain. Like any other organ or trait subject to natural selection, it serves the ultimate purpose of achieving greater reproductive success for the organism it is a part of. Thus its abilities are tuned towards certain activities, certain functions that best aid us in this.

For example: a scrub jay can remember the exact location of thousands of caches of nuts hidden throughout a forest, and will even remember to eat older caches first before the nuts inside them go bad. But it probably could not recognize its mother, its father, or any of its siblings once it has fledged and left the nest. A human brain may not (normally) be up to the first task, but the latter it excels in. The capabilities of our intelligence are limited in various ways, and who knows what types of knowledge we may be lacking because of those limitations.

Does anyone know if they have calculated how many people could exist given our current DNA structure, I mean it would be an astronomical number, but I thought back to something I read in COSMOS by Sagan and it referred to something of that nature.


Ha ha to think what social structures would form if every single person was present that could exist; including all variations that could occur to the DNA structure.



It is amazing.... DNA... a program... that dictates our social formations... if you took out Earth and just had societies living on some kind of massive flat plate in the middle of nothing... you have to wonder how society would form... or to be more precise would the DNA blueprint be less obstructed.


Anything is perfect when you take away conscious understanding of pain; so if life was not a factor in existence....... it would be perfect; we see things as being imperfect... because it effects us... strange.

Originally Posted by paralith

But I would agree that our effect on the most basic forces of the universe will probably be zero. We may come to understand them, even use them in ways nothing else ever has before, but they themselves will not change.

If a "basic force" could be changed, then the "law" would be that whatever basic force is changeable. But I think the word "change" is the problem. Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only our understanding of it. If we could alter gravity or time or some fundamental force that binds protons together, it would simply mean that we didn't understand the fundamental force before, not that we've (as "intellectual beings") changed the fabric of the universe.

Originally Posted by paralith

On the point of "overcoming" the desire to compete and dominate, we may have to agree to disagree. The desire itself will always be present within us to some degree (until the basal mechanisms that instill those desires in us change), but I do believe that with conscious effort, and by raising our future children with such an educated conscious, we as a society may be able to largely cease such destructive activities. Or, if our knowledge of biology one day allows it, perhaps we will actually be able to remove the physical basis of our destructive tendencies from our children. At this point, who knows. But I have to admit, it is my personal dream that this can one day be accomplished.

Mmm, thanks. :wink: I think so too. And firmly believe that teaching evolutionary psychology in grade one would get us a hop, skip, and a jump further towards this goal.

(Ever met any hardcore evolutionary psychologists/behavioral neuropsychologists? As a pupil of these schools of thought, I can tell you that it's very possible to overcome many, many 'supposedly' innate desires through intense conscious effort/self-awareness.)

Originally Posted by AnOverThinker

Originally Posted by paralith

But I would agree that our effect on the most basic forces of the universe will probably be zero. We may come to understand them, even use them in ways nothing else ever has before, but they themselves will not change.

If a "basic force" could be changed, then the "law" would be that whatever basic force is changeable. But I think the word "change" is the problem. Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only our understanding of it. If we could alter gravity or time or some fundamental force that binds protons together, it would simply mean that we didn't understand the fundamental force before, not that we've (as "intellectual beings") changed the fabric of the universe.

Just thought of a nice analogy to go along with this thought. You're imagining that you're in a computer game, and that the "rules" of the computer game say that you can't go outside the boundaries.. or shoot your own teammates.. or whatever.

Well, that analogy doesn't apply to the universe. Because there are no "rules" set by a computer. The rules are whatever is possible.. whatever "happens". Nobody decreed that there are "14 fundamental rules of the universe".

Rules are what we use to understand the universe around us, to categorize knowledge. They don't actually exist anywhere but in our heads. For something to go against a "rule", it simply means that our "rule" was wrong.

Originally Posted by AnOverThinker

Ever met any hardcore evolutionary psychologists/behavioral neuropsychologists? As a pupil of these schools of thought, I can tell you that it's very possible to overcome many, many 'supposedly' innate desires through intense conscious effort/self-awareness.

However, such is achieved by using other innate desires and skill sets. You can't beat nature, only adapt it.

If any comparison can be made to what I have claimed... I would say intelligent life is similar to ants on Earth.


I would like to point out a great thinker in the world of Psychology B.F. Skinner. We are all programmable organic robots, this is something similar to what he had said. If you take that a step further you begin to understand that intelligent life is no different than an ant; we are merely going about our instinctual program. With that in mind I will bring up another point. Just like there are laws to physics and things can not exceed certain boundaries; there may be a limitation to how evolved intelligent life can become. So then the question, at that point, is what will a fully evolved intelligence be capable of doing.

Lets say we are merely a small fraction of a potential when it comes to intelligence; and we have many a eons to go before we obtain its totality. We are already capable of very powerful actions; who is not to say as the eons pass we will not only have become capable of much greater power but begun our real instinctual program what ever that may be; and it could pertain to structuring... something.

With that said what if we were the ants of the universe. Merely a form of life... going about its instinctual program... = )

WOOOOOOHOOOOO!


This post just reached 1666 views and I saw it... I am commenting on it because I feel it was worth mentioning.

Hail Satan

Originally Posted by Schizo

I firmly believe that organisms as complex formations of matter eventually have a purpose in the cosmos. From their complex composition to what they compose; organisms may be just another mechanical property of the universe.

Organisms, or humans to be more exact, can read the language of structure and as such should be able to manipulate that structure and play a vital role in it's existence.

But what does that mean? I think that is a major question people will be searching for in coming years.

What is our purpose in relation to the cosmos?


Would it not be funny to consider that all of our struggles through out the years, all of what we have stood for and believe was merely a means for matter enact something.

but we can choose our purpose can't we? At least goals and targets. People choose projects in corporations that get biggest value and vote on several projects to choose from about how to utilise capital. People in Parliaments vote on pstrategies and laws to change the world. The language of structure, OK some of that we can read but what if it is so? We can change it on a small scale. What is our purpose in relation to cosmos? None I think.

Purpose springs from meaning

And meaning springs from purpose

Originally Posted by wienertakesall

Originally Posted by Schizo

I firmly believe that organisms as complex formations of matter eventually have a purpose in the cosmos. From their complex composition to what they compose; organisms may be just another mechanical property of the universe.

Organisms, or humans to be more exact, can read the language of structure and as such should be able to manipulate that structure and play a vital role in it's existence.

But what does that mean? I think that is a major question people will be searching for in coming years.

What is our purpose in relation to the cosmos?


Would it not be funny to consider that all of our struggles through out the years, all of what we have stood for and believe was merely a means for matter enact something.

but we can choose our purpose can't we? At least goals and targets. People choose projects in corporations that get biggest value and vote on several projects to choose from about how to utilise capital. People in Parliaments vote on pstrategies and laws to change the world. The language of structure, OK some of that we can read but what if it is so? We can change it on a small scale. What is our purpose in relation to cosmos? None I think.

Choice is an illusion created by the desire to have control.

Ex. I have the choice of an apple or banana, I have to pick one. Is my "choice" dictated by some form of freewill or is it based on neural reactions i.e. residual memories of taste... etc. I pick one based on positive structuring regarding the two fruit. Everything can be attributed to positive and negative structuring.

Just in case you are wondering I left out reference to humans in the last statement because it has double meaning regarding the system structuring existence.

A little bit of my humor coming out.

= )

Something suddenly dawned on me and it may have almost no meaning at this point in time.... to any professional scientists... and most likely will be brushed off as a fancy... but isn't it interesting how humans feel... and who wants to feel bad, right. Could it be that, if we assume, existence is in motion because of inequality and that inequality comes from imperfection that intelligent systems,such as humans, are in fact that imperfection. Due solely to the product of feelings.

I could elaborate but I feel it would be wasted at this point in time.