Right now I have to ask: why has this turned into a philosophical discussion? Can some brilliant mod shine something on what genetic material and enzymes has to do with life after death and free will?
It's because Frud and you reacted to me saying that I didn't agree with Fruds notion that life has purpose. The question is: why did Frud put it in there in the first place.. ? Anyway, I will refrain from posting here from now on.. I don't want to be trolling this thread.
So is there a question? Or are we just parked in the "no ahead" lane here? Is the question "does Life have purpose", actually asking "is Life purposeful"? Or is it asking "does Life have any purpose"? Are these the same, or separate questions? (That's another question) "I don't agree with your notion that life has a purpose however." But this is a different notion to the one I notioned and that I actually posted. This isn't at all what "purposive behaviour" is meant to connect to. Why is it sufficient that a single objector can divert a thread? That's yet another of those question things.
Life doesn't have much to do with chemistry... but life is what you think it is. And obviously life has a purpose, otherwise we wouldn't have any purpose to live. We might as well die... but the purpose of life is life... the purpose of life is to exist and experience joy. That's why every particle in the universe moves. Every motion is a motion towards non-motion, equilibrium, balance, happiness. That goal can never be reached though, because then there would be no purpose anymore. Infinity can't be reached, so in one sense we have already reached it.
I really don't see it that way. Frud says that the purpose of life is to gather energy.. It seems to me like he is saying that that's the purpose of life :shrug: Oh well..
Thus your subsequent statement: "I don't agree life has a purpose", is disagreeing with it, or what? I'm sorry, but it has quite a lot "to do with" chemistry - it's called biochemistry. Yes, very succinct, but somewhat lacking in detail. It's a bit circular, but surely, if Life is purposive (purposeful), then the purpose of being purposeful, is "to be purposeful". It's a lot like saying that that purpose of heat is to heat things...:shrug:
Here's the thing: everything that we see and identify as having "behaviour", behaves or acts (or reacts) - in short is what it is because "it's built that way". Life is imaginary the way a car is imaginary. You can look really carefully at a car, check all the serviceable bits, connect a computer to them even; but if you take one apart and analyse all the bits and so on, you won't find "car" in any of them, because "car" emerges only when all those parts are put together a certain "correct" way. There's only a "viable" car-ness when it's assembled properly (timing and certain distributive functionality is important, to the engine or energy source of the machine). Life is machine-like, but because of a lot of well-developed feedback cycles, it achieves an equilibrium, a stable configuration. These cycles must have been a part of the earliest palaeo-organisms, there must have been a way to sustain something, and assemble some "contraption" to do it with.
Yes, I disagree that it is life's purpose to gather energy. It simply needs to survive and procreate. These are the major driving forces behind evolution. There is no such thing as the plan of evolution, evolution has no direction or purpose.. it just happens.
Since this thread is not related to Chemistry of life but now to the "purpose of life" (GATHER ENERGY, according to some) I note, sarcastically, the "purpose" of carbon and iron atoms is to "gather oxygen." * - at least that is chemisty, but that "purpose" is equally silly. ------------------ *Perhaps that is not their "true purpose" - only the means they use to achieve their "true purpose," which as all should know is to "release energy," (so life can fulfill its "purpose"?). Woops, that too may be wrong. In fact, they do not even have the same "purpose"!!! Carbon's purpose is to escape the "Surley bounds of the Earth" and become an invisible part of the atmosphere, but Iron's purpose is to become a red abrasive and or soft powder, which can adorn the cheeks of women. Woops, that too may be wrong: Carbon's purpose is to help melt the polar ice and iron's is to help make building and bridges be built but then collapse. - OMG - They are evil in their purpose -trying to kill people - Is that their true purpose? We badly need to get this thread into the philosophy section to help resolve the question: "What is "purpose"?, especially as applied to iron and carbon! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it's called magic. magic is a magic word that can explain everything that people have ever wondered about... like... why does the sun move? magic makes it move. it's so simple. machines are life-like because machines are made of... living things. a machine is a thing that uses the energy of living things without their knowledge. they are similar to animals... we can often use them without their knowledge. the difference is that the animals that machines are made of are even less aware, so they are more reliable. they don't do errors.
So there is no purpose in "gathering" energy, life just "survives"? How does it survive (persist)? Does it have anything to do with energy, or control, or it just "happens"? So life just "happened" to get together one day and decided to "keep happening" , for some completely directionless reason? Right, how about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Calcium and Nitrogen and Sodium, and Molybdenum and Cobalt, how about those ones? Or Manganese, or Chromium, Phosphorous, Sulfur? How many have I missed?
Ah. Well, I guess I don't need my Bio text any more, and I can cancel my subscription to Nature. You better call your local University and tell them, so they don't waste any more time on it.
Marnix said it many pages ago: it is all about emergent properties. Perhaps purpose is an emergent property.
Purpose: purposive or directed action or behaviour, which renders an advantage. A fire appears to want to burn everything (that it can burn), but what advantage does that "behaviour" give a fire? Life is purposive in the sense I state above: it is directed toward advantage and adaptation (by itself and in respect the environment). Different kinds of life compete and interact constantly (plants-herbivores-carnivores-scavengers). We only understand all the interactions between all the different kinds of life a little. There's evidence that the prokaryotes and archaea have occupied the arena for much longer than the "new guys", i.e. us. Have you heard about the new evidence uncovered regarding what we know about the Permian mass extinction, that the eukaryotes nearly lost out?
Surely that is the received wisdom, etched in granite. Much evidence. Oodles of evidence. Certainly. Peter Ward claims that oxygen levels dropped and hydrogen sulphide was released in quantity as a result of the activities of the "old guys".
Yay! But it "just happened", so, there can't be any significance; they're "better" at "just happening" than the eukaryotes. But there can't be any particular reason - perhaps their apparent "mutability advantage" is a magical illusion. I mean, there can't possibly be any scientific explanation or biochemical cause. The oxygen levels dropped, how come they were raised in the first place? Oh right, that "just happened" when photosynthetic organisms "just evolved", and started converting sunlight into sugars. It "just changed" the entire atmosphere, and made it oxidising (rather than reducing presumably), but that's obviously "just coincidental".
