Good. Now you will understand the other point I was making. You lumped Sarkus and yourself together. I responded in very similar ways to you both and yet you seemed assume I would not be able to understand both of your positions. I did. Sarkus managed to understand my point and respond with respect. I can obviously let this pass since you were confused. This, however, apart from not fitting what I had written, was unnecessary. One can easily point out rudeness without feeling like a victim. Perhaps this is another area our experiences are different. Let me assure you: this is the case for some of us. I am afraid, given your posts here, that I must put you on ignore.
I am interested too. Yes. One is an individual componant. The other is the description of all the componants functioning as a whole. My point is, the purposes of the individual componants are not necissarily equal to the purpose of the whole. Once again, I point you to the Fallacy of Composition: Sound like your argument? Clearly, one's observational limitations have no impact on truth, my argument still stands. Truth is independant of our ability to find it. The fact that we can only observe individual componants of life simply points out one of our great disadvantages in finding (if there is) purpose in life as a whole. -Andrew
So there is such a thing as a "whole", when it comes to the subject of life? We can't base it on observation because of "limitations", and the "Truth"? Whereas, with Einstein, there's a lot of observations, but no individual components, or no Truth, or no "whole" to bother about?
Instead of trying to turn the question back on me, why not define what you mean by "behave", what you mean by "purpose" - and then explain how you link the two. To answer a question with a question is poor debating, and also rude. A question was asked of you, so lease have the decency to answer. Thanks.
You might think it's rude, I might think it's being careful. as in: "careful with that axe, Eugene", or "careful, don't step in it!" You want me to provide a definition of "behave", what it means in my dictionary? Am I allowed to look it up, or do you want an "off the cuff" version?
It was, on my part at least, sort of... it's still something I'm trying to explore - especially as I learn more about quantum-mechanics etc. What you are describing is merely instinct... which humans, more than any other animal, has learnt to suppress. We still have them, on micro-level (pain causes us to flinch to pull the affected part away etc) and macro-level (protection of family etc), but we certainly can suppress them (at least to a degree). Without moving the discussion onto other matters, I do think voluntary suppression of instinct can only be beneficial on an evolutionary basis... although without thinking more about it I would have to say that this seems intuitive, rather than having any evidence to support it. But in all of those there must be a purpose somewhere... the drone is part of a "hive-mind" - where the individual drone might not have purpose beyond its programming, but the hive as a whole might appear to... and the same with the missile - someone must have had a purpose in firing it. So in both cases the example is merely an extension of the "purpose-deciding" entity. I guess purpose, subjective purpose, gives us something over mere instinct / unalterable-programming. It might make us (more) adaptable in unknown circumstances, which is clearly evolutionarily advantageous. But the more I think about it... the more it comes to being self-aware. A robot that is not self aware has no awareness of what it is, and is merely there to do the bidding of its creator. One could therefore argue, by analogy, that we are merely here to do the bidding of our creator - but in the absence of a creator... what of the bidding? Try to imaging an AI becoming self-aware for the first time... and it's first question being "What am I?" In asking that, one can either give it a purpose... or one can remain silent and let it determine its own purpose. This latter is analogous to the human position, in my opinion. Just some thoughts, as ever.
You should make yourself happy first because if you aren't happy with who you are and what you do then how can you make others happy? :shrug:
Then take some "happy" pills or watch allot of comedies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll give it a try and if I end up happy I'll come round and cheer you up whenever you feel a bit down. Don't tell me , you have your own supply of pills or Laurel and Hardy films,
Can we make, or even design a good machine-copy of some lifeform or other? Something with independent goals and autonomous behaviour?
Then it would be better to highlight the need for carefulness rather than ask a question. Yes please. If you have used the word "behave" - then I'm guessing that you have an understanding of what it means. It is that understanding I am seeking you to share. And then from there, to please explain how your usage / understanding of "behave" leads you to conclude "purpose".
?, I show you mine, then you show me yours? You want me to connect behaviour and purpose, it isn't something you think can or should be done? You already know what my version of the meaning of "behave" is. If you've ever watched any sort of animals anywhere, you're an observer of animal behaviour. Everything exhibits behaviour. It's something closely associated with meaning (another thing we look for). Or something that exhibits autonomous behaviour. So do you have a different version?
Thanks! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have been on medications for a long time and some of those meds do keep me from becoming depressed and lift my unhappiness into a happy level. I try to read funny stuff as well as watch comedies and cartoons. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I haven't said that... I am curious as to how you are linking one to the other. But within this you have not actually told me anything about what "behave" or "behaviour" actually is... What is "behaviour"? I look at an animal - you say it "behaves" but what is that I'm looking at that you are defining as "behaviour"? If I ask you to explain what a bathroom is to an alien, who has no comprehension of what a "shower", "bath" etc is, and you merely point at a room and say: "that's a bathroom" - that's effectively what you're doing in trying to explain "behave". I hope you can see this?
It looks a bit like a lawnmower. But it looks a lot like words appearing all over the place too. Some kind of pattern. Come off it. You know what behaviour is, you're not an alien from outer space. Or, assume you are, then why do you need to ask questions? Can't you behave with a bit more of a knowledgeable stance? You're an alien from outer space, for crying out loud. How did you get here? How was the trip? Are you here all by yourself? P.S. Questions, and answers (or lack of answers) are behaviour too - the behaviour of agents. Agents with ability. An agent is something that behaves. "Something is an agent if it can be viewed as satisfying a goal that is first created and then, if necessary and appropriate, transferred to another. It is the adoption of goals that gives rise to agenthood, and it is the self-generation of goals that is responsible for autonomy. Thus an agent is just something either that is useful to another agent in terms of satisfying that agent’s goals, or that exhibits independent purposeful behaviour."
