imagine, the invention of the wheel is what eventually spun out of control and got us into this particular circumstance in time.
yer on a roll, Boss . . .
I've studied quite a lot on the physical emergence of life, and while it can not be called a miracle, it merits to be called precious. The meticulous balance between universal energy and our planetary conditions contains such surprising potential, that to reflect upon life as if it were a trivial side effect of nature -- while claiming its harmonious features to be irrelevant and randomly flexible -- would seem to be scientifically unfounded, and could ethically be labelled as plain ingrateful.
Which connects nicely with your definition of nihilism, Setanta. There isn't much that separates us.
Ah, ingrates as well . . .
. . . you crack me up, Boss . . .
truth
Dys, you're on a roll. I also like the notion that nature is neither chaotic nor ordered, it just is. Chaos and order are our cultural expectations. We might also argue, and I think you have, that we can't be or do something that is "unnatural". If something can be done or if it is, IT'S not unnatural; there's nothing outside of nature (as with the universe:no inside or outside). But this requires an adjustment on my part here. If there's no outside of nature, there cannot be an inside of nature. Therefore something that is, is not just "natural": IT JUST IS. Nature vs. non-nature (or supernatural or unnatural) is a false dichtomy. If I smoke or eat too much saturated fat and die of a heart attack, there is nothing unnatural about that--it's just undesireable.
Well, that depends . . . suppose you collected that fat from sausages you really love . . .
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . sausages . . .
JLN.
Set. I go for the sausages (but then i still cook with lard)
Yeah, Algis, the wheel has gotton darn right dangerous. More deaths by car accidents than any other activity. c.i.
Dys, I can understand your concept that nature just 'is' and is not defined or changed by what anyone does to it; that the universe has no outside or inside, but just is. But when speaking of the meaning of life, I think this conversation has taken us too far outside ourselves. After all, our perception of life is what gives it meaning. There doesn't need to be a universal truth. Even scientists disagree on whether there is a god or supreme being.
Perception is reality. This is unfortunate when related to politics or the effectiveness of advertising, yet it seems to me that perception is what each of sees as the meaning of life and it is different for each of us.
The fact that I love someone with all my heart gives my life exquisitely beautiful meaning; yet, who I happen to be in love with doesn't make any difference to my neighbor, only that I keep my dog out of his yard. When I keep my dog out of his yard, he is happy and my life seems to have more value because I have behaved responsibly toward my neighbor. Is any of this real? I don't know. All I know is what I can feel as a result of what I do, what actions I take and who I meet.
The meaning of life is a very personal thing, a small thing that can't be measured or defined in the same way as we attempt to measure the universe or define nature. IMO.
truth
Very good, Diane. By the way, it's nice to see you again. Perception is reality, at least from the perspective of human life. I sometimes think that the philosophical concern with the nature of the reality "behind" appearances is misplaced (actually it has been more or less abandoned since Kant). I sometimes think that the function of Reality (regarding human life) is simply to BE appearances. It IS appearances in that sense, not something that appears. Perception (subjective appearances) is reality. This should invoke D & D (dispute and debate).
Perception can also be influenced by the chemistry in our brain. People may observe things that do not physically exist, but see them as real. This can be one area of debate that JLN suggests. c.i.
I can sympathize with what has been said in the last posts. I've myself thought for a long time that everything is relative and that the universe is always interpreted individually in the eye of every separate beholder.
But cosmologically, everything tells us that this universe is exactly shaped to bring forth life. The probability that life arises in this universe is bigger than a one-time lucky shot. Because if life were an incredible chance event, then the luck would have been unimaginably big. We can compare the lucky forming of the first cell with the arising of a Boeing 747 out of a tornado whirling through a junkyard. This is clearly impossible. To build something this complex, you need a very large number of steps, often modular in nature.
So life would be infinitely more improbable than the plane emerging out of the tornado, if it would be an accident. Each step can be seen as a miracle on its own, or as an inevitable product of physical processes. The steps involved in the formation of a cell must be much more probable than we think, unless a deity or an external artificial influence was present. In any case, if any of these steps were improbable, life would never have existed, as the whole process continuously would have been aborted.
But life exists, and most steps of the formation of life must have a very high likelihood of taking place under the prevailing conditions. Therefore, the universe was – and probably still is – pregnant with life. In those occasions where planetary conditions are suitable, life will evolve.
This doesn’t mean that the emergence of life followed a preordained course. Even less does it mean that only one kind of life is possible. On the deterministic pathway, there is room for bifurcations, accidents, even chaos, just as there are numerous ways for a raindrop to run down a mountain. What makes the drops move one way or another is the constraint of the terrain, its peaks and valleys. But all separate ways head towards the same direction. Life.
So is this really so relativistic as we have come to think? It is tempting to conjecture that the origin of life was simply another step in a general evolutionary sequence, a sequential part of the pattern of cosmic self-organization. All physical conditions, from deep down the weight of subatomic particles to the expansion of space itself, are curtailed so that life could form and evolve.
I've always felt enthralled by this. I don't know if there's a meaning behind it, but I've grown to think that a purposefulness for the universe can not be excluded just because it feels comfortable to our petty brains.
Abandon all hope, ye you enter the domain of Aristotle. We see nature or as many here prefer, cosmos or universe, as source when we understand ourselves as source. We abandon all attempts at an explanation of nature when we see that we cannot be explained, when all our self-origination cannot be stated as fact. We behold the irreducible otherness of nature when we behold ourselves as its other. Nature displays not only its indifference to human existence but its difference as well. Meaning, if you will indulge my simplicity, is as cogent as recognizing a green traffic light as a permission to proceed, it is a labeling for a mutual understanding and is only valid to the extent it is accepted to have meaning. No more, no less.
Running with wolves might be what nature should be for humans. c.i.
So basically we don't know **** from what's really happening, out of the matrix of our sense, dys?
I'm not so sure. Perception captures samples of reality. Whether this capture is a fata morgana, is irrelevant. The fact is that we do capture something that belongs to the universe. Hence, we are entitled to wonder at this perception, to investigate what perception tells us about existence, to question what brought us here, and to ask ourselves if there might be a certain purpose to it all -- or none whatsoever. You can get as metaphysical as you want, dys, but those remain valid ideas.
metaphysical? we may be reading the same page but from different books. The world is full of burled and gnarly knobs on which you can hang a metaphysical system. If you must. Who needs metaphysics? The wise man gets by on fortune cookies.
Dys I would indulge your simplicity, but including Dys and simplicity in the same sentence leads to an oxymoron doesn't it? I do think that you write with a simple elegance (sometimes--lol).
You said,
" it is a labeling for a mutual understanding and is only valid to the extent it is accepted to have meaning. No more, no less."
That's what makes this thread so interesting; some of the posters have different labels for the same things. Vive la difference!
truth
Well, it's about time, Frank. I agree. I agree that we don't know what we're talking about because the issue has gotten so murky.
