Right, hopefully (but hope springs eternal), we can bash this one up under the umbrella of "Philosophy". (heh)

So here goes. There are some amongst us who say: "Life has no purpose".
To which I reply: "however, Life is purposeful"; Life does have purpose.

The purpose is to stay alive and reproduce. Things that have the property of "being alive" behave as if they are alive. This (obviously) is how we distinguish between live and dead things.
Everything in the word exhibits behaviour of some sort, dead or alive.

So those who believe (apart from actually saying) that Life is without purpose - "does not exhibit purpose" - I ask: what do live things do, that lets you (someone who doesn't distinguish purpose), determine that they are in fact, alive?
Aren't you just deluding yourself believing in the "purposelessness" of life?
Are you trying to distinguish between the questions: "why (for what reason) does Life exist ?" and "does Life behave purposefully?". Or do you see no distinction? (Actually they are the same question)

P.S. Purposive and purposeful are synonymous, purpose is something that things with purposive behaviour have.

There's a fine line here that we need to beware of: it's one thing to describe the behavior of a system, which is totally irrespective of whether we label it "dead" or "alive," and to endow it with intentionality. I'm not a philosopher so I'll admit that I'm stepping outside of my areas of research here, but I'm fairly sure that it's considered fallacious to describe intentions of a physical system.

That is, two water molecules don't "want to" hydrogen bond, or a given reaction doesn't "like to" happen a certain way, but rather they proceed because the resulting configuration serves to minimize free energy or maximize entropy or such, which are well-defined concepts.

This extends all the way up through complex life (assuming no eternal soul or such things). At present, however, we just don't have a good grasp on how phenomenal consciousness comes about from this physical system. For your argument, though, it should work just fine (since you let us argue over lower forms of life, such as bacteria, which by most accounts don't possess consciousness anyway).

For instance, you'll never see researchers describe any kind of phenomenology of an animal's experience. You can't refer to feelings or desires, since these require intention. What you can characterize is what the animal actually did, and make models saying, "if condition X is true, then Y is more likely," or "if variable X increases, behavior pattern Y,Z,W is more likely," for example.

Your refutation that the "purpose is to stay alive and reproduce" is dangerous because it is giving a physical system intentionality. You could probably define the purpose of life as being that for some specific philosophical construct, but as far as physics is concerned, it's hard to give intention to deterministic macro systems.

There's a fine line here that we need to beware of: it's one thing to describe the behavior of a system, which is totally irrespective of whether we label it "dead" or "alive," and to endow it with intentionality. I'm not a philosopher so I'll admit that I'm stepping outside of my areas of research here, but I'm fairly sure that it's considered fallacious to describe intentions of a physical system.

That is, two water molecules don't "want to" hydrogen bond, or a given reaction doesn't "like to" happen a certain way, but rather they proceed because the resulting configuration serves to minimize free energy or maximize entropy or such, which are well-defined concepts.

This extends all the way up through complex life (assuming no eternal soul or such things). At present, however, we just don't have a good grasp on how phenomenal consciousness comes about from this physical system. For your argument, though, it should work just fine (since you let us argue over lower forms of life, such as bacteria, which by most accounts don't possess consciousness anyway).

For instance, you'll never see researchers describe any kind of phenomenology of an animal's experience. You can't refer to feelings or desires, since these require intention. What you can characterize is what the animal actually did, and make models saying, "if condition X is true, then Y is more likely," or "if variable X increases, behavior pattern Y,Z,W is more likely," for example.

Your refutation that the "purpose is to stay alive and reproduce" is dangerous because it is giving a physical system intentionality. You could probably define the purpose of life as being that for some specific philosophical construct, but as far as physics is concerned, it's hard to give intention to deterministic macro systems.

Absolutely right. Life is a process. It has no goals; it just happens. We can. of course ,give meaning to our individual lives but that is a different matter.

Life is a process. It has no goals; it just happens.Well, there you go.
So since life is just like any other chemical reaction, it just happens to reproduce its genetic material by chance (it must be a very fortunate chance process, considering how often it succeeds)? There is no direction or purpose that we can see (or if we can, its illusory)?
I don't think so (that is I think you're completely and utterly wrong about "no goals", "just happens").

I don't think you will get many biologists agreeing with the idea that Life is a collection of totally random events. Reproduction doesn't happen randomly - different species use various different means to reproduce, including sexual reproduction.
If it's really purposeless and without goals, why have these different reproductive systems developed? Why are there different kinds of organisms? Why did Life keep evolving once viable organisms had arrived on the scene? Why are there innumerable versions of prokaryotic lifeforms? Why did the eukaryotes evolve, if there is no direction or purpose?
Why does Life evolve (why is there a process called evolution, that's restricted to living things -that is, we don't see non-living things evolving like we see live things doing)?

Life is a process, but so is combustion; Life does not "just happen" the way a fire does, it's constrained, it's compartmented.
It is not goal-less or directionless. We see this anytime we look at some animal bigger than an ant moving around...? If you saw a zooflagellate swimming around in a drop of water through a microscope (say, like a certain R Hooke did), would you conclude that it was doing so in a random, purposeless way? What if it managed to swim through a small maze you built for it, still just a random collection of events? No living thing exhibits responses to stimuli, or tropism because it's just a collection of random chemical reactions?

Can (either of) you explain what purpose you saw in posting the stuff you did? This was totally random, "just happened", huh? Absolutely no reason whatsoever?

Well, there you go.
So since life is just like any other chemical reaction, it just happens to reproduce its genetic material by chance (it must be a very fortunate chance process, considering how often it succeeds)? There is no direction or purpose that we can see (or if we can, its illusory)?
I don't think so (that is I think you're completely and utterly wrong about "no goals", "just happens").

I don't think you will get many biologists agreeing with the idea that Life is a collection of totally random events. Reproduction doesn't happen randomly - different species use various different means to reproduce, including sexual reproduction.
If it's really purposeless and without goals, why have these different reproductive systems developed? Why are there different kinds of organisms? Why did Life keep evolving once viable organisms had arrived on the scene? Why are there innumerable versions of prokaryotic lifeforms? Why did the eukaryotes evolve, if there is no direction or purpose?
Why does Life evolve (why is there a process called evolution, that's restricted to living things -that is, we don't see non-living things evolving like we see live things doing)?

Life is a process, but so is combustion; Life does not "just happen" the way a fire does, it's constrained, it's compartmented.
It is not goal-less or directionless. We see this anytime we look at some animal bigger than an ant moving around...? If you saw a zooflagellate swimming around in a drop of water through a microscope (say, like a certain R Hooke did), would you conclude that it was doing so in a random, purposeless way? What if it managed to swim through a small maze you built for it, still just a random collection of events? No living thing exhibits responses to stimuli, or tropism because it's just a collection of random chemical reactions?

Can (either of) you explain what purpose you saw in posting the stuff you did? This was totally random, "just happened", huh? Absolutely no reason whatsoever?


You really must get up to speed,Lots of why, why, why. You tell me. The examples you cite are irrelevant.

Evolution has no innate purpose. Don't forget there are failure as well as sucesses, from a humanm standpoit, that is. If you feel ther is purpose you will have to offer something better than you have done uyp to now.

PS I seem to remember that Hooke died a few years ago. You omitteed Galileo. The fact that he could see stars amd planets moving shows they have purpose. by your own token

life has no purpose because atoms have no purpose and life is made of atoms? is that it? well atoms dont have thoughts or emotions either, yet we do.

if you accept that we have the potential for purpose then why not a preprogrammed purpose? why not? why must our purpose be entirely arbitrary? why would you suppose such a thing. i dont see how it follows.

it isnt clear to me what it is that you are arguing against. you seem to be saying that we have purpose but that purpose has no purpose. how can a purpose be purposeless? thats seems like a contradiction to me. what would you consider a purposeful purpose?

as for whether our purposes are completely aribitrary, i see no reason to even suspect such a thing. why would you conclude that they were? we are all born with certain drives/desires like curiosity, empathy, love, and sex. we cannot choose them.

Without a goal there would be no reason to do anything. And since all lifeforms do something, they all have goals. Even "dead" things like rocks and atoms have a goal, so they are not really dead. There is no movement without a goal. Life is eternal motion.

Many people think the goal is to reproduce, but it can't be because what's the point of reproduction? To stay alive. But the goal is not to stay alive (survival) either, because why stay alive? Because life is fun. And why have fun... because it's fun to have fun, and that is the meaning of life. Even little children know it.

nice strawman argument.

Without a goal there would be no reason to do anything. And since all lifeforms do something, they all have goals. Even "dead" things like rocks and atoms have a goal, so they are not really dead. There is no movement without a goal. Life is eternal motion.

Many people think the goal is to reproduce, but it can't be because what's the point of reproduction? To stay alive. But the goal is not to stay alive (survival) either, because why stay alive? Because life is fun. And why have fun... because it's fun to have fun, and that is the meaning of life. Even little children know it.

The little ones with incurable diseases are having lots of fun.

It just happens..

We can. of course ,give meaning to our individual lives but that is a different matter.

Given your beliefs it seems to me it would be more consistant for you to say we can hallucinate meaning. To give meaning implies that it is something real.

It seems important for some people to convince others that life has no purpose. The ones who believe there is no purpose to life seem to think it is important to believe that life has no purpose. Given that they act exactly the same as people who do believe life has a purpose, why is it important to believe that life has no purpose?

The purpose of life is simply more life.

Given your beliefs it seems to me it would be more consistant for you to say we can hallucinate meaning. To give meaning implies that it is something real.

It is meaning on a subjective level. For example, my life revolves around composing music, trout fishing , travelling and so on.So, to me, that is waht my life means; I am expressing my goals, ifyou will. This is obviously subjective but it is real to me.

If we knew for sure existence had no purpose, It seems to me we could predict exact movements of nonliving particles very easily. If every movement, were like every other movement, displaying no unique characteristics, no individual purpose, then it seems a simple thing to exactly predict the movement of those smallest particles that comprise matter, living or nonliving .

Now certainly this is no proof existence has purpose, living or nonliving.
But it seems to me it throws a monkey wrench into the notion that there is no purpose to existence.

How is it both true that particles have no unique purpose, and we are not able to exactly predict the movements of those smallest particles we can ‘observe’?
Or am I behind the times?

If we knew for sure existence had no purpose, It seems to me we could predict exact movements of nonliving particles very easily. If every movement, were like every other movement, displaying no unique characteristics, no individual purpose, then it seems a simple thing to exactly predict the movement of those smallest particles that comprise matter, living or nonliving .

Now certainly this is no proof existence has purpose, living or nonliving.
But it seems to me it throws a monkey wrench into the notion that there is no purpose to existence.

How is it both true that particles have no unique purpose, and we are not able to exactly predict the movements of those smallest particles we can ‘observe’?
Or am I behind the times?

Another take on the issue is this...
if there is no purpose in the universe, this would include the people who believe there is no purpose in the universe. There beliefs are not the products of purposeful activity, research, thinking, rationalizing, but merely things that happen, like a rock that dislodges from a slope after wind erosion and rolls down the hill.

How creatures that have no purpose and know this could think they could have good reasons for believing something is very strange. If they are right about the universe, it is a coincidence.

It is meaning on a subjective level. For example, my life revolves around composing music, trout fishing , travelling and so on.So, to me, that is waht my life means; I am expressing my goals, ifyou will. This is obviously subjective but it is real to me.

Myles, I think I love you.. :D

Mmmm Purpose in life V's none present. Well a life with purpose and goals is generally more likely to exibit higher signs of intelligence than a life without purpose. Inteligence should lead to the answer of life but alas there is a shorfal in either our knowledge or our wisdom. Is our pupose defined by our goals, is it less than that ie a case of simply existing as comfortably as posibily or more than that for example reaching enlightenment, or perhaps less individualistic and involves evolution of the species which is a wholely different affair or maybe macroscopically speaking we should be talking about evolution of the organism, the organism being the known universe.
Of course much of it depends on whether you believe that life goes on after death. Or is it simply passed on genetically through your offspring and that is the continuation of your spark. For me the purpose of life is fulfilment, happiness love and the acumulation of knowledge in preparation for contribution to the next universal organism.

Evolution has no innate purposeSure, life evolves, and the process is random - except that evolved organisms DO exhibit purposeful behaviour, therefore Life is purposeful.
If your life has no purpose, and there is no purpose to anything you do, why tell us about it? Why are you posting stuff in this forum - surely there's no reason for you to do this? Or what?
It just happens.. So this stuff you typed on a keyboard, and then posted in this forum just happened, you can't explain how? A machine did it? So you're a machine?

"None of these answers can have any meaning, because there's no purpose. You should all go and see if there's anything else that's completely purposeless for you to do, there aren't any answers. You're obviously a bunch of robots.
Don't forget now - there is nothing meaningful, there is no purpose. Even to everything I just posted (it was something I did because I was forced to by my programming, I had no choice at all, so no need to apologise, or not apologise, what that hell is an apology anyway? Must be another one of those completely meaningless things we do)."

Of course, there is absolutely no need to say anything about it, either. So why are we? Is there a purpose to discussing anything? Even the subjects of Life, Evolution, purpose and so on?

So this stuff you typed on a keyboard, and then posted in this forum just happened, you can't explain how? A machine did it? So you're a machine? Now we know...
Of sorts, yes..

None of these answers can have any meaning, because there's no purpose. You should all go and see if there's anything else that's completely purposeless for you to do, there aren't any answers. You're obviously a bunch of robots.
Don't forget now - there is nothing meaningful, there is no purpose. Even to everything I just posted (it was something I did because I was forced to by my programming, I had no choice at all, so no need to apologise, or not apologise, what that hell is an apology anyway? Must be another one of those completely meaningless things we do).
Of course, there is absolutely no need to say anything about it, either.
You fail to see my point..

You fail to see my point..No, you fail to make a point. What is your point?
The purpose of life is simply more life.Simply put, yes. But it isn't a simple mechanism, Evolution is selection, of organisms that are "better" at surviving. Evolution "makes" (or is) random changes, in organisms (via genetic variability) and in the environment (but life changes its environment too).
"Better equipped" or better organised individuals have "greater chances" of surviving and reproducing - key properties of purposeful lifeforms.

Looks easy, but there are feedback cycles everywhere, complicating things a whole lot.

No, you fail to make a point. What is your point?

I have two threads about this running for months, I have no desire to start explaining myself all over again here.
Sorry about this, I'm out..

If it's really purposeless and without goals, why have these different reproductive systems developed? Why are there different kinds of organisms? Why did Life keep evolving once viable organisms had arrived on the scene? Why are there innumerable versions of prokaryotic lifeforms? Why did the eukaryotes evolve, if there is no direction or purpose?
Because this was the most likely occurrence.

But the goal is not to stay alive (survival) either, because why stay alive? Because life is fun. And why have fun... because it's fun to have fun, and that is the meaning of life. Even little children know it.
I'm inclined to agree. Except for the "fun" part. If it were so, life wouldn't be so fucking miserable. And blame it on the miserable people if you will, it still is that, most of the time. I'd say "bringing about change" is the goal of life.

Why do we have minds? Because minds can precalculate what is required for an instance and then it is more likely to happen. In a competitive place where constant locomotion happens, the more stable organisms are bound to eventually get to intelligence. Why do we also have emotions? Because that gives us direction. Pure mind would not have one. It can calculate and understand, but it doesn't have a purpose. So we have emotions to move us towards a purpose, just for the sake of keeping us moving. Since this intelligence happened to be born in a competitive place, we also have the desire to keep living and prevail.

To bring it more in sync with the original post, I'll try putting it like this: Living beings have a purpose, to bring about change and build new systems (on all levels), tear down weaker ones... life in general expands. But the direction it takes is only "more complex" and which way it goes is random. So life in general has no purpose but that it becomes more complex. Why? Who knows.

Why do people who think there's no purpose feel like telling everyone? Because they get sick of people acting as if there was one, if they see no real purpose in sight and purposes are, in the end, illusions to keep us expanding in any random direction.

In a competitive place where constant locomotion happens, the more stable organisms are bound to eventually get to intelligence."constant locomotion happens" - for no purpose? Why do organisms move around and respire (and reproduce), it just happens? What binds them to "eventually" get more anything? What's a "competitive place"?
But the direction it takes is only "more complex" and which way it goes is random.No, evolution and life are directed towards complexity and diversity. Mutations and environmental changes are "random" (but recall that lifeforms also change their environment). Evolution and Life (together), are not random (but the process of evolution is). Evolution isn't a separate process, evolution is life. Life is evolution.

Life "controls". If lifeforms had no control, would there be any cell walls, or any cells? Would any compartmentalisation of any kind have "occured"?

There probably isn't much purpose to this thread, given there seems to be a group firmly convinced that Life is purposeless, random, "just happens", etc. They can't explain why they think this, without then implying that there is purpose, but refuse to see that they are "just' reasoning in a circular way. If it's true, why bother even thinking about whether it is or not? Why do some think there's no purpose (in which case there's no purpose in thinking about purpose)? So why do they think about it?

"constant locomotion happens" - for no purpose?
Nope.
Why do organisms move around and respire (and reproduce),
Because there's energy flowing, which pushes things to move.
Why do organisms move around and respire (and reproduce)
Because it is the way we can, under current conditions (Sun bursting the energy, the atmosphere being what it is), stay stable.
it just happens?Yes. We might as well have been something which does anything else, if things had gone differently.
What binds them to "eventually" get more anything?
Erm... eventully? What do you mean?
What's a "competitive place"?
A place where there's a competition... I'm don't need to elaborate, do I? There're systems here which make use of energy to stay stable. So we compete for energy.
No, evolution and life are directed towards complexity and diversity.
Well, that's up to you to prove (at least to a level). I said that life gets more complex in a random direction. You claim it is directed to be more complex (that is what you meant, right?). So who do you claim directs life?


Life "controls". If lifeforms had no control, would there be any cell walls, or any cells? Would any compartmentalisation of any kind have "occured"?
We are systems. Systems, which are all established as life. We, as beings, though, so far have had no control over our cell walls or cells. It HAS happened. And since it gives an advantage, it stays. Control is kinda the wrong word. We didn't control them to be this way. Or do you wish to argue that we somehow designed cells ourselves?
On that note, we can do that now. Bigger systems with intelligence can comprehend some systems, and change them. But in what direction? We can only imagine a purpose for that, since there isn't a mandatory one.

*sigh* take it a little easier, why don't you?? I'm sure we can discuss it in more detail with less questions at a time.

Myles, I think I love you.. :D

Ik hau van jou ok, ha. ha

What binds them to "eventually" get more anything?
Erm... eventully? What do you mean?I'm asking what you meant with:
In a competitive place where constant locomotion happens, the more stable organisms are bound to eventually get to intelligence.

Then this:
What's a "competitive place"?
A place where there's a competition... "a competition"; something like the way fire "competes"? If you lit both ends of a strip of paper, the fires would compete with each other?
There're systems here which make use of energy to stay stable. So we compete for energy.What do you mean "we compete" for energy? How can we compete, you mean like a fire or a chemical reaction does? Is competition for resources also without purpose?

Specific animals and plants can have their own purposes, but what is the purpose of life in general? It has none.

[QUOTE=Vkothii;1762834]"constant locomotion happens" - for no purpose? Why do organisms move around and respire (and reproduce), it just happens? What binds them to "eventually" get more anything? What's a "competitive place"?
No, evolution and life are directed towards complexity and diversity. Mutations and environmental changes are "random" (but recall that lifeforms also change their environment). Evolution and Life (together), are not random (but the process of evolution is). Evolution isn't a separate process, evolution is life. Life is evolution.

Life "controls". If lifeforms had no control, would there be any cell walls, or any cells? Would any compartmentalisation of any kind have "occured"?

There probably isn't much purpose to this thread, given there seems to be a group firmly convinced that Life is purposeless, random, "just happens", etc. They can't explain why they think this, without then implying that there is purpose, but refuse to see that they are "just' reasoning in a circular way. If it's true, why bother even thinking about whether it is or not? Why do some think there's no purpose (in which case there's no purpose in thinking about purpose)? So why do they think about it?


Hydrogen and oxygen combine together to form water. What do you think theit intentions are ?

Hydrogen and oxygen combine together to form water. What do you think theit intentions are ?You think I should ask them maybe? Since they are not, by definition, living things (hydrogen and oxygen and water), they can't have any intentions. What was your intention in asking a lame question?

Specific animals and plants can have their own purposes, but what is the purpose of life in general?In general, if living things have individual purposes, then living things have (Life has) purpose.
It has none.False conclusion, obviously. You're fooling yourself - how can things have purpose, and have no purpose?

Well, it means there's constant change. So systems get destroyed, created... lots of change. But comparing the amount of energy/work new systems require before they come to exist by chance and the amount of energy/work new systems require if they're precalculated, precalculating events on any level will be more useful. Which is why sentience is developping so well and the general rule of "more advanced beings have a better nervous system" seems to hold.
Like, think of natural selection vs writing our own genes. Natural selection happens because any random mutation can happen, but the unbeneficial ones get left out over long time... you know the story. But think of how much energy it takes, and compare it to if we can create new various productive combinations fast, precalculating them.
But what kind of new genes should we use? Enter chance again, what we try. Only the systems have become even more complex and stakes are therefore higher.

Edit - I think I'm getting an idea of what you mean. You mean the meaning of life, that consists of living beings. We only count our own organisms as living beings. We have our own desires of living, since beings without the desire to live, obviously died.

Basically, you only mean life in the biological sense. Not life as in "everything in the univese". Since we live in the universe, we (at least me, and probably some others) seem to include in our lives everything around us, not only the living. Since we (me, and still some others) consider ourselves more or less machines, parts of that universe.

If I got that right, then yes, it really is to thrive, adabt and become more diverse. And I don't think most people would argue with your point.

Well, I assume that everyone understands the difference between alive and not-alive. Life requires the existence of non-life (a stage to "live" on).

Those who respond with a standard "Life has no purpose" riposte, must be stuck on some idea that occurred to them when they learned something about Evolution: it's random, chance mutation.
There's a bit more to it than genes getting altered - whatever the mechanism is when this "happens".

Well, I assume that everyone understands the difference between alive and not-alive. Life requires the existence of non-life (a stage to "live" on).

Those who respond with a standard "Life has no purpose" riposte, must be stuck on some idea that occurred to them when they learned something about Evolution: it's random, chance mutation.
There's a bit more to it than genes getting altered - whatever the mechanism is when this "happens".

I am looking at it from a philosophical point of view, and can siscern no puropse. I have nothing to sell, nothing to prove. my only motivation being to seek the truth.

You say " There's a bit more to it than genes getting altered...."

What is the "bit more " you are thinking about and what brearing does it have on whether life has a purpose ?

When people talk about the meaning of life, we think as utterly deep as we can. The existence of everything we see in life. Not just living beings. When you make it about just the process of life, it kind of loses a lot of the deep and mystical feeling... yeah, we survive and create diversity so that we can adabt and survive...

But when asked about the meaning of life, a guy may still think, "Why? Why do we follow that endless trail? Do we have a goal we want to reach? Why do we keep adapting?" Sure it's the desire to adabt, but... what for? What's the purpose? Life seems to create a loop of creation and not offer a specific goal, meaning the further goal can be anything. So it feels like a means without a purpose. Hence the feeling of no purpose.

Uh... that make sense?


There's a bit more to it than genes getting altered - whatever the mechanism is when this "happens".
Anything important?

What is the "bit more " you are thinking about and what brearing does it have on whether life has a purpose ?Evolution is the chance mutation of genes, and it's the selection of individuals with "better" genes (the "bit more").

Better genes are a relative phenomenon. If certain individuals live for longer, then they're better equipped. Selection is "purposeful", mutation isn't. Life has "a" purpose, therefore, which is to evolve and become more diverse, and to behave purposefully, just like you are doing right now.

P.S. This motivation you say you have - does it seem meaningful or purposeful?
When you make it about just the process of life, it kind of loses a lot of the deep and mystical feeling.Yes, maybe, but the thread title is "The purpose Life has"; Life needs a planet to live on (and presumably the planet and the solar system are here because of the galaxy, and so the entire universe), but we tend to consider Life separately, even though we know it depends on everything else.

Haha, I think I can understand both sides of it now (maybe there was a third side that I missed).

But when a guy is asked what the meaning of life is, he'll think of HIS life. Everything he knows about the life he's had, and the world he lives in. If he thinks in terms of universe and matter and basic philosophical concepts, he won't know you're talking about biological life in general.


edit - So the question now should be... why do we need to adabt?

Evolution is the chance mutation of genes, and it's the selection of individuals with "better" genes (the "bit more").

Better genes are a relative phenomenon. If certain individuals live for longer, then they're better equipped. Selection is "purposeful", mutation isn't. Life has "a" purpose, therefore, which is to evolve and become more diverse, and to behave purposefully, just like you are doing right now.

P.S. This motivation you say you have - does it seem meaningful or purposeful?
Yes, maybe, but the thread title is "The purpose Life has"; Life needs a planet to live on (and presumably the planet and the solar system are here because of the galaxy, and so the entire universe), but we tend to consider Life separately, even though we know it depends on everything else.


You should read up om evolutionary theory bcause the process is not purposeful; it is random.

Haha, I think I can understand both sides of it now (maybe there was a third side that I missed).

But when a guy is asked what the meaning of life is, he'll think of HIS life. Everything he knows about the life he's had, and the world he lives in. If he thinks in terms of universe and matter and basic philosophical concepts, he won't know you're talking about biological life in general.


edit - So the question now should be... why do we need to adabt?

Your mistake is to assume that we need to adappt. The process is random and we have failures as well a successes

the process is not purposeful; it is random.The "process" of biological evolution is random?

What is the process of selection? Why are organisms selected and how? Selection is random too, huh?
Your mistake is to assume that we need to adappt.Whether "we" need to adapt or not, "we" most certainly do adapt.
Mistakes, assumptions and "needs", are things we project on the process to explain it.

Your mistake is to assume that we need to adappt. The process is random and we have failures as well a successes
*ahem*
exactly. Failures to adapt and successes to adapt. So, uh... yeah. Life adapts. Non-adapted parts die. Life goes on, being better adapted.

blah

So, the purpose of life is to reproduce, but, what is the purpose of life?

is this thread about the purpose of biological life or the purpose of spiritual life?

is this thread about the purpose of biological life or the purpose of spiritual life?
Biological. Apparently. That's what seems to confuse most people.

Hey... do you suppose life might, in the grander scheme and in the "spiritual sense" be moving towards change requiring less energy? It would go together with creating diversity - it allows for much more diversity, more effectively. More precicely in accordance to what we need to adapt.

So in the spiritul sense you can say we grow more powerful and we can change more. And it doesn't say we MUST use the power in any given way, leaving in the chaos/purposelessness factor. In the biological sense you can say we get to adapt and therefore survive even better like that.

hard to see how there could be any confusion. since it has no intention it obviously cant have any purpose. you may as well ask what is the purpose of a rock?

Well, I can be a little nitpicky and say the purpose of the rock is to find a way in which it is affected by the least amount of energy - ie be as close to the ground as possible and give in to any force that's pushing it. Which is why it will fall down when you pick it up.

do you suppose life might, in the grander scheme and in the "spiritual sense" be moving towards change requiring less energy?
Neurologists and behaviourists studying memory seem to have uncovered something about the way we human (primates) remember stuff. Our long term memory is more stable than what they call short-term memory.

Other primates haven't evolved as good a version (maybe because of all those extra neurons in our cortex). It appears to be more stable entropically, and doesn't need as much energy to persist. It might have something to do with plasticity.

Maybe we are evolving towards a more stable form, our long-term memory apparatus appears to be. IOW, we remember for longer, and with less effort, than other mammals (with mammal brains).

It may be an indication that we're going towards a more stable form. But it may just be there so that we're able to get a better idea of life as a whole, for the time that we do live.

Probably both.

The "process" of biological evolution is random?

What is the process of selection? Why are organisms selected and how? Selection is random too, huh?
Whether "we" need to adapt or not, "we" most certainly do adapt.
Mistakes, assumptions and "needs", are things we project on the process to explain it.

Read up om it

For what purpose?
As I say, biological evolution is not random; it's due to random genetic changes which persist. That's two things: persistence due to selection, and variability, due to "random" mutations or genetic drift, or whatever you want to label it, it's gradual change and adaptation, and there's this advantage thing too.

Random genetic changes do not persist all by themselves. If lifeforms weren't organised, they'd be all over the place, literally. I don't need to go and read anything.

What's to read? Do you think you understand any of the stuff you've read? If you do, can you explain it, or are you happy with telling people they've got it all wrong, and should go read some book or other?

Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Can you explain how it functions as a "driver" of the process? Can you project something other than a suggestion to "go read up" about it (which activity I think I can see a need for, let's say, here and there).

For what purpose?
As I say, biological evolution is not random; it's due to random genetic changes which persist. That's two things: persistence due to selection, and variability, due to "random" mutations or genetic drift, or whatever you want to label it, it's gradual change and adaptation, and there's this advantage thing too.

Random genetic changes do not persist all by themselves. If lifeforms weren't organised, they'd be all over the place, literally. I don't need to go and read anything.

What's to read? Do you think you understand any of the stuff you've read? If you do, can you explain it, or are you happy with telling people they've got it all wrong, and should go read some book or other?

Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Can you explain how it functions as a "driver" of the process? Can you project something other than a suggestion to "go read up" about it (which activity I think I can see a need for, let's say, here and there).

Your qustion makes no sense. That is why I again suggest you read up on evolution if you wish to understand the theory. The alternative is to continue asking questions based on you misunderstanding.

Your qustion makes no sense.You mean this one:
Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Which means: "can you explain what selection is?"

So do you have some explanation, or can I assume that you're just ranting?

P.S. I understand the process (of Biological evolution). But you don't, or you haven't posted anything that suggests more than a vague grasp.
Why do people like you insist that they understand some "scientific theory", but struggle to show that they, in fact, do understand? Then they resort to "you need to read about it". Another pointless "debate", about who knows what.
But clearly, a lot of people don't understand it at all; maybe it's too simple an idea?

In general, if living things have individual purposes, then living things have (Life has) purpose.
False conclusion, obviously. You're fooling yourself - how can things have purpose, and have no purpose?

Not so. Life that didn't try to extend itself wouldn't exist. To what end does it behave like this? It doesn't know, there is no other way to be. We are a cascade of cause and effect that can have no precise knowledge of it's future state.

An individual can chose a purpose. That is, I think, a great freedom we enjoy. If everyone's purpose is different, there is no unified purpose.

I still don't get how that implies that purposeful organisms don't or can't have purpose? If a star gives off visible radiation -we see it. It isn't invisible as well...?
An individual can chose a purpose.
Choice is advantageous: choosing to expend energy (from a limited resource), or conserve energy (hibernation, bacterial sporulation, or just "inaction"), is part of Evolution too.

You mean this one:
Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Which means: "can you explain what selection is?"

So do you have some explanation, or can I assume that you're just ranting?

P.S. I understand the process (of Biological evolution). But you don't, or you haven't posted anything that suggests more than a vague grasp.
Why do people like you insist that they understand some "scientific theory", but struggle to show that they, in fact, do understand? Then they resort to "you need to read about it". Another pointless "debate", about who knows what.
But clearly, a lot of people don't understand it at all; maybe it's too simple an idea?

Yes, I understand what is meant by natural selection buytyour posts show such a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory that it would take pages and pages to explain, with no guarantee that you would inderstand. Too much like hard work,

There are plenty of accesible, introductory texts available. What have you got against educating yourself ?

Here, I'll just explain what selection is: selection is the differential reproduction of life forms that vary in fitness for their environment. If you start out with 500 of life form A and 500 of life form B, and life form A lives twice as long as life form B but they reproduce at the same rate, then over time there will come to be many more of life form A than life form B. In a world with limited resources, this means that B can come to be blocked out of things like food (being far fewer), and thus die off. However, if through mutation a B organism becomes 4 times better at getting those resources than any other organism, this organism will be highly successful, reproduce much, and the trait will (may) begin to propagate. This in turn could lead to B organisms blocking out A organisms for resources, and thus causing the A population to drop and the B population to increase. This is evolution.

There are no mysteries here. It's as well grounded as the basis of the second law of thermodynamics in probabilistic microstates. You can "find meaning" in this process if you really want, but we (or any complex life) are just, as Dawkins said it, "survival machines for the genes inside us." These genes have no purpose. The weren't put there by a god, endowed with intention, or by any means "care" what happens. They're merely slaves to probability. The math doesn't just enable evolution, by the way, but actually requires evolution to arise.

so we have purpose but that purpose has no purpose.

selection is the differential reproduction of life forms that vary in fitness for their environment. -variation due to a range of representative forms, as stated. Varying ability to deal with the environment. That's one of the key parts of the theory.
If you start out with 500 of life form A and 500 of life form B, and life form A lives twice as long as life form B but they reproduce at the same rate, then over time there will come to be many more of life form A than life form B.If A and B aren't co-evolving, but competing for the same set of resources, sure.
In a world with limited resources, this means that B can come to be blocked out of things like food (being far fewer), and thus die off. However, if through mutation a B organism becomes 4 times better at getting those resources than any other organism - are you still talking about species A here? Or do you mean a "different kind of" B, that competes better than any other A or B..?
this organism will be highly successful, reproduce much, and the trait will (may) begin to propagate. This in turn could lead to B organisms blocking out A organisms for resources, and thus causing the A population to drop and the B population to increase.OK, but competition between species and between members of the same species has been covered way back in the start of this thread. So this organism, this B species, gets a mutation that gives it an advantage? Does it get the advantage by having the gene or does it get the advantage by expressing the gene?
Obviously, when it uses the thing -just like a screwdriver or a chisel, say. Another word for screwdriver is "tool".
These genes have no purpose. The weren't put there by a god, endowed with intention, or by any means "care" what happens.Does expressing a gene have purpose? Does the organism care what happens?


Genes are tools, that get used. Now someone tell me organisms don't do this, and that using a tool isn't adapting a tool.

These genes have no purpose. The weren't put there by a god, endowed with intention, or by any means "care" what happens. They're merely slaves the probability, doesn't just enable evolution, but actually requires evolution to arise.

you mean like genes that encode for something like curiosity or sex drive? such genes may not possess purpose but they encode for purpose (my purpose). i am not my genes and blueprints dont make blue buildings.

our purpose is encoded in genes which themselves have no purpose. therefore you say our purpose has no purpose. that is a fallacy. GENES have no purpose. WE have purpose. PURPOSE itself requires no purpose because it IS purpose.

"UuuhnnUH?" -TIm "the Tool-man" Taylor.

-variation due to a range of representative forms, as stated. Varying ability to deal with the environment. That's one of the key parts of the theory.
If A and B aren't co-evolving, but competing for the same set of resources, sure.
- are you still talking about species A here? Or do you mean a "different kind of" B, that competes better than any other A or B..?
OK, but competition between species and between members of the same species has been covered way back in the start of this thread. So this organism, this B species, gets a mutation that gives it an advantage? Does it get the advantage by having the gene or does it get the advantage by expressing the gene?
Obviously, when it uses the thing -just like a screwdriver or a chisel, say. Another word for screwdriver is "tool".
Does expressing a gene have purpose? Does the organism care what happens?


Genes are tools, that get used. Now someone tell me organisms don't do this, and that using a tool isn't adapting a tool.

By now you should have some idea why people like me suggest you read up on the subject. You have been given an explanation but you have not understood, just as I suggested.You are asking to be spoon fed, If your present question is answered, you will come back with another and so on ad infinitum. All because you cannot be bothered to do a bit of work on the subject yourself.

If you had read up on evolution and got stuck at some point and explained your problem, I would gladly have helped you.

Re: is the advantage in expression or possession.

Really there's no difference. Remember that function comes from structure, so by possessing the DNA structures and ribosomes and so on, the intermolecular forces present in the cell are going to cause expression.

Remember that function comes from structure, so by possessing the DNA structures and ribosomes and so on, the intermolecular forces present in the cell are going to cause expression.Function doesn't come from structure unless some agent has "built" the structure. Really there's a big difference.
Intermolecular forces (tension between polar materials and liquids, and conformality - something enzymes "exploit", are part of the "agency" of intercellular processes, but genes are expressed because enzymes and cycles (which "use" energy as ATP), are present.
Enzymes and feedback aren't intermolecular forces. Intermolecular forces are not the agency that expresses genes...? Ultimately, the forces that "make things get together" are intermolecular interactions, however, life controls things, they don't happen randomly, enzymes "work" because of their structure - but they don't work in a vacuum; enzymes are expressed genes too. A gene isn't "used" because it gets suppressed (controlled). Viral genes are "uncontrolled", and get replicated in an uncontrolled way if they are introduced.
Feedback mechanisms are the key to all the activity, and feedback is what gives life "control" over those activities. What do co-enzymes do? Why are there complexes of protein with "non-protein"?

There's a whole lot of control mechanisms; Life controls the release of energy, it controls the replication and expression of genes. Or, perhaps you might say it "has" all these cycles (feedback mechanisms) that "do it".

So, you haven't shown why there's no difference between having and using a gene (from the genetic toolkit).
If a tool isn't used, then there's no way to get any advantage from it.

Maybe Myles can shed some light on why having a car in the garage, is the same as driving a car on the road? He's good at questions like that.

Function doesn't come from structure unless some agent has "built" the structure. Really there's a big difference.
Intermolecular forces (tension between polar materials and liquids, and conformality - something enzymes "exploit", are part of the "agency" of intercellular processes, but genes are expressed because enzymes and cycles (which "use" energy as ATP), are present.
Enzymes and feedback aren't intermolecular forces. Intermolecular forces are not the agency that expresses genes...? Ultimately, the forces that "make things get together" are intermolecular interactions, however, life controls things, they don't happen randomly, enzymes "work" because of their structure - but they don't work in a vacuum; enzymes are expressed genes too. A gene isn't "used" because it gets suppressed (controlled). Viral genes are "uncontrolled", and get replicated in an uncontrolled way if they are introduced.
Feedback mechanisms are the key to all the activity, and feedback is what gives life "control" over those activities. What do co-enzymes do? Why are there complexes of protein with "non-protein"?

There's a whole lot of control mechanisms; Life controls the release of energy, it controls the replication and expression of genes. Or, perhaps you might say it "has" all these cycles (feedback mechanisms) that "do it".

So, you haven't shown why there's no difference between having and using a gene (from the genetic toolkit).
If a tool isn't used, then there's no way to get any advantage from it.

Maybe Myles can shed some light on why having a car in the garage, is the same as driving a car on the road? He's good at questions like that.

Maybe you can shed some light on why reading the bible in church is not the same as reading the bible in bed. You are good at posing stupid questions.

I want to start this reply by quoting Socrates:

"To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they know quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?"

I think this very quota applies to the question about the meaning of life. It would be very arrogant of us to imply that we have the answer ( ie. "our purpose is only to reproduce" ), when we clearly have no idea. Yes, the biological environment adapts and evolves, but is the concrete, perceivable matter all there is to it? Has science - which is the baby of our limited intelligence - really answered the question? Is Richard Dawkins a god?

In some way, I sense that we people tend to be both arrogant and ignorant. It is rather arrogant to assume that we, as a very young species with limited understanding of the universe as a whole, have found the underlying reason to life. Yes, it is easy for us to base that assumption to the perceivable world - we see that living things yearn to stay alive no matter how harsh the environment is - but, seriously, it is rather ignorant to exclude the possibility of, should I say, a 'spiritual existence'. As far as my belief goes, I do believe that if there is no grand purpose to our existence, we can - at least - set individual goals, aside from merely reproducing and surviving, which give us purpose. My purpose is just to enjoy life as it comes, for as long as it comes, and nobody can take that away from me.

Then again, what is the purpose of this universe? Why was it born? Why did the Big Bang occur? These mysteries - as that is what they are - intrigue me, and further imply that we just can not know it all.

I think some people are just pig-headed about things.
Why do we believe anything? Is there such a thing as meaning? What is it?
How about purpose? No such thing? No animal behaves, and especially not with purpose (i.e. intent)?

Or are those who get pig-headed or can't provide anything relevant, just deluded, but unwilling to admit it? There's no purpose, no purpose in meaning, no meaning in purpose, so belief isn't really more than an illusion.
If there's no meaning, no purpose, and no believing anything, does it matter if people think they're right, when they're wrong? Is there any difference?
Maybe you can shed some light on why reading the bible in church is not the same as reading the bible in bed. You are good at posing stupid questions.No problem. It's exactly the same. Reading the bible in the dunny (or a Playboy) is identical in meaning, because meaning is an illusion. So is reading. Especially for people who believe things.

I want to start this reply by quoting Socrates:

"To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they know quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?"

I think this very quota applies to the question about the meaning of life. It would be very arrogant of us to imply that we have the answer ( ie. "our purpose is only to reproduce" ), when we clearly have no idea. Yes, the biological environment adapts and evolves, but is the concrete, perceivable matter all there is to it? Has science - which is the baby of our limited intelligence - really answered the question? Is Richard Dawkins a god?

In some way, I sense that we people tend to be both arrogant and ignorant. It is rather arrogant to assume that we, as a very young species with limited understanding of the universe as a whole, have found the underlying reason to life. Yes, it is easy for us to base that assumption to the perceivable world - we see that living things yearn to stay alive no matter how harsh the environment is - but, seriously, it is rather ignorant to exclude the possibility of, should I say, a 'spiritual existence'. As far as my belief goes, I do believe that if there is no grand purpose to our existence, we can - at least - set individual goals, aside from merely reproducing and surviving, which give us purpose. My purpose is just to enjoy life as it comes, for as long as it comes, and nobody can take that away from me.

Then again, what is the purpose of this universe? Why was it born? Why did the Big Bang occur? These mysteries - as that is what they are - intrigue me, and further imply that we just can not know it all.

Socrates appears to have been a man of integrity, something which I greatly admire. He did however say, according to PLato, thethe did not fear death because he was close to the end of his life and he had the comfort of believing in an afterlife.

Nobody claims to know everything other than those who believe the bible,But you must surely admit that we have made a lot of progress and are continuing to do so.

I agrre that life has no purpose but as individuals we can choose to give our lives a purpose.

As to the purpose of the universe, there may be none. Humans have a need to understand things, but it may be necessary to accept that not every question has an answer. Why is red red and not yellow ?

life has no purpose but as individuals we can choose to give our lives a purpose.Choice is distinct from purpose, living things can choose?
Then there's no purpose in making a choice, because there is no purpose to life.

So how can you "give" your life purpose, by choosing to (a purposeless activity)? Or are you saying choice is not purposeless?

Individual's purpose is quite up to the individual. If they have the power to choose what they do, how they behave, they can choose their own purpose.

Life's purpose is, apparently, preserving life. Or producing subjects which can cause change.

In my opinion, anyway.

Choice is distinct from purpose, living things can choose?
Then there's no purpose in making a choice, because there is no purpose to life.

So how can you "give" your life purpose, by choosing to (a purposeless activity)? Or are you saying choice is not purposeless?

Wow.What logic. Write that out as a syllogism and you might, just might, see that your reasonong leaves something to be desired.

I agrre that life has no purpose but as individuals we can choose to give our lives a purpose.


Wouldn't it be more like decide to act 'as if' life had a purpose? To 'give' it purpose sounds like it would actually have something - a real external quality substance or noun.

I would also assume that determinism would mean that we can and sometimes do slide along the track where we live as if life had a purpose. This choice is actually made - pachinko like - by out genetics and the impact of the environment.

Surely "purpose" is subjective?

"Life" can either be seen as subjective (i.e. one's own life) and can thus have purpose.
But "life" is also an objective mechanism - and such mechanisms have no purpose per se.

A screwdriver has no purpose other than what the tool-user determines for it.
With "life", we are our own tool-users. Therefore we can determine our own purpose.

But the tool of life has none - at least not in my opinion.

Surely "purpose" is subjective?
So it is something that is perceived but not really there. It seems like there is a purpose. One can describe a person's as having a delusion that his or her life has this or that purpose.

Isn't it really rather like 'soul'.

One can think of oneself as having a soul, but one does not really have one.

Wouldn't this be the rationalist/scientific position?

So it is something that is perceived but not really there. It seems like there is a purpose. One can describe a person's as having a delusion that his or her life has this or that purpose.

Isn't it really rather like 'soul'.

One can think of oneself as having a soul, but one does not really have one.

Wouldn't this be the rationalist/scientific position?

Look at it this way. Life is a process that has no purpose. An individual is a product of his genes and environment. In the greater scheme of things he cannot be said to have a purpose but he can choose goals which he may or may not attain depending on his personality, intelligence, abilities and so on.
The goals he chooses are his subjective purpose.

Look at it this way. Life is a process that has no purpose. An individual is a product of his genes and environment. In the greater scheme of things he cannot be said to have a purpose but he can choose goals which he may or may not attain depending on his personality, intelligence, abilities and so on.
The goals he chooses are his subjective purpose.

I can't say I find fault with the above, but at the same time it seems odd.

Why bring 'choice' into the picture? Wouldn't what seems like choice ALSO be a product of 'genes and the enrivonment'? Doesn't it simply happen, like hair color or perhaps some genetic trait that can be brought into play by environmental factors.

These purposes happen. The goals are products of environment and genes. They are not chosen. They occur like lichens growing on a rock.

I mean if we are going to demystify, why not go the whole way?

I can't say I find fault with the above, but at the same time it seems odd.

Why bring 'choice' into the picture? Wouldn't what seems like choice ALSO be a product of 'genes and the enrivonment'? Doesn't it simply happen, like hair color or perhaps some genetic trait that can be brought into play by environmental factors.

These purposes happen. The goals are products of environment and genes. They are not chosen. They occur like lichens growing on a rock.

I mean if we are going to demystify, why not go the whole way?

I think we are geting into semantics. All living creatures are in some sense goal seeking. My goals may indeed be determined but I will still refer to them as mine as opposed to someon else's. So. I will say " today I have decided to go fishing" as opposed to " it has been determined that I shall go fishing"

As I have said in the past. I regard free will as an illusion. I am only prepared to discuss it with someone who has done a bit of homework for reasons I have given.

I am not trying to avoid the issue; I simply wish to avoid futile( for both parties ) discussions. Last time,, you may remember our debate got bogged down in "What ifs", QM and all sorts of other areas. The responses I got from your fellow interlocutor were mostly of that kind.

If you wish to pursue the matter, can I again suggest you read How Free Are You by Ted Honderich, Grote Professor of mind and logic, University of London. The text runs to 129 pages but, like all such texts, you will need to engage with it. I would be quite happy to discuss any faults you find. I have studied more advanced texts but Honderich will give you an accesible introduction to the subject. We will then have some common ground. I would prefer to debate it with you on a one-to-one basis for reasons which will now be obvious to you.

I also think that 'purpose' is subjective - there is no grand 'purpose' behind life in general, but there can be individual 'purposes' which have been built by the said people. Say, I might think that my purpose in life is to entertain people - therefore I am in the acting industry. Even if, in the big picture, my only purpose is to reproduce, I like to think - and live my life with the thought - that I have an individual purpose which can affect my immediate surroundings.

I don't know why it is regarded as 'stupid' or 'useless' to have faith these days. Faith that there is more to life than what we can perceive, faith that there is no actual death of the conciousness, but only a transformation in existence... I mean, in the end, we are all just vibrations interacting with each other. Life goes on even if I, as this earth-inhibiting person, don't.

Science has given us very interesting views into the surrounding nature. It has given us insight on our behaviour, and on the behaviour of life in general. But has it managed to define life as a phenomenon? I don't think so. I don't think that science can ever answer the deepest mysteries of our reality. That is where we leave room for our own interpretions and imagination. ( Why did life occur in the first place? This could be an empty universe, but it isn't ).

If there was no 'what if' -motif - if it was defined, with 100% certainty, that there is nothing but randomness to life - then morality would crumble. Who cares if I take advantage of dozens of people to achieve fame and fortune if I can brush it all off with: "Well, life has no meaning and it is all random, so deal with it"..?

Even if you are not a believer, faith actually has a purpose in our conciousness. At worst, we need it to keep ourselves sane. At best, it gives us a glimpse into the dimension science has yet to breach. So why the hostility?

[QUOTE]I think we are geting into semantics. All living creatures are in some sense goal seeking. My goals may indeed be determined but I will still refer to them as mine as opposed to someon else's. So. I will say " today I have decided to go fishing" as opposed to " it has been determined that I shall go fishing"

I never questioned whether they were 'your' goals. I questioned whether you chose them.

As I have said in the past. I regard free will as an illusion. I am only prepared to discuss it with someone who has done a bit of homework for reasons I have given.

I was coming from a pro-determinist position

I was pointing out that your post implies free will unnecessarily.

The suggestion I need to do homework is simply rude, Myles. I am not attacking the determinist position. I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is a determinist universe and questioning you from that position. To say I must go off and read a specific author is an implicit ad homonim argument. You took great affront when I suggested you should go out and have certain kinds of experiential learning experiences before I will respect your position - which was me attempting to mirror back the condescension and weakness of your argument.

I have, so far, understood your position, in this thread. I am focusing, in a thread where you and others are trying to get us to be careful about what qualities we ascribe to things, on your use of 'choice words'. If you can show how in what we have discussed so far, I am clearly not understanding your position go ahead.

Also it seems disingenous to shift to the conversational 'I decided to go fishing,' in the context of this discussion. If I met you on the street and knew you were a determinist I would never get into that kind of shitty obnoxiousness: Ah, ha, Myles, you really believe in free will. Of course you speak in that way in a social context. But here in a discussion where we are generalizing about what is, what is real and what is not, in general, it is perfectly valid for me to question your use of 'choice words'.

If you said 'I experience it as choosing this or that goal' "I seems like I can make this or that my purpose', "subjectively it can appear like one is choosing to......" That would be a different case.

Also, as a determinist, I would assume you believe that statements like those, the ones I am suggesting above, are 'more correct'. You could have said that in this context you are allowing yourself a more loose, colloquial way of talking about things, while acknowledging that it is more accurate to say things in the ways I am suggesting. But you are not doing that.

And as far as this being 'getting into semantics' this is what a lot of philosophical discussion is about. It was semantics that we were discussing in relation to 'true self'.

[QUOTE=Myles;1764959]

I never questioned whether they were 'your' goals. I questioned whether you chose them.



I was coming from a pro-determinist position

I was pointing out that your post implies free will unnecessarily.

The suggestion I need to do homework is simply rude, Myles. I am not attacking the determinist position. I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is a determinist universe and questioning you from that position. To say I must go off and read a specific author is an implicit ad homonim argument. You took great affront when I suggested you should go out and have certain kinds of experiential learning experiences before I will respect your position - which was me attempting to mirror back the condescension and weakness of your argument.

I have, so far, understood your position, in this thread. I am focusing, in a thread where you and others are trying to get us to be careful about what qualities we ascribe to things, on your use of 'choice words'. If you can show how in what we have discussed so far, I am clearly not understanding your position go ahead.

Also it seems disingenous to shift to the conversational 'I decided to go fishing,' in the context of this discussion. If I met you on the street and knew you were a determinist I would never get into that kind of shitty obnoxiousness: Ah, ha, Myles, you really believe in free will. Of course you speak in that way in a social context. But here in a discussion where we are generalizing about what is, what is real and what is not, in general, it is perfectly valid for me to question your use of 'choice words'.

If you said 'I experience it as choosing this or that goal' "I seems like I can make this or that my purpose', "subjectively it can appear like one is choosing to......" That would be a different case.

Also, as a determinist, I would assume you believe that statements like those, the ones I am suggesting above, are 'more correct'. You could have said that in this context you are allowing yourself a more loose, colloquial way of talking about things, while acknowledging that it is more accurate to say things in the ways I am suggesting. But you are not doing that.

And as far as this being 'getting into semantics' this is what a lot of philosophical discussion is about. It was semantics that we were discussing in relation to 'true self'.

If you regard what is said as rude, so be it., I was trying tio establish common ground and take it from there. All I have implied is that one uses everyday language in everday situations. If we were to take it to the nth degree/ we would be talking about qualia and such like. If you cannot follow my argument and that of Sarkus, let's agree to differ.

I can't say I find fault with the above, but at the same time it seems odd.

Why bring 'choice' into the picture? Wouldn't what seems like choice ALSO be a product of 'genes and the enrivonment'? Doesn't it simply happen, like hair color or perhaps some genetic trait that can be brought into play by environmental factors.

These purposes happen. The goals are products of environment and genes. They are not chosen. They occur like lichens growing on a rock.

I mean if we are going to demystify, why not go the whole way?A good point - the choice, and thus the purpose, would be determined by the same process (if one is pro-deterministic).

One can take the position that if everything is predetermined then the process is utterly void of purpose - at any level (subjective or objective). But one can also take the view that the subjective element is merely our perception of a deterministic process - much like free-will: we perceive we have "choice" but don't... etc.
So our deterministic, un-purposeful life creates within us the illusion that we either have or require "purpose".

This might make "purpose" merely a necessary by-product of the complexity of our brain... i.e. could a brain / personality function without some self-referential element that leads to the emergent property of subjective "purpose" - possibly as something to keep the brain active, or possibly because the brain, as part of its self-referential activity, always asks itself "why am I?" - and in the absence of any objective purpose it must create one for itself. I really couldn't say.

Just some thoughts.

A good point - the choice, and thus the purpose, would be determined by the same process (if one is pro-deterministic).

One can take the position that if everything is predetermined then the process is utterly void of purpose - at any level (subjective or objective). But one can also take the view that the subjective element is merely our perception of a deterministic process - much like free-will: we perceive we have "choice" but don't... etc.
So our deterministic, un-purposeful life creates within us the illusion that we either have or require "purpose".

This might make "purpose" merely a necessary by-product of the complexity of our brain... i.e. could a brain / personality function without some self-referential element that leads to the emergent property of subjective "purpose" - possibly as something to keep the brain active, or possibly because the brain, as part of its self-referential activity, always asks itself "why am I?" - and in the absence of any objective purpose it must create one for itself. I really couldn't say.

Just some thoughts.


It may also be helpful to remember that we live in a world that seems to operate on the basis of cause and effect. We believe that every effect has a cause. Now, when it comes to our voluntary actions, we can only attribute the cause to ourselves. This might account for what we regard as free will.

There is no way that free will can be proved or dismissed. But, given that we live in what we believe to be a causal universe, to regard ourselves as independent agents seems perverse. Whatever we believe ,we will continue to act as if we were free because we feel as if we have made choices which, in a sense, we have.

OK everyone so far appears to have some idea of what the word "purpose" means.

Either 1) there is such a thing, or 2) there isn't. Like (the word) "meaning".

If there is no purpose (i,e, we imagine it), then it shouldn't matter what we do.
So, someone who is sure that purpose doesn't exist, can happily walk across minefields, or busy motorways or freeways. Smear themselves with blood and jump into shark-infested waters, or sit and do absolutely nothing - no need to eat or breathe or think about anything. There's no purpose to any of it.

If there is purpose, it only explains behaviour, what's behaviour? Do we have any? Does anything behave or is it an illusion?
If purpose exists, purposeful behaviour exists. Animals and things that aren't animals behave purposefully (ie, with purpose). I'm sure of this - as sure as I am that if I climbed in the lion's cage at the zoo, the lions would demonstrate this, by attacking me. The Sun behaves purposefully. A pendulum behaves purposefully.

If there's no such thing, why do we see purposeful behaviour everywhere?
If it's not real, what are you all doing posting all the stuff you keep posting, about the subject?

Why do you believe that you can choose to do what you do, in other words?
How can anyone "give purpose", or choose to, if it doesn't exist? That must "leave something", can we "desire" it, whatever it is? Can Myles tell us?

OK everyone so far appears to have some idea of what the word "purpose" means.

Either 1) there is such a thing, or 2) there isn't. Like (the word) "meaning".

If there is no purpose (i,e, we imagine it), then it shouldn't matter what we do.
So, someone who is sure that purpose doesn't exist, can happily walk across minefields, or busy motorways or freeways. Smear themselves with blood and jump into shark-infested waters, or sit and do absolutely nothing - no need to eat or breathe or think about anything. There's no purpose to any of it.

If there is purpose, it only explains behaviour, what's behaviour? Do we have any? Does anything behave or is it an illusion?
If purpose exists, purposeful behaviour exists. Animals and things that aren't animals behave purposefully (ie, with purpose). I'm sure of this - as sure as I am that if I climbed in the lion's cage at the zoo, the lions would demonstrate this, by attacking me. The Sun behaves purposefully. A pendulum behaves purposefully.

If there's no such thing, why do we see purposeful behaviour everywhere?
If it's not real, what are you all doing posting all the stuff you keep posting, about the subject?

Why do you believe that you can choose to do what you do, in other words?
How can anyone "give purpose", or choose to, if it doesn't exist? That must "leave something", can we "desire" it, whatever it is? Can Myles tell us?

You just get more and more confused in your efforts to oppose a rational argument.

In the present instance you are confusing determinism with fatalism. Try to think a bit about what you want to say brfore posting.

Myles, you are confused. You don't know what rationality is. You obviously don''t know how to think.

Myles, you are confused. You don't know what rationality is. You obviously don''t know how to think.

I'll just wait for you to explain it in your own inimitable way

Keep waiting, sunshine,..

Vkothii, throughout the debate it seems you have been mixing purposes (of life as a whole, with individual componants/aspects of it), commiting a fallacy of composition.
Most of your arguments focus on the purpose (or percieved purpose) of a specific object, eg: an enzyme, DNA, etc... and that therefore, gives purpose to life as a whole.
The two are very different purposes, just because individual componants ofa system have a purpose, does not mean that the system as a whole has a purpose.

Consider this:
I have a calculator. Each button on my calculator has a specific purpose. I give my calculator to a baby, and as it waves it around, it presses a few buttons. Would you say that there was any purpose behind the commands the calculator excecuted as a resault of the baby mashing the buttons? I wouldn't. Even though each command the calculator excecuted had a purpose, the overall sequence of commands was purposeless.

Similarily, I can easily find purposes in biological agents, enzymes each have a specific purpose, DNA has a purpose within the context of a specific organism.
However, I cannot move from the specific to the general in these cases, and so, even though there are many specific aspects of life which have purposes within thier context, when we step back and look at the grand scheme of life as a whole (as does your argument), we cannot know if it is purposefull.

Furthermore, it may be that life is purposefull, but has failed to achieve it's purpose, and rather the function we observe is not what it was supposed to do at all.
Consider this:
The first replicator was designed to conver the worlds oceans into Jello (obviously, for an alien Jello farmer!) And had some self-replicating properties, in order to repair itself, but mainly catalyzid the Earth->Jello reaction. Unfortunatly, it was struck by lightning, and underwent a reaction which gave it an irreparable error, and it simply replicated itself, rather than creating Jello. The replications subsequently underwent more errors, sometimes forming replicators better adapted at replicating under Earth's conditions. They then took over, and eventualy paved the way for life as we currently know it. Clearly, life is a failed Jello factory.

-Andrew

OK everyone so far appears to have some idea of what the word "purpose" means.

Either 1) there is such a thing, or 2) there isn't. Like (the word) "meaning".

If there is no purpose (i,e, we imagine it), then it shouldn't matter what we do.
So, someone who is sure that purpose doesn't exist, can happily walk across minefields, or busy motorways or freeways. Smear themselves with blood and jump into shark-infested waters, or sit and do absolutely nothing - no need to eat or breathe or think about anything. There's no purpose to any of it.

If there is purpose, it only explains behaviour, what's behaviour? Do we have any? Does anything behave or is it an illusion?
If purpose exists, purposeful behaviour exists. Animals and things that aren't animals behave purposefully (ie, with purpose). I'm sure of this - as sure as I am that if I climbed in the lion's cage at the zoo, the lions would demonstrate this, by attacking me. The Sun behaves purposefully. A pendulum behaves purposefully.

If there's no such thing, why do we see purposeful behaviour everywhere?
If it's not real, what are you all doing posting all the stuff you keep posting, about the subject?

Why do you believe that you can choose to do what you do, in other words?
How can anyone "give purpose", or choose to, if it doesn't exist? That must "leave something", can we "desire" it, whatever it is? Can Myles tell us?

These are small purposes, not purpose to life as a whole. A small purpose is like a frame of reference. I may chose to pursue a purpose within a certain frame of reference, but in the infinite universe, there is no frame, and thus no purpose.

Humans can decide to have a human purpose, but that doesn't mean there is a purpose to the existence of humans.

I have a calculator. Each button on my calculator has a specific purpose. I give my calculator to a baby, and as it waves it around, it presses a few buttons. Would you say that there was any purpose behind the commands the calculator excecuted as a resault of the baby mashing the buttons?Yes, the baby was examining the calculator, like babies do. Probably it tasted it? The calculator executes commands. A shovel digs holes.

How do you manage to conclude that giving a tool to another individual means it loses its purpose (as that "particular use" tool)?
What if I took the calculator and used it like a small spade or shovel in a sandpit, and made a sandcastle with it?
I wouldn't. Even though each command the calculator excecuted had a purpose, the overall sequence of commands was purposeless.Purposeless to who? Not to the baby.
You're confusing an idea (of the purpose for a tool), with what purpose is. The commands "executed by" the calculator are specific to that tool. The commands executed by a shovel, when it gets used to dig a hole, are specific, too.
A shovel and a calculator are tools. How they get "used" is nothing to do with "intended purpose" for a tool.
It's to do with adaptation. Like adapting a calculator as a shovel.

The baby adapted the tool you gave it - but babies don't have much experience with using tools, they're still learning how to see and hear properly, and distinguish things,

So a baby's adaptation of a tool, like a calculator, is along the lines of: "what does it feel/taste like? It's adapting that calculator as a tool to further its experience of things in the world - the first purposeful things we all do as "new" humans.
Similarily, I can easily find purposes in biological agents, enzymes each have a specific purpose, DNA has a purpose within the context of a specific organism.DNA "has" a purpose, but DNA can't do anything about its purpose - enzymes and the ribosomes do that. Does a book have "purpose", or does reading a book? I'd say a book's purpose is reading the book.
However, I cannot move from the specific to the general in these cases, and so, even though there are many specific aspects of life which have purposes within thier context, when we step back and look at the grand scheme of life as a whole (as does your argument), we cannot know if it is purposefull.Why not? If you stand in some jungle, and a hungry-looking tiger comes along, you can't discern any purpose? You know what purpose is. Lifeforms behave (so does everything), Behaviour is purposeful - something we can and do discriminate.

A small purpose is like a frame of reference.Einstein's theories are "small purposes"?
I may chose to pursue a purpose within a certain frame of reference, but in the infinite universe, there is no frame, and thus no purpose.What does that mean: "pursue a purpose"? Everything has a "frame of reference", for the simple reason that "we" put one there, like all the time.
Humans can decide to have a human purpose, but that doesn't mean there is a purpose to the existence of humans.We decide if there's a purpose to running away, or fighting, or climbing a tree? Sounds like purposeful behaviour to me.

P.S. Purpose is purpose. I don't understand "small purpose". Is there a "large purpose" too? A "medium purpose"?

Nothing make sense, except within a defined frame of reference. Purposes are like this. If you feel your actions have a purpose, that is so only withing the context of your life on Earth, within a certain time period and culture.

I'm basically saying something simple, that there is no purpose to life in general. Purposeful behavior on the part of living things has no bearing on the purpose of all living things, or the purpose of existence. Purposes have a cultural context, and not a universal one.

Purpose is purpose. If "forms" with "life" also have purpose, then ipso facto, life is purposeful.

Extending this to: "what is the purpose of Life", is also straightforward. The purpose of Life is to behave with purpose. In general.

Purpose is purpose. If "forms" with "life" also have purpose, then ipso facto, life is purposeful.

Extending this to: "what is the purpose of Life", is also straightforward. The purpose of Life is to behave with purpose. In general.

You are never going to see it, are you ? Life DOES NOT behave with purpose., life does not behave.

Purpose is purpose. If "forms" with "life" also have purpose, then ipso facto, life is purposeful.

Extending this to: "what is the purpose of Life", is also straightforward. The purpose of Life is to behave with purpose. In general.

The purpose of life is to live it :shrug:

it is what it is. there is no real point to it.

Nothing make sense, except within a defined frame of reference. Purposes are like this. If you feel your actions have a purpose, that is so only withing the context of your life on Earth, within a certain time period and culture.

I'm basically saying something simple, that there is no purpose to life in general. Purposeful behavior on the part of living things has no bearing on the purpose of all living things, or the purpose of existence. Purposes have a cultural context, and not a universal one.

You summed up my thoughts much better than I did.

It would be arrogant of us to believe that our species has a specific purpose in the universe. The universe itself might have a purpose ( which is unknown to us ), but what are we but a speck of colour on a grain of sand in a vast desert?

My life might give my grand-father's current state of being a purpose. He wants to see how I do in life, and be there to help me if help is needed for as long as he can. He said that he wants to keep on living because he loves us - his grand-children. In such a small - but significant - scale, my life serves a purpose, and I am happy to be alive if it means that my grand-father enjoys his life more as a result.

Life DOES NOT behave with purpose., life does not behave.So this text I'm looking at, that I've quoted, must have arrived out of the void, totally randomly? No purpose behind it?

And because there is no purposeful behaviour anywhere, and lifeforms don't behave. nothing happens? We don't see any events. Right?

Life does not behave? So you're not alive then. Well, that explains it.

The purpose of life is to live itYeah, but what does "to live it" imply?
it is what it is. there is no real point to it.Oh yes there is. The point is to survive, and pass on your characteristics (as genes).

You must survive, and your genes must survive too. They and you might not, but that doesn't mean you won't give it a try.
This is because your existence has a purpose (yes, it does). And it explains why you will behave (in a purposeful way), in order to "fulfil your programming".

It would be arrogant of us to believe that our species has a specific purpose in the universe.Maybe so, but we are arrogant. We do believe that "our species" has a specific purpose in "the universe".

That purpose is to live and reproduce, here on planet Earth (or should that be planet Janet?). That's Evolution, our purpose is to evolve.
To evolve, we must survive and reproduce "successfully". We behave (everything does, including some non-forms of non-life, one of which appears to be posting stuff here in this thread). Behaviour is something we see all around us.

How can things behave, but not behave? How can things that behave not behave with purpose?

Despite the nay-sayers, Life (and the planets, and the climate, and swinging pendulums) appears to behave. Time appears to flow.

We look for "order", and "meaning". Does meaning exist? Do we see order anywhere?

Yes, the baby was examining the calculator, like babies do. Probably it tasted it? The calculator executes commands. A shovel digs holes.

How do you manage to conclude that giving a tool to another individual means it loses its purpose (as that "particular use" tool)?
What if I took the calculator and used it like a small spade or shovel in a sandpit, and made a sandcastle with it? Not the tool's purpose, but the purpose of the function it carried out. A calculator always has a specific purpose, but what it is being used for, and what it was made for, are 2 entirely different things. A screwdriver is meant to remove screws, but if I stab someone with it, I used it asa weapon (my purpose for it's use was as a weapon, it's purpose in existance is to remove screws.)
I used a baby because I would not say they have eanough comprehension to even 'test' it. But forget the baby. Lets say I forgot I left it in my chair and sat on it. Did the resultant computations it carried out have any purpose? No, there was no purporse bhind those computations.

Purposeless to who? Not to the baby. I would say the baby gained nothing from waving the calculator, moot point though with my revised example.

A shovel and a calculator are tools. How they get "used" is nothing to do with "intended purpose" for a tool.
It's to do with adaptation. Like adapting a calculator as a shovel. Strawman. I'm not confusing anything, I am focusing soley on how the tool is being used, not how it was meant to be used. If it is used, but there is no purpose behind it's use, then that instance of use is purposeless.

DNA "has" a purpose, but DNA can't do anything about its purpose - enzymes and the ribosomes do that. Does a book have "purpose", or does reading a book? I'd say a book's purpose is reading the book. A book has a purpose: to store information, regardless of whether or not it gets read ever. Regardless; this has little relevance to the issue.

Why not? If you stand in some jungle, and a hungry-looking tiger comes along, you can't discern any purpose? You know what purpose is. Lifeforms behave (so does everything), Behaviour is purposeful - something we can and do discriminate. Oh, I can discern the purpose of the tiger, but that does not prove that I can discern the purpose of life. I have given an example, read the paragraph on hypothertical Jello farming aliens. See how life forms, yet the purpose is extremely different that what you say? (to replicate.)
Yes, I can find purpose in a tiger, or another large organism, but your commiting a fallacy of composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)again (follow the link): just because oen componant of life has an identifiable purpose, does not mean that life itself hasa purpose.

Purpose is purpose. If "forms" with "life" also have purpose, then ipso facto, life is purposeful. Again, this is a logical fallacy (see above link.)

-Andrew

Lets say I forgot I left it in my chair and sat on it. Did the resultant computations it carried out have any purpose? No, there was no purporse bhind those computations.Was there any purpose in sitting in the chair? If so, then sitting on a calculator, that you left on the chair, and so is part of the chair as far as you sitting on a chair is concerned, is part of that purpose.

What if the chair "included" a sharp knife, and you bent it, as you sat (on the chair+knife), or blunted it? No purpose to this "event"? No connection? Bending a knife by sitting on it accidentally is purposeless? Bleeding is without purpose?
You have to use something, or interact with it in an intentional way, for the purpose of that use to exist. If the calculator "accidentally" calculates something, it's not connected to the purpose of using a chair, but it's part of the outcome, the result of intentionally sitting on the chair+calc. The result of sitting on a chair is that the chair deforms a bit. The calculator also got "deformed" a bit. Or the knife.
I would say the baby gained nothing from waving the calculator, I would say that's an incorrect conclusion. Babies gain a whole lot by interacting with things - they learn about the shape and taste of things at first.
Whatever you "give" to an infant (say < 12 months), will contribute to its learning about the world -so the baby would not "gain nothing". Not at all.
I am focusing soley on how the tool is being used, not how it was meant to be used. If it is used, but there is no purpose behind it's use, then that instance of use is purposeless.So if you stand on a rake, and the handle lifts up and hits you on the head, that's purposeless? What does "no purpose behind its use" mean?
If you use something, then that thing has a purpose. How can using a tool (even the "wrong way") be without purpose?
A book has a purpose: to store information, regardless of whether or not it gets read ever. What if the book is lost in the middle of a jungle? Or converted into a pile of ashes and vapour? Where is the "store" of information, if no-one reads it?
I can discern the purpose of the tiger, but that does not prove that I can discern the purpose of life.
...because oen componant of life has an identifiable purpose, does not mean that life itself hasa purpose.
But you've only seen some of the "components", how can you draw the conclusion that all of the "components", have no purpose?
If what you've seen so far (and you can only imagine, or project an idea that there are heaps more) are purposeful organisms. how do you avoid the conclusion that "Life (as all the lifeforms I've ever seen so far) behaves purposefully"?

You can't make any other conclusion at all. You can only base it on what you know, not what you imagine,
Like Einstein's theory, there is no proof it's the "correct" view. But so far, every event measured to intentionally test it, has supported it.
I know that doesn't mean there is no example of a contrary observation (we may not have seen it yet), but the observations we have is all there is, therefore we tend to believe Einstein.
When we find something alive, that doesn't behave, then we can say "there's a form of life that has no purpose (does not exhibit purpose)". That would allow a conclusion that Life has no purpose. Although a single example isn't exactly a slam-dunk. And I really can't imagine such a lifeform - something alive that doesn't do anything?
What you mean is "I can discern the purpose of the tiger, therefore I can discern that it is another purposeful lifeform, like all the others I've seen. So that means Life is purposeful, as far as I can tell". Proof has nothing to do with it.

The purpose of life is for you to find the purpose of life, and then at age 52 you finish with the last half and find more purpose, and even at your death bed you will never find the purpose but you will hopefully find the closest thing...an eventuality. If there was one purpose of life, it would be fucked. My grandma died yesterday, 92.

Was there any purpose in sitting in the chair? If so, then sitting on a calculator, that you left on the chair, and so is part of the chair as far as you sitting on a chair is concerned, is part of that purpose.

What if the chair "included" a sharp knife, and you bent it, as you sat (on the chair+knife), or blunted it? No purpose to this "event"? No connection? Bending a knife by sitting on it accidentally is purposeless? Bleeding is without purpose?
You have to use something, or interact with it in an intentional way, for the purpose of that use to exist. If the calculator "accidentally" calculates something, it's not connected to the purpose of using a chair, but it's part of the outcome, the result of intentionally sitting on the chair+calc. The result of sitting on a chair is that the chair deforms a bit. The calculator also got "deformed" a bit. Or the knife. ... So if you stand on a rake, and the handle lifts up and hits you on the head, that's purposeless? All of these are purposeless. There was no intent, nor goal behind any of them. You seem to be now confusing purpose, with 'event.' I did not intend to sit on the calculator, I did not intend to make it excecute commands, I did not intend to sit on a knife, did not intend to bleed, nor was there intent in being hit by the rake.

I fail to see how you view these events as having purpose (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose):
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3. determination; resoluteness.
4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.


But you've only seen some of the "components", how can you draw the conclusion that all of the "components", have no purpose? Strawman. I never say that all the componants have no purpose, indeed I previously stated that many of the componants have purpose. The flaw in your reasoning which I refer to is: just because all the componants of a whole have a purpose, does not mean that the whole itself has a purpose, (to do so, as I have stated many times, is a fallacy of composition.)

how do you avoid the conclusion that "Life (as all the lifeforms I've ever seen so far) behaves purposefully"? How do you come to the conclusion that life (as a whole) has a purpose? Fallacy of composition. Every lifeform may have its own purpose, but that has no impact on the purpose (or lack thereof) of life as a whole.

You can't make any other conclusion at all. You can only base it on what you know, not what you imagine,
Like Einstein's theory, there is no proof it's the "correct" view. But so far, every event measured to intentionally test it, has supported it.
I know that doesn't mean there is no example of a contrary observation (we may not have seen it yet), but the observations we have is all there is, therefore we tend to believe Einstein. I can't make any conclusion at all. Unlike Einstiens theory, every argument you have presented so far does not lead to your conlcusion, and furthermore, there is no evidence present on the meaning of life.

When we find something alive, that doesn't behave, then we can say "there's a form of life that has no purpose (does not exhibit purpose)". That would allow a conclusion that Life has no purpose. Although a single example isn't exactly a slam-dunk. And I really can't imagine such a lifeform - something alive that doesn't do anything? As I said, even if it was absolute truth that every life-form has a purpose, or many purposes, that would still not proove that life itself has a purpose.

"I can discern the purpose of the tiger, therefore I can discern that it is another purposeful lifeform, like all the others I've seen. So that means Life is purposeful, as far as I can tell" Again, a perfect example of a fallacy of compositon.

What if the book is lost in the middle of a jungle? Or converted into a pile of ashes and vapour? Where is the "store" of information, if no-one reads it?
No one has to read it for the information to be stored there. To claim that they do (need to be read to have information) would be an epericistic viewpoint (and something for a different topic.) If the book is a pile of ash, then it is a pile of ash, and not a book, and obviously has no information (in the sense we are speaking of). That said, this is leading nowhere (no point in debating the purpose of books when life is at stake.)

-Andrew

All of these are purposeless. There was no intent, nor goal behind any of them.You had no intention of sitting on the chair?
You seem to be now confusing purpose, with event.Hang on, what's an event? Do you mean something that happens which is beyond your control? Like a supernova or earthquake? You had no control over sitting on the calculator? But you did, you had control over the event of sitting (on the chair).
I did not intend to sit on the calculator, I did not intend to make it excecute commands,But you intended to sit on the chair, which turned out to be a chair+calculator.
I never say that all the componants have no purpose,You don't specifically say "all of the components", you say "Life" has no purpose.
Is Life "all of the components" of Life, or not?
"I can discern the purpose of the tiger, therefore I can discern that it is another purposeful lifeform, like all the others I've seen. So that means Life is purposeful, as far as I can tell"

Again, a perfect example of a fallacy of compositon.No, actually it's an example of you using something called "fallacy of compositon", irrationally.

If you see another purposefully behaving "thing", and it's something alive, this supports the theory that live things behave purposefully - this isn't fallacious reasoning at all.
The flaw in your reasoning which I refer to is: just because all the componants of a whole have a purpose, does not mean that the whole itself has a purpose, (to do so, as I have stated many times, is a fallacy of composition.)
As far as we can tell, Einstein's theory is correct. You are saying that because we haven't observed "the whole thing", it must be a fallacy of composition.

So is the conclusion something like: "Life has no purpose, except that all the examples of it that I've encountered, appear to have purpose"...?

You had no intention of sitting on the chair?
I did, perhaps the 1 intended action of the list. However, this has no bearing on my argument.

Hang on, what's an event? Do you mean something that happens which is beyond your control? Like a supernova or earthquake? You had no control over sitting on the calculator? But you did, you had control over the event of sitting (on the chair). Yes, but it was not my intent of sitting on the calculator. And by event, I simply mean something that happens (beyond my control or not.) In order for their to be purpose behind something, there must be intent. No intent of sitting on calculator. The