Life's meaning/purpose

Spendius, I was just joking, with Levy's term. It all got terribly jumbled. We're all talking past each other. No matter.

Evolution is not an inherent purpose. Noone gives it the purpose except the one seeing it as a purpose.

BTW, I was referring to meaning in my last post, not purpose. Sorry for the vaguness of it.



A scientist can say near certain that a certain specie of animal can see ultraviolet light, but they do not know what ultraviolet light looks like to the bat. Do not only see the technical, but be aware that phenomena exists.

Ray, can you not see that the origin of this question, about the purpose of evolution, is the answer also? Our voices trembling with this uncertain notion is nature's way of looking itself in the mirror saying; "what am I". The question of purpose has evolved, it is not a human invention, it is an effort of nature.

But the handling of this subject is sometimes way too human. Our failure to understand becomes our failure to acknowledge. We see purpose, only not it's origins, and we do not understand.

Life's purpose is perpetuation.
Life's meaning is that which we give it.

I do not see a teleological universe. That does not mean that there is none, only that I see no evidence for it. True that autoperpetuation is built into each species, but "species" is an abstraction. If autoperpetuation were an absolute, I should think suicide would be impossible. Teleology (having a goal) suggests intention and intention suggests a human-like mind. I do agree that the universe has an element of Mind or awareness in it. I see that because I have mind and I'm part of the universe. But to extend this principle to argue that since I have goals the universe has goals is excessive. It may be so, but that does not suggest that the universe has master goals, like going somewhere to a final fulfillment.
As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of "MY life" is living itself. I do not refer to self-perpetuation (i.e., avoiding death); I refer to self-realization (to the living of each moment as completely/openly as possible). This is the meaning I give to the term, (w)holiness.

--edited an hour later

By perpetuation as purpose, I was not referring to the individual, per se, but to life in whole. A suicide would not stop the perpetuation of life. The specicide of the entire human species would not stop the perpetuation of life.

By attributing terms such as "goals" to this process you are attributing human-like mindedness to this as well. It's your human mindedness that is looking for terms by which to describe what you're observing. It's impossible to disconnect our human mindedness from what we're observing and relating into words. To say the universe does not have goals is to attribute human mindedness through the negation in the statement.

So you have an aversion to the idea of teleology, by what term would you describe life's self-perpetuating (in general, not individual) thrust?

Maybe that element of Mind or awareness that you agree the universe possesses has a different term for it. I do not know it.

Good points, Infra. You are talking about life in the most abstract sense; I'm talking about it as my living phenomenal experience.
My "aversion" to teleology is that it unnecessarily anthropomorphizes nature in order to make sense of it. Since we think we understand ourselves, all we have to do is treat Nature as if it were a form of ourselves in order to understand it. You ask me what term I would prefer to teleology in labeling nature's self-perpetuation; I presume you refer to Life in the broadest sense. I can't address that, but if We refer to the auto-perpetuating drives of species. I guess I would prefer, for want of a better phrase, the blind and dumb mechanical process of natural selection. This empirically-based notion frees us from a need for anthropomophic conceptualizations.

Sheesh JL-that is one long anthropomorphic conceptualisation.

Exactly, spendius. Everything we think and say and put into writing is an anthropomorphic conceptualization. It is inherently human minded.

Now, I don't like the idea of "goal" because it infers an unnecessary premeditation and forethought into the process, like what you were saying, JL, and this is an argument that is posited by theists. I don't think a theos is necessary.

Is an end necessarily a goal? Is an end necessarily premeditated? I think it may be a result of a process, like life itself.

Infrablue asks: "Is an end necessarily a goal? Is an end necessarily premeditated? I think it may be a result of a process, like life itself."
I guess not, at least not strickly speaking. But when I think of ends, I can't resist the notion of an intended end, i.e., a goal.
You and Spendius consider all human perceptions and conceptions as "anthropomorphic." In a sense, you're right. All you see is in large part a projection of your humaness IN CONJUNCTION with the reality. It is form of interactionist epistemology: ALL things you experience result from the interaction of your nature and that your see (see comments elsewhere by Fresco). But to claim that all expressions, perceptions and conceptualizations are anthropomorphic is of the same order as the claim that every expression, perception and conceptualization is also autobiographical. Do you go that far?

By the way, Spendius, I don't think my earlier statement was either long or anthropomorphic in the usual sense.

Autobiographical in the sense that, for example, your expressions, perceptions and coceptualizations are mine autobiographically?

Hmm, If that's what you mean, then ultimately I can only approach your expressions, perceptions and coceptualizations through my own expressions, perceptions and coceptualizations.

You got me thinking when you said, "Since we think we understand ourselves, all we have to do is treat Nature as if it were a form of ourselves in order to understand it."

Does the phycisist, or the mathmetician even, do the same? They are anthropomorphic beings. They can only approach their subjects anthropomorphically. They can only understand their subjects in anthropomorphic ways. They say, "math is a part of us. We are logical and rational, math is logical and rational."

Infrablue: "Autobiographical in the sense that, for example, your expressions, perceptions and coceptualizations are mine autobiographically? "

Nobody: No, I was thinking more of the Gestalt psychologist's notion that ALL the content of one's dreams ARE the dreamer. But there IS the mystical sense of the ultimate unity of all things wherein my perceptions of you are perceptions of my TRUE self. But that's another thread.

Ultrablue: "You got me thinking when you said, "Since we think we understand ourselves, all we have to do is treat Nature as if it were a form of ourselves in order to understand it.
Does the phycisist, or the mathmetician even, do the same? They are anthropomorphic beings. They can only approach their subjects anthropomorphically. They can only understand their subjects in anthropomorphic ways. They say, "math is a part of us. We are logical and rational, math is logical and rational."

Nobody: I don't understand the phrase "anthropomorphic beings". We are sometimes anthropomorphizing beings, i.e., projecting our perception of our nature onto other forms of nature.
I do think, however, that Rationalism, the notion that OUR logic reflects the logic of nature is a kind of anthropomorphizing. But I'm not so sure this applies to higher mathematics because of its value for the study of the physical world. But this is not to suggest that Nature is mathematical structure that we can uncover by means of math. I'm mathematically illiterate and retarded, but I suspect that although does not describe nature, it disciplines our thinking about nature. Higher math (math theory) is probably very unlike arithmetic.

Infra, you report the belief that "math is a part of us. We are logical and rational, math is logical and rational." We must remember that WE INVENTED MATH; we did not just discover it "out there" in the world waiting for us. But I guess in inventing math we did, in a sense, discover something about ourselves.

I don't know that all the contents of one's dreams are the dreamer. I think they are more part of the dreamer than the sum of the dreamer, if that's what you mean by saying "all." I'm not sure how you are using the word "true" in this sentence: "But there IS the mystical sense of the ultimate unity of all things wherein my perceptions of you are perceptions of my TRUE self.". I think that these perceptions are a part of my true self, not the sum of my true self, if that's how you're using the word "true." Do you go that far?


Sorry for the ambiguity I caused by using the term "anthropomorphic beings". The point I was trying to make was that we are human beings, anthropos. We can only approach the universe as such.

I acknowledge that math, i.e. mathematics, is a human invention. It is a human attribute. When we attempt to describe the universe in mathematical terms, we are necessarily anthropomorphizing the universe, giving it human attributes.

I really shouldn't say we attempt to describe the universe in mathematical terms. I can't include myself in that group. I'm mathematically retarded as well. I'll say this: The physicists attempt to describe the universe in mathematical terms.

Mathematics was gradually discovered like any fundamental natural law. Ancient societies all over the world independently discovered the same logic in their day-to-day dwellings by trying to keep track of livestock and such. In the relationships of quantities, we didn't make up the quantities, but we did name them. We didn't make up the functions, but we named them, and their individual results are constant.

The human body and brain are matters of chemistry, a consequence of physics, which is based on math. Therefore I find it more logical to say that the human being is a product of math, not the other way around.

When it comes to discussions on math, I am rather on the absolutist part of the spectrum. I think math is universal; it is certain, woven into everything.

Levi:-

Do you think it without a doubt asymptoting zero or at zero?When no doubt exists.

Apart from asymptote not being a verb, and asymptotes by definition never being "at zero" (or whatever number they approach), the next time you address me why don't you achieve a coherent sentence? "No doubt" you can do that, shaygetz.

About math, I was going to say that it is the best example of a metaphysic, what with the concept of infinity among other things. The metaphysic seems to be a Platonic one at that, although Gödel discovered that an absolute, ideal truth even in math is beyond our grasp.

It would be very interesting to get into a discussion about the philosophy of math, what with issues like the a priority of math, and such, but that would be best left for another thread.

Not quite. Math is ultimately a system based on the workings of the universe expressed in conceptual equations. Mathematical systems, thus are discovered, via rational and empirical faculties.

1 + 1 is two. Of course, without a rational person, the "concept" of adding two things together would not be present, but nevertheless one object added next to another object would give two objects whether or not an observer is there to experience it. Reason is an essential of knowledge.