Purpose

Life cannot be said to have a purpose, look at it across the board, it is a lot of protoplasm with an urge to reproduce, that seems to be its full and only purpose, to reproduce, or to graduate from WestPoint, or both.

... maybe you're on to something there ... is "purpose" multi-layered/multi-leveled? ... what is the purpose of a living cell? ... what is the purpose of the living heart? the living brain? ... what is the purpose of a living being? ... what is the purpose of a living society? ... what is the purpose of a living planet? ... dare I go on?

paulhanke:)

Maintenance and reproduction! Its a lot protoplasma with an urge to reproduce. As the old Buddhist monk said to his students, what is the meaning of a FLOWER? ---------silence---------one student indicates that knows, "There is no meaning, the flower simply is", just as you yourself simply are, kind of uncomplicated isn't it.

... very autopoietic - the meaning of life is: life ...

Life is mean't----well perhaps not mean't, but life is to be lived, and how do we go about that, that is something I guess everyone ultimately answers for themselves.

... some better than others - for example, if I had the ultimate answer to the purpose of my life, I wouldn't be logged into a philosophy forum viewing a thread entitled "Purpose", now would I (?) ...

sounds like nihilism, to me the purpose of life is to survive and reproduce like the other living beigns.

mashia,

How is that any different than what I stated? Its a lot of protoplasma with an urge to reproduce.

this is a contradiction you are saying that life has no purpose, and saying that it has. but why cannot be the survivor and reproduction a purpose in life?

mashiaj,

Mere survival and reproduction in most people's estimation is a pretty lame reason for continued existence in a world where life is struggle. Life is a lot of protoplasm with an urge to SURVIVE and REPRODUCE sound better to you?

i can say too that life is alot of people with an urge to survive and reproduce(sex), look across the world there are billions of humans, result of the reproduction and urge to survive, that seems to be its fully and only purpose
Life is a lot of HUMANS with an urge to SURVIVE and REPRODUCE sounds better to you?

My purpose here is to find God - know God - and be God.

I will dare to go on here. Q: What is the purpose of living/reproducing beings, and society/species of those beings, interacting within a system of natural selection?



Well, on the individual being level, per Dawkins, it's to spawn as much future biomass (protoplasm) having your own blueprint (genes, DNA) as possible. Likewise, on the society / species level, it is to establish as much future biomass having the generic features of the blueprints of its members (i.e., the genetic distinctions between species, e.g. birds vs mice). The evolution of greater sensitivity, greater environmental scanning capacity, greater and faster information processing capacity, greater power to react to such information, greater capacity to retain and to extract higher-level implications from such information and to guide future behavior with those implications - it's all to maximize biomass having genes as similar as possible to the bio-agent or bio-agent collective. Perhaps that means some cooperation with other species, to the degree that other species provide useful inputs for our species. But mostly, other species are either to be used as food, or to be fought and eliminated when they compete for limited resources without providing our species with more benefits than losses.

In the insect world, a trick was "learned" (through the usual natural selection trial and error) that allowed certain species to do amazingly well with regard to biomass. That trick is eusociality, behavior programmed to the point of individual death to protect the collective. It appears to have been amazingly successful in maximizing species biomass (although it does require that the 'selfish gene urge' be toned down in the individual). The species developed an intelligence not apparent to the individual. Amazing.

You'd think that these eusocial species would have taken it to the next level by developing information sensing and processing capacities along the lines of what the mammals were eventually able to do. In other words, you might think that eusociality would not have been given-up on, as info sensing, processing and response capacities improved through natural selection.

And yet . . . . it was. Why? Why don't humans behave more like bees and ants; why are they so individualistic, when clearly such individualism causes wars and homicides, and obviously reduces human biomass relative to what it could be? Why did natural selection, in its long-term wisdom, allow mammals and humans (as the epitome of all mammals) to desire comfort and individualism (i.e. "being free"), if those things reduce their biomass success? Why do ants and bees and termites settle for the minimum and don't flinch at self-sacrifice when the collective requires it; and yet humans demand air conditioning and self-actualization and fine wines and rights of self-defense?

Why didn't we strive to out-biomass them instead with our bounteous info processing capabilities? Where did the selfish-gene 'species intelligence' go wrong? Was it something in all that information that they swallowed down over the eons that twisted the process, that made them sense "something more" to existence (via some biologically-based 'consciousness trick' inside of their highly complex info processors)? Why did the gene selfishness (along with all kinds of other selfishness) go back to the individual level? Why all the renewed emphasis on "SELF", when selflessness was doing so well in the race to soak up sunlight, water, oxygen, carbon, etc.?

Yes, I do suspect that it was something embedded in the increasing amount of information that was processed as species developed over the eons, that turned species development away from eusocial cooperation and back towards "SELF", and concurrently towards appreciation of being. Appreciation to the point of craving, to desperate striving to hold on to it, even to the point of killing those fellow beings with very-similar genetics.

Yes, I am toying here with the notion that the "light of dualism" is behind this "information effect", an effect that caused a sharp turn somewhere along the slow path of natural selection. It is a "light of self" that caused increasing internecine violence as species developed (bears and gorillas fight each other more than sunfish and sunflower plants fight each other); a "light" that has brought its highest form, humankind, to the brink of depravity and nuclear self-extinction, or some other form of species collapse e.g. via the global warming that humankind caused and can't seem to stop. But that light has also inspired the distillation of beauty and wisdom and intelligence and - civilization. Which trend will win the race?

But then again - maybe I'm all wrong here. Natural selection is a tricky subject and I'm not an expert in it. Just a layman with some questions and half-assed speculations. A guy with a couple of rough thoughts to throw into the mix regarding "purpose".

Jim G.

Fictional Anecdote Just a thought I had.

So this old geezer was in the library crying. I happened to be reading and noticed, so I asked, "why are you upset?".

He says, "I'm not really sure but I've found the purpose and meaning to everything, to society, the universe, anything at all. I've been searching for so long and yet its so simple".

"Then why are you crying?", I croaked, taking a big gulp of my wonderful tea.

"I dunno, I can't say as I'm happy that I know, I mean it makes life seem so acausal. I think its best no to think about it now yet something with such small yet profound proportion has become intrinsic to my perception".

I ignored the nerdy nonsense. " So, can you tell me?".

"Well you see, I can't, because its kinda subjective, it doesn't apply to you".

"Then what's the point?", I hissed.

"You ask yourself that, and you'll never know meaning", he replied.

"Fine then, I guess I won't", I quickly chirped up to sound stubborn.

"Well, I'm afraid then that pessimism is apt to be the answer for you, just like a lot of humanity".

"I ought to hurt you".

"Well then enjoy your morning glory, or rather, I'm leaving now, good day. Probably won't be seeing me again".

"Whatever, I think you're delusional anyways", I roared.

*Sigh* from the wizened. "Peace Brother".

"Tsss... pathetic, what a laugh".

But the other guy was long gone.

... perhaps it's a matter of scale (?) ... why do human white blood cells settle for the minimum and don't flinch at self-sacrifice when the collective requires it; and yet ant colonies routinely wage war against each other? ...

Simple, emotion and ego reprises such 'collectiveness'.

... here's a thought - can (the "hive mind" of) an ant colony be said to experience (some insectual equivalent of) emotion and ego? ... asked another way, does an ant colony get "pissed off" before it wages all-out war on a neighboring ant colony? ...

Good, challenging question, as always! Humans, who we generally accept as having emotions (including angry emotions) seem able and inspired to use energy and resources that could otherwise be used to improve survival probabilities and safety factors so as to post monuments testifying to the reality of those emotions, including anger. We call this art (well, at least some of it, anyway). Ant colonies don't seem to do that.

OK, but what about the higher mammals, even dogs, who do seem to get angry? They don't waste energy and resources crafting artifacts in honor of their feelings. But they do exhibit certain exaggerated behaviors in anger. They don't just take their opponents out (or be taken out). Certainly these exaggerated behaviors have some evolutionary purpose, as warning signals that sometimes prevent the need to fight. But this angst appears to continue even after the battle is joined, when it would seem best to cool the angst and focus all energies on doing as much harm as quickly as possible to the opponent. So, mammals that potentially experience something like our consciousness MIGHT express their emotions in ways beyond what would be expected in response to threats; i.e. expending energies that do not contribute to survival advantage. Some humans seem to recognize something passionate and artistic in battles between mammals (but not that I've ever heard of between eusocial insects).

Humans, who do experience consciousness, expend a lot of energy and resources on excessive emotional expression and tributes to emotion. Eusocial insect colonies do not seem to do this, despite their need for battle (battle over territory and resources, not over ideologies such as communism or democracy or religion or enlightenment). Arguably, there is a "factor x" at play here with regard to humans (and possibly other higher mammals).

And arguably NOT. As Hofstadter says, non-human systems that would hypothetically host conscious experience (which would include emotional awareness, presumably) may not express that consciousness in any way that humans could recognize.

As to our recognition of emotional expressions in higher mammals, admittedly that could be entirely due to anthropomorphizing. Admittedly, it would be very hard if not impossible to objectify our impressions as to what the higher mammals do or do not experience. Just saying that ant colonies 'wage war against each other' is to anthropomorphize.

So yes, admittedly my thoughts are way out on an unsturdy limb. And yet, I still haven't heard a fully satisfying explanation of art, poetry, and human cries for meaning in terms of survival advantage and maximization of biomass having the human genome. Yes, there are complex social processes at play in the institution of artistic expression, which may enhance group survival. But enhance it over what a totally utilitarian "human" species might achieve, akin to the Borg on Star Trek? (OK, so Star Trek is not objective evidence, although some people seem to think so! :rolleyes:)

Jim G.

... guilty, as charged ... but the purpose behind my anthropomorphism of ants (and "antopomorphism" of humans ) is to question our notion of the "individual" - that is, where do we draw that line? ... is a human white blood cell an individual? is an ant an individual? is the collective of cells that make up a human body an individual? is an ant colony an individual?



... not that this will answer your questions, but I'm reading a book that describes at one point the idea that the 30,000 year old cave art in France and Spain is the physically lasting artifact of sympathetic magic rituals, whereas later on it quotes a 20th century playwrite who asks:

... so art may have started out as a residue of ritual, only to later culturally morph into knowledge and prophesy, and finally into mere entertainment ... unfortunately we only have first-hand knowledge of what art has become - the rest is speculation ... but if you follow the speculation that art began as "residue of ritual", the fundamental question then becomes "What is the value of ritual in terms of survival advantage and maximization of biomass having the human genome?" ... and then you might even follow ritual forward through its own evolution - could "human cries for meaning" turn out to be a (culturally?) evolved byproduct of ritual?

Is it an individual ant colony? Yes.

Is it individual from the individuals making up the individual? No. So it really isn't a being. It can't act against the will of the little ants, to hurt them or destroy itself after they are almost done building it. It is a product of a collective will but by this collectiveness, creates no such separated will, perception for itself; therefore I don't care to classify it as such an individual.