The Meaning of Life?

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith

User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Zarathustra wrote: But you're wrong. We are altering the very fabric of reality with things that are "only in our heads." The entire earth is feeling the effects of our ideas, wants, goals, designs (for better or worse . . . ). An alien species could not look at this planet and fail to see that something is affecting it in addition to natural laws. Natural laws in themselves don't build cities. This is not "atoms behaving like atoms." Atoms don't typically launch themselves into orbit--in defiance of gravity--without an intelligence building machines to help them get there. That state of affairs can't happen without an awareness of those laws. This awareness is more than just "in our heads." It's not a hallucination, nor is it a superficial addition. It's the power to use natural laws in ways that otherwise would never occur naturally.
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but you seem to be conflating "life" with "human life" which doesn't seem to be the purpose of this topic.

If only plant life existed, would it be using natural laws in ways that would not occur naturally?

The purpose of life is not to use natural laws in ways that would not otherwise occur. That's more of a potential side-effect of life. :D

Life itself has no consciousness, it's a bio-chemical process and its only purpose is to continue happening. Whatever arises from it is irrelevant to the process itself.

--A
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Avatar wrote:
Zarathustra wrote: But you're wrong. We are altering the very fabric of reality with things that are "only in our heads." The entire earth is feeling the effects of our ideas, wants, goals, designs (for better or worse . . . ). An alien species could not look at this planet and fail to see that something is affecting it in addition to natural laws. Natural laws in themselves don't build cities. This is not "atoms behaving like atoms." Atoms don't typically launch themselves into orbit--in defiance of gravity--without an intelligence building machines to help them get there. That state of affairs can't happen without an awareness of those laws. This awareness is more than just "in our heads." It's not a hallucination, nor is it a superficial addition. It's the power to use natural laws in ways that otherwise would never occur naturally.
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but you seem to be conflating "life" with "human life" which doesn't seem to be the purpose of this topic.

If only plant life existed, would it be using natural laws in ways that would not occur naturally?

The purpose of life is not to use natural laws in ways that would not otherwise occur. That's more of a potential side-effect of life. :D

Life itself has no consciousness, it's a bio-chemical process and its only purpose is to continue happening. Whatever arises from it is irrelevant to the process itself.

--A
Two excellent posts.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

peter wrote: To accept that the universe is teleological, we have to take the next step and say that what we seen via the emergent properties of life and consciousness, had to have some temporally prior and greater manifestation either driving or drawing its direction - presumably toward some goal beyond that which we currently understand (and of course, here we enter the realm of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's 'Omega Point').
I don't know. Maybe? I think life can be teleological without having one particular end goal. Humans certainly have many goals. But at the same time, humanity does seem to have a trajectory.

peter wrote:(This, incidentally, is why, I believe, that science is so hostile to even a consideration of the idea that the universe displays purpose. Once acknowledged, one is into the realm of difficult questions - questions from which it would rather hide than have to face. It took the discipline hundreds of years to break free from the chains of religion; it is not going to allow it to slip in through the back door in the form of an acceptance of purpose. I take the view that the possibilities of the universe's capabilities far exceed our current capacities to even conceptualise; that the acknowledgement of purpose in no way takes us back into the realm of superstition and dogma. Rather it opens new and exciting avenues of investigation, the following of which will draw us ever closer to full understanding of why we are here (as distinct from how).)
Seriously, you need to read MIND AND COSMOS! It is a *difficult* read, but rewarding. I think you're exactly right, scientists won't consider these options because they have fought so hard to rid us of religious superstition. But they've thrown away a little too much when they discarded supernatural. Just because religion is teleological doesn't mean that teleology is itself religious. The success scientists have had with reductive materialism has misled them. This is a philosophy, both an epistemology and an ontology. It's not science! The success of science is not itself a measure of the veracity of reductive materialism. It has been merely useful, not necessarily proven. MIND AND COSMOS provides another philosophical framework upon which a new kind of science can be built. Nagel is an atheist. He's not talking about religion. He's just showing how reductive materialism can't explain the most interesting facts of the known universe: life and consciousness.
avatar wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with that, but you seem to be conflating "life" with "human life" which doesn't seem to be the purpose of this topic.

If only plant life existed, would it be using natural laws in ways that would not occur naturally?

The purpose of life is not to use natural laws in ways that would not otherwise occur. That's more of a potential side-effect of life. Very Happy

Life itself has no consciousness, it's a bio-chemical process and its only purpose is to continue happening. Whatever arises from it is irrelevant to the process itself.
Humans aren't the only conscious organisms. I think that all life responds to its environment in ways that inanimate matter does not. Is this consciousness? Yes, I believe to greater and lesser degrees. But that's just my belief. It's not proven. I'm staking my argument on ambiguity: there isn't a clear dividing line between conscious and unconsciousness. Maybe that line is the animal/plant divide. Maybe not!

But you're right that not all life can understand the laws of nature. Hell, not all humans understand the laws of nature! But there are different levels of "understanding," just as there are different levels of consciousness. A boy catching a baseball understands more about parabolas than he realizes. A bird landing on a branch understand aerodynamics more than it realizes. The very act of landing on a branch is a coordination of atoms that would be impossible without knowledge of the branch's existence, and awareness of its location. Take away the bird's eyes, or its mind, and this particular movement of atoms would not be possible.

Speaking of possible . . . this is what the laws of nature* provide: possibility. They trace out all the possible paths matter can take. This includes living beings. Neither the emergence of life nor the directions taken by life violate natural laws. But this doesn't account for their presence and their paths taken. In other words, it doesn't account for their actuality. This is where a new set of laws must be discerned by our science. Physics and chemistry are insufficient to explain why matter took these paths. Once matter is conscious, this consciousness itself becomes an overriding consideration in the paths that these atoms take. For instance, animals looking for food or mates aren't merely driven by chemical reactions, they have goals. They are looking for something specific.

And, as Nagel argues in MIND AND COSMOS, the contribution of consciousness is not limited to the paths that these atoms take, but also for the emergence of these kinds of collections of atoms in the first place. In other words, for the emergence of organisms.

Mind affects matter. We've known this for at least 100 years with the double slit experiment in quantum physics. We just haven't come to grips with this reality yet. It will take a new paradigm.

* [By 'laws of nature' I primarily mean physics and chemistry.]
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Av, I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't consider this question only as "life" and "not life". Life isn't just taking in energy and reproducing. If that's all life was, the only life that exists would maybe only be multi-molecular.

But life is also change. No question of that, I think? So should be disregard this huge aspect/characteristic of life when trying to define or describe life's purpose? Life's purpose is more life. And change.

If that makes sense, maybe there are other aspects/characteristics of life that should be considered when trying to define or describe life's purpose. Like - oh, I don't know - maybe consciousness? :mrgreen:
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

My real struggle is possibly the term "purpose." For something to have a purpose, then it implies that there is a reason, and a reason implies a "reasoner."

Change, consciousness, these things are side-effects, not end goals. They're not intentional, because to be intentional means they have to be a result of intent. Whose intent then?

Evolution isn't a goal, it's a result of changing conditions which threaten to end life unless it adapts. If the environment had remained stagnant, we would never have gotten past those single-celled organisms.

In order to keep living and propagating, organisms expanded into niches created by a changing environment.
A bird landing on a branch understand aerodynamics more than it realizes.
I don't think "understands" is the right word there (in either case)...it implies conscious knowledge. Animals (and people) don't need to understand things to utilise them...hell, how many drivers don't know how or why their car works etc?
For instance, animals looking for food or mates aren't merely driven by chemical reactions, they have goals. They are looking for something specific.
But goals that are created by those chemical drives? They are not expressions of will, (or choice?) but internal pressures.

The question surely should be then why do these pressures produce those goals? What is the "intent" behind the goal and why does it arise? In order to create more life?
Mind affects matter. We've known this for at least 100 years with the double slit experiment in quantum physics. We just haven't come to grips with this reality yet. It will take a new paradigm.
Yes, I agree that mind does affect matter. You need look no further than the placebo effect for evidence of that as far as I'm concerned. :D And no doubt there is something deeply quantum about it.

But because mind can affect matter does not mean that the purpose of life is to affect matter. Again, those words, "purpose," "intent," "reason," all beg the question of "whose?"

Life strives, and that is all it does of itself. Everything else is, I think, incidental.

--A
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Avatar wrote:My real struggle is possibly the term "purpose." For something to have a purpose, then it implies that there is a reason, and a reason implies a "reasoner."
I feel the same way. But we agree that, now, people are reasoning, and do things for a purpose.

We are able to reason because the properties of the universe allow it. If the properties of the universe did not include some that allow us to reason, we would not be able to do. If you follow my thinking? Certain properties of the universe allow waterfalls, and, if it weren't for those properties, waterfalls couldn't and wouldn't exist.

IMO, we can easily say there's no reason to imagine properties that allow, and gave rose to, waterfalls have a purpose. I'm not sure we can easily say the same about properties that allow, and gave rise to, purpose.
Avatar wrote:
Mind affects matter. We've known this for at least 100 years with the double slit experiment in quantum physics. We just haven't come to grips with this reality yet. It will take a new paradigm.
Yes, I agree that mind does affect matter. You need look no further than the placebo effect for evidence of that as far as I'm concerned. :D
You need look no further than any and every choice I make that affects matter. Which is a significant percentage of my choices. If I chose to brush a grain of salt off the table, my mind affected matter.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Fist and Faith wrote:Certain properties of the universe allow waterfalls, and, if it weren't for those properties, waterfalls couldn't and wouldn't exist
Yes, but those properties do not exist in order for there to be waterfalls. Waterfalls exist as a result of them.
If I chose to brush a grain of salt off the table, my mind affected matter.
Well, yes...I was thinking less about direct physical action though. :D

--A
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Avatar wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:Certain properties of the universe allow waterfalls, and, if it weren't for those properties, waterfalls couldn't and wouldn't exist
Yes, but those properties do not exist in order for there to be waterfalls. Waterfalls exist as a result of them.
Yes. But purpose is so different from waterfalls. They have excrement little common ground.
-They both exist in the universe.

Anything else? Heh
Waterfalls are a physical thing. We can see what they are made of, and how they come to be. Purpose is such a different thing that we don't know either of those things. I don't feel safe saying we know that the unknown properties that give rise to purpose do NOT exist in order for there to be purpose.

Avatar wrote:
If I chose to brush a grain of salt off the table, my mind affected matter.
Well, yes...I was thinking less about direct physical action though. :D
But how do I brush the salt away? By moving my arm. How does my mind make my arm move? How does my mind cause the release of ions, or whatever the hell the first physical step in the process of moving my arm is?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. Just wouldn't have thought of lumping in physical action (and it's concomitant neural processes) into the concept of mind affecting matter. Was thinking more about the "reality is affected by our thoughts / beliefs" kind of thing. :D

--A
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Not sure you get what I'm saying, Av. My mind makes a decision to move my finger. And it makes that happen. It is literally matter moved by thought. How does it do that?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25192
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

The Meaning of Life?

Post by Skyweir »

Isn’t purpose a value subjectively assigned?

Don’t we each determine what is purposeful?

Religion determines a broader human purpose that many ascribe to ~ a purpose to mortal life. A purpose to suffering, trials etc.

Humanists view a different purpose to existence amd mortality.

We endow our purpose with the intellectual, social, individual and emotional investment we see necessary.

In that way we apply mind over matter. But we cannot affect the universe with our subjective focus, values or priorities.

Given that premise we can only as individuals and human communities apply our purposes to that which we can realistically affect.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”