Fair enough, no problems so far.
Ah. There it is. A silly equivocation.
Bishadi, you've been warned about this before.
Indeed.
Bishadi is confused with these (and a number of other) terms.
Purpose of the universe and our existence..
- Thread starter Mandana
- Start date
Fair enough, no problems so far.
Ah. There it is. A silly equivocation.
Bishadi, you've been warned about this before.
Indeed.
Bishadi is confused with these (and a number of other) terms.
wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')
i said life: purposed to continue
once started it is on its way.........
has nothing to do with intellect or ID or magic
and it definitely aint random
see what i mean
there is no intellect behind the 'life' of mass
but that energy itself is continuing on its own and not a reduction of chemical processes (ie... consumption by living things is not random, and why life often MOVES to consume)
the 'chemical reactions' are not accidents
and since INSTINCT is a naturally existing reality sharing that the LIFE is doing what it's niche is within the environment, shares that life is going on about its business by it own charge (not some magical maybe's of belief or uncertainties)
self determination has little to do with an ameoba continuing to survive by its own INTENT to continue
You didn't need to.
The term 'purpose' [as pointed out by Raithere...] implies intent.
But you did.
As Raithere said, the word PURPOSE presupposes intent which requires intelligence.
Which has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions and you still return to "purposed".
as oooosual, you mean
the problem is not me, as i said the same things practically a year back and you just catching up to the reasoning
like what?
seems you are too dense, and that has nothing to do with me
ie... you've learned more since i arrived, than your whole education
life once started is "purposed to continue"
it has its own intent (purposed)
and if any want to debate this straight up, then come on with it
the phrase you don't like is
life: abuses entropy
but
life: purposed to continue
is exactly what this means
Originally Posted by Bishadi
i claim, life once started will continue by it's own intent ... (purposed to continue)
(and you find an agreement to the same but just not my use of the word "purposed")
funny shit
i suppose now i can't use certain words?
and your consistancy stands all by itself
“ Originally Posted by Bishadi
wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')
”
You didn't need to.
The term 'purpose' [as pointed out by Raithere...] implies intent.
you damn right, life has an intent, to continue (instinctively)
whether you like it or not
once started, it does what it does (per its niche within the environment)
with PURPOSE (eat, shit, procreate; to continue)
because you don't do the philosophical implications
you following a guise of the observer having to be a part of the life.
a machine once started, is running on purpose
the autonomy of the heart muscle is running on purpose
you both have lost the suffix to your root word without understanding the implications
Correct - the purpose of the intelligence that started it.
No. There is no purpose to heart muscles. There is, however, a function.
And you're still spouting gibberish.
Correct.
Moreover, you must use terms properly, and not in your specialized sense.
Raithere, Dywyddyr, and myself have each pointed out to you your error.
As for the rest of your posts, nothing but more gibberish and abuse.
Enjoy your holiday.
You need to be more careful with your word selection then. The terms "purpose" and "intent" both imply intelligence. Not all life is intelligent.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you trying to asset the existence of a life force? Or do you have some other grounds upon which to argue that life is not a chemical process? Or perhaps you mean that we can't use a reductionist approach when analyzing life?
Some living things have brains and thus some measure of intelligence and self-determination. The actions of most living things, however, are guided by complex bio-chemical feedback mechanisms that function very much like machinery.
When you say "life is going on about its business by its own charge", you again seem to be implying that all life is somehow guided by intelligence. But most of the biomass of Earth has no appreciable intelligence and therefore the argument seems merely anthropomorphic.
I would argue that an amoeba has no awareness of its actions and thus no intent what-so-ever.
No. The machine does not have a purpose. It may have been created for a purpose. It may be started and used for the purposes of an intelligent operator. But the machine itself has none.
I know I sound like I'm being a bit finicky over semantics here but, with philosophical questions such as this, if we allow vague terms to confuse the discussion we'll wind up with nonsense.
~Raithere
As simple as that sounds it's not really simple.
Different things make us feel good for different reasons for different durations, at different intensities, at different times, in differing sequences of events. We even have some measure of control over what makes us feel good.
Fascinatingly, society and ethics come into play as well, influencing what makes us feel good. Which means that the entire realm of ethical debate along with values and beliefs become a part of our simple rewards based behavior.
Of course, we also try to avoid what feels bad. And often what might make us feel bad.
And then there are some people who enjoy feeling bad, or scared, or angry...
Hmm...
~Raithere
In biological terms, our purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce and raise our offspring so that they too survive long enough to reproduce.
The universe itself? It's purpose is simply to exist. And, perhaps, to one day collapse upon itself into a new singularity to start the whole process again
Not quite true.
What is called a coincidence could be synchronicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
Not quite, the "feel good" is alot more than it seems.
It is simple in a macro-view however the fundamental idea of "feel good" will look complicated in micro-view; the one you used to answer.
But "feel good" is hardly a purpose, instead merely a mechanism by which we operate.
Is the purpose of a screwdriver to rotate - or is it to remove / put in screws?
Surely the rotation is merely a mechanism to allow it to achieve its purpose?
Likewise I see "to feel good" as merely a mechanism for whatever purpose we have, if any at all.
I only see "purpose" as being applicable to deliberately created objects.
If you hold that there was no deliberate creation to existence / the universe etc - then there is no purpose.
If you hold that there was deliberate creation then I suggest you go and ask who/whatever created us... as only they would know the answer - the same way that only I could answer in relation to the object I just made:
- If anyone else claims to know without me telling them it can be but a guess.
- And if they claim that I have told them then of course you'll have the issue of trying to convince everyone else that I have told you.
And so on...
Yes, some will undoubtedly lay claim to there being "normative descriptions in scripture" that detail our purpose - and to them I wish them good luck in their cycle of "believe to believe" that I'm also sure they're oblivious to.
But that's a whole other thread.
Or twelve.
Or hundred.
Is the purpose of a screwdriver to rotate - or is it to remove / put in screws?
Surely the rotation is merely a mechanism to allow it to achieve its purpose?
Likewise I see "to feel good" as merely a mechanism for whatever purpose we have, if any at all.
I only see "purpose" as being applicable to deliberately created objects.
If you hold that there was no deliberate creation to existence / the universe etc - then there is no purpose.
If you hold that there was deliberate creation then I suggest you go and ask who/whatever created us... as only they would know the answer - the same way that only I could answer in relation to the object I just made:
- If anyone else claims to know without me telling them it can be but a guess.
- And if they claim that I have told them then of course you'll have the issue of trying to convince everyone else that I have told you.
And so on...
Yes, some will undoubtedly lay claim to there being "normative descriptions in scripture" that detail our purpose - and to them I wish them good luck in their cycle of "believe to believe" that I'm also sure they're oblivious to.
But that's a whole other thread.
Or twelve.
Or hundred.
I'm not sure I accept this. Certainly we can talk about generalities vs specifics but the fact is that "feeling good" does not merely appear complicated, it is complicated.
The point I was trying to get across is that even if it is true it doesn't really relieve one of the need to make a more complicated ethical consideration. The general principle comes up a bit short. If it were that simple gluttony and sexual promiscuity would be sufficient.
~Raithere