Meaning of the universe

Are gods just a fortunate accident in the universe? Can they believe either that they aren't or that they are or might be inconsequential?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

DNA has no intent. Cells have no intent. Mass & energy have no intent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would anyone think cats are not self aware???

Most people just can't face that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cause self-awareness implies questions like "why I'm here", "what's meaning of life/Universe", "what brought me in this world", "Death, is that the end?" and hundreds of others questions no human mind holds answers to. As far I can say, cats are quite content with their unexamined lives, therefore if they are self-aware, it's some kind of animal awareness since cat refuse to worship higher powers, they may beg for food once in a while but that's about it.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

DNA is like a recorder

sure they do; to live/continue (show me this is wrong) Show me, that living things do not INTEND to continue; on a universal scale.

mass is just energy affixed in time but still entangled to other mass

energy is the hammer of motion/momentum/resonance; all actions imposed to mass

When energy is upon mass; like splashing a pond; does the energy continue thru the mass, over time? Yes/No...... do you know why?


all life is of the intent

but i think you think, intent means to be thinking about it

but to drop a ball off the roof of a house; i see the ball once released 'intents' to fall (see momentum; the direction is set unless an interruption affects the action (intent)

it is why i say; life, once started intends to continue.

it is not so much the error of words but the error of befuddled comprehension by the folks trying to discount nature with the use of believed paradigm

i liken your case to a religious person holding a book saying; "this is the last word"... without comprehending the implications.

 

No they don't.
Cells have no intent.

Intent requires volition.

Absolute crap.
There is no intent.

 

what is instinct?

Does instinct perform in all life?

Does all life perform within the rules of mass and energy?


Cells divide for what reason?


Answer the questions troll!

 

Instinct is not intent.

Stick to the topic.
Where is the life in a ball?

No.

 

the question was:

What is Instinct?

you keep saying, this is not that, and that is not this

but never address a damn thing

and i see why in this comment

you don't comprehend what is asked

perhaps reread that one too

Does instinct perform in all life?

 

No, the point was that intent does require "though".
A falling ball does not have intent.

Yes (depending on how you define "life").
But not intent.

 

that must be your problem you don't use "though"

i asked WHAT IS INSTINCT?

anyone can see you side step every question

(for example: which statistic do i ignor?.............. an you never once posted any statistic...............)

So if YES is your answer, then what it that INSTINCT to a living thing?

What is the instinct of procreation? What is sex used for in nature?

 

Meh, one typo...
Sue me, the wheel jammed on my fasod.

What's that got to do with the original point?

The original comment was:

And BOTH points are incorrect.

 

I take it that you mean that awareness is processing information about the outside world, sure this could be one meaning of awareness, but the awareness that I am talking about (in which something becomes important - as we understand the concept of important) implies self-awareness. Otherwise it would just be a system that preserves itself the best way it can. Even 'visual' would become abundant as there is really no visual without self-awareness, there is just information that is used by the system to preserve itself.

That something reacts on danger doesn't imply that it is important to it. Not if it isn't aware. Importance does suggest awareness. Oh, and it isn't aware of its body, if it isn't self-aware, any awareness at all requires self-awareness, in fact any awareness at all is self-awareness, since it implies, without doubt, that a self is aware of its body.

If a cat is aware of its body then it is by definition aware of its existence, even if it doesn't have thoughts even to reflect on that existence.

The awareness itself is the existence of that awareness, it is at least aware that the awareness exists, and the awareness is the 'self'.

If we take it the other way around, then it is equally true that a cat might react to danger without awareness of any kind, it does seem to be aware of the danger but that doesn't mean that it is in fact aware, it just reacts to the danger because that's the way that its ancestors have survived in the past and if its ancestors didn't react to danger then it wouldn't even exist (or they have been very lucky).

Reacting to danger doesn't imply awareness of that danger, we give it the notion of having awareness because that is the way we feel about it. But it could be just a unconscious reaction.

I do believe that cats are aware of themselves and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. If I weren't aware then I could never guess that the cat was aware. It just can't be seen objectively, perhaps if I knew exactly how awareness was produced in the brain then I could scan its brain and find out that it is in fact aware, but then again, if I wasn't aware (so that I knew that it even existed such a concept) then I would never have any reason to find that out. Unless self-awareness has a purpose and that purpose was seen as differing from unconscious beings.

There's no immediate reason to think that consciousness itself has a purpose that differs from what you'd expect from unconscious beings. If you have a reason to think otherwise then please give me that reason.

Wikipedia - Awareness

I have gone over the issue that there might be a higher existence which could be subjective in itself (what you imply), and in which our subjective becomes objective through the knowledge and overlook of that higher existence. This could provide a sort of objective meaning to us. But keep in mind that this meaning would only be really meaningful (to us) if we lived forever in some way. Since otherwise it would be as if it never existed.

 

Though you did think that intent requires thought (and will).

I think 'intent' implies that there is a fixed goal. That life have a fixed 'goal' to survive and that life have a 'intent' to survive would be very hard to differentiate. Bishadi could be right in that life has a 'intent'. But it does (if so) require that life has thought and will (to set a goal that it wants to achieve).

Whatever we know about life, it has a intent to survive, cause the only part that we really know of life is ourselves and we have the intent to survive. We just can't know anything about the subjectivity of other life. Therefor we could conclude that all life has a subjective side to it, and therefor could have the intent to behave the way it does. We have no special reason to believe otherwise.

In fact, any system could have the intent of behaving the way it does, without us ever knowing about it.

 

i like the INTENT

 

If so it requires volition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent

Having a goal also requires cognition.

No: intent requires volition.
It requires will.
A sponge doesn't have will, a plant doesn't have will. Etc.

Life does not have intent: individuals do, but life as a whole does not.

 

LIFE: purposed to continue.

Never said 'what' that purpose is, but that when a life is concieved; it 'intents' to continue.

what do you think procreation is for?

cell division?

a portion of 'itself' contributed for the next generation; instinctively

when you see a bull rockin a cow, what is the intent?

do you think he is thinking about having a good time (cognizant of his actions)?

then why does life consume from its environment and many move to do just that?

stay focused; you are claiming life has no purpose-intent-instinct to continue living..........

(we are not talking about your life; we are talking about the existence of living species, evolution and the INTENT of LIFE TO CONTINUE)

which you deny

and claim as wrong, but offer nothing but opinion and not a line of evidence

 

No it isn't.

No it doesn't.

Instinct is not intent, nor is it purpose,

I'd put more money it being for actual pleasure for the bull than intent to procreate.

Want to put that into English?

That's right.
That's exactly what I'm claiming.
There is a breeding instinct but: ONE MORE TIME - instinct is not intent is not purpose.

Evidence?
It's up to you to prove YOUR point.

 

Mod Hat:

Bishadi, you've been warned about this before.
If you're going to proselytize your ubiquitous 'universal truth' theorem, at least keep it relevant. Unless there's a thread discussing evolutionary processes (either physical or mental..) there's no need for you to drop this angle in every thread you see here.

Warning: the next time I see it outside of context, the entire post within which it is found will be deleted as off topic.