The meaning of life

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Your topic title is incredibly misleading, in that case.

You and I are probably not the only ones that appreciate Dawkins, haha.

Yeah I should have named it the purpose of life instead of the meaning of life. Didn't even know why i chose to use the word meaning... Sorry if the title caused confusion for anyone (I don't think it was too much of a hassle since the word "meaning"was hardly used in any of the responses, everyone seemed perfectly content in using "purpose" instead). Once again, feel free to dispute my claims.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah I should have named it the purpose of life instead of the meaning of life. Didn't even know why i chose to use the word meaning... Sorry if the title caused confusion for anyone (I don't think it was too much of a hassle since the word "meaning"was hardly used in any of the responses, everyone seemed perfectly content in using "purpose" instead). Once again, feel free to dispute my claims.

Well, that's not what I meant. :P

Even with "purpose," I personally don't think of the word "tool" instantly, I think of the individual's subjective reflections about them self. Maybe that's just me, though.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Well, that's not what I meant. :P

Even with "purpose," I personally don't think of the word "tool" instantly, I think of the individual's subjective reflections about them self. Maybe that's just me, though.

Well I guess I overlooked the fact that everyone interpreted the connotations differently. To me, anything that was created for a specific purpose can be seen as a tool.

[Celice]

It does not exist, because purpose is only possible with intent. Natural artifices do not act with intent--they act with functionality. Ivy vines and twines itself around not out of a directed purpose, but out of a pathways of functionality. Skin pigmentation is not a derivative of some intent--it survives due to its functionality.

The "purpose" is something we invest in objects, and we pull out. There's no "purpose" in short-haired coats on some foxes. There's functionality, but not purpose. The only way purpose could be invested in this hair is if someone intentionally (ba-dum) bred the fox or trimmed its coat short. Some creationism myths purport life being endowed with purpose: for Christians, and many others, humans were created to take care of the world the creator(s) had made (we are janitors, lucky us).

The issue with assuming purpose, rather than functionality, is you bring up the chance for that one argument about "it's so incredibly complex it can't be natural." That watch-maker farce. What people forget who go down this road, is that the object is neither complex nor simple--it just is. We decide it is complex. We create the definition and need for what becomes "complex" and what is not. In this way, it's impossible to say things serve a "purpose" because we're the ones creating that purpose. The example goes, a mouse-trap is intended to trap mice. It's purpose can be a fashionable tie-accessory. The more concrete example is even in basic, basic viral life (or something along those lines), there is an interchangeability of function--in one, a tendril is used to swim along. In another, that same tendril is now a venomous barb, or something along those lines. Both of these functions can never have purpose, because their intended use does not exist. It just "happens."

It is when you create something with intent that things have purpose--but remember, this purpose is not objective. If you die, that "purpose" dies too, unless someone else, somehow, believes that object has purpose. The functionality exists regardless of you--it is existence. Functionality is neutral, it is truth--it is how it is. Purpose is something we fabricate to exemplify a very specific instance, and in this concentration, we create a linear view of what we are trying to see--we limit ourselves through our preferred definitions, knowingly or not. This is one of the reasons why it's dangerously important to look at the world as actuality, rather than reality--it is within reality that purpose exists. As for actuality, only Demogorgon goes there.

EDIT:

To me, anything that was created for a specific purpose can be seen as a tool.

That's the issue of the confusion. Not everything was created for purpose, nor is evolution a path of purpose. It is a path of chance, with certain traits being favorable over others. An object developing naturally over time does not move with purpose--if it's shaped by its environment, that's not purpose either. It's just being molded.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Celice

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Ah, fantastic argument Celice!

First of all, there seems to be a bit of a confusion amongst both of us regarding the differences between "function" and "purpose". Therefore, I decided to go to Dictionary.com to find the definition of function. The most relevant definition there for function is:"the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role." Therefore, from this, function exists with purpose. Purpose is defined as the reason why something is done, made, or used. But, this is just semantics.

As for your one-and-a-half paragraph long discussion of creationism and complexity, I don't recall ever mentioning either as part of my arguments.

As for everything else, consider the wings of a bird. The reason why the wings exist (i.e. the purpose or the function) is so that the bird can fly away in times of danger, or to catch prey, etc. Of course, there was no sentient designer (IMO) that intentionally made it that way, but still there is a reason why it exists (basically so to increase the chances that the bird survives). I believe that Richard Dawkins coined the term archeo-purpose for things like tails, kidneys, wings (basically "designed" through natural processes). He used the term neo-purpose for things like planes and cars (basically designed with intention). Perhaps this will clear up the semantics?

Once again, I agree that evolution itself is not something that is "purposeful".

As for the objectivity statement; though observations may be objective (debatable since even that relies on sense perception), the conclusions derived from that are in some ways subjective. So to me, a philosophy or idea is (relatively) objective if it is formulated through observation and logic. For example I would consider the conclusion that all trees are green from the observation "I've seen n trees and they are all green" as objective. Empiricism, is widely regarded as an objective approach to knowledge (it is the foundation of science and my argument) because it tests the theories against observations.The theory that the reason for us being here is to ensure the survival of our genes, is in my opinion, an objective theory since it is based on empiricism (because evolution is an empirical theory), even though there is some degree of subjectivity involved (as there is with any theory).

As for the "actuality vs reality" statement, I think we are only capable of looking at the world as a reality. Actuality is what actually happens in the universe, reality is how we perceive it. We do not what the universe is like in actuality, because all we know is based on what we perceive. Therefore, it is only possible to see the world as reality

EDIT: added a few words here and there + formatting

EDIT: fixed some grammatical mistakes

Edited April 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[lolDeath]

This is going to sound silly, but I honestly suspect this so I will ask. Are you on speed? Maybe a little manic?

[Fire Emblem Addict]

This is going to sound silly, but I honestly suspect this so I will ask. Are you on speed? Maybe a little manic?

I will assume that speed and manic are recreational narcotics. If so, then I am certainly not under the influence of them (nor have I ever been), if not, then could you please explain the question?

EDIT: After visiting wikipedia, I've discovered that speed refers to the narcotic amphetamine. If this is the context you are using it in, then no I am not under the influence. As for manic, if you are suspecting that I have the psychological condition of mania, I can only say that I do not exhibit any maniacal symptoms.

Also, I don't see how this is relevant?

Edited April 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[lolDeath]

You just give me an exceptionally high-strung impression with this shit you say I guess, hahah.

And it's not relevant to this topic, I just don't care.

[Junkhead]

Life has no meaning. It's just a coincidence, and the only ones who think life needs a meaning are us humans, as far as I know (not including other unknown entities out there ).

[Celice]

Ah, fantastic argument Celice!

First of all, there seems to be a bit of a confusion amongst both of us regarding the differences between "function" and "purpose". Therefore, I decided to go to Dictionary.com to find the definition of function. The most relevant definition there for function is:"the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role." Therefore, from this, function exists with purpose. Purpose is defined as the reason why something is done, made, or used. But, this is just semantics.

The issue with resorting to a dictionary to clear misunderstandings is that you aren't actually guaranteed to find what you're trying to find. In this case, functionality has nothing to do with purpose. I'm trying to recall a conversation I had with a friend, which I think outlined the difference better. It may have gone like this:

He asked, is there ever a time you can cause something without the intent to cause something? Or in other words, can you ever act unpurposely? You can quite so--the will to do an option is separate from the capability to do a thing. We have the functionality, the ability, the capability to act a certain way--purpose only enters into the scope of discussion if something is intended to happen. I loaned out one of my archives, but in it there was a specific example of evolution, the happen-chance that certain appendages develop independently of species which serve the same functionality: birds, for examples, or bats, or insects. The appendages did not suddenly begin to emerge to meet the need to fly. This is expecting the need to fly before the wings were created--there would be a purpose to wings if there was an inherent, intrinsic plan for these animals to need wings. If there's not an intent behind these animals and their appendages, then the functionality of their wings are functional, and not purposeful: this is so because there is no intention of functionality. To be functional is to react, to build upon, to stand, to work--it's like a machine, it goes, it stays, but it is sightless, it relates through senses or tenses. It moves when prompted, not when instructed to.

The difference between functionality and purpose is that functionality can exist without purpose, and purpose can exist without functionality. Geologically speaking, plate tectonics do not operate on the basis of a purposeful algorithm or plan, but on the functionality of physics working together. It exists outside of purpose.

for your one-and-a-half paragraph long discussion of creationism and complexity, I don't recall ever mentioning either as part of my arguments.

I have a habit of exemplifying certain ways of looking at things through which ever avenues seem most apparent at the time.

(basically "designed" through natural processes).

If we do want to go the route of dictionaries, mine all link "designed" and "to be designed" as invested completely with intent. Things don't develop in order to adapt--things which adapt are favorable, and those that aren't are gone if they can't survive otherwise. Purpose deals with intrinsic qualities, and essence preceding, in some fashion, existence; that there's this "pathway" that life must follow in regards to its environment. This is saying that the mouse-trap was created in order to trap mice. That the tendril was designed to swim. Each of these can serve different purposes depending on how their environments shape their functionality.

Because we cannot reach actuality, we cannot ever really know a thing. But, we can strive to come as close to a universal, objective understanding as we can, for the benefit of potential and possibility beyond ourselves and our senses. It's the "veil of ignorance" purported to be wielded, while planning or observing for future generations. Realizing the real difference between how an object functions within existence, and how an object functions purposefully within existence, is a very key difference to note, so that other avenues of observation are not tainted. We as humans don't have much--at the very least, we can try to say we do.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Hmm, fair enough. Perhaps topic should be renamed to "function of life"?

EDIT: "Because we cannot reach actuality, we cannot ever really know a thing. But, we can strive to come as close to a universal, objective understanding as we can, for the benefit of potential and possibility beyond ourselves and our senses. It's the "veil of ignorance" purported to be wielded, while planning or observing for future generations. Realizing the real difference between how an object functions within existence, and how an object functions purposefully within existence, is a very key difference to note, so that other avenues of observation are not tainted. We as humans don't have much--at the very least, we can try to say we do."

This is causing me some confusion. Your first statement is that we can never know something because what we "know" might not be true. However, what we "know" could be exactly what is true. Therefore, it spawns the epistemological question of "How do you know that you know?". Perhaps this is an analogy to Plato's "World of Forms" (although personally I'm not seeing any correlation)?

Edited April 22, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[Celice]

Oooooooh Platonic Form is a dangerous concept, because it's forgetting that we invest purpose into the objects we observe. If Platonic form existed, there would be a very specific purpose in everything: the example goes, in Chair, there is the platonic form of a Chair, and it will forever be Chair. The issue comes is that virtually anything can serve the function of Chair: I can bend over as Aborigine tribes-children do when castrated and become a Chair; lumps of bodies can be Chair. Putting wood together in a frame can be Chair. It is the observation and consideration which makes something have purpose, have form.

There's no way to verify what we know. Gravity "appears" to work a certain way, at this corner of our galaxy, across a world of universes and membranes, depending on your theoretical tastes. We can say, that all things are affected by gravity--but this is only exemplified so long as we find ourselves in an environment where it is true. If we never venture outside this realm, physically and able to observe, or theoretically in our minds (logically exploring possibility), that which we are observed has the tendency to appear true without any criticism.

Our methods of observation are tainted by our sensations--what a blind man knows, and what a deaf person knows, can be two extremes of reality. When we say "normal men" sensing, we aren't any better than the blind or depth: we're limited to observing actuality through however our sight allows us, or our hearing. On flowers, there are patterns which become evident when put under UV light--it is a facet of existence which we do not naturally notice. We often wrongly assumed it was the color of flowers which had significance, or the shape, or location or predator which sought it--but until we were able to observe the UV patterns, it was not a concept we could be aware of. If we never had the tools to investigate UV light, it would be a phenomena we could not notice. It wouldn't be a possible part of existence, as far as we could be concerned.

All pursuit of knowledge is stuck with this: epistemologically speaking, we have the opportunity to see through slanted eyes the world around us. In our senses, some things do appear to have working premise: it appears that, on Earth, there is something about carbon which has significance, that at night, some animals are at a disadvantage--that according to how physical laws exist at our small part of the universe, we can travel trough proper manipulation through the seas and stars, and we can adjust, when it seems necessary, when we seem to leave the realms of what we understand.

Descartes had the issue of what can be validated, and how honestly and truthfully can it be validated. his excuse came to, he could doubt everything except for his own doubt. He wrongly assumed that then, there must be a doubter in order for the doubt to exist--that something had to be present, existent, functioning, real, in order for him to, at the very least, feel his doubt. This realization is fallible because it's proven under his specific circumstance: just as the law of gravity is only so stable as we have observed it in our distant place of existence (since there's evidence that the gravity present functions and exists as only a small percentage of its real gross self). Even though, that we can realize our way of thinking is often wrong, we still seem to find some small order in the absurdity of existence. That boiling water seems to be a good idea for most people living on this planet, that we can calculate efficiencies of movement, of plantation, of love, based on what we have observed around us. There is some usefulness in what we try to observe--the human brain appears to be bluntly wired for making sense and watching--of making specific, quick assumptions in order to survive, rather than rationally understand what exactly may be occurring. Correlations appear between the circumfrence of a pineapple and the rotation of the stars.

There's not much helping our limitations, and that we can't ever really understand anything. But, in the attempt to, it makes the struggle to exist, and exist as peaceably as one desires, a little more possible. We can make use of our environment through what we are given--we "make the best of it" as we go along. But that we can realize we perceive the world wrongly, and that it can have repercussions for a peaceable existence, is what makes acknowledging our limitation such an important thing too. Because if we don't acknowledge our limitation to possibly be wrong, we are more likely to revert to our blind assuming selves, the dogmatic religious, the start scientific, the absurd atheist--we can limit ourselves, disadvantageously, to understanding the rest of the world. Without remaining open to the possibility, and the willingness to explore, our environment regardless of our assumptions, we are prone to miss more than just what our senses disallow. We're likely to never realize the UV patterns on flowers. We may not properly be able to cope with the immensity of how we shouldn't even be existing. We could continue walking in sightless patters, believing we know something right, but because of our own disadvantage or unwillingness to see. In short, there's an immense danger in the human nature of assumption--a goodness, but a large, terrible badness as well.

[Dr.Sholes]

I guess it depends on what you believe in. If you believe in the Bible then it's a punishment for Adam and Eve's sins I honestly can't answer this an be able to back it up.