The Purpose Of Life - (Quoted from KNT hrp&p - {HRI 20040927-V2.7})
Leonardo Been
27 Sept 2004
The greatest virtue of life, IS to live
it.
THAT IS THE NOBLE TRUTH.
This also anybody knows naturally, and anybody
who exerts that virtue, is naturally and
warmly appreciated in the society, for having
achieved that.
The purpose of Life IS living,
Life is created IN ORDER TO ENJOY
LIVING LIFE,
including of course the
tremendous, tremendous joy
of living it with others,
of feeling others, of
letting others feel
you too,
of enjoying others
with your Beauty, and
of enjoying the Beauty
of others,
which IS Life.
Koos Nolst Trenite "Cause Trinity"
human rights philosopher and poet
___________
Quoted from:
* 'Normal Life Disaster From Not Understanding A Criminal Mind
(A True Story)' {HRI 20040927-V2.7}
(27 Sept 2004 - Version 2.7 on 17 Oct 2004)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.04101...@posting.google.com&output=gplain
rtda...@yahoo.com
> The greatest virtue of life, IS to live it.
> The purpose of Life IS living,
> Life is created IN ORDER TO ENJOY LIVING LIFE
this is of course off topic, but I am interested in these types of philosophies.
Why is living life a virtue, who decided there are virtues?
On what basis does one assign "purpose" to life at all?
And this says "life is created….." who or what created it and why?
If these kinds of questions are unanswered, then this has no meaning at all.
dave
Thur
<rtda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2d04c06.04102...@posting.google.com...
> plato...@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message
> news:<989886.04102...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> The greatest virtue of life, IS to live it.
>> The purpose of Life IS living,
>> Life is created IN ORDER TO ENJOY LIVING LIFE
>
> this is of course off topic, but I am interested in these types of
> philosophies.
>
> Why is living life a virtue, who decided there are virtues?
> On what basis does one assign "purpose" to life at all?
>
> If these kinds of questions are unanswered, then this has no meaning at
> all.
>
> dave
What do you mean by "this"?
Since we have a word "virtue", would you care to define it,
or are you happy just to leave the word challenged?
If life truly has no purpose, then lots of people would be unhappy,
have aimless pursuits, be completely selfish, be dedicated to
satisfying whatever urge or whim came to them, to have no
sense of moral value, be anti-social, er-whoops, I seem to be
describing our world, don't I?
:-)
Re "life" :>who or what created it and why?<
Now there's a possible "purpose" for a life - to try to answer
that question. ?
Thur
Electric Nachos
Thur wrote in message ...
One approach to answering that question is based in functionalism. Be aware,
however, that "life" is bigger than just what "humans" do in -it-.
rtda...@yahoo.com
> >> The greatest virtue of life, IS to live it.
> >> The purpose of Life IS living,
> >> Life is created IN ORDER TO ENJOY LIVING LIFE
> >
> > this is of course off topic, but I am interested in these types of
> > philosophies.
> >
> > Why is living life a virtue, who decided there are virtues?
> > On what basis does one assign "purpose" to life at all?
> > And this says "life is created..." who or what created it and why?
> >
> > If these kinds of questions are unanswered, then this has no meaning at
> > all.
> >
> > dave
>
> What do you mean by "this"?
> Since we have a word "virtue", would you care to define it,
> or are you happy just to leave the word challenged?
I actually do believe in virtues, but I believe they are such only
because I believe there is a creator; God, that defines them as such.
But if there is not a God, then "life" is pretty much accidental and
meaningless.
Certainly one would have to admit that there are lots of people that
don't believe that there is a God.
I would even agree to the original post with some clarifications, but
I was interested in hearing more of what the poster had to say.
> If life truly has no purpose, then lots of people would be unhappy,
> have aimless pursuits, be completely selfish, be dedicated to
> satisfying whatever urge or whim came to them, to have no
> sense of moral value, be anti-social
To be fair, people can be all of those things even if there really is
a purpose. They could be unaware of the real purpose or reject it
outright even if they knew what it was.
But IF we are accidentally here, perhaps in an evolutionary sense,
then there really is no purpose to existence. It will not matter if we
exist or not (well, it'll matter to each of us as individuals, but not
in a larger sense).
The ONLY way there can be purpose to life is IF there is a
God/Creator, and he made it to be so. And along with that comes the
obvious: God gets to define what the purpose is.
So then as I see it, purpose = God. No God, no purpose.
One could simply pretend there is a real reason, even if there isn't,
but again I was interested in understanding where the original poster
was coming from. Is his a made-up reason for living, or could he
possibly back this up with something more?
dave
Lauri Levanto
Electric Nachos wrote:
> Be aware,
> however, that "life" is bigger than just what "humans" do in -it-.
>
Thanks for this little gem
-lauri
rtda...@yahoo.com
> >Re "life" :>who or what created it and why?<
> >Now there's a possible "purpose" for a life - to try to answer
> >that question. ?
>
> One approach to answering that question is based in functionalism. Be aware,
> however, that "life" is bigger than just what "humans" do in -it-.
I'm interested. How would functionalism answer the question of
purpose? What might it propose?
And I am not sure in what scope that you may mean that life is bigger
than just what humans do, maybe there is a lot more to it than I
currently see, but what would this increased consideration bring?
dave
Electric Nachos
rtda...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
>
>> >Re "life" :>who or what created it and why?<
>> >Now there's a possible "purpose" for a life - to try to answer
>> >that question. ?
>>
>> One approach to answering that question is based in functionalism. Be
aware,
>> however, that "life" is bigger than just what "humans" do in -it-.
>
>I'm interested. How would functionalism answer the question of
>purpose? What might it propose?
It's a helpful way to determine "why" something does what it does, or why it
exists. Scientists have done this for years. Example: "X" exists because it
does "Y" to and/or for the environment. In fact, if "X" did not exist, then
the environment would fail.
Functionalism has its flaws - but it is, imo, a good start.
>And I am not sure in what scope that you may mean that life is bigger
>than just what humans do, maybe there is a lot more to it than I
>currently see
Life - on earth - is composed of a multitude of things (plants, animals,
insects, etc. etc. etc.). Humans play a small role - no matter how much
importance they give themselves.
>but what would this increased consideration bring?
Through functionalism, perhaps the humbling reality that each entity plays a
significant role in sustaining a living environment.
>
>dave
Electric Nachos
Electric Nachos wrote in message ...
I'd like to add, that if you are pondering the question of life as a whole
(i.e., the living planet), functionalism may be applicable when considering
earth's *function* in space. I don't think it's appropriate to consider
earth's function from its inhabitant's point of view - which is what
scientists selfishly and egotistically do... but rather consider it's
function in relation to what role the earth plays in the entire solar
system.
Sometimes, I like to solve problems by removing the vital factor. If we
could find the answer to "what would happen to the solar system if all life
on earth died?" we would have the answer to "what is the purpose of life."
(Life exists on earth because without it... blah blah blah.)
I'm curious to know how far up the hierarchy of systems this impact would
have.
rtda...@yahoo.com
> >> >Re "life" :>who or what created it and why?<
> >>
> >> One approach to answering that is functionalism.
> >
> > How would functionalism answer the question of
> > purpose?
> It's a helpful way to determine "why" something does what it does, or why it
> exists. Scientists have done this for years. Example: "X" exists because it
> does "Y" to and/or for the environment. In fact, if "X" did not exist, then
> the environment would fail.
There are two (that I am aware of) uses of this term:
The first pertains to sociology, the second pertains to the mind/body
problem.
I was not sure which you were considering, but it also seems to me
that neither really answers the larger question.
It is really interesting to me that there seems to be so much "system"
built into the natural order of things. That would seem to mean
intelligent design, which implies intelligent designer, which implies
that the designer had a purpose.
But again if one takes the stance that the universe happened into
existence, then the outlook changes.
While scientists may be able to judge that 'X exists because it does Y
for the environment', it of course does not answer the question of
whether the universe has any purpose. Functionalism seems limited to
the physical reality, but it does not concern itself with an overall
purpose. You wondered in your post how far up the hierarchy the effect
of life on earth has. Let's just imagine that a worst case scenario
could occur where it would mean the collapse of the universe. That
would have ultimate physical impact, but the purpose impact would
still be non-applicable.
Purpose comes only if there is an end, or aim to the creation.
If something comes to be accidentally and accidentally has the
capabilities to sustain itself for a time, then functionalism may
answer how the systems work together to do that, but the accidentality
of the things existence cannot be escaped: it has no real purpose.
Returning to the original post, the poster had asserted that the
purpose of life was to live. Since purpose can only be ascribed with a
creator behind the created entity, I again wonder what reason he may
have had for assuming a creator that would assign this purpose to
creation.
It seems along the lines of me creating a stick just to lay there and
be a stick, which is pointless.
Creating life just to have life is the same thing.
Indeed the tone of the post was that we enjoy/celebrate life while we
have it, which is fine. I suppose as long as we are here, we might as
well, but to assign "virtue", "purpose" and "created for" to that and
call it "the noble truth" needs to be backed up.
dave
Electric Nachos
news:<10nl65t...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> >> >Re "life" :>who or what created it and why?<
>> >>
>> >> One approach to answering that is functionalism.
>> >
>> > How would functionalism answer the question of
>> > purpose?
>
>> It's a helpful way to determine "why" something does what it does, or why
it
>> exists. Scientists have done this for years. Example: "X" exists because
it
>> does "Y" to and/or for the environment. In fact, if "X" did not exist,
then
>> the environment would fail.
>
>There are two (that I am aware of) uses of this term:
>The first pertains to sociology, the second pertains to the mind/body
>problem.
>
>I was not sure which you were considering, but it also seems to me
>that neither really answers the larger question.
>It is really interesting to me that there seems to be so much "system"
>built into the natural order of things. That would seem to mean
>intelligent design, which implies intelligent designer, which implies
>that the designer had a purpose.
Not really. Plenty of things created by accident or even neglect (a
non-intelligent phenomenon), have a systematic structure. Mold, dirt, and
dust are examples. Each of these things - closely examined - yield an
interesting, if not complicated system or "design."
From these examples, I have no reason to believe that "design" is **not** a
"natural" phenomenon. However, I can at the very least *suspect* that the
natural occurences of design (systems) are the result (read, "fluke") of
being subsets of larger designs (systems).
>But again if one takes the stance that the universe happened into
>existence, then the outlook changes.
Why? (see above)
>While scientists may be able to judge that 'X exists because it does Y
>for the environment', it of course does not answer the question of
>whether the universe has any purpose.
At the very least, one could conclude that the universe's purpose is to
house its celestial bodies (because that's what it does).
> Functionalism seems limited to
>the physical reality, but it does not concern itself with an overall
>purpose.
Well how "overall" or "basic" do you need to go? Physical reality is
(really) the *only* reality. Every other reality that follows is man-made
(read, "interpreted").
>You wondered in your post how far up the hierarchy the effect
>of life on earth has. Let's just imagine that a worst case scenario
>could occur where it would mean the collapse of the universe. That
>would have ultimate physical impact, but the purpose impact would
>still be non-applicable.
Sure it would be applicable. If the universe collapsed (I'm assuming you
meant "self-destructed"), none of its components would exist. At the very
least, the purpose of the universe is to house it's celestial bodies
(because that's what it does).
>Purpose comes only if there is an end, or aim to the creation.
>If something comes to be accidentally and accidentally has the
>capabilities to sustain itself for a time, then functionalism may
>answer how the systems work together to do that, but the accidentality
>of the things existence cannot be escaped: it has no real purpose.
At the very least, whether created accidentally or purposefully, a thing's
reason for being is to do what it does. "How" it does what it does, is a
different science.
>Returning to the original post, the poster had asserted that the
>purpose of life was to live.
At the very least, yes (because that's what life does).
>Since purpose can only be ascribed with a
>creator behind the created entity, I again wonder what reason he may
>have had for assuming a creator that would assign this purpose to
>creation.
>
>It seems along the lines of me creating a stick just to lay there and
>be a stick, which is pointless.
Does the stick "do" anything in that position? I swear to the high heavens,
someone - some where - will say "yes." At the very least, the stick may
cause everyone to stop walking, look at it, and contemplate who left a stick
on the floor. Silly - and perhaps not to your liking - but never the less,
true!
>Creating life just to have life is the same thing.
>Indeed the tone of the post was that we enjoy/celebrate life while we
>have it, which is fine. I suppose as long as we are here, we might as
>well, but to assign "virtue", "purpose" and "created for" to that and
>call it "the noble truth" needs to be backed up.
Change your thinking....
Think "outside" the stick. LOL ;-)
FWIW, I have used the model of "dreams" to answer why life exists. I
honestly believe life - ALL life, is nothing more than a construct of some
one's or some thing's mind. The parallels between external life and dreams
are uncanny. So I'm working on developing the theory that our minds are
congruent components of the larger mind that contains us. And that both
minds, functionally work in the same manner and for the same reasons.
>dave
Do I know you??? Haven't we "flamed" somewhere before???
rtda...@yahoo.com
I will cover this a bit more below, but part of the problem in our
disagreement maybe understanding the definition of the word "purpose".
You seem to be using it in one way, and I in another. I will explain
why I think it better understood in the way I am using it.
> >While scientists may be able to judge that 'X exists because it does Y
> >for the environment', it of course does not answer the question of
> >whether the universe has any purpose.
>
> At the very least, one could conclude that the universe's purpose is to
> house its celestial bodies (because that's what it does).
This is purpose only in the sense of function. Yes that is what it
does.
But in context of the original post, this is a fairly innocuous
conclusion.
The original post spoke of the purpose of life being to live.
Purpose is defined as: The object toward which one strives or for
which something exists; an aim or a goal.
I suppose one could also consider purpose as the function something
has, but if we do then we get the astoundingly deep "the function of
life is to live". Which is a golden duh, if ever there was one.
So I think that in context here, purpose is better considered the aim
or goal to which something exists.
> > Functionalism seems limited to the physical reality,
> > but it does not concern itself with an overall purpose.
>
> Well how "overall" or "basic" do you need to go? Physical reality is
> (really) the *only* reality. Every other reality that follows is man-made
> (read, "interpreted").
Interestingly enough, the term functionalism in relation to the
mind/body problem seeks to understand mind precisely because mind is
not really confined to mere physical reality. There seems to be
something more to mind than just the physical, though the physical is
surely a basis.
One would also consider emotions and other non-tangible "things" as
well as laws, mathematics, universals. These are real, but
non-physical, nor can they be said to be man-made. One could probably
better argue that mathematics and logic were discovered, not made up,
by men.
However, that is another subject. Your assertion that the physical is
the only reality categorizes your own worldview and removes purpose
(in the aim or goal sense) from the universe. The consequence of such
is that the universe has only a current function, no purpose. Ergo, it
would not matter if it ceased to exist, it would not matter what form
it took if it exists at all. Life, here or any place else, is of no
real value.
> FWIW, I have used the model of "dreams" to answer why life exists. I
> honestly believe life - ALL life, is nothing more than a construct of some
> one's or some thing's mind. The parallels between external life and dreams
> are uncanny. So I'm working on developing the theory that our minds are
> congruent components of the larger mind that contains us. And that both
> minds, functionally work in the same manner and for the same reasons.
You mean like the matrix? Or Descartes demon?
You said the only reality was physical reality: how then can all of
what we know be the construct of some unknown mind?
> >dave
>
> Do I know you??? Haven't we "flamed" somewhere before???
Well, I have participated in this newsgroup before, and interacted
with you. I have asked questions about painting techniques and then
you started another thread on sharing secrets. I don't think that
would count as flaming.
Electric Nachos
checker didn't even pop up!!
Ignore them please.
Electric Nachos
Subject: Re: The Purpose Of Life - (Quoted from KNT hrp&p - {HRI
20040927-V2.7})
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:07 AM
rtda...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:<10nqnv2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>I will cover this a bit more below, but part of the problem in our
>disagreement maybe understanding the definition of the word "purpose".
>You seem to be using it in one way, and I in another. I will explain
>why I think it better understood in the way I am using it.
>
>> >While scientists may be able to judge that 'X exists because it does Y
>> >for the environment', it of course does not answer the question of
>> >whether the universe has any purpose.
>>
>> At the very least, one could conclude that the universe's purpose is to
>> house its celestial bodies (because that's what it does).
>
>This is purpose only in the sense of function. Yes that is what it
>does.
Right - cause it's "functionalism."
>But in context of the original post, this is a fairly innocuous
>conclusion.
>
>The original post spoke of the purpose of life being to live.
>Purpose is defined as: The object toward which one strives or for
>which something exists; an aim or a goal.
>I suppose one could also consider purpose as the function something
>has, but if we do then we get the astoundingly deep "the function of
>life is to live". Which is a golden duh, if ever there was one.
Lol
>So I think that in context here, purpose is better considered the aim
>or goal to which something exists.
Okay - but be forewarned - even goals require an object to "function" in
some manner. ;-)
>> > Functionalism seems limited to the physical reality,
>> > but it does not concern itself with an overall purpose.
>>
>> Well how "overall" or "basic" do you need to go? Physical reality is
>> (really) the *only* reality. Every other reality that follows is man-made
>> (read, "interpreted").
>
>Interestingly enough, the term functionalism in relation to the
>mind/body problem seeks to understand mind precisely because mind is
>not really confined to mere physical reality. There seems to be
>something more to mind than just the physical, though the physical is
>surely a basis.
>One would also consider emotions and other non-tangible "things" as
>well as laws, mathematics, universals. These are real, but
>non-physical, nor can they be said to be man-made. One could probably
>better argue that mathematics and logic were discovered, not made up,
>by men.
>
>However, that is another subject.
Good - because to me - math, laws, lables, words, etc. are entirely
man-made. Such things are a floating web of abstract concepts - hovering
over natural resources. Let's not talk about it.
>Your assertion that the physical is
>the only reality categorizes your own worldview and removes purpose
>(in the aim or goal sense) from the universe.
No it doesn't. Just because I observe that one purpose of worms is to
ventilate the earth's surface (which is what they do), that does not remove
that goal from the worm. Just because I observe that one of my own purposes
is to satisfy an internal urge to draw (which is what I do), that does not
remove the goal of becoming an artist from me. See what I'm saying?
>The consequence of such
>is that the universe has only a current function, no purpose.
In my argument, Function = Purpose.
(well, actually... it's "Function **contributes to** Purpose." I *do
believe* I said functionalism is a good place to *start*.)
>Ergo, it
>would not matter if it ceased to exist, it would not matter what form
>it took if it exists at all. Life, here or any place else, is of no
>real value.
If something doesn't exist, then of course it has no purpose! Give me an
example of what you're talking about please...
>> FWIW, I have used the model of "dreams" to answer why life exists. I
>> honestly believe life - ALL life, is nothing more than a construct of
some
>> one's or some thing's mind. The parallels between external life and
dreams
>> are uncanny. So I'm working on developing the theory that our minds are
>> congruent components of the larger mind that contains us. And that both
>> minds, functionally work in the same manner and for the same reasons.
>
>You mean like the matrix? Or Descartes demon?
>You said the only reality was physical reality: how then can all of
>what we know be the construct of some unknown mind?
It's confusing - I'll admit. But let me ask you - and you answer honestly!
In your **dreams** - do those people you dream or think about, question
whether their world (which is your dream world) is real or not?
I think not! In fact, I would argue that the poor things swear up and down
that their world is real. And they have a right to - because to *them* - it
IS real. Just like to *us* - our reality IS real.
How does all of that relate to purpose? In my opinion, and based on
parellels of the dream world (which includes the *thought world*) that I
haven't even begun to draw yet, the purpose of life (in *this* world) is to
literally "work out" the problems that our "thinker" is contemplating. When
we mentally work out our problems (or just dream), the people we think or
dream about take on the role of "working out" our contemplations. And I
believe it goes on and on and on like that.
We are tools, Dave. Just tools. And thankfully, our "Thinker" does not waste
time and energy predicting or controlling our every move (as one might do in
a silly sexual fantasy). This freedom from our "Thinker's" control is what
religious goofballs call "free will."
And dare I say we are temporary tools??? Created for a minute solution (or
pleasure), and then simply forgotten... Left to wander and wonder, "What is
the purpose of life."
>> >dave
>>
>> Do I know you??? Haven't we "flamed" somewhere before???
>
>Well, I have participated in this newsgroup before, and interacted
>with you. I have asked questions about painting techniques and then
>you started another thread on sharing secrets. I don't think that
>would count as flaming.
Ok well I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting all philosophical with a
dickhead. If you would please, in just a few sentences, declare your
position in this arguement. My mind is spinning now.
Guille
--
Guillermo Brachetta
Harpsichordist - Music Editor
www.brachetta.com
"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:10nt7ke...@corp.supernews.com...
Gray Loser
rtda...@yahoo.com
As I consider this, it seems we are operating on somewhat different
levels. Part of the confusion is how we approach the word "purpose".
> At the very least, one could conclude that the universe's purpose is to
> house its celestial bodies (because that's what it does).
Purpose is defined as: The object toward which one strives or for
which something exists; an aim or a goal.
But it is sometimes used as "function".
This would seem to be the case in your usage, the purpose of the
universe is its function. But in context of the original post, I
believe it better to consider purpose more as an aim or goal.
In context, if one were to define purpose as function then the
original post made the very deep contribution: the function of life is
to live, which is certainly true, but blindingly obvious.
Likewise stating the function of the universe is simply to point out
the obvious.
But the context of purpose here is more to understand the things aim
or goal.
> > Functionalism seems limited to the physical reality,
> > but it does not concern itself with an overall purpose.
>
> Well how "overall" or "basic" do you need to go? Physical reality is
> (really) the *only* reality. Every other reality that follows is man-made
> (read, "interpreted").
Well, again I am trying to determine the philosophy behind the
original statement, and that concerned what the aim or goal of life
is.
If one's worldview is that there is only a physical reality, then
purpose, in the truest sense of the word is eliminated. There is no
purpose, only function. The logical end of such a belief is that life
does not matter.
But secondarily, I would challenge that the only reality is physical
reality.
There are emotions, as well as laws of logic, mathematics, universals
etc, that are real, yet non-physical.
> FWIW, I have used the model of "dreams" to answer why life exists. I
> honestly believe life - ALL life, is nothing more than a construct of some
> one's or some thing's mind. The parallels between external life and dreams
> are uncanny. So I'm working on developing the theory that our minds are
> congruent components of the larger mind that contains us. And that both
> minds, functionally work in the same manner and for the same reasons.
You mean like the matrix? Or Descartes demon?
Now this is quite a change from saying that the only reality is
physical reality.
> >dave
>
> Do I know you??? Haven't we "flamed" somewhere before???
I have participated in this NG on a limited basis for sometime, I have
spoken to you before in that sense, but I don't think that counts as a
flame.
Electric Nachos
news:<10nqnv2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>As I consider this, it seems we are operating on somewhat different
>levels. Part of the confusion is how we approach the word "purpose".
???
I replied to a message like this earlier...
helen~
h
rtda...@yahoo.com
Hmm, I sent a message like this earlier, but I never did, and still
don't see it. I thought it didn't get through.
I didn't see a response to it either..... where is it?
dave
Electric Nachos
rtda...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:<10nvr9v...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> rtda...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
>> >"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
>> news:<10nqnv2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >
>> >As I consider this, it seems we are operating on somewhat different
>> >levels. Part of the confusion is how we approach the word "purpose".
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I replied to a message like this earlier...
>
>Hmm, I sent a message like this earlier, but I never did, and still
>don't see it. I thought it didn't get through.
>I didn't see a response to it either..... where is it?
Here (strange - I couldn't find it on google either):
rtda...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:<10nqnv2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>I will cover this a bit more below, but part of the problem in our
>disagreement maybe understanding the definition of the word "purpose".
>You seem to be using it in one way, and I in another. I will explain
>why I think it better understood in the way I am using it.
>
>> >While scientists may be able to judge that 'X exists because it does Y
>> >for the environment', it of course does not answer the question of
>> >whether the universe has any purpose.
>>
>> At the very least, one could conclude that the universe's purpose is to
>> house its celestial bodies (because that's what it does).
>
>This is purpose only in the sense of function. Yes that is what it
>does.
Right - cause it's "functionalism."
>But in context of the original post, this is a fairly innocuous
>conclusion.
>
>The original post spoke of the purpose of life being to live.
>Purpose is defined as: The object toward which one strives or for
>which something exists; an aim or a goal.
>I suppose one could also consider purpose as the function something
>has, but if we do then we get the astoundingly deep "the function of
>life is to live". Which is a golden duh, if ever there was one.
Lol
>So I think that in context here, purpose is better considered the aim
>or goal to which something exists.
Okay - but be forewarned - even goals require an object to "function" in
some manner. ;-)
>> > Functionalism seems limited to the physical reality,
>> > but it does not concern itself with an overall purpose.
>>
>> Well how "overall" or "basic" do you need to go? Physical reality is
>> (really) the *only* reality. Every other reality that follows is man-made
>> (read, "interpreted").
>
>> FWIW, I have used the model of "dreams" to answer why life exists. I
>> honestly believe life - ALL life, is nothing more than a construct of
some
>> one's or some thing's mind. The parallels between external life and
dreams
>> are uncanny. So I'm working on developing the theory that our minds are
>> congruent components of the larger mind that contains us. And that both
>> minds, functionally work in the same manner and for the same reasons.
>
>You mean like the matrix? Or Descartes demon?
>You said the only reality was physical reality: how then can all of
>what we know be the construct of some unknown mind?
It's confusing - I'll admit. But let me ask you - and you answer honestly!
In your **dreams** - do those people you dream or think about, question
whether their world (which is your dream world) is real or not?
I think not! In fact, I would argue that the poor things swear up and down
that their world is real. And they have a right to - because to *them* - it
IS real. Just like to *us* - our reality IS real.
How does all of that relate to purpose? In my opinion, and based on
parellels of the dream world (which includes the *thought world*) that I
haven't even begun to draw yet, the purpose of life (in *this* world) is to
literally "work out" the problems that our "thinker" is contemplating. When
we mentally work out our problems (or just dream), the people we think or
dream about take on the role of "working out" our contemplations. And I
believe it goes on and on and on like that.
We are tools, Dave. Just tools. And thankfully, our "Thinker" does not waste
time and energy predicting or controlling our every move (as one might do in
a silly sexual fantasy). This freedom from our "Thinker's" control is what
religious goofballs call "free will."
And dare I say we are temporary tools??? Created for a minute solution (or
pleasure), and then simply forgotten... Left to wander and wonder, "What is
the purpose of life."
>> >dave
>>
>> Do I know you??? Haven't we "flamed" somewhere before???
>
>Well, I have participated in this newsgroup before, and interacted
>with you. I have asked questions about painting techniques and then
>you started another thread on sharing secrets. I don't think that
>would count as flaming.
Ok well I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting all philosophical with a
dickhead. If you would please, in just a few sentences, declare your
position in this arguement. My mind is spinning now.
>dave
rtda...@yahoo.com
> >So I think that in context here, purpose is better considered the aim
> >or goal to which something exists.
>
> Okay - but be forewarned - even goals require an object to "function" in
> some manner. ;-)
Granted. To use another current thread topic, if I create an easel,
with the "purpose" to hold my canvas steady while I paint, then it's
aim or goal is to hold the canvas steady while I paint, which is also
it's purpose/function.
So in a certain sense, the purpose of the easel is also its function.
But, and I am hoping to make a subtle distinction clear here, one
needs to recognize that the reason it functions as it does is because
it was designed to do so. We could say that it functions because it
serves its purpose.
I can already hear an objection coming that there are objects that
function in certain capacities even though they were not created with
specific intention to do so, and that they nonetheless serve quite
capably. This is true.
But if something only accidentally serves a function, and was not
created to do so, then the aim or goal of its creation is still
removed. That does not mean it doesn't perform a function, only that
it does so incidentally.
In context of the universe, it exists but there is no aim or goal of
it, it simply exists.
Likewise life. There would be no aim or end to which it is working, it
simply exists incidentally.
Unless it was created by a God for a purpose, and to a specific end.
> Good - because to me - math, laws, lables, words, etc. are entirely
> man-made. Such things are a floating web of abstract concepts - hovering
> over natural resources. Let's not talk about it.
Let's talk about it a little. I would have to argue that something
like math or logic is not man made, only because they could not be
made differently. We could not have 2 + 2 = 7.
Now of course the words/labels are different altogether, those are
arbitrary. So including them with universals as abstracts is something
of a category error. But the abstract emotions that words described
are very real and they supersede the physical.
If two hypothetically, physically identical people are standing next
to you, yet one has malice and the other doesn't, then you are in real
physical danger from the one with malice, while you are not from the
one that doesn't.
Physically, the situation is the same. Yet reality is different. So it
seems there are very real reasons for accepting that reality is more
than just the physical.
> >Your assertion that the physical is
> >the only reality categorizes your own worldview and removes purpose
> >(in the aim or goal sense) from the universe.
>
> No it doesn't. Just because I observe that one purpose of worms is to
> ventilate the earth's surface (which is what they do), that does not remove
> that goal from the worm. Just because I observe that one of my own purposes
> is to satisfy an internal urge to draw (which is what I do), that does not
> remove the goal of becoming an artist from me. See what I'm saying?
OK, the two examples given are not related.
Per worms: it is noted that they perform a function. perhaps they are
created by something to perform such a function.
You note that there is quite a bit of system in the world, why is it
there? Blind chance? Intelligent design?
As for yourself, or any of our desires, you cannot speak of purpose in
this sense. It is your desire to create art, not your purpose. Not in
the sense we have been speaking.
One needs to be able to distinguish between various meanings. If that
cannot be done then the variations in the way we can use the same word
will render the conversation useless.
You can insist that function = purpose, and be correct in a certain
sense, but you also need to recognize that purpose does NOT always =
function.
Returning to the easel, it is created to do something.
Are you created with the specific aim of being an artist? If so, who
created you to do such?
If nothing created you to specifically be an artist, then that is
simply a 'desire' that you have chosen freely. You may unilaterally
declare it to be your purpose, but you are not in a position to do so.
You would have had to have created yourself to have that authority. As
is, you can simply choose that you desire to be an artist, not that
you were created for that purpose.
You could just as well choose to do something else, and it would not
matter.
However, if something, a cosmic mind or God, created you to do a
specific thing, and you don't do that, then you have rejected your
purpose.
Can you see the difference?
I am not asking for you to accept that we are created for specifics,
only if you can see the distinction I am talking about.
> It's confusing - I'll admit. But let me ask you - and you answer honestly!
> In your **dreams** - do those people you dream or think about, question
> whether their world (which is your dream world) is real or not?
> I think not! In fact, I would argue that the poor things swear up and down
> that their world is real. And they have a right to - because to *them* - it
> IS real. Just like to *us* - our reality IS real.
Well, in my dreams I have never had anyone swear that the world I am
dreaming is real, so in trying to reason through the validity of this
scenario, it is at least to me unknowable what the others I am
dreaming about would be thinking internally.
But to process through this supposed parallel, then in my dreams, the
people are not real, but they think they are. So in the same way, we
are not real, but we think we are?
And how does that coherently mesh with the previous statement that the
only reality is physical reality?
When it seems like your position is that we are nothing more than the
somehow independent processes of a big thinkers thoughts….
I don't mean to misrepresent your position and defeat a strawman, so
if I have not understood this correctly, please elaborate.
> How does all of that relate to purpose? In my opinion, and based on
> parellels of the dream world (which includes the *thought world*) that I
> haven't even begun to draw yet, the purpose of life (in *this* world) is to
> literally "work out" the problems that our "thinker" is contemplating. When
> we mentally work out our problems (or just dream), the people we think or
> dream about take on the role of "working out" our contemplations. And I
> believe it goes on and on and on like that.
If I am following you correctly, wouldn't that make us literally
figments of the thinkers imagination?
Again I would have to ask how that can coherently mesh with the
previous statement that the only reality is physical reality?
> We are tools, Dave. Just tools. And thankfully, our "Thinker" does not waste
> time and energy predicting or controlling our every move (as one might do in
> a silly sexual fantasy). This freedom from our "Thinker's" control is what
> religious goofballs call "free will."
I suppose you would probably call me, a professed born again
Christian, a religious goofball.
Christianity is certainly not goofier than what was just offered.
Moving from the fact that we have dreams, to the opinion that there
must be a larger thinker that is dreaming us is interesting. I want to
ask, why? Why do you see some connection?
> Ok well I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting all philosophical with a
> dickhead. If you would please, in just a few sentences, declare your
> position in this arguement. My mind is spinning now.
Why is your mind spinning? It's not that hard to follow:
A thing has a purpose: purpose being defined as the aim or goal for
which a thing is created, if it has:
1) been created
2) a specific aim or goal.
1) and 2) are inherent in the definition of purpose: the aim or goal
for which a thing has been created.
Therefore, if the thing has not been created with an aim or goal, it
lacks purpose by definition.
One can redefine purpose to mean function, but doing so leaves us no
closer to the original question, it only tells the obvious, that a
thing does what it does. That may well be its point, that a thing only
does what it does, there is no innate specific purpose. But then as a
philosophy, it has staked out a position that things do not have
inherent purpose, they only have function.
dave
Electric Nachos
news:<10o2csf...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> >So I think that in context here, purpose is better considered the aim
>> >or goal to which something exists.
>>
>> Okay - but be forewarned - even goals require an object to "function" in
>> some manner. ;-)
>
>Granted. To use another current thread topic, if I create an easel,
>with the "purpose" to hold my canvas steady while I paint, then it's
>aim or goal is to hold the canvas steady while I paint, which is also
>it's purpose/function.
>
>So in a certain sense, the purpose of the easel is also its function.
>But, and I am hoping to make a subtle distinction clear here, one
>needs to recognize that the reason it functions as it does is because
>it was designed to do so.
Right - Through it's properties. (genetics and engineering for example)
>We could say that it functions because it
>serves its purpose.
>
>I can already hear an objection coming that there are objects that
>function in certain capacities even though they were not created with
>specific intention to do so, and that they nonetheless serve quite
>capably. This is true.
>
>But if something only accidentally serves a function, and was not
>created to do so, then the aim or goal of its creation is still
>removed.
Why couldn't we simply count "accidental" as "additional"? Going back to
your easel example, does the fact that your wife occasionally uses it as a
place to hang her "you-know-whats" remove its purpose of supporting
canvasses? What about if your cat occasionally uses it as a scratching post?
Does that suddenly make the easel useless? Or purposeless? ... simply
because these two accidental purposes entered into the mix?
>That does not mean it doesn't perform a function, only that
>it does so incidentally.
>
>In context of the universe, it exists but there is no aim or goal of
>it, it simply exists.
Let's stick to LIVING examples please... me and rocks don't get along.
>Likewise life. There would be no aim or end to which it is working, it
>simply exists incidentally.
But look *inside* the act of existing and evaluate how each contributes to
the ultimate (long term) goal. Besides simply existing, life (at the very
least):
1. reproduces itself
2. ingests, digests, and egests other living things
3. learns from and teaches other living things
4. (some life re-arranges things in an effort to create 'new' things [like
homes for example)
5. (some life adapts to [that is, learns from] non-living things)
6. flees from danger or attacks what is dangerous
(that is, it protects its living status, or the
living status of others.
7. grows / ages
8. dies
Except for #8, these functions of life (at the very least) suggest that it
(life) has a strong inclination to "exist," survive, continue living, etc.
etc. Considering the incredible energy put into these activities - why would
the act of "existing" - the summary of these functions - not be a credible
goal? (of life) According to your definition of "goal" (which I don't
necessarily agree with), it ends!!
[BTW, I don't agree with your definition because we all have goals that
don't end. For instance - fat people have a goal to lose weight. They change
their behavior to do so - and the successful ones do not terminate that
behavior. Because the behavior wasn't terminated, does that mean that losing
weight was not a goal for them??]
>Unless it was created by a God for a purpose, and to a specific end.
>
>> Good - because to me - math, laws, lables, words, etc. are entirely
>> man-made. Such things are a floating web of abstract concepts - hovering
>> over natural resources. Let's not talk about it.
>
>Let's talk about it a little. I would have to argue that something
>like math or logic is not man made, only because they could not be
>made differently.
Are you saying that non-artificial things are natural because they can not
be made differently? How do you account for the different forms of life
then - particularly life that occurred before man even crept out of the
seas?
>We could not have 2 + 2 = 7.
Some crazy mathemetician would say that is possible. Personally, I don't
know how - I didn't get that far in math - only to Trig - and I didn't even
finish that!!!
>Now of course the words/labels are different altogether, those are
>arbitrary. So including them with universals as abstracts is something
>of a category error.
I call things like math an abstract because they are "ideas" - mere
mechanisms to understand the world we live in and the life we make for
ourselves. Remove man from the planet - you'll remove math.
>But the abstract emotions that words described
>are very real and they supersede the physical.
Emotions are a reaction to the physical. How does this reaction supercede
anything? And why?
>If two hypothetically, physically identical people are standing next
>to you, yet one has malice and the other doesn't, then you are in real
>physical danger from the one with malice, while you are not from the
>one that doesn't.
>
>Physically, the situation is the same. Yet reality is different. So it
>seems there are very real reasons for accepting that reality is more
>than just the physical.
Not if they're standing perfectly still and have no weapons or angry
expressions! Without these *physical* indications of malice - I would have
no reason to fear either one of them - nor would I have a reason to believe
the reality of the situation owns a pervieved threat (because there is no
physical evidence of a threat).
You say perception and the reaction to that perception is more important
than what is set before the eyes. I say neither is more important - but
instead - are dependant upon each other.
>> >Your assertion that the physical is
>> >the only reality categorizes your own worldview and removes purpose
>> >(in the aim or goal sense) from the universe.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Just because I observe that one purpose of worms is to
>> ventilate the earth's surface (which is what they do), that does not
remove
>> that goal from the worm. Just because I observe that one of my own
purposes
>> is to satisfy an internal urge to draw (which is what I do), that does
not
>> remove the goal of becoming an artist from me. See what I'm saying?
>
>OK, the two examples given are not related.
>Per worms: it is noted that they perform a function. perhaps they are
>created by something to perform such a function.
Or maybe the worm's genetics and engineering prompt them to just do it.
Cause they (physically) can't do much of anything else.
>You note that there is quite a bit of system in the world, why is it
>there? Blind chance? Intelligent design?
I say it's a quirk of nature. A mere "consequence" from absorbing a quality
owned by a larger design (like your God).
>As for yourself, or any of our desires, you cannot speak of purpose in
>this sense. It is your desire to create art, not your purpose. Not in
>the sense we have been speaking.
Interestingly, you *just* said that emotions supercede reality. (Desire is
an emotion.) According to that logic, my desire to draw is more important
than any physical thing in the world. Something
that compelling - that overwhelming - falls under the definition of destiny:
"overall circumstances or condition in life". And "destiny" is synonymous
with "purpose."
>One needs to be able to distinguish between various meanings. If that
>cannot be done then the variations in the way we can use the same word
>will render the conversation useless.
I agree! Although I do believe I entertained the subject from your point of
view several times in this reply.
>You can insist that function = purpose, and be correct in a certain
>sense, but you also need to recognize that purpose does NOT always =
>function.
Okay, let's agree that "How something came to function" can be **one part**
of the equation. So the both of us have thus far:
(How something came to be) + (Its function) +/- (a) = Purpose
"a" being a variable or set of variables we haven't argued about yet. I
chose the 'plus or minus' operation to indicate that the variables may or
may not be important or even relevant!
But:
(How something came to be) - (Its function) +/- (a) does not equal
Purpose
You implied that for something to have a purpose, it has to have a goal.
Things that have goals must *do* something to reach that goal. That act of
*doing* is a function. Function plays a vital role in this mystery - even by
your standards of having a "goal".
>Returning to the easel, it is created to do something.
Actually, the easel doesn't *do* anything. That's why I only want to talk
about living things - Things that are capable of "moving" some part of
themselves.
>Are you created with the specific aim of being an artist? If so, who
>created you to do such?
(At the very least) it's a quirk of nature that my genes impel my nervous
system to:
1. desire the act of scribbling on paper
2. coordinate my hands and eyes to scribble on paper in an effort to quell
that desire
I can't confidently say that "no one" created me to do such things - but at
the very least, I can confidently say that genes (that quirk of nature) is
significantly responsible. This is evident throughout my family - immediate
and extended.
Very similar to satisfying a thirst - that is - to drink water and
(purposely) stay alive.
I guess you'll ask next who created those genes - and why.
>If nothing created you to specifically be an artist, then that is
>simply a 'desire' that you have chosen freely. You may unilaterally
>declare it to be your purpose, but you are not in a position to do so.
>You would have had to have created yourself to have that authority.
Assuming that creation determines purpose. I don't believe creationism is an
exclusive explanation.
>As
>is, you can simply choose that you desire to be an artist, not that
>you were created for that purpose.
>You could just as well choose to do something else, and it would not
>matter.
I think my body and psyche would disagree.
>However, if something, a cosmic mind or God, created you to do a
>specific thing, and you don't do that, then you have rejected your
>purpose.
I have trouble accepting that someone could *not do* what they were created
to *do*. What choice do they have if they were created to *function* in a
specific matter? What you're suggesting, implies a blunder on the creator's
part.
>Can you see the difference?
>I am not asking for you to accept that we are created for specifics,
>only if you can see the distinction I am talking about.
I believe so, yes.
>> It's confusing - I'll admit. But let me ask you - and you answer
honestly!
>> In your **dreams** - do those people you dream or think about, question
>> whether their world (which is your dream world) is real or not?
>> I think not! In fact, I would argue that the poor things swear up and
down
>> that their world is real. And they have a right to - because to *them* -
it
>> IS real. Just like to *us* - our reality IS real.
>
>Well, in my dreams I have never had anyone swear that the world I am
>dreaming is real, so in trying to reason through the validity of this
>scenario, it is at least to me unknowable what the others I am
>dreaming about would be thinking internally.
>But to process through this supposed parallel, then in my dreams, the
>people are not real, but they think they are. So in the same way, we
>are not real, but we think we are?
Yes
>And how does that coherently mesh with the previous statement that the
>only reality is physical reality?
Easily if you can accept that there can be more than one circumstance in a
particular situation! Does it matter that reality in the 5th dimension is
not reality in the 6th dimension? For conversation's sake - for clarity
within one circumstance in one situation, we have permission to call one
thing differently from what it's called somewhere else.
For instance, did you know that maps in South America have different names
for all the countries and seas in the world? The Pacific Ocean does not
exist on maps used in South America. It is called something else: "Océano
Pacífico", I think. In Germany, it's the "Pazifischer Ozean". But does that
mean the Pacific Ocean does *not* exist to North Americans? Maybe Paul calls
it "Vreedzame Oceaan". Perhaps God calls it "his imagination."
>When it seems like your position is that we are nothing more than the
>somehow independent processes of a big thinkers thoughts….
>
>I don't mean to misrepresent your position and defeat a strawman, so
>if I have not understood this correctly, please elaborate.
Sort of. I'm not 100% sure about the "independence," however I *am* curious
as to what strawman you have defeated
>> How does all of that relate to purpose? In my opinion, and based on
>> parellels of the dream world (which includes the *thought world*) that I
>> haven't even begun to draw yet, the purpose of life (in *this* world) is
to
>> literally "work out" the problems that our "thinker" is contemplating.
When
>> we mentally work out our problems (or just dream), the people we think or
>> dream about take on the role of "working out" our contemplations. And I
>> believe it goes on and on and on like that.
>
>If I am following you correctly, wouldn't that make us literally
>figments of the thinkers imagination?
Yes
>Again I would have to ask how that can coherently mesh with the
>previous statement that the only reality is physical reality?
OUR reality. We call "God's" imagination, OUR reality, because we are made
up of the same "stuff" that makes up our environment (atoms, molecules, blah
blah blah). Ghosts live in an entirely *different* reality - because they
are made up of some crazy shit that allows them to walk through walls. Now
does that little talent depreciate their reality in some manner?
>> We are tools, Dave. Just tools. And thankfully, our "Thinker" does not
waste
>> time and energy predicting or controlling our every move (as one might do
in
>> a silly sexual fantasy). This freedom from our "Thinker's" control is
what
>> religious goofballs call "free will."
>
>I suppose you would probably call me, a professed born again
>Christian, a religious goofball.
>Christianity is certainly not goofier than what was just offered.
LOL
Look - I *do* believe in a God - a logical one. One that either doesn't KNOW
it's a god, or one that doesn't give a damn whether s/he/it's a god. I *do*
believe that prayer works only because it's another one of those "quirks"
(or perks) of living in a "reality" of 'make-believe' and my prayers come
true. I *do* believe in angels only because I've seen the things, as I've
also seen demons and ghosts. I *do* believe in aliens even though I haven't
seen any. (Why wouldn't there be any - God's making up some funny shit in
here! [-his 'head' that is].) I am not an atheist, or wanna-be atheist, but
I'm not a religious goofball either. ;-) I honestly *do* believe that
religion is a good start for some people to begin learning about what's
really going on here! So you are "born again"? Congratulations.
>Moving from the fact that we have dreams, to the opinion that there
>must be a larger thinker that is dreaming us is interesting. I want to
>ask, why? Why do you see some connection?
Yes. What if what we perceive as "space" and "the universe" is the inside of
God's brain?
That which what we call God, is an entity capable of...
1. creating environments and life
2. manipulating events in those arenas, and
3. performing stunts that defy space and time (defined as "miracles").
Similarly, that which what we call human, is an entity capable of also,
1. creating environments and life
2. manipulating events in those arenas, and
3. performing stunts that defy space and time (defined as "miracles").
Where in time and space are humans able to imitate the accomplishments of
God?
In the human mind. (a parallel tool for parallel environments performing
parallel thangs)
I found a website that captured through video the actions of a thought - one
of those actions being the release of sodium. The electrons, neutrons, and
protons (whatever) within sodium behave similarly to the way planets in our
solar systems behave.
So I am here, proposing today - 10/29/04, that we are standing upon one
teeny tiny electon... or neutron... or proton (whatever) known as earth
which revolves around a main chemical known as the sun. I don't believe
these chemicals that we live on (known as planets) need to be "pure"
chemicals (as they are in OUR brains). Who the hell knows what chemicals
comprise the inside of God's brain! Maybe some of God's thoughts are
composed of sodium-diethylmide. Whatever - we'll just call those, "comets."
(Lol)
In essence, the humand mind (capable of creating environments and life,
manipulating events in those arenas, and performing stunts that defy space
and time) may well serve as a small scale model of the mind of "our"
creator, God.
Now from there, I contend that in order to understand God, we need look no
further than into our own minds (since they are itty bity models). What do
you do with your mind? I bet God does similar things with his/hers/or its.
100% of the time - I aint' even thinking about the worlds upon worlds upon
worlds that live in my mind. And as a result, I am sure I have planets full
of war, disease, famine, and political scandals in my head... kind of what
our world is like right now. It's like that because I don't care. I have to
pay attention to the things *outside* of my body. However, you might be
interested to know that some Buddhists (I think it's them) acknowledge the
Gods that they are - and part of the balance they seek through meditation is
instilling their idea of "peace" over their neglected worlds. (I'm sure they
would rephrase that in the spiritual guru-speak you might desire. Me? I'mma
tell you like it is!)
>> Ok well I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting all philosophical
with a
>> dickhead. If you would please, in just a few sentences, declare your
>> position in this arguement. My mind is spinning now.
>
>Why is your mind spinning? It's not that hard to follow:
>A thing has a purpose: purpose being defined as the aim or goal for
>which a thing is created, if it has:
>1) been created
>2) a specific aim or goal.
>
>1) and 2) are inherent in the definition of purpose: the aim or goal
>for which a thing has been created.
>Therefore, if the thing has not been created with an aim or goal, it
>lacks purpose by definition.
>
>One can redefine purpose to mean function, but doing so leaves us no
>closer to the original question, it only tells the obvious, that a
>thing does what it does. That may well be its point, that a thing only
>does what it does, there is no innate specific purpose. But then as a
>philosophy, it has staked out a position that things do not have
>inherent purpose, they only have function.
Okay.
>dave
rtda...@yahoo.com
I am doing my best to consolidate so I don't repeat myself. If I have
cut out anything you felt was important, please let me know and I will
address it.
The two issues are:
1) is reality purely material or is it a hybrid of the immaterial as
well as the material.
2) does the reality we see have purpose
As to 1), typically those that profess a merely physical reality also
espouse a purely naturalistic philosophy. You have proposed a god that
has created us, though more in the sense of imagined us than created
us.
I am going to eliminate the discussion on universals and emotions only
because the following makes it clear that you accept a non-physical
reality, you have simply attributed a physicality to it that does not
work in our current dimensions. I can accept that under Christianity,
since it also speaks of a spiritual dimension that may well include
these extra dimensions. So while I have argued for the incoherence of
your previous conflicting statements, I do so purely on the groundwork
of operating within our current dimensions.
It is fairly clear that you accept the immaterial, you simply define
it as material…. in another dimension.
> I *do* believe in a God - a logical one. One that either doesn't KNOW
> it's a god, or one that doesn't give a damn whether s/he/it's a god.
I am not aiming to insult, since beliefs are very intimate, BUT….
perhaps this god is an invention.
This god is supposed to be logical, but all statements about it to
this point have been well beyond logic
If there is a God, and he created you for a specific purpose, perhaps
to know and fellowship with him, and you have made up another version
of god, then you may actually be denying your very purpose for life.
> I *do*
> believe that prayer works only because it's another one of those "quirks"
> (or perks) of living in a "reality" of 'make-believe' and my prayers come
> true. I *do* believe in angels only because I've seen the things, as I've
> also seen demons and ghosts. I *do* believe in aliens even though I haven't
> seen any. (Why wouldn't there be any - God's making up some funny shit in
> here! [-his 'head' that is].) I am not an atheist, or wanna-be atheist, but
> I'm not a religious goofball either. ;-) I honestly *do* believe that
> religion is a good start for some people to begin learning about what's
> really going on here! So you are "born again"? Congratulations.
You don't have to reach into a dream world to explain these kinds of
things.
A God just like the God of Christianity, and a reality just like the
Bible expounds, can explain all those things.
> >Moving from the fact that we have dreams, to the opinion that there
> >must be a larger thinker that is dreaming us is interesting. I want to
> >ask, why? Why do you see some connection?
>
> What if we [think of] "space" and "the universe" as the inside of
> God's brain?
That seems to be the only connection- one can imagine it, ergo maybe
it's true.
But there needs to be something to validate it in order for it to be
accepted as true.
As to 2), what are the implications of such a god?
Even under a dream scenario, the thought process is random and not
purposed.
So I want to address the remainder of the post along those lines.
> > In context of the universe, it exists but there is no aim or goal of
> > it, it simply exists.
>
> Let's stick to LIVING examples please... me and rocks don't get along.
But this is the main point of the thread: we are talking about life
and the universe. If it exists incidentally, then there is no end game
towards which it is working. It can stop existing and it will not
matter. Could God wake up from the dream and we would all cease to
exist?
> >Likewise life. There would be no aim or end to which it is working, it
> >simply exists incidentally.
>
> But look *inside* the act of existing and evaluate how each contributes to
> the ultimate (long term) goal.
> these functions of life suggest that it has a strong inclination to
> "exist". Considering the incredible energy put into these
> activities - why would the act of "existing" not be a credible goal?
You mention the "ultimate long term goal" of life as the perpetuation
of itself.
How can "life" have a goal? "Life" in this sense is merely a term for
the existence of living things. "Life" does not create itself, and as
such it is incapable of defining its purpose before hand. Life has to
exist before it can even be called life.
And while life may have properties that perpetuate, it has them
incidentally and not as part of its design. And this is so because it
was not designed, it simply arose.
Your thinker could change his mind and think some other thoughts and
we would cease to exist with little consequence, just like I wake up
in the morning and the dream is gone.
I would offer that the reason "life" exhibits the aforementioned
traits is because it was created by the God of the Bible for a
purpose, NOT that these things simply arose.
> You implied that for something to have a purpose, it has to have a goal.
> Things that have goals must *do* something to reach that goal. That act of
> *doing* is a function. Function plays a vital role in this mystery - even by
> your standards of having a "goal".
[sigh] Believe me, I am not arguing against the idea.
> >Are you created with the specific aim of being an artist? If so, who
> >created you to do such?
>
> (At the very least) it's a quirk of nature that my genes impel my nervous
> system to:
It was a simple question: are YOU created with the specific aim of
being an artist?
If it is only a quirk of nature, then nothing will affected by your
either being an artist or not.
A quirk is defined as a peculiarity of behavior, an unaccountable act
or event, quite outside of the idea of purpose as defined.
> I think my body and psyche would disagree.
This does not address the issue at all.
The issue is that if you were not made with some specific purpose in
mind, then whatever you do is OK. What if next month you fall in love
with music and decide to dedicate your life to this new purpose, would
that invalidate your existence?
This is a philosophical issue, not a matter of desire, or genetics.
One can be genetically predisposed towards alcoholism or heart
disease, but that does not make those things their purpose.
> > However, if something, a cosmic mind or God, created you to do a
> > specific thing, and you don't do that, then you have rejected your
> > purpose.
>
> I have trouble accepting that someone could *not do* what they were created
> to *do*. What choice do they have if they were created to *function* in a
> specific matter? What you're suggesting, implies a blunder on the creator's
> part.
Not at all. In fact, for a creature to function freely, it must have
an independent will.
Will is defined as "The mental faculty by which one deliberately
chooses or decides upon a course of action", "A desire, purpose, or
determination", or "Deliberate intention or wish", "Free discretion;
inclination or pleasure" So that Will is the empowerment or ability to
carry out the deliberations of the mind and/or affections. Actions
follow from volitions. A will is a faculty of the soul that has
potential to ACTualize events. Deliberation is resident in the mind
(another faculty of the soul), which leads the soul to a decision to
ACTualize the potential within the will.
If a creature does not have free will, then the creature cannot
function. Therefore, free will is innate in any animate creature such
as a human.
If we were easels, or some inanimate object, then we would not be able
to function in a manner other than what we were created for, but as
free-willed creatures, we innately possess the choice to follow our
purpose or not.
This is not a blunder on the creator's part; it is inherent in
creating us. IF God is to create animate independent creatures, they
must have free will. We could not possibly exist any other way.
dave
Electric Nachos
news:<10o5kpi...@corp.supernews.com>...
>If there is a God, and he created you for a specific purpose, perhaps
>to know and fellowship with him, and you have made up another version
>of god, then you may actually be denying your very purpose for life.
I don't think I made up a version of God and I don't think I'm really
arguing that life wasn't created for a purpose. I have the idea that the
purpose of life can be found by observing what it (life) does, while you
have the idea that the purpose of life can be found by identifying its
creator. I am looking inside-out and you are looking outside-in (or...
something).
Never-the-less, as long as I continue to live and do what I do, I will
fulfill the purpose that God had/has for me no matter how fleeting that
purpose is and/or how fleeting the time required.
Let me go back to my suggestion that God uses us as tools - that is, tools
of his imagination - used for a few seconds or for however long it takes for
the big guy/gal/thing to figure something out. I don't doubt that you see
that we (humans, life) must ***at the very least*** perform the basic
purpose (function) of existing (literally - for God's sake) in order for
him/her/it to use us as tools.
I can not deny my purpose of life. My purpose is to live so that I can be
used as a tool. LOL
>But this is the main point of the thread: we are talking about life
>and the universe. If it exists incidentally, then there is no end game
>towards which it is working. It can stop existing and it will not
>matter. Could God wake up from the dream and we would all cease to
>exist?
Since dreams are thoughts - and consciousness is comprised of thought - I
see no reason to assume that life for use would cease to exist upon God
waking up - or even dying. I say this based on reports of the consciousness
of the dead, observing and interacting with the living. I suspect that
consciousness - thought - or "our God" continues to live (through this
explanation).
>Your thinker could change his mind and think some other thoughts and
>we would cease to exist with little consequence, just like I wake up
>in the morning and the dream is gone.
But even during the waking state - bits of the dream are stored in your
memory - your consciousness. Therefore, life in that dimension should be
alive and well.
>I would offer that the reason "life" exhibits the aforementioned
>traits is because it was created by the God of the Bible for a
>purpose, NOT that these things simply arose.
I have to admit that I do not actively contemplate the genetics and/or
engineering of grass, snow, dirt, clouds, etc. etc. when I *imagine* those
things - they simply appear. If my model is a true representation of God,
then what simply "appears" in my mind, must simply "appear" in his/her/its
mind too. And that includes stuff that I didn't specifically need. For
example, I might need an image of a busy street to solve a problem in my
mind. I do *not* specifically create the clothing that the pedestrians wear,
or the parking tickets they have in their pockets, or the police sirens,
etc. They just show up! All on their own! Naturally! (through a weird
nature - a "quirk" - are these things manifested and left to the teeny tiny
scientists in my mind to discover and analyze).
>It was a simple question: are YOU created with the specific aim of
>being an artist?
I gave you an answer: YES, at the very least - from genetics and
engineering. But that does not mean that is the purpose that God has for me.
You seem to think that a human can have only one purpose. When *I* think or
dream or fantasize, I use specific characters over and over and over to play
many different roles (fulfill a purpose). If my model is a true
representation of God, then we more than likely suffer the same.
>This is a philosophical issue, not a matter of desire, or genetics.
>One can be genetically predisposed towards alcoholism or heart
>disease, but that does not make those things their purpose.
As tools of someone else's mind, I'm afraid those things might very well be.
God may most certainly require an alcoholic or heart attack victim for one
of his fantasies - or a problem he's trying to mentally solve.
You know - God *could* be reading a book - and some of us *could* be the
manifestations of what he/she/it is envisioning from the text.
Hope I answered your questions and stayed on topic this time. *Nothing*
about this is simple.