A science question for Atheists

I do not know if there is a point to life, but I do believe that self-restriction in life is not necessarily a bad thing, as it allows one to use one's will to overcome weaknesses of the self.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, there are ways to be more civilized, given that we understand that we have probably survived because of those 'weaknesses' (strengths) rather than in spite of them. Some are not black and white, but interwoven into what it is to be human, such a zest for life can show in many different ways, and so it may be tough to try to excise just a portion of it without having side effects in related areas.

Not knowing if there is a point leads to the same freedom and feeling of liberation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An animal born with 3 legs would not survive the evolutionary process long enough to propagate a 3 legged animal species.

A plant/animal without the will to strive for life also may not survive the evolutionary process long enough to propagate the species.

So wanting to survive would be in the genetic make-up of all the survivors.

I am not sure if we can describe plants as having will however, and think it might be better to say the plants that have adapted best to their environment may propagate.

I have my own question.. Will it hurt Human evolution to allow the meek/crippled/handicapped/rednecks, and sciforum trolls to propagate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People do that to Spidey . I learn that from Me salesman book that has the 7 scrolls . So what was the one that made Me think of this . Oh yeah ! Others die that you may live . People far better than you died for you so you could live . What does that mean ? To Me it means while you got it you better cherish it . Squandering your an easy thing to do . Complacency leads to a squandered live .

Humans have lot value in life . I don't know what percentage it is that have ? The human life was monetarily devalued several years back . 2007 I think . The U.S. government did it . I didn't even know they had a value until it was devalued . You fuckers need to be careful . Shit like this if escalated can lead to non existence and then the jelly fish will win everything . You want that ? I know some of you think the human race is like cancer . I don't think it is and humans are redeemable. I know there is butt loads of you out there that make a good case for the "Human is cancer" but there are growing number of people changing there behaviors . Hell half the problem is not knowing what to change your behavior to. I know that all to well . Devaluing human life is a clear and precise message from collective thinking . That is what bothers Me . We all know self fulfilling prophesies can come true . They do cause people make them come true

 

Instincts.

 

You make a good point here; that is, one should remain aware of the true nature of one's self as to not cloud one's perspective.

Note that the true nature of one's self is not the same as the true nature of the self. One can observe one's self to discover the true nature of one's self (one's motives, desires, etc).

On the other hand, the true nature of the self encompasses the selves of all people, of which science does not have a clear understanding. One is free to infer such things, though one should remain mindful of the limitations of such an inference, especially if confined within the bounds of current scientific understanding (as the answer likely lies outside these boundaries).

 

Except that that observation is filtered through one's senses, perceptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

 

Yes, I removed the word "simply."

 

Regardless.
Those preconceptions etc are still there, therefore one can never be sure that one's observation (or conclusion) is completely valid.

 

It would help if the internal introspection is also informed of the underlying externals found by science, such as the neurology states beneath the subsequent felt states of being above, to which the internals alone are blind.

 

I don't disagree with this. I was illustrating the difference between the nature of one's self and the nature of the self, as to clarify my initial statement.

I will say, however, that through clear contemplation, one comes to get a good sense of the nature of one's self (though not an understanding of the nature of the self, which is why I was illustrating the difference).

Again you bring up a good point. Likewise, one will certainly come up short if one limits their understanding to just that which modern science has prescribed to be reality.

 

Unprovable, I'm afraid.

Hmm, and what is there outside of these "prescribed limits"?

 

Yes, it might break the mood to bring up bonding hormones during romance with one's partner or to just think of that and ignore the internal sensations.

That's kind of a funny one, but internals/externals are best used together in life, and especially in forums concerning such as sensations and feelings somehow equaling 'God'.

 

The limits of scientific understanding are not linear. If one confines one's thoughts about reality to just that which has been prescribed by science, one is inhibiting one's understanding of reality. The greatest discoveries have been made by those that were willing to think beyond the boundaries of what was known at the time. That's not only true of science.

 

Very nice.
Still doesn't answer the question though.

 

Awesome writing. Very well put. Just had to say that.

Although I stated my opinion earlier. My answer did not support creationism as I was responding to the first post.

I think I could believe that creationism is here in some forms.

 

@kwhilborn --

I'll accept creationism/ID(they're really the same damn thing) as an alternative to the theory of evolution the instant they show even one percent of the explanatory power that evolution by natural selection has. Hell, ID can't even be considered a theory, it's not even a working hypothesis. It makes no testable predictions or retrodictions and is therefore unfalsifiable, and it's one of the most unparsimonious ideas humans have come up with....other than the whole "we need a god to explain the existence of the universe" bit, that one always makes me laugh.

@Mr K --

Science doesn't "prescribe" any sort of limits on reality, it observes and explains reality, and it does a damn good job of that too. The limitations of our scientific understanding of the world we live in come not from any dogma or conspiracy within science(contrary to what many on this site would have you believe) but from our own inefficiencies on many fronts.

We do not have brains that have evolved to understand reality as it actually is, that wasn't necessary for our survival. What was necessary was a brain that functioned well enough to keep a body alive until it reproduced and the offspring could fend for themselves, that is nothing more and nothing less than what we possess. Traits like agency detection work wonderfully at keeping us alive by spotting predators, but are absolute tripe on a bike when it comes to understanding things like electricity(let alone the movement of planets or atoms which occurs on scales that we never interacted with during our evolutionary history). Add to that a healthy dose of confirmation bias due to faulty wiring in the brain which causes us to rewrite our memories on a constant basis(nothing major, mostly cosmetic stuff, making us look better in our memories than we really were) and the outright fabrication of half of our sensory data, and you have a perfect recipe for the unscientific mind. Hence why we must train ourselves to interpret things in a scientific manner.

Now, are there some inherent limitations to what science can tell us? Perhaps, we don't know yet. We haven't even come close to reaching the boundaries of scientific knowledge, it might be that there are none. Like I said, we don't know. Are there questions that science currently can't answer? Oh yes, loads of them, but most of them aren't important in the least. Questions like "why that person thinks a painting is better than another person does" is an example of just such a question, and again it might not be completely out of the reach of science to answer(they're doing some wonderful things in neurology of late, you should look into it, everyone should). In the end though, we must admit that while there may indeed be questions that science simply can not answer, nobody knows if that is the case and nobody ever will unless we keep trying.

 

^ that was a really great post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Someone was asking what kinds of questions Science can't answer. I said: If you asked if your lotto ticket is going to win tomorrow, no, Science can't tell you if it will, but, it can give you the odds of winning (or loosing). I'm not sure if that helped, but I hope it did.

 

If you compare life and death, life perpetuates the order within the cell, while death will cause decomposition which will increase the configurational entropy. The living is about order and avoiding the disorder or entropy of death.

The direction of life is preferred since life is about lowering entropy and increasing energy. Death goes the other way into higher entropy and lower energy until all that is left in inert matter.

If we start with a plant, photosynthesis will convert high entropy CO2 into carbon fixation. This CO2 could reek entropy havoc via global warming, but the plant will lowers this chaos via fixation. The tree not only lowers entropy of CO2 but will also increase its energy. This gives us wood to burn.

The life of the tree involves lowering the entropy of gases, water and minerals and reforming them into complex order. Death is about chaos and disorder and will be avoided, since the basic potentials within cells that use the most energy lower entropy.