19
   

Why are we here?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 06:25 am
@Setanta,
I imagine that, back in the Post Pleistocene, there were several communities that were grousing that our species was "squandering all the good flint"
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 10:01 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
neologist wrote:
I suppose it means if they had not disobeyed, they would still be here.
I was asking about 'fruitful', for it may mean besides 'productive of offspring' (increasing the population of the Earth ... to infinity, without any special idea . . ..
They were told to "be fruitful and fill the earth .. . ." What could that mean? Suppose you ask the waiter to fill your water glass. Would you expect him to fill it to overflowing? Perhaps you should not have forgotten your swimsuit.

You make a perfect counterpoint to RL.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 11:52 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Herald wrote:
The question is: has our species (the mankind) any special purpose of its existence and development

No.

How did you draw this conclusion?
NO means that more than half of the mankind (3.5 BN < ...) don't have any purpose in life.
I will not argue that a lot of us really don't have, but right over 3.5 BN.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 11:55 am
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:
If his existence is super-meaningful, and he's part of mankind as a whole, then doesn't that whole derive a degree of meaning from the fact that one of its parts' existence is meaningful?

No it doesn't. To see why it doesn't, just substitute the adjective "meaningful" with some other, less philosophically-loaded adjective. For example: "If he's super-stinky, and he's part of mankind as a whole, then doesn't that whole derive a degree of stinkiness from the fact that one of its parts' existence is stinky?" No, not really. If one human out of seven billion humans is super-stinky, and the other 6,999,999,999 humans are not, humanity's overall stinkiness may very well be negligible in spite of him (or her).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 12:02 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
I will not argue that a lot of us really don't have, but right over 3.5 BN.

Then I apologize for underestimating the number of meaningless lives by 3.5 billion. I believe that each human life has whatever meaning the human living it attributes to it. Beyond that, I don't believe any human life has meaning --- mostly because the phrase "the meaning of life" is unintelligible. You might as well talk about "the color of the equator", "the smell of a triangle", or "the sound of the universe".
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 12:03 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Herald wrote:
I will not argue that a lot of us really don't have, but right over 3.5 BN.

Then I apologize for underestimating the number of meaningless lives by 3.5 billion. I believe that each human life has whatever meaning the human living the life attributes to it. Beyond that, I don't believe any human life has meaning --- mostly because the phrase "the meaning of life" is unintelligible. You might as well talk about "the color of the equator", "the smell of a triangle", or "the sound of the universe".

Indeed.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 12:15 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Beyond that, I don't believe any human life has meaning --- mostly because the phrase "the meaning of life" is unintelligible. You might as well talk about "the color of the equator", "the smell of a triangle", or "the sound of the universe".

I am not sure that this is the case. We are all striving to reproduce for example, as N. pointed herein above. Well it is not conscious, but it is any purpose (notwithstanding that it is at an instinct level). But I am not asking about this.
We all have some conscious purpose.
The question is: do we have any common purpose as a result of a consensus? (it is not even obligatory for this consesus to be more than 50%)
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 12:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
Thomas wrote:
"the sound of the universe".

This example is not in conformity with the previous ones, for the universe has sound. For further details see the String Theory of Dr. Micho Kaku.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 12:27 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
For further details see the String Theory of Dr. Micho Kaku.

I don't know who Mocho Kaku is, but if he says the universe has a sound, he's either full of **** or speaking some highly metaphorical language --- whether he has a doctorate or not.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 12:56 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
he's either full of **** or speaking some highly metaphorical language

Forget about the 'sound of the universe', tell me about the 'purpose of life'.
At present we have zero consesus about the purpose of our species.
Our understanding about ourselves (by default) is that we are without any purpose here down on the Earth, and moreover, we are lost in the huge universe, wandering aimlessly in psace and time ... and without any purpose.
Actually:
- Why don't we have any purpose?
- How far can we go sliding on-down the rollba of the ignorance ... without a common purpose?
Obviously we have common iterests, although that we haven't become aware of them:
- As species we have common purpose to become immortal, to conquer the universe, to jump-over the CO2 trap, etc.
- Even as a more modest version: We have common interest to survive as much on the earth as we can.
- We have common interests to develop new sources of energy ... and to organise the defense of the Earth (against aliens, against space disasters, against solar flare, against biocatastrophies, etc.).
- We have commmon interest to find out all the hidden and concealed throughout the years information - about fake medications, about junk food, about the diseases resulting from the environment pollution, about the promiscuous tapping of all communications, etc.
I am not sure whether this is 'the colour of the equator' or not, but we cannot go on doing business as usual without start doing something on the issue.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 05:58 pm
@Thomas,
I think he means Micheo Kaku (hes a radio scientist who acts as an expert on everything )
PS Kaku didn't derive String Theory, he merely plays at it on radio and TV
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 06:07 pm
@Herald,
purpose is something philosophers **** with and theologians fake out their flocks with so they can demand fealty. Why is "purpose" a biological imperative? I can see that commensal species develop similar likes and dislikes among shared partners, an parasites develop tastes for ttheir hosts (But even parasites are, in most cases , developed from free living species who ADAPTED to their hosts body.

Did the great apes (or our common ancestor that derived from the great apes) have a "purpose"? Or was evolution merely an opportunistic adaptation or genetic drift?

If a god ever existed who got it all going, she hadda keep her notes straight about what edaphic and environmental conditions occurred whenever, so that the animal kingdom wouldn't just keep certain species hanging on forever. Remember the first rule of extinction of the dinosaurs

1It was a stupid idea to start with

2They hung on waay too long

( many pardons to Dave RAup)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 06:10 pm
@farmerman,
The Cosbyan explanation for "Why is there air?"
To blow up soccer balls
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 09:21 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Remember the first rule of extinction of the dinosaurs
1.It was a stupid idea to start with
2.They hung on waay too long

Hi, and welcome on the Blog,
This is very interesting as a claim ('the first rule of extinction').
Do you know why it is interesting?
Because neither 'the idea' (of the prehistoric development of the Earth) was 'stupid' (for during the time of the dinosaurs the CO2 of the planet has been reduced from 7000 ppm to 150 ppm, which converted the planet from the former hell into the present paradise), nor the 'hanging too long' of the dinosaurs was actually too long (for they got extinct - by reason unknown - just in time), and unlike us, the humans, left the planet in brilliant appearance.
The period that you call 'stupid idea' and 'too long' actually inhumed most of the carbon that has been in the air, deep into the ground (where it should be ... for our sake).
You may talk about 'stupid ideas' and 'too long' imbecilities in terms of the guys, who started to dig out back the carbon from the ground ... and to send it into the atmosphere ... as a result of which the planet took course fast forward towards venerization ... and hell.
So you may contribute to your own theory of extinction with a new rule:
3. Don't dig fossil fuels too long, if you don't know what you are doing.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Aug, 2013 09:27 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
Thomas wrote:
he's either full of **** or speaking some highly metaphorical language

Forget about the 'sound of the universe', tell me about the 'purpose of life'.

I can't. The term is nonsense to me --- just like "the sound of the universe" is. The only reason I brought up these other nonsense terms was for illustration.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 12:29 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
I believe that each human life has whatever meaning the human living it attributes to it.

This is clear, but do we have as humans some common objectives.
We obviously have common problems, which nobody can deny:
- The resources of the planet are highly constraint ... and exhausting
- We connot live on free will to infinity, for the free will to some individuals may mean lost opportunities in the life to some others.
The very moment you throw (as an expression of your free will) the battery of the SUV into the water hole, the water there becomes non-potable to all the fauna ... and questionably usable to the flora relying on it.
If you grow vegetables nearby and irrigate them from this water hole they will become acidified and when you eat them they will acidify eventually your blood and tissues of the body ... and everything falls on its place.
- We all want to have a higher standard of living, but without co-ordinating our efforts it becomes mission impossible.
- We all want to have clean water, fresh air and healthy food and at the same time to have the freedom to pollute the environment to infinity and to lead irresponsible life.
The question is not only: 'Why don't we have common goals?', but also 'When will we have the common goals specified?'

Quote:
Beyond that, I don't believe any human life has meaning

So your special theory of the things claims that: we may be irresponsible to infinity ... to the environment we are living ... on the only planet that we may have within a radius of 50 000 lys, ... to the other humans, ... to the other people's money ... and there is no way for this irresponsibility to lead to a biological catastrophy and energy crisis!
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 02:34 am
It's hopeless. It now appears that this joker is attempting to torture the question by introducing the theistic claim that there can be no responsibility among humans without a magic sky daddy. I'm really surprised that this joker is getting this much mileage.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 05:23 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
... either full of **** or speaking some highly metaphorical language

Neither the 'string theory' nor the question 'why are we here?' are 'highly metaphorical'
Do you want some low-level interpretations to the question: Why are we here?
- How did it happen as causation for us to appear on this planet?
- What is the purpose of our residence on this planet ... and existence in the physical world?
- Why are we on the Earth (the paradise) and observe from a distance Venus (the hell) ... and not vice versa (to be in hell, and watching the paradise from a distnace & try to excape)?
- How did it happen that we come accross a dead-end-street (in terms of bio-existence & energy constraints)?
You also may make plausible interpretations of the question, if you think again ... for example.
If you realy think that the question is invalid (contains at least one assumption which is not true; contains self-contradictions and hence it cannot exist; is irrelevant to the subject matter; has an amorphous sense and fuzzy logic components that are highly disputable; it doesn't have any feasible interpretation in our understanding of the world; its objects cannot have truth value, etc.) - prove it!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 05:24 am
@Herald,
Quote:
Do you know why it is interesting?
because a colleague said it in a book on xtinction.
You've not forwarded anything about life or extinction. AT least my paraphrase is funny ( the "purpose" of it seems to have evaded you)

Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 05:29 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
the "purpose" of IT seems to have evaded you

What is this IT here ... that I have missed to understand?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What made you smile today? - Discussion by nimh
Why is my life so hard? - Question by awkward25snowflake
How do i figure out what I want? - Question by ylyam1
Why Does Life Exist - Question by Poseidon384
Happiness within - Question by luismtzzz
Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
Your philosophy in life - Question by Procrustes
Advice for a graduate? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why are we here?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 09:30:45