the END goal...

@TurboLung,

TurboLung;68993 wrote:

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?

If I program a robot to move forward until it stops working, that has a purpose for me, but not for the robot. Similarly, if we have a purpose, it doesnt concerns us, so we shouldnt care to discover, as we wont. That is how I see it Smile

@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?

This is a classic Chicken and the Egg issue. I'd explain it this way: We're not trying to evolve; no bird wants to extend his species. The ones that have endured long in their form have done so because of the changes. What doesn't survive - over the generations - to perpetuate their species in a given environment either changes or dies out.

Those organisms that act in such a way as to protect themselves don't just pass on the attributes that enable this, they pass on that behavior as well. What we have then, at the point we're observing the phenomena, is a collection of animals that all seem to 'want to survive', extend and improve. Its not that this desire came before improvements or changes, it is a product, part-and-parcel, of it.

... at least that's how I understand the issue.

Thanks

@manored,

manored;69152 wrote:

If I program a robot to move forward until it stops working, that has a purpose for me, but not for the robot. Similarly, if we have a purpose, it doesnt concerns us, so we shouldnt care to discover, as we wont. That is how I see it

Understanding life does put my mind more to rest. Call it a health benefit. Smile

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;69232 wrote:

Understanding life does put my mind more to rest. Call it a health benefit.

Rich

Trying to understand life makes your mind restless though Smile

@manored,

manored;69477 wrote:

Trying to understand life makes your mind restless though

Hi,

I agree. It goes this way and that. But overall, the more I understand the more healthier I seem to get. Haven't been to a physician in 27 years. Who am I to question success? Smile

Rich

@TurboLung,

Yeah, but you can try understanding smaller things you dont yet know first, the meaning of life looks kinda... huge Smile

Trying to figure it out is likely trying to push a huge block during whole life of constant growth, rather than spending the growth time necessary pushing the smaller blocks. Your choice though Smile

Oh, and what you see oftenly kills you, so after not going for so long, its probally better to never go again Smile

@TurboLung,

TurboLung;68993 wrote:

why do you eat when you are hungry? because your genes are making you so you don't die... there is no escaping the fact that we are built and programmed to continue our species.

You have it backwards. The survival of our species happens because of how we are, which is yes both genetic and (secondarily) phenotypic. We DO NOT have genes whose interest is our survival. They just are what they are.

@TurboLung,

I think he understands it right, just expressed himself badly/metaphorically. I dont think anyone who knows what genes are would believe then to actually think Smile

@manored,

manored;69527 wrote:

I think he understands it right, just expressed himself badly/metaphorically. I dont think anyone who knows what genes are would believe then to actually think

Hi all,

I am not impressed at all with a name that is put to things. Genes? What the heck are those and how do they do anything. They are something. You might as substitute God for that word.

The genes did it.

God did it.

The tooth fairy did it.

What's the difference?

What I want to know is how a trait is passed from one generation to the next? How is the ability to speak stored in a gene. Speech? Gene? What's the connection? How is speech stored in a gene? Magic? God?

Sometimes, it is not enough to simply put a name to something and call it Over. (e.g. the smallest indivisible thing is an atom. Buzzzzz! Wrong!) This is where metaphysics takes over and where things get interesting for me.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;69536 wrote:

The genes did it.

God did it.

The tooth fairy did it.

What's the difference?

Primarily that the genes are tangible, that they can be labelled and mapped and that their influence over traits can be proven in tests.

Whereas God and the tooth fairy are not tangible and cannot be tested.

Quote:

What I want to know is how a trait is passed from one generation to the next? How is the ability to speak stored in a gene. Speech? Gene? What's the connection? How is speech stored in a gene? Magic? God?

No, information stored in a format that organises the assembly of protein. In humans some of these assemblies form a voice box, others form a part of the brain that deals with language.

@Dave Allen,

[quote]This is a classic Chicken and the Egg issue. I'd explain it this way: We're not trying to evolve; no bird wants to extend his species.[/quote]
No, birds would not be conscious of the fact that they will eventually die. Even humans as individuals would not think about passing on genes. However, our genes are programs structured to keep our species going.
I am not just making this up. This is scientific fact, so, I can't understand why people are arguing this point. My question is:
If species are designed to survive and pass on their genes/seed, then why? Are species waiting around for some event?

[quote]Those organisms that act in such a way as to protect themselves don't just pass on the attributes that enable this, they pass on that behavior as well.[/quote]
The reason we run from danger, have a shot of adrenaline, attack when threatened, kill to eat etc etc is all about surviving long enough to reproduce - that's it - not other reason. Again, this is scientific fact and no my argument.
I have read this in many books, I can only think of one at the moment if you are interested called GOD DELUSION

[quote]You have it backwards. The survival of our species happens because of how we are, which is yes both genetic and (secondarily) phenotypic. We DO NOT have genes whose interest is our survival. They just are what they are. [/quote]
Sorry, but as stated before. This is scientific fact. We are programmed to survive as best we can to the final breath in order to pass on our genetic code and keep the species going.

[quote]I think he understands it right, just expressed himself badly/metaphorically. I dont think anyone who knows what genes are would believe then to actually think [/quote]

LOL! No, I don't think that genes can think, however, who programmed them?

@TurboLung,

TurboLung;69576 wrote:

Sorry, but as stated before. This is scientific fact. We are programmed to survive as best we can to the final breath in order to pass on our genetic code and keep the species going.

That is simply an eventuality. Selection favors the organisms that are most successful at reproduction. THAT is the scientific fact.

The reason I cannot agree with your assertion is simply that our ability to survive depends on external conditions, and our "survival programming" under condition X becomes a death sentence under condition Y. There are some pretty nifty and highly specialized creatures out there, but sucks for them that they're terminally differentiated and their survival programming is only useful in a narrow range of conditions.

@Aedes,

Aedes;69581 wrote:

That is simply an eventuality. Selection favors the organisms that are most successful at reproduction. THAT is the scientific fact.

The reason I cannot agree with your assertion is simply that our ability to survive depends on external conditions, and our "survival programming" under condition X becomes a death sentence under condition Y. There are some pretty nifty and highly specialized creatures out there, but sucks for them that they're terminally differentiated and their survival programming is only useful in a narrow range of conditions.

i didn't look at it that way. good point. :Not-Impressed:

@TurboLung,

TurboLung;69576 wrote:

If species are designed to survive and pass on their genes/seed, then why? Are species waiting around for some event?

Precisely to the point. For me, saying the Genes did it, is exactly like saying God did it. What the heck is this material thing called a Gene that desires to live and pass on its attributes (all of them) to another Gene.

Quote:

LOL! No, I don't think that genes can think, however, who programmed them?

Yes, right on the button! Saying that genes want to live gives no answers. It is a silly place to stop in the exploration of life. Suppose someone discovers something smaller than a gene - e.g. a quanta, that passes on its attributes. Does that mean the quanta thinks? Maybe it does? Then what does it mean to Think? What is the impetus behind it all. This is the realm of metaphysics, since in Physics, things that cannot be measured do not exist - love, hate, jealousy, desires, thirst, hunger ... these are the essential blocks of life.

How the human race ever go off on the track of material is life is beyond me? Maybe because you need material things (money) to live, that the focus is on these things.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;69600 wrote:

For me, saying the Genes did it, is exactly like saying God did it.

Except you can find out which gene did it and its precise mechanism by using reverse genetics and molecular biology. I've yet to see a laboratory technique that leads us back to god.

@Aedes,

Aedes;69659 wrote:

Except you can find out which gene did it and its precise mechanism by using reverse genetics and molecular biology. I've yet to see a laboratory technique that leads us back to god.

Hi,

Glad you found the gene that did it and the god that did it. Can you tell me how did they do it?

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;69536 wrote:

Hi all,

I am not impressed at all with a name that is put to things. Genes? What the heck are those and how do they do anything. They are something. You might as substitute God for that word.

The genes did it.

God did it.

The tooth fairy did it.

What's the difference?

What I want to know is how a trait is passed from one generation to the next? How is the ability to speak stored in a gene. Speech? Gene? What's the connection? How is speech stored in a gene? Magic? God?

Sometimes, it is not enough to simply put a name to something and call it Over. (e.g. the smallest indivisible thing is an atom. Buzzzzz! Wrong!) This is where metaphysics takes over and where things get interesting for me.

Rich

Like Dave said, even if you believe in something pulling the strings behind the genes, the genes thenselves are just tangible pieces of information. So its wrong to say that genes do something, they are incapable of action. Off course many things we say are wrong, so its fine to say that, as we will understand that then you say "they" you mean "their interpretation". Might get ambiguous though Smile

@richrf,

richrf;69663 wrote:

Glad you found the gene that did it and the god that did it. Can you tell me how did they do it?

Can you tell me what it is?

@manored,

manored;69666 wrote:

Like Dave said, even if you believe in something pulling the strings behind the genes, the genes themselves are just tangible pieces of information. So its wrong to say that genes do something, they are incapable of action.

Yes, I agree. Within my studies of philosophy, I am more interested in exploring what did it and how it was done, than the physical mechanisms by which it is done.

So when someone says, it is because of genes, that means nothing to me. They could substitute any word at all, any, and it would have the same meaning to me. The x,kjof= did it. So? It is just a word. Some may be content that the exploration is complete. For me, it isn't even a beginning. Smile

Rich

@richrf,

Again, Rich, you have to fill in the it blank.

Let's pick something that we suppose to be genetic, like sickle cell anemia. You take people with sickle cell anemia (who all have anemia, and on a microscopic examination of their peripheral blood have sickle-shaped red cells). The most common protein in red cells is hemoglobin. If you do gene sequencing of the genes that encode hemoglobin, you find that patients with sickle cell anemia have a mutation at position 106 of the beta chain of hemoglobin.

What more do you want?

Philosophy Forum

the END goal...

Quick Links

My Account

able2know