the END goal...

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Dave Allen
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:43 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;75303 wrote:
Big bang + hydrogen + the formation of planets around suns is likely + carbon, oxygen, water and so on are likely to be pretty commonplace + habitable zones + suns + solar systems + asteroid hoover gas giants to protect against meteor bombardment + correct chemical conditions + simple chemicals + polymers + replicating polymers + hypercycle + protobiant + bacteria = ... life.

well, isn't it [just a little even] co-incidental that all these things happen to be, which, eventually lead to life forms. and, i have only stated a few from your posts. in reality, this would only entail a microscopic sample of the billions of formulas, items, reactions and co-incidences that all lead to life.

as stated before, i am not religious. i feel i need to assert this point, as i can understand that i would appear to lean towards some religious belief.

at best, i would say that i am agnostic. now, there are degrees of being agnostic and mine lies in the realm of not believing in a god, however, not ruling the possibility out; a fence sitter if you will. i would say that the sheer co-incidences leading to life forms in our universe are just one of the reasons i remain agnostic.

so, even though i do have some faith in our debate over abiogenesis, i believe that it is just as possible that the mere fact that some of these chemicals react in such a manner to produce self replicating organisms that can grow, compete and evolve, that the whole system is designed. in fact, the answer seems more sensible than believing that the big bang, all these co-incidental chemicals and processes are just that - co-incidence or just accidental.

let's think about that for a second. it would take just one of these missing parts of co-incidences to screw the whole system leading to life forms. i have used this example before and i will again; the co-incidences are like a tornado tearing apart a town and accidently creating a boeing 747 with the parts sucked up.
Had it ended up any other way, the beneficiaries of any such change would have precisely the same argument. We have the benefit of hindsight from our current vantage in space-time, and we cannot see the future, so of course we tend toward a predilicition for some sort of teleological progress of which we are a product, and it suits our ego to claim that that product was in some way planned.

It strikes me that a deisgner (which can only really be some sort of godlike supernatural power without being subject to the same sort of process of coincidence that gave rise to us) is simply a stopholder metaphore for that which we currently fail to understand. The realm of the spiritual and divine used to encompass things we now regard as mundane, but there will always be some mysteries left that humans will fail to grasp - I think.

I'm happy for them to remain mysterious - you may wish to deify them - that's your choice but I doubt it'll lead you to any deeper understanding or other practical value beyond that which comforts you (which is fair enough, by the way, but I think it belies a certain disinterest).

Quote:
there is a difference with these co-incidents. the example you gave is like picking out a marble from a bag of a million, hoping to find the red one for example. this is not really a co-incidence, or, not the type we are using in this debate. what you are talking about is luck, odds or probabilities.
By the first definition you give:

The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.

A sperm - an egg - same position required to result in conception.
A hand - a red marble - same position required to select the marble.
The atoms of a nucleotide - same postion - required for undergoing the reactions required to form it.

Coincidence.

Quote:
the co-incidents leading to life is much more complex. the enormity of the differences in the two co-incidences is like a black hole vs a tennis ball.
Maybe, but a complex coincidence is still a coincidence. Complexity does not rule out happenstance.

As far as I know there are black holes and there are tennis balls, there are simple coincidences and there are complex coincidences. Of these coincidences the most complex strikes me as being likely to be very very complex indeed.


[quote]the co-incidences of life, which remember can only think [/quote][quote]about beginning once all of the co-incidences that allow the universe not to implode and actually exists are established, are incomprehensible.[/quote]I reckon that's a foregone conclusion. If that's the way you feel, fine, but I'm interested in seeing what can be comprehended about such things. I doubt I'm fully capable - it's very complex, but I'm more inclined in that way than to say "for what I can't comprehend there is likely to be a supernatural agency" - which would be a startling coincidence!

Quote:
it's funny how science will tell you that everything happens for a purpose. this apple falls because of gravity, the black hole captures light because of the extreme bending of space-time, this animal eats this food because...

but, when it comes to life, then, all of a sudden, there is no reason. it is just an accident...

I think this is just quibbling over semantics.

The best explanation for how things fall is the theory of gravity.
The best explanation for how life developed is the theory of abiogenesis.

As to why things fall or why things live - I don't think science is going to provide an answer to satisfy the metaphysically minded.

Also a "because" answer needn't imply purpose - millions of people have been maimed or killed because of cars - but the purpose of cars is not to maim or kill - it is to transport, provide ego trips, to please via aesthetics, and so on...

Quote:
everything we see has reason and consequence, as science has shown us. then, would it make sense to believe this for lifeforms?
Science has not given a reason for gravity, only described how the force has the consequences it does.

Quote:
usually, we appreciate as a mechanism to survive. for example, fatty foods taste better than apples. this is because in nature, fatty foods are more scarce than apples [fruits and vegetable] and so the better taste is a reward for hunting fatty foods.

so, where is the benefit for enjoying music or art to the point of feeling strong emotions that can lead to tears?
At base I would hypothesise that it's simple life enrichment. Vicarious experience could also leave us better equipped to deal with the real thing, or empathise with those who have. That sort of thing.

Quote:
good points, nevertheless, all of this does not mean that life is not created out of some type of design.
No, and it never will, because a supernatural angent is impossible to falsify.

But any supernatural agent is equally unfalsifiable - the oddest fantasies concocted by the world's Munchausens are impossible to disprove.

What it does show is how a design behind creation need not be a foregone conclusion and that accounts vary in likelihood.

[quote]we are designed to enjoy fatty foods so that we hunt them down. we are designed to feel fear so we don't approach that big animal, etc. in fact, i don't think any of this argument actually dismisses that life may be the result of design. it actually adds to the argument that it is possible that life is designed. it can flow both ways.[/quote]Evolution by natural selection offers a far more comprehensive expanation for why we enjoy fatty foods (to the degree that we will risk our own health to get more) or tend to fear certain animals (even if it means we fear some harmless animals just because they resemble dangerous animals). It also accounts for problems for the design theory such as why we get hernias, or why we get hiccups, why our eyes aren't perfect or why nerves running from one part of the face to another part of the face loop under the collarbone.

I mean, if I were to design a human I'd turn off the love of fatty food after reaching a certain BMI, I'd let them distinguish between adders and grass snakes on sight without training, I'd have the tesitcles develop outside the body cavity so that they wouldn't have to punch through the cavity wall leading to hernias instead of inside like fish do, I'd leave the benighted appendix out. Some of these weaknesses are pretty elementary to fix in comparison to engineering the whole in the first place - they look like vestigal remnants of things that were once helpful to an organism we might have evolved from - so why are they there?

Quote:
i repeat: this is incorrect. there is always evidence. police document injuries to the alleged victim. they also have a swab test of the vagina and look for injuries there. there may also be witnesses. they will look for clues of a struggle. interview all parties, take dna tests, look into the victim's background, look into the perpetrator's background. never, has there been a rape case where a person was convicted soely on the alleged victim's testimony - ever.
I repeat - you are painting all rapes as relatively violent opportunistic violations when, in fact, few of them are. Even in cases of opportunistic rape by a stranger there are not always injuries - most women in such cases are menaced into being raped through fear of being hurt rather than being pummelled into submission.

In cases of date rape - which most rapes in the UK are (about 80%) looking for injuries is pointless and swabbing for semen is pointless. Neither party denies sex took place - the only contested fact is whether or not it took place consentually.

In such cases convictions are sometimes (albeit rarely) reached on testimony alone. As for interviews and character profiles - that is testimony, not hard evidence.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 07:39 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;75877 wrote:
Had it ended up any other way, the beneficiaries of any such change would have precisely the same argument.


from what i have studied, there is no other way in this universe. there are no other ways life could exist. it requires exactly, the incomprehensible amount of coincidences there are now. any that are removed would delete life. there is no vantage point. this is it. there is no other option... apparently.

Quote:
It strikes me that a deisgner (which can only really be some sort of godlike supernatural power without being subject to the same sort of process of coincidence that gave rise to us) is simply a stopholder metaphore for that which we currently fail to understand. The realm of the spiritual and divine used to encompass things we now regard as mundane, but there will always be some mysteries left that humans will fail to grasp - I think.


maybe. there are plenty of logical theories why humans look up to a god. it is also a given that our dinky little brains are not intelligent enough to understand our universe. i do not believe that just because there is no proof of a god that there is not one. i keep on saying this, but at this point in time, it seems like the only logical answer to the universe and life. it just feels ludicrous to think that even a grain of sand, was just always there by itself, let alone all the elements and mass of the universe. just because we can't prove something, doesn't mean it does not exist, especially when that something makes so much sense. take for instance string theory; it cannot be proved at all, nevertheless, many scientists believe in it just because it makes so much sense.
[quote]By the first definition you give:[/quote]
Quote:



The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.

A sperm - an egg - same position required to result in conception.
A hand - a red marble - same position required to select the marble.
The atoms of a nucleotide - same postion - required for undergoing the reactions required to form it.

Coincidence.


i still think your understanding is more to do with odds and not coincidence in the way most would understand it. sure, the section you made bold may be part of a coincidence, but not the whole equation [if we can call it that].

Quote:
As far as I know there are black holes and there are tennis balls, there are simple coincidences and there are complex coincidences. Of these coincidences the most complex strikes me as being likely to be very very complex indeed.


yes. there are tennis balls and there are black holes, but i know which is more impressive.

[quote]but I'm more inclined in that way than to say "for what I can't comprehend there is likely to be a supernatural agency"[/quote]

we will never comprehend. i would say that because we can't comprehend, then we look at the next logical answer, whether or not we can prove it. leaving open the possibility of designer does not only make sense but it is the only alternative. far fetched? got any better ideas? whether the designer or 'god' is similar to the ones believed in religions, a god that doesn't even know she/he made us or aliens that have created us; it is the closest thing to making sense and the only logical conclusion available. believe me, i would like to have an alternative, but, nobody has come up with one yet.

Quote:
The best explanation for how things fall is the theory of gravity.


true. just on a side note though, gravity is just one of those ingredients required for life. everything seems to lead to allowing life. i understand that, yes, it could be coincidence, but what a hell of a string of coincidences, eh?

Quote:
At base I would hypothesise that it's simple life enrichment. Vicarious experience could also leave us better equipped to deal with the real thing, or empathise with those who have. That sort of thing.


it could be. who knows?


[quote]No, and it never will, because a supernatural angent is impossible to falsify.[/quote]
Quote:


But any supernatural agent is equally unfalsifiable - the oddest fantasies concocted by the world's Munchausens are impossible to disprove.


oh yes they are. a donkey cut in half able to live on? impossible. a giant walking, talking tree? we know, through science that it is impossibe.

a designer? you are right. it can not be proven, unless it reveals itself.

we can not say it isn't possible. if something was capable of creating us, i am sure it would be just as easy to hide from us. far fetched? of course. impossible? no.

[quote]Evolution by natural selection offers a far more comprehensive expanation for why we enjoy fatty foods (to the degree that we will risk our own health to get more) or tend to fear certain animals (even if it means we fear some harmless animals just because they resemble dangerous animals). It also accounts for problems for the design theory such as why we get hernias, or why we get hiccups, why our eyes aren't perfect or why nerves running from one part of the face to another part of the face loop under the collarbone.[/quote]
Quote:


I mean, if I were to design a human I'd turn off the love of fatty food after reaching a certain BMI, I'd let them distinguish between adders and grass snakes on sight without training, I'd have the tesitcles develop outside the body cavity so that they wouldn't have to punch through the cavity wall leading to hernias instead of inside like fish do, I'd leave the benighted appendix out. Some of these weaknesses are pretty elementary to fix in comparison to engineering the whole in the first place - they look like vestigal remnants of things that were once helpful to an organism we might have evolved from - so why are they there?


i agree. i am not saying that the result of natural selection is fine tuned, or, perfect, but that the mechanism behind natural selection is fine tuned and seems too amazing to be just an accident bundled up with the thousands of other coincidences that lead to complex life.

anyway, how do we know that a million years from now that natural selection will result in earth creatures evolving into super beings which we then can truly say that the result of natural selection is also uncannily fine tuned?
Quote:
I repeat - you are painting all rapes as relatively violent opportunistic violations when, in fact, few of them are. Even in cases of opportunistic rape by a stranger there are not always injuries - most women in such cases are menaced into being raped through fear of being hurt rather than being pummelled into submission.

In cases of date rape - which most rapes in the UK are (about 80%) looking for injuries is pointless and swabbing for semen is pointless. Neither party denies sex took place - the only contested fact is whether or not it took place consentually.

In such cases convictions are sometimes (albeit rarely) reached on testimony alone. As for interviews and character profiles - that is testimony, not hard evidence.


you said the word, 'rarely'. what you are talking about is if the police trick the perpetrator into admitting some piece of informatio, or, if the perpetrator stupidy admits something he shouldn't have to reveal his guilt.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:34 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;76295 wrote:
from what i have studied, there is no other way in this universe. there are no other ways life could exist. it requires exactly, the incomprehensible amount of coincidences there are now. any that are removed would delete life. there is no vantage point. this is it. there is no other option... apparently.
I wouldnt trust those studies, we just dont know enough about the universe to say something like that. I might be the result of our definition of life: has cells. What if we find some alien lifeform winhout cells but demostrating metabolism?
TurboLung;76295 wrote:

maybe. there are plenty of logical theories why humans look up to a god. it is also a given that our dinky little brains are not intelligent enough to understand our universe. i do not believe that just because there is no proof of a god that there is not one. i keep on saying this, but at this point in time, it seems like the only logical answer to the universe and life. it just feels ludicrous to think that even a grain of sand, was just always there by itself, let alone all the elements and mass of the universe. just because we can't prove something, doesn't mean it does not exist, especially when that something makes so much sense. take for instance string theory; it cannot be proved at all, nevertheless, many scientists believe in it just because it makes so much sense.
I also believe in a designer, but I do not think the "huge coincidence" that created life must have been part of the design or it wouldnt happen. It must, off course, have been made possible on the design, but not necessarly hardwired to happen.

TurboLung;76295 wrote:


we will never comprehend. i would say that because we can't comprehend, then we look at the next logical answer, whether or not we can prove it. leaving open the possibility of designer does not only make sense but it is the only alternative. far fetched? got any better ideas? whether the designer or 'god' is similar to the ones believed in religions, a god that doesn't even know she/he made us or aliens that have created us; it is the closest thing to making sense and the only logical conclusion available. believe me, i would like to have an alternative, but, nobody has come up with one yet.
I agree with this.


TurboLung;76295 wrote:

true. just on a side note though, gravity is just one of those ingredients required for life. everything seems to lead to allowing life. i understand that, yes, it could be coincidence, but what a hell of a string of coincidences, eh?
We cant really say if its a big coincidence, cause there is no way we can know how many opportunities this had to happen. If we shot one billion bullets in randow directions and kill someone 10 metters away, I dont think we can call that a coincidence, but we could call it a coincidence if it was just one bullet.

TurboLung;76295 wrote:

oh yes they are. a donkey cut in half able to live on? impossible. a giant walking, talking tree? we know, through science that it is impossibe.
They are both possible, the designer could suddently decide to make that possible for example.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 11:26 pm
@manored,
manored;76384 wrote:
I wouldnt trust those studies, we just dont know enough about the universe to say something like that. I might be the result of our definition of life: has cells. What if we find some alien lifeform winhout cells but demostrating metabolism?
I also believe in a designer, but I do not think the "huge coincidence" that created life must have been part of the design or it wouldnt happen. It must, off course, have been made possible on the design, but not necessarly hardwired to happen.


i see where you are coming from, but, scientists believe that there is no other possible alternative using the ingredients and laws in our universe. in some other universe, maybe, yes, but it would need different laws and ingredients. of course, life could exist without some laws, like, gravity because scientists believe that simple life forms could live on meteorites in hibernation. however, it would have to have started off somewhere where gravity was present. also, complex creatures like us, could not become without gravity and many other laws and ingredients. it would only take the removal of one of these to delete life altogether.


Quote:
We cant really say if its a big coincidence, cause there is no way we can know how many opportunities this had to happen. If we shot one billion bullets in randow directions and kill someone 10 metters away, I dont think we can call that a coincidence, but we could call it a coincidence if it was just one bullet.


as stated before, there is no other way for life to exist in this universe. for example, life requires heat energy. planets circle stars and some at the right distance for the correct amount of heat energy for life. coincidence? i would say so, especially when this is just one of thousands of coincidents required for life.


Quote:
They are both possible, the designer could suddently decide to make that possible for example.


he could, but then he/she would need to change the universe's laws, which we would notice and probably die from.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 05:46 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;76295 wrote:
from what i have studied, there is no other way in this universe. there are no other ways life could exist. it requires exactly, the incomprehensible amount of coincidences there are now. any that are removed would delete life. there is no vantage point. this is it. there is no other option... apparently.
Nah, loads of things could be different - we could do without most of the elements for a start.
Quote:
there are plenty of logical theories why humans look up to a god.
Sure - even Schopenhauer admitted it was a metaphysical comfort, but it didn't stop him doing pretty much without.

[quote]it is also a given that our dinky little brains are not intelligent enough to understand our universe.[/quote]Maybe true, but why submit to a foregone conclusion that does nothing to honour how much we, as a gestalt, are capable of comprehending?[quote]i do not believe that just because there is no proof of a god that there is not one.[/quote]Suit yourself. There's no proof to deny the existence of leprechauns - but I believe we are more practically served by assuming they do not.[quote]i keep on saying this, but at this point in time, it seems like the only logical answer to the universe and life.[/quote]If you need it you need it, I don't and I don't see anything about your position that recommends belief in a deity.
Quote:
i still think your understanding is more to do with odds and not coincidence in the way most would understand it. sure, the section you made bold may be part of a coincidence, but not the whole equation
Well, it's from the definition you provided - do you want to redefine it?

As far as I see it - things occuring together come down to odds a lot, if not always. "What are the odds of that happening" and "wow - this is a real coincidence" are often remarks on the same sort of thing, after all.

Quote:
yes. there are tennis balls and there are black holes, but i know which is more impressive.
Precisely - and the coincidences that are believed to have led to abiogenesis are impressive.

But that doesn't recommend a deity.

Quote:
we will never comprehend. i would say that because we can't comprehend, then we look at the next logical answer, whether or not we can prove it. leaving open the possibility of designer does not only make sense but it is the only alternative. far fetched? got any better ideas?
Yeah - it's maybe just chaos.

Look - you maybe need a deity to assign you purpose - you maybe need one to provide a placeholder for that which you don't understand. I sympathise - but I don't accept it as a logical conclusion. The reason Marx claimed religion to be an opiate is because it does provide comfort and protection from some hard to swallow aspects of material existence.

Quote:
oh yes they are. a donkey cut in half able to live on? impossible. a giant walking, talking tree? we know, through science that it is impossibe.
A claim that I saw a giant talking tree is unfalsifiable. Using what is known about science you can assemble a pretty good argument about how preposterous it is, but you will never 'prove' it wrong.

Quote:
a designer? you are right. it can not be proven, unless it reveals itself.
Can never be disproven either. But the only argument you seem to propose for one is that it is "logical" - but why?

Quote:
anyway, how do we know that a million years from now that natural selection will result in earth creatures evolving into super beings which we then can truly say that the result of natural selection is also uncannily fine tuned?
Well it depends on your definition of super. You may very well feel like a super being in comparison to a bacterium - but the criteria for a succesful bacterium is simplicity for speed of reproduction.

Could something evolve that was to us as we are to bacteria in terms of complexity? I don't see why not - but it would likely still have limits imposed on it, or things that were not so good as they could be as a result of evolutionary lineages.


Quote:
you said the word, 'rarely'. what you are talking about is if the police trick the perpetrator into admitting some piece of informatio, or, if the perpetrator stupidy admits something he shouldn't have to reveal his guilt.
Well, if that were the case - let's say for the sake of argument that you're right - it would still be the poor tesimony of the accused, and the certain tesimony of the interviewing officers that led to the conviction - not hard evidence.
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 04:29 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;76549 wrote:
i see where you are coming from, but, scientists believe that there is no other possible alternative using the ingredients and laws in our universe. in some other universe, maybe, yes, but it would need different laws and ingredients. of course, life could exist without some laws, like, gravity because scientists believe that simple life forms could live on meteorites in hibernation. however, it would have to have started off somewhere where gravity was present. also, complex creatures like us, could not become without gravity and many other laws and ingredients. it would only take the removal of one of these to delete life altogether.

I believe that nobody is in position to make such a claim yet.
TurboLung;76549 wrote:

as stated before, there is no other way for life to exist in this universe. for example, life requires heat energy. planets circle stars and some at the right distance for the correct amount of heat energy for life. coincidence? i would say so, especially when this is just one of thousands of coincidents required for life.
I suppose this depends of one's concept of coincidence, so there isnt much point on discussing this.

TurboLung;76549 wrote:

he could, but then he/she would need to change the universe's laws, which we would notice and probably die from.
both only if he/she/it wanted Smile

Dave Allen;76597 wrote:
Can never be disproven either. But the only argument you seem to propose for one is that it is "logical" - but why?
If existence if infinite, our universe as we know it is bound to be inside an infinite number of another ones, many of wich, maybe ours directly, are bound to be under the control of a deity of some kind.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 02:48 am
@manored,
manored;76877 wrote:
If existence if infinite, our universe as we know it is bound to be inside an infinite number of another ones, many of wich, maybe ours directly, are bound to be under the control of a deity of some kind.
Yes, but in an infinite universe something will also exist that makes all gods impossible.

And something else will exist that cancels out that something.

And something will exist which nullifies that.

And so on.

Because of this problem I reckon that infinity itself is a logical contradiction.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:36 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;76949 wrote:
Because of this problem I reckon that infinity itself is a logical contradiction.
Indeed, but, as I see it, there are only two possible consequences of this logical contradiction: Either nothing exists for no specific reason, or everthing exists for no specific reason. As we know that its not the first, since somethings exist, it can only be the second.

It is really troubling though. If everthing exists, what allows us to only be exposed to part of this existance? I can only think in the mind (I suppose thats where quantum mechanics comes from). But then the question of the origin of the mind comes. I suppose we are just colliding with the "Where the heck did existance came from?" paradox from another angle Smile
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:12 am
@TurboLung,
Quote:
thoughts?


All the best with your study of Philosophy.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 06:38 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;76597 wrote:
we could do without most of the elements for a start.


sure we could, but i am only talking about the plethora of elements that are used for life.

[quote]Sure - even Schopenhauer admitted it was a metaphysical comfort, but it didn't stop him doing pretty much without.[/quote]

he "admitted"? this sounds as if you believe he actually knows the answer. no one knows. we can only speculate. we may never know. even if there is a god, this does not mean that we will continue on after death.

[quote]Suit yourself. There's no proof to deny the existence of leprechauns - but I believe we are more practically served by assuming they do not.[/quote]

comparing leprechauns to a creator, or, higher being is not relevant. it is not a good example and i would like you to provide a better one please [one that isn't a cop out]. the whole reason many believe in a god is because the complexity of the universe and life may seem a little far fetched to be just some accident.

[quote]If you need it you need it, I don't and I don't see anything about your position that recommends belief in a deity.[/quote]

why do you assume that i "need it"? the mere fact that you are here, reading this should be enough to leave open the possibility that some type of designer may exists. i am sitting on the fence. i am agnostic; nevertheless, i won't just jump on the whole, "it's a big accident" theroy. because i will never know, then, i can't just go one way or the other.


Quote:
Precisely - and the coincidences that are believed to have led to abiogenesis are impressive.
Quote:


But that doesn't recommend a deity.


No it doesn't, but it makes more sense [i believe] than being just that, some immeasurable co-incidence.


[quote]Yeah - it's maybe just chaos.[/quote]
Quote:


Look - you maybe need a deity to assign you purpose - you maybe need one to provide a placeholder for that which you don't understand. I sympathise - but I don't accept it as a logical conclusion. The reason Marx claimed religion to be an opiate is because it does provide comfort and protection from some hard to swallow aspects of material existence.



thank you for your sympathy. consider this; you see a green car. you see the colour green because light is bouncing off the car bonnet. the light bouncing off the bonnet is effected by the texture or compound of the paint on the bonnet, so, the light travels at a certain wavelength [differing from other wavelengths, for example red] towards your eyes. this wavelength hits your eyes and certain receptors in your eyes block out other wavelengths but accept these ones. your brain deciphers this information and creates the colour green in your mind; however, from the light bouncing off the car to the light hitting your eyes, there is NO COLOUR GREEN. in other words, it is your reality that sees green. we can assume that all humans see green, as we are of the same genetic makeup [maybe your green is my blue?]. so, the colour green really does NOT exists. it only exists in our reality. The colour we call green is a colour we see because it is the way our brain deciphers the wavelengths. the only reason we see colour is because otherwise we would be in a world of blackness, which is okay because there are many creatures who live in darkness... or, do they? a bat can see a moth 50 meters away just with sonar. in the bat's reality, there is no colour. it visualises the world using sonar. it probably sees the world clearer. in the bat's reality, planet earth is vastly different to the earth we see. so, which reality is the real one? without eyes on the planet, the colour green does not exists. in fact, the world is colourless. light bounces off objecst, but only our brains scramble the wavelengths to produce colour and therefore depth. now apply this logic to a chair. is the chair you see a proper representation of what it looks like? or is the chair and the colours, shape and textures just your perception of the object? can you trust your eyes, taste, touch and hearing? what does the world really look like? Some of the biggest philosophers like Plato [refer to his "prisoner in a cave" theory], kant and others believe that the ONLY thing we can be certain of is that we exist [i think, therefore i am]. this is because we can think and are conscious. other than this, they all agree that we cannot trust our senses at all.

so, where am i going with this? well, if we don't even know what our reality is like [because really, our reality is just a perception of what our senses are telling us], then, how can you be so certain that there is no god? i'm not certain. i don't believe there is one, but, i would not be suprised if there were.

look - you maybe need some stability to assign you purpose - you maybe need stability to provide a placeholder for that which you don't understand. i sympathise - but i don't accept it as a logical conclusion. i think that maybe you are scared of a world that does not work on a logic that just may not exist. a logic that is valid to human beings. a logic that does not exist without us. your logic is fabricated, which is okay. it serves its purpose. it keeps you functioning and helps you survive in this world. your logic however is pinned to nothing. it has no basis, no foundation. we know we exists, but that is about all. whatever we see is just a representation of our species. we see the world one way, but we cannot be certain that the world is the way we see it.

Quote:
A claim that I saw a giant talking tree is unfalsifiable. Using what is known about science you can assemble a pretty good argument about how preposterous it is, but you will never 'prove' it wrong.


of course we can prove it wrong. cut open the tree. does it have vocal chords? no? then it did not speak.

Quote:
Can never be disproven either. But the only argument you seem to propose for one is that it is "logical" - but why?


i did not say it was logical in that manner. i am trying to say that it seems more logical than the alternative; an accident, a mistake, a boo-boo, an error, a blunder, a fault. and yes, if there is no maker, then it is an error [in the matrix?].

[quote]Well it depends on your definition of super. You may very well feel like a super being in comparison to a bacterium - but the criteria for a succesful bacterium is simplicity for speed of reproduction.[/quote]

by super i mean that we are hyper intelligent. we have evolved to live forever. we don't require food as such. we naturally are immune to all defects and disease. a state that natural selection has ceased, as there is nothing to improve on in our current environment.


Quote:
Well, if that were the case - let's say for the sake of argument that you're right - it would still be the poor tesimony of the accused, and the certain tesimony of the interviewing officers that led to the conviction - not hard evidence.


i am right. i used to be a police officer. of course, i am only working off the law of nsw, australia, which i guess isn't too different from english law or that of the united states.

---------- Post added 07-17-2009 at 10:46 PM ----------

jeeprs;77883 wrote:
All the best with your study of Philosophy.


than you my child.
 
Phredderikk
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 08:03 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?


I would think that evolution is more properly defined as a result than a purpose. Purpose implies intention which implies some kind of 'Being'. For my part, I do believe that there may be such 'Being' behind everything. Also, evolution does not necessarily lead to a longer life span for a particular organism, but to simply continue to be able to exist. Without 'Being' in the picture, and therefore no intention, so all that 'Is' really would have no purpose intrinsically.

As far as species trying to get to some 'end' through evolving... hmm... I don't think we can speak outside of the human side of this. There may be a whole lot more going on in all the other species than we can know, but unless we can merge our mind with them and see life from their POV, we can never know. As a human, I know that I have more personal purpose for myself than survival... but I don;t believe that these other 'purposes' are related to evolution.
 
Labyrinth
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 12:34 pm
@Phredderikk,
Its a great question whether the process is teleological or not. However, I can't bring myself to think there even is an end. This reminds me of Kant's cosmological ideas where no matter how far one progresses down a series of this sort, there is always a higher member in the sequence. The (undeterminable) end would simply be an idea not available for empirical intuition.

Another interesting factor in this question (presented with the risk of going too far off topic) is how the "evolution" of language adds to this problem. Language undergoes a parallel selection process of words to allow for increasing superiority of communication of ideas (well, supposed to, at least). Would man (closer to this "end") be able to communicate clear and distinct terms that approach much closer to Real Being, God, or Idea... whatever one wants to call it?
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 12:55 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;77900 wrote:

of course we can prove it wrong. cut open the tree. does it have vocal chords? no? then it did not speak.
Thats assuming you have the supernatural entity at hand.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:35 pm
@TurboLung,
youre welcome Dad
 
No0ne
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 11:47 am
@jeeprs,
Sigh...A goal is also defined as "The end to which a design tends (conduces or contributes)", and "That of which a person aims to reach or accomplish"....Thererfore such is but one reason why thousands of scientists use the frase "The goal of this experiment is:shifty:". Hence the experiments design contributes or conduces to accomplish that of which a persom aims to reach or accomplish, therefore the experiment is said to have a goal, even though it is not a person. So just cause a thing cannot create a goal for its self, dosent mean it cannot be aimed to contribute, conduce, reach, or accomplish a goal, and posses a goal.

So what are the goals that all that exist have in common? Well all designs conduce to exist, and continue to conduce to exist, most importantly the rules and laws that absolutly govern this universe conduce to exist and continue to conduce to exist..Hence "to exist" and "to continue to exist" are two of the three goals all things that exist have in common.

(This point can be furtherd by analizing the goals of "thought" which significaly depend upon these two goals for "thought" to exist in the state it exists in)

Yet in a early post made by me in this thread, I had spoke of a method of continuation that is logicaly employed in this universe, yet it is highly dependent upon a religious points of view, hence from a atheist point of view, the existence of the universe and the rules and laws which absolutly govern this universe preserve there own existence, hence my "Law Of Self Preservation", so in a sense the carnival and the carnival rides make and run them selves and need no one to function, which inturn allows a sense of choice, and limited free will. Yet logically this method of executing the action of "continuation, would highly suit a certain entitie for obvious reasons...

Yet in total there are three main goals that the universe as a whole is made to have.

#1.Self Creation- Allows a thing to exist
#2.Self Preservation- Allows a thing that exists to continue to exist
#3.Self Execution

Yet these actions are all bound by the rules and laws of this universe, so in a sense this universe is designed to be a multi-layerd dualistic stand alone complex, which requires no one after its point of creation...
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/lounge/general-discussion/4758-end-goal-14.html#post75717

(Yet from a certain entitie point of view, personaly, why wipe all your a$$es, when one could masterfully create a mechanism seperate from ones self which contains mechanisms that allows you the choice to wipe your a$$ and a mechanisms that allow you to wipe your a$$Very Happy)

(*Note also in starcraft map triggers, dont forget to list "preserve trigger" as a executed action when you save your map:D)

(*Note a goal is not a purpose, there is no need to make a new word to say what a computer/cell/animal/ect is aimed to reach or accomplish)

(*Note seems wiki-dics are the reason why all these young people are forgeting the great debates of the brightest people of the past which created the words we use now..)

(*Note a real puppet is not a puppet:D, cause of the purpose of a puppet, hence a goal is very different from what a purpose is...)
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 11:33 pm
@TurboLung,
Now here is an interesting fact about evolution. I recall reading that photosynthesis developed a number of different times, by different routes. Same applies to eyesight. There are a number of instances in which the same types of capabilities and tendencies appear in evolutionary history. Then you also have convergent evolution, with a typical case being deer and antelope, which are unrelated but developed in response to the same type of environment.

Now think again about the idea of 'purpose'. It might be anthropomorphic to try and imagine 'a cosmic purpose' in the terms of a human-like intelligence with an end in mind that is intelligible to us. On the other hand, that fact that the same kind of capacities evolve and re-evolve would seem to indicate that there is a certain inevitability about evolutionary outcomes.

I personally have always believed that the process of evolution was 'nature becoming intelligent'. Hence we see the evolution of lifeforms from completely dumb to clever enough to build particle accelerators. This is the idea that the human is 'life becoming conscious'. This is why you and I are having this conversation, and also why we're able to have it. The spiritually enlightened are the ones who realise it. That is what spiritual enlightenment is, in my book. Anybody out there - you would have to be my age - remember a song by Jefferson Starship called 'you are the crown of creation'? That is more or less it.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:57 pm
@TurboLung,
Quote:
The scientific view of evolution is ateleological.


That is because of the limitations of science, not because there is no purpose.

There are many things science cannot conceive of, in fact if we had to rely on only things conceivable to science the world would immediately cease to exist.

It is just that now scientific and mathematical truths are the only kind we can agree to agree on.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:41 am
@TurboLung,
Quote:
Thats assuming you have the supernatural entity at hand.


We don't know enough about nature to know what is super to it.
 
ltdaleadergt
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 06:15 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?

I doubt that we personally can have control over our evolution! Even cognitively speaking we are limited in how much control we have! U may be a theist, very much devoted to ur faith and all of a sudden somethign strikes you and vala ur an atheist!
PS: Men I took me a LONGGGGGGGG time tofind this forum~!!!!!
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 10:11 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;78388 wrote:
We don't know enough about nature to know what is super to it.
We know what is super to it in our conception of it: We have concepts of what is or not natural despite everthing being actually natural.

Aka: We make a big mess off the word "natural" =)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 05:32:52