0
   

Nature's purposeful giudance

 
 
ABYA
 
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:00 pm
By observing nature's systems, we can see that theres a purposeful guidance within nature.
Mineral, vegetable and animal all go through a slow and gradual growth by way of cause and effect.
Consider a fruit, it goes through many stages of developement between it's first appearence and it's mature state, the bitter taste and often ugliness of a fruit during its development bears very little resemblance to its final state, and the more bitter and ugly the fruit in its early stages the nicer it is at the end.
We can see this same principle at work in the animal kingdom.
Compare a day old calf with a day old child, the calf can walk and avoid obstacles, the child is helpless, yet at the mature state its the child who is superior.
The worse something is during its early stages the better it is in maturity, in the general and in the particular.
Mankind is going through these growing pains, where stages in nature's relationship to man seem bitter and ugly, but if we realised that its the guidance of nature, bringing mankind to maturity, we wouldn't baulk at nature and curse it's blows, we'd try to learn our lessons instead.
Nature is dangling a carrot in front of us, a humanity that works together in unity with altruistic intentions towards each other, like the cells in our body. If we don't chase after that carrot then we receive natures blows.
 
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:46 pm
@ABYA,
ABYA wrote:
By observing nature's systems, we can see that theres a purposeful guidance within nature. Mineral, vegetable and animal all go through a slow and gradual growth by way of cause and effect.
Consider a fruit, it goes through many stages of developement between it's first appearence and it's mature state, the bitter taste and often ugliness of a fruit during its development bears very little resemblance to its final state, and the more bitter and ugly the fruit in its early stages the nicer it is at the end.

Bitterness and ugliness are subjective conditions defined by the observer. They are not inherent in the fruit.
ABYA wrote:
We can see this same principle at work in the animal kingdom.
Compare a day old calf with a day old child, the calf can walk and avoid obstacles, the child is helpless, yet at the mature state its the child who is superior.

"Superior" is also a subjective condition. Children are not superior to cows when it comes to digesting grass for example, cows do that better than humans.
ABYA wrote:
The worse something is during its early stages the better it is in maturity, in the general and in the particular.

You've got a bunch of invalid assumptions to start with, so extrapolating it into something general isn't good.
ABYA wrote:
Mankind is going through these growing pains, where stages in nature's relationship to man seem bitter and ugly, but if we realised that its the guidance of nature, bringing mankind to maturity, we wouldn't baulk at nature and curse it's blows, we'd try to learn our lessons instead.
Nature is dangling a carrot in front of us, a humanity that works together in unity with altruistic intentions towards each other, like the cells in our body. If we don't chase after that carrot then we receive natures blows.

You seem to have come up with a sequence of erroneous assumptions followed by an invalid conclusion.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:57 pm
@ABYA,
Quote:
we can see that theres a purposeful guidance within nature
I assume that all that follows this statement in your post is directed by your "purposeful guidance within nature." your premise is absurdly flawed resulted in all following and concluding premises to be equally flawed. there can be "intent" within nature because "nature" is simply "what is" without value beyond what you assign. Whatever purpose that may exist only exists within your participation with your environment.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 01:03 am
@dyslexia,
It is interesting to wonder where reason, purpose, value, meaning, intention, and so on, get a foothold then. Really if your view was correct, it would seem that there is no connection between humans and nature, whatever, and that all value judgments are basically subjective. On the other hand, we ourselves are the result of a natural process that has taken billions of years. So, why should there be a radical discontinuity between human values and nature?
roger
 
  3  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 01:11 am
@jeeprs,
The result of natural processes is not quite the same as the result of nature's purpose.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 01:30 am
@roger,
well, true. But this has been debated for millenia, and cannot really be settled. It is a question of interpretation. Some will see a purpose, and some will not. Overall, I would rather be part of a plan than part of an accident. Very Happy
roger
 
  3  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 02:22 am
@jeeprs,
I would favor free choice over accident - if I had a choice.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 02:42 am
@ABYA,
Quote:
By observing nature's systems, we can see that theres a purposeful guidance within nature.


I take it you're not an evolutionite...

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 08:39 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
By observing nature's systems, we can see that theres a purposeful guidance within nature.


I take it you're not an evolutionite...

He sounds more like a Gaia-ist of some type. Not sure yet.
0 Replies
 
ABYA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 10:03 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
By observing nature's systems, we can see that theres a purposeful guidance within nature.


I take it you're not an evolutionite...




thank you all for your replies, differences of opinion are neither here nor there, what is important is that we have interacted and hopefully with the right intention towards one another. Its the intentions that lie behind any act or words where the significance lies.
Hi Gungasnake
All the best to you.
My starting point is as an antirealist, Briefly,I see evolution as a progression of the desires within all of creation, and those desires are placed in creation by ?.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 10:09 am
@ABYA,
Nicely put
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 10:52 am
@ABYA,
When you look up the word anthropomorphism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

For those who might not know or apathetic but are willing to read further:

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to, or, some would argue, recognition of human characteristics in, animal or non-living things, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts.

Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivation able to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē), "shape" or "form".

It is strongly associated with art and storytelling where it has ancient roots. Most cultures possess a long-standing fable tradition with anthropomorphism animals as characters that can stand as commonly recognized types of human behavior."

Nature does not exhibit a consciousness so there's no logic to assigning it possesses a will or purpose. Mankind (theoretically) has a conscience. But there is no proof of 'mother nature' having one, so it is illogical to assign it one or extrapolate theories around it.

Assuming that nature has a 'system' is a stretch, but hypothetically ...allowing the theory of it having a system, is not proof positive that it has a will or a consciousness, either. Analogous to that is laws of Gravity, which have a systematic order, but hardly have a consciousness or purpose.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 10:57 am
@ABYA,
ABYA wrote:
Briefly,I see evolution as a progression of the desires within all of creation, and those desires are placed in creation by ?

Deism?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 04:26 pm
@Ragman,
alternatively, you could argue that nature does have consciousness, in the form of creatures such as ourselves.
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 04:34 pm
@jeeprs,
No, I couldn't argue that because it's not credible.
ABYA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 05:41 pm
@Ragman,
Hi Ragman
Thanks for your interesting input.
I can understand why you think I believe nature has a conscience but thats not the case.
I dont want to harp on about my belief, like a dog with a bone, but I want to correct this misconception that I'm insinuating that nature is concious.
I'l try again.
Before anything was created, there was some power/ force that started the ball rolling, Lets call this force the Creator, because thats what it did, most people call it God. Now, not everyone will agree with me on that point, theres lots of other theories about how creation started, and thats o.k, but here I'm putting my views.
So, the Creator is above or beyond this universe, we have no idea what it is, its in a totally different dimension if you like, its not of corporeality and its unobservable.
What is observable is nature, the laws that govern creation, and by observing these laws we can see the workings of the thought that created them. There was a thought to create, there is a process in this thought but I won't go into that here. There was no material to create with, creation is a process and a product of that thought, that thought is the laws that exist in nature and that thought is the creator.
Its a bit like the holy trinity, The Creator, the Thought of the Creator and the laws of nature. Father, Son and holy ghost.
I hate reading or writting long posts, so I'l leave it there.
Best wish's to you Ragman.
ABYA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 05:59 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

ABYA wrote:
Briefly,I see evolution as a progression of the desires within all of creation, and those desires are placed in creation by ?

Deism?

Hi Ros
Thats what I would call it.
Have a good one.

Thanks Kethil.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:21 pm
@Ragman,
well, we are creatures, we are conscious, and we are the result of a natural process.

Which part of that is 'not credible'?
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:23 pm
@ABYA,
Abya: My thanks for your thread and replies. Good wishes to you.

Let us please distinguish, if you please, between your belief and faith and what is provable. If the subject is nature's purposeful guidance. you have not persuaded me one iota:

"...observing these laws we can see the workings of the thought that created them. There was a thought to create, there is a process in this thought but I won't go into that here."

If observe nature, I can no more assume what you suggest than I can believe in green Martians. I know of no proof there was a thought to create. you have provided no proof. You can't go into it here, because it relies on faith and the unprovable.
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:25 pm
@jeeprs,
What is not credible is the proof of mankind being part of conscious thought process by nature or anything either sentient or supernatural.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nature's purposeful giudance
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/19/2024 at 09:17:50