Can Mathematics Predict Higher Levels of Complexity?

[Alexander]

Purpose of animal (or anything else) is as arbitrary as its definition, then.

So, anything which comes to you mind is the purpose of cat then.

I prefere more sober materialistic view - there is no purpose by itself. Rock, cat, universe, planet, life, combustion, digestion, etc - do not have any purpose by themselves. They are just physical objects and physical processes. Physical process does not have a purpose.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Purpose of animal (or anything else) is as arbitrary as its definition, then.

So, anything which comes to you mind is the purpose of cat then.

I prefere sober materialistic view - there is no purpose by itself. Rock, cat, universe, life, combustion, digestion, etc - do not have any purpose by themselves.

Does that also include human life?

 

[Alexander]

Of course. What is the purpose of human or viral life?

 

[FZ+]

I agree with Alexander. Purpose as a concept only exists in a specific context of an observer to judge the criteria of purpose.

 

[Mentat]

Alexander and FZ+ make a good point. If you look at nature, there is only one animal (only one being, for that matter) that contemplates "purpose". So, if there were no humans (or any other sentient creatures), then there would be no "purposes" (unless you consider achieving lower energy levels a purpose).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Of course. What is the purpose of human or viral life?

The purpose of human life is to have a purpose in life?

But it is obvious we run in problems using the term "purpose" outside of it's context. This was a good exercise in finding that out.
Yet many concepts are born on that idea, extending terms beyond there well defined meaning. That is where the trouble comes from.
If one sticks to this extended definition, and want to have meaningfull answers to things like "purpose of the universe" etc., then one comes up with vague entities (f.i. God) that portray such concepts.

 

[BoulderHead]

But it is obvious we run in problems using the term "purpose" outside of it's context. This was a good exercise in finding that out.
Yet many concepts are born on that idea, extending terms beyond there well defined meaning. That is where the trouble comes from.
If one sticks to this extended definition, and want to have meaningfull answers to things like "purpose of the universe" etc., then one comes up with vague entities (f.i. God) that portray such concepts.

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. There must therefore be a purpose for our existence.

Mankind has shown its insecurity by its belief in a greater purpose.
-Michael Pain

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. There must therefore be a purpose for our existence.

Mankind has shown its insecurity by its belief in a greater purpose.
-Michael Pain

At one point, you seem to agree, but in later instance you totally disagree. I think that our existence itself has no purpose. But this does not contradict the fact that we can find in our lives purposes for ourselves.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
At one point, you seem to agree, but in later instance you totally disagree. I think that our existence itself has no purpose. But this does not contradict the fact that we can find in our lives purposes for ourselves.

Let me edit (in bold) myself for clarity;

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. Humans therefore have invented the concept of god to add purpose and meaning (other things too) to their existence

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Let me edit (in bold) myself for clarity;

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. Humans therefore have invented the concept of god to add purpose and meaning (other things too) to their existence

Ok. That makes it clearer, and I would agree on that.

 

[Iacchus32]

Purpose is the "intended design." Like the purpose of a skeleton is to hold us up. Similarly, the purpose of a "cat's skeleton" -- i.e., in the "possessive sense" -- is to hold the cat up.

It's just utter nonsense to say things don't exist without a purpose.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Purpose is the "intended design." Like the purpose of a skeleton is to hold us up. Similarly, the purpose of a "cat's skeleton" -- i.e., in the "possessive sense" -- is to hold the cat up.

"intended design". This sounds like a willful act. What is the difference between the 'function' of the cat's skeleton and the 'purpose' of same?

It's just utter nonsense to say things don't exist without a purpose.

Is it utter nonsense also to claim that we mere mortals truly know the purpose of things?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
"intended design". This sounds like a willful act. What is the difference between the 'function' of the cat's skeleton and the 'purpose' of same?

And yet it would seem the two words are interchangable here, through the "purposeful act" of us trying to communicate their difference.

Is it utter nonsense also to claim that we mere mortals truly know the purpose of things?

Perhaps because we, as human beings, have the capacity to acknowledge that things don't happen arbitrarily, meaning there must be a sense of purpose to all things (even if we may not understand what that is). And why is it that those things which seem weak or "less purposeful" wind up becoming "a meal" for those things which are "more purposeful?"

When a predator sinks its teeth into its prey, wouldn't you deem that an act of willfulness?

And yes, I guess that does imply the Universe came about in a purposeful way ... as evidenced by us, human beings, who are given the ability to recognize it.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Good enough points, however I think we are
talking about two different kinds of "purpose".
I was talking about the kind of purpose that
implies that something is there for a specific
reason. Evolution would dictate that physical
charecteristics came about for no specific
reasons, but were (afterward) used to the
advantage of the creature that happened to
have them.

On the contrary, evolution came about for
very good reasons, they're called the Laws
of Physics.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
On the contrary, evolution came about for
very good reasons, they're called the Laws
of Physics.

Live long and prosper.

That is not a reason. A reason is a justification for an act. Something that occurred at random may be justified (or, rather, what caused it can be explained) by some sentient being later on, but that doesn't mean that it was done for a reason.

 

[Alexander]

Define justification.

Evolution indeed happens just because laws of physics are such. Nobody "seeded" it and nothing (but natural laws) "manages" it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Define justification.

Evolution indeed happens just because laws of physics are such. Nobody "seeded" it and nothing (but natural laws) "manages" it.

Except when mankind shows up, out of a "sense of purpose" -- playing God if you will -- and throws a monkey wrench in the works.

 

[Alexander]

Mankind is a kind of apes.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mankind is a kind of apes.

There's very little about what mankind has done to the world which could be deemed "natural." Indeed, it's all been brought about by his "abstract" ability to reason.

 

[Alexander]

Anyway, there is no purpose of (or in) life, evolution, viruses, mankind, monkeys, air, combustion, rusting, universe by themselves.

If you define a purpose as "to be used for", then purpose of, say, air is to support airplanes or combustion (for example), or purpose of life is to serve as a food for other lives.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Anyway, there is no purpose of (or in) life, evolution, viruses, mankind, monkeys, air, combustion, rusting, universe by themselves.

If you define a purpose as "to be used for", then purpose of, say, air is to support airplanes or combustion (for example), or purpose of life is to serve as a food for other lives.

And yet mankind "seems" to be endowed with a sense of purpose. In other words there seems to be a sense of "accountability" that coincides with his actions.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is not a reason. A reason is a justification
for an act. Something that occurred at random
may be justified (or, rather, what caused
it can be explained) by some sentient being
later on, but that doesn't mean that
it was done for a reason.

I'm not sure what you mean.
"Sentient being" ? I have no reason to
think that means anything more than
the laws of nature in action (for now).
Anyway, what's a justification ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet mankind "seems" to be endowed
with a sense of purpose. In other words
there seems to be a sense of "accountability"
that coincides with his actions.

Sure, when I wan'na eat I know I got'ta
grab a sandwich, when I got'ta go I know
I got'ta go and when I see a pack of greens
I wan'na grab it...

No offense, but if you say something clearly as
controversial as that you should explain it
immidiately. (This is not the G. & R. forum,
here you actually need to explain everything
you say. )

Peace and long life.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Sure, when I wan'na eat I know I got'ta
grab a sandwich, when I got'ta go I know
I got'ta go and when I see a pack of greens
I wan'na grab it...

No offense, but if you say something clearly as
controversial as that you should explain it
immidiately. (This is not the G. & R. forum,
here you actually need to explain everything
you say. )

Peace and long life.

Then what's the point (purpose) in even bothering to reply?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what's the point (purpose) in even
bothering to reply?

Excuse me ?
Clearly the point is to do what I asked
that you do: explain yourself or admit
the lack of an explanation, for your claim.
Thanks.

Peace and long life.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Excuse me ?
Clearly the point is to do what I asked
that you do: explain yourself or admit
the lack of an explanation, for your claim.
Thanks.

Peace and long life.

What is the difference between making a point and expressing a purpose? What is the point to this thread? Or, what is the purpose of this thread?

Clearly there must be a "sense of purpose" in you asking me to explain myself. Otherwise, what's the point?

If we can't get past this, then why bother?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure what you mean.
"Sentient being" ?

Well, until now, I would have assumed that you were on of those (sentient beings). What I mean is that "purpose" is synonymous to "intent" and only a living being can "intend" to do/create something. And only a sentient being can ponder something's purpose.

I have no reason to
think that means anything more than
the laws of nature in action (for now).

The laws of nature are not alive, they don't have purposes, because that would imply conscious choice.

Anyway, what's a justification ?

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that word. What I meant was that a reason can only be assigned to an act by a being that can ponder the act (or by the being that performed the act).

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the difference between making a
point and expressing a purpose? What is
the point to this thread? Or, what is the
purpose of this thread?

Clearly there must be a "sense of purpose"
in you asking me to explain myself. Otherwise,
what's the point?

If we can't get past this, then why bother?

The purpose of this thread is to determine
the in/existence of a purpose to what we
define as life or sentient life.

But, you're right, basicly if many people here
do not wish to call serving the laws of nature
a "purpose" then what other arguments can
we produce here - observation's all we got.

I don't fully agree with that though, I think
our purpose is simply to be statisticly better
catalysts for entropy than the non-organic.

Originally posted by Mentat
...
What I mean is that "purpose" is synonymous
to "intent" and only a living being can
"intend" to do/create something. And only
a sentient being can ponder something's purpose.
...
The laws of nature are not alive, they don't
have purposes, because that would imply
conscious choice.

Hey, according to our observations so far -
niether are we. And that's my point.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Hey, according to our observations so far -
niether are we. And that's my point.

We're not what? Alive?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
We're not what? Alive?

Yes. Unless you wish to define the
word alive as "complex cabonous molecules"
or something...
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference
for the "purpose" part in this case.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Yes. Unless you wish to define the
word alive as "complex cabonous molecules"
or something...
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference
for the "purpose" part in this case.

Live long and prosper.

Excuse me, but we fit all of the different Biological criteria for being alive, therefore we are alive.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Excuse me, but we fit all of the different
Biological criteria for being alive, therefore
we are alive.

No offense, but this is getting funnier
by the post (in a normal conversation I would
say by the minute but this is a web forum ).
And what ARE the Biological criteria for
being alive ?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

The biological creteria for alive:

being able to reproduce (through mitosis or meiosis)
having herediatry material

Of course, this data is gathered from the characteristics of life on earth. If there is life on other planets, then there may be other criteria. But the current information allows the aforementioned to be realiable creteria for life on earth.

 

[Veral]

What is the purpose of a Euglena? What is the purpose of a cockroach? What is the purpose of a dog? In essence, you are asking a redundant question: the purpose of a cat is to be a cat.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Veral
What is the purpose of a Euglena? What is the purpose of a cockroach? What is the purpose of a dog? In essence, you are asking a redundant question: the purpose of a cat is to be a cat.

And yet, the cat also has an impact on its environment, which is to say, the purpose of a cat is also to keep the population of rodents down.