the END goal...

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » the END goal...

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:48 am
so, as we know, all organisms evolve for the purpose of assisting the longlivety of a species. a creature may develop night vision through evolution [mutations] that will give the species a leg up in life and perhaps enough of an edge to keep the species around for longer.

my thought is this; why are we and every other species trying to extend their lives? what's the point? why go through all the effort to evolve those wings, or, extra leg or antenae? if species are trying to hang in there for as long as possible, they must be waiting for something, or, trying to get to some type of end. is this a hint that life is some type of race or event where we have to survive/hang on as long as possible until the end?

thoughts?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:50 am
@TurboLung,
Organisms don't evolve for a purpose.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:52 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;68543 wrote:
Organisms don't evolve for a purpose.


darwin thinks they do.

if it is accidental it would be like your crt television breaking down after 15-years but the next time it is turned on it is better than a hi-def plasma tv.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 09:46 am
@TurboLung,
And what if the process of evolution does not necessarily entail AN END,or perhaps even a goal, but is a neverending series of steps of adaptions and growths? If it did not stop when reptiles adapted to flying, and led to the creation of birds, why should be assume that either flying reptiles or birds (to follow one path of steps) is THE END?
 
richrf
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 10:19 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68541 wrote:
so, as we know, all organisms evolve for the purpose of assisting the longlivety of a species. a creature may develop night vision through evolution [mutations] that will give the species a leg up in life and perhaps enough of an edge to keep the species around for longer.

my thought is this; why are we and every other species trying to extend their lives? what's the point? why go through all the effort to evolve those wings, or, extra leg or antenae? if species are trying to hang in there for as long as possible, they must be waiting for something, or, trying to get to some type of end. is this a hint that life is some type of race or event where we have to survive/hang on as long as possible until the end?

thoughts?


Hi there,

Camus poses the same question in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus us forever laden with the task of rolling a rock up a mountain, only to have it roll down again. The absurdity of life. Camus begins by suggesting that Life is inherently absurd. Smile He goes through a pretty long-winded essay, which I have always thought was more verbiage than ideas, but ends on a pretty interesting note:

"He too [Sisyphus] concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."


For me, I borrow from the works of Itzhak Bentov. That we are an evolving Consciousness (Soul) that is exploring and learning about all that is around us. Why? Because it amuses us, just as it amuses us as babies to play peek-a-boo and as children, hide-and-seek.

Heraclitus said:

[CENTER] Nature loves to hide itself.

It is amusing. Smile

Rich

[/CENTER]
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 06:36 pm
@TurboLung,
The scientific view of evolution is ateleological.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 07:13 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68544 wrote:
darwin thinks they do.
This may come as a surprise, but no one who actively publishes evolutionary biology articles actually cites Darwin anymore. Darwin did not know the mechanism behind evolution, because a related field called genetics had not yet been developed. You cannot understand evolution without understanding genetics -- and if you understand genetics then you would never think that evolution is teleological.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:55 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;68656 wrote:
This may come as a surprise, but no one who actively publishes evolutionary biology articles actually cites Darwin anymore. Darwin did not know the mechanism behind evolution, because a related field called genetics had not yet been developed. You cannot understand evolution without understanding genetics -- and if you understand genetics then you would never think that evolution is teleological.


are you talking about genetic mutation, which is the process of evolution?

Quote:
Hi there,

Camus poses the same question in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus us forever laden with the task of rolling a rock up a mountain, only to have it roll down again. The absurdity of life. Camus begins by suggesting that Life is inherently absurd. Smile He goes through a pretty long-winded essay, which I have always thought was more verbiage than ideas, but ends on a pretty interesting note:


"He too [Sisyphus] concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."


For me, I borrow from the works of Itzhak Bentov. That we are an evolving Consciousness (Soul) that is exploring and learning about all that is around us. Why? Because it amuses us, just as it amuses us as babies to play peek-a-boo and as children, hide-and-seek.

Heraclitus said:


[CENTER]Nature loves to hide itself.

It is amusing. Smile

Rich


this post rocks Smile
[/CENTER]
 
richrf
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 09:08 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68677 wrote:
this post rocks Smile
[/CENTER]


There's more where this came from! :a-ok:

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 09:15 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68677 wrote:
are you talking about genetic mutation, which is the process of evolution?
Sort of, insofar as mutations are one of several means by which an allele can change. But I'd describe what I'm talking about more as population-based changes in allele frequency as a function of time, which is more fundamentally THE genetic unit of evolution.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:51 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;68683 wrote:
Sort of, insofar as mutations are one of several means by which an allele can change. But I'd describe what I'm talking about more as population-based changes in allele frequency as a function of time, which is more fundamentally THE genetic unit of evolution.


okay, so all that aside, i will point out the same idea differently. even without genetics and evolution, we and all other species struggle against all odds to survive. we can accept that we try to survive in order to pass on our seed [genes]. so, the idea is the same; what is the point of struggling to pass on our genes? are we holding on, waiting for some future event or future line that we must cross? if we aren't, then it is pointless for species to fight to pass on their genes.
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 01:47 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68541 wrote:
so, as we know, all organisms evolve for the purpose of assisting the longlivety of a species. a creature may develop night vision through evolution [mutations] that will give the species a leg up in life and perhaps enough of an edge to keep the species around for longer.

my thought is this; why are we and every other species trying to extend their lives? what's the point? why go through all the effort to evolve those wings, or, extra leg or antenae? if species are trying to hang in there for as long as possible, they must be waiting for something, or, trying to get to some type of end. is this a hint that life is some type of race or event where we have to survive/hang on as long as possible until the end?

thoughts?
The reason is because, in reality, there are lifeforms who do not fell this necessity to reproduce and pass their genes forward... they die winhout passing their genes forward or winhout the "skill" necessary, and therefore these "what for?" genes are extinct. Winhout these genes, only the "Why not?" genes are left Smile

Basically, then life started part of it started reproducing for no reason at all (just a randow, fortunate event) and thanks to evolution ever subsequent generation was more likely to reproduce.

TurboLung;68544 wrote:
if it is accidental it would be like your crt television breaking down after 15-years but the next time it is turned on it is better than a hi-def plasma tv.
The attempts are randow, not the results Smile
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 03:29 pm
@TurboLung,
Quote:
The scientific view of evolution is ateleological.


ALL of science is ateleological. That is why the use the term "theory". Saying that it is ateleological in no way dismisses the facts of evolution. The only thing that really changes is some of the details of evolution. But our understanding of it hasn't changed at all.
 
articwind4
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:25 pm
@Aedes,
As part of human nature (and other forms of independent (animal) nature) there is an survival mechanism that exists deep within the minds of the said creature. for example a dog, even though it may be entirely domesticated, will, in a time of need revert to it's old ways in order to survive and move forward into the future. Animals think differently than modern people do an animal in the wilderness is always thinking ahead into the future about how its going to get its next meal or reproduce on behalf of the species. The same could be said about people we like every other species will find away to survive. much like what you posted this still brings up the question of why?
if you think about it these "evolutionary changes" only occur when the said animal is in a time of crisis, or can be made to more efficiently. going back to the dog example, for the most part, if the dog is (hypothetical) abandoned by his owner and left in the middle of the woods the survival mechanism within the undeveloped portion of the dog's mind will kick in and the dog will be able to survive until he either dies of old age or disease.
this is still avoiding the question i know but heres my attempt at an answer... people as well as animals, are very selfish, so much so that the vast majority of them will put there life before anyone else's self-preservation is an unavoidable byproduct of humanity. granted there are many acceptations but people live to continue there life. its the only conclusion that seems rational at this point however i may at a later point in time come to a different conclusion.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:40 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68703 wrote:
we and all other species struggle against all odds to survive.
Not really, we don't. We eat because we feel hungry, we try to avoid death because we don't want to die, we have children either because we have had the urge to have sex OR we as couples decide it's what we want for our lives.

But what we're NOT doing as individual members of a species are struggling for the survival of our species. Survival either happens or it doesn't based on whether our biological survival is compatible with the prevailing conditions.

TurboLung;68703 wrote:
we can accept that we try to survive in order to pass on our seed [genes].
When have you ever made a decision with that in mind? When has a mouse, a salamander, a paramecium, or a spirochete ever done something with that in mind?

TurboLung;68703 wrote:
what is the point of struggling to pass on our genes?
If we were truly motivated by the success or failure of passing on genetic material, then it would be a legitimate question. But again, a species' survival depends on the behavior and biology of individuals under certain conditions, and these individual members are not doing things with passage of genes in mind.
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 10:55 pm
@TurboLung,
Great thread

But why do we want to pass on our genes?
Why do some people not do this?
And if this were the core mechanism, then why not go jump off a cliff after the deed is done?
Especially an old woman who is no longer fertile.
She should then kill her husband (so that he does not fertilize other women and diminish her offspring's chance of survival)
and then leave everything to her offspring.

What is so great about genes surviving anyhow?
Why should anyone care?
 
sarathustrah
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 11:35 pm
@TurboLung,
the way i see it... there is no end... even if its no longer consciously experienced... its not pointless to exist. there will always be something
but as for where its going evolution wise... its not a controlled thing... like the heart beats on its own.... you cant commit suicide by voluntarily ceasing it. nature just adapts for living convenience...

just cause we have this subconcious drilling stories have a beginning a conflict and an end... it doesnt mean the whole universe follows that law. a beginning is the wrong way to categorize it... and an "end" cant ever happen
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 11:42 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboLung http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
we and all other species struggle against all odds to survive.

Quote:
Not really, we don't. We eat because we feel hungry, we try to avoid death because we don't want to die, we have children either because we have had the urge to have sex OR we as couples decide it's what we want for our lives.

why do you eat when you are hungry? because your genes are making you so you don't die - because your genes are desperate to be passed on as a species. why do we have sexual urges? puerly a mechanism to reproduce. sexual urges are strong, so strong in fact that [even with laws of punishment] people will rape. why are the urges so strong? why does sex feel so good? it is a way to guarantee that our genes are passed on. you say couples make the choice. this may be true as our society changes, but, most couples will have children. in famine ravaged countries, people still have children. there is no escaping the fact that we are built and programmed to continue our species.

Quote:
But what we're NOT doing as individual members of a species are struggling for the survival of our species. Survival either happens or it doesn't based on whether our biological survival is compatible with the prevailing conditions.

yes you, personally are in fact struggling to survive as a species, otherwise you would not rug up in winter, eat your food or cross the road carefully. you have an inbuilt program that makes you do things you really wouldn't if you didn't care to carry on. do you get a rush of adrenaline when you are scared? well, if you do, this is an inbuilt mechanism for survival. you become more alert and you become stronger. you don't have any choice in deciding whether or not your adrenalin is released, because, you are programmed to survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboLung http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
we can accept that we try to survive in order to pass on our seed [genes].

Quote:
When have you ever made a decision with that in mind? When has a mouse, a salamander, a paramecium, or a spirochete ever done something with that in mind?

whenever i see a female and become aroused, then this is an inbuilt result of my genetic programming to pass on my genes. i have no choice in becoming aroused with a female i find attractive, or is behaving seductively towards me. a mouse hunts down grain, etc to survive, a mouse has intercourse in order to reproduce [it never actually thinks, "well, i want to have some children and start a family, because, it is programmed to do so] and a mouse will hide when a larger animal is about, again, in order to survive.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Poseidon;68983 wrote:
Great thread


Why do some people not do this?


there are various reasons some do not have children, however, this may be due to genetic fault [unable to reproduce] or external circumstances. an elderly man who has not had children in his younger years would still have had sexual urges.

in fact, sexual urges are so strong, this is why people masturbate [10% of people masturbate and 90% lie that they don't :shifty: ]


Quote:
And if this were the core mechanism, then why not go jump off a cliff after the deed is done?
Especially an old woman who is no longer fertile.
She should then kill her husband (so that he does not fertilize other women and diminish her offspring's chance of survival)
and then leave everything to her offspring.


because a) the genetic programming can not be erased and we still are programmed to survive whether we have had children,

b) we can reproduce again afterwards,


c) to protect and care for our offspring.

Quote:
She should then kill her husband (so that he does not fertilize other women and diminish her offspring's chance of survival)


our genes don't care whether we kill other people, as, the strongest and smartest and most ruthless will survive - thus leading to the "better" genes [for survival] being passed on. it is all about the species, not the individual. we may think it is about us, but we are programmed to pass on genes for our species, not for ourselves.

the only reason you love your children is to protect and care for them. it is a built in feature to love. it helps for the survival of the genes. it is not some mystical or magical feeling.


Quote:
What is so great about genes surviving anyhow?
Why should anyone care?


this is my question too. this is what my thread is about. why are we trying so hard to survive? the only reason would be that we are trying to reach an end goal, but, what is that goal?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 07:41 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68544 wrote:
darwin thinks they do.

As Aedes said, Darwin developed his theory in relative isolation from the facts that now come to govern it. His genius was getting so much right working with such unpromising materials. If he did claim that there was a purpose behind the process (and I'm not sure that was his life long assertion on the subject anyway) it was probably a result of his own relative ignorance of the theory he was founding.

TurboLung;68544 wrote:
if it is accidental it would be like your crt television breaking down after 15-years but the next time it is turned on it is better than a hi-def plasma tv.

Evolution by natural selection describes changes over time in populations based on the following three criteria:
[INDENT]1) Living things reproduce themselves (not applicable to TVs).
2) The reproductions are not perfect, there are always variations.
3) Some of these variations are better at surviving in the environment than others.
[/INDENT]So using the fact that TVs do not improve every time they are switched on to illustrate a point about evolution by natural selection is completely moot. Points 2 and 3 might be relevant to TVs, but they don't obey point 1, so differences in the design and hardiness of TVs is irrelevent.

Poseidon wrote:
But why do we want to pass on our genes?

Within a population most organisms will feel an imperitive to breed, or face extinction. Obviously if animals evolved who felt no urge to breed then that species would soon cease to exist (for whatever reason it seem the Giant Panda, for example, has developed in such a way that it doesn't really relish sex - perhaps because of environmental factors, but maybe as a result of evolution - and as a result it is steadily diminishing.

Poseidon wrote:
Why do some people not do this?

It could be a result of the evolutionary process that whenever a population of animals reaches a certain density the urge to reproduce is lessened, or that when a population reaches a certain sparsity libidinous urges are exaggerated.

Quote:
And if this were the core mechanism, then why not go jump off a cliff after the deed is done?
Especially an old woman who is no longer fertile.

In populations of animals like humans, where child-rearing is an intensive activity, it helps to have adults around to assist. In these animals a strong alturistic instinct has evolved, so that whilst the very young usually take priority over the very old, the old are also assisted because they in turn can offer the group skills or advice which aid survival.

Poseidon wrote:
She should then kill her husband (so that he does not fertilize other women and diminish her offspring's chance of survival)
and then leave everything to her offspring.

Indeed. some organisms do behave like this, a huge number of athropod species devour their mates during sex, to give the mother energy to brood her offspring and to give the offspring greater chance of finding prey when they hatch.

In most species though, the survival of the population is obviously more dependent on parents of both sexes living to reproduce again, or assist in child-rearing.

TurboLung;68544 wrote:
our genes don't care whether we kill other people, as, the strongest and smartest and most ruthless will survive - thus leading to the "better" genes [for survival] being passed on.

Our genes probably do dictate the basis of our morality. The reason for this is that, as social animals, we have come to base our primary strategy for survival on our ability to cooperate with other members of our species (and even other species that we live alongside or require to survive). The idea that the strongest or most ruthless thrive is not a particularly useful trait to discuss when examining humans - compared to other animals of our size we are relatively weak and alturistic. Cooperation and smartness are the traits we have developed relative to many other animals.

So a genetic imperative to avoid killing members of our own species unless they threaten us is probably inherant in most people - because populations of humans who cooperated and behaved with a certain level of alturism towards one another would soon outcompete a neighbouring population of humans who were all "out for themselves".

Such behaviour might even be connected with largess - which is why people with fewer resources tend to be less philanthropic than people with an abundance of riches. However, the self will usually be served first, which is why even rich people tend to save more for themselves and their families than they give to others.

TurboLung wrote:
why are we trying so hard to survive? the only reason would be that we are trying to reach an end goal, but, what is that goal?

Genes that do not assist us by helping us to strive for survival are soon bred out of the community.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 07:59 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68993 wrote:
why do you eat when you are hungry?


Consciousness is very ethereal. Consider it very light energy, likes strings. It does not need physical life for to continue to exist.

But the physical body, which is home to consciousness (actually a continuum) is much more condensed energy. It is analogous to the strings that are wound up tight to make a baseball. It needs other highly condensed physical life form (energy) to continue to exists. So Consciousness eats in order to maintain the condensed physical life form that is is housed in.

It all makes sense, if you look at the physical body as being the home of consciousness.

An example of Alex Grey's conception of the energetic aspects of humans:

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E328/web/P2C/Matthew/Divine%20Madness%20P2C_files/image005.jpg

Rich
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » the END goal...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 07:53:49