Gelisgesti wrote:I just don't understand why the 'why' box should be considered empty without even a glance into it.
We were asked to choose between 'how' and 'why'.
We know there is value in 'how', and we suspect that 'why' is a mirage...
Would you chase the mirage in hope of an oasis, or take the water which is right at hand.
The chaplain guy that have talked of, often says that science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why".
My answer woould have some sympathy with Asherman's nondualist position. Unfortunately this deconstructs the original question because "we" can no longer be considered as separate entities within some external "here". Do "we" in fact have any "higher status" in the universe than "bloodcells" do in "the body" ?
interesting, I would have always took the "why" box. I've always viewed this question as the paradox between knowing the past and having the ability to influece the future, the "how" being the past, and the "why" being the future.
I guess I have always just thought that the opportunity to improve the future was worth the risk of the box being empty.
Even an empty box would be comforting to many. It would mean we could be fully in charge of what we are meant to do. Many people don't need that kind of "permission" t o believe this, but other's that want to believe this would be comforted.
Inversely, if there was an answer in the box, I'd imagine it would help us find peace in our chaotic world, save the answer being anything other than 42.
lol.
baddog1 wrote:
I'm a M.E. with - well - a few U.S. utility patents - all in the world of physics. And it became apparent to me several years ago that the more I learn about our physical world - the less I really know - and will likely ever know. It's the ole speck of dust on a fly's a$$ syndrome!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:
This is off subject, but MEs steal all the AEs jobs... grumbles... Sometimes being the cream of the crop has it's disadvantages. Where did you go to school?
aperson wrote:The chaplain guy that have talked of, often says that science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why".
Or, religion invents the "why" because there is no "why" to contradict it. Religion used to invent the "how" also, but it's no longer required for that. "Why" is all it has left.
Why can't anyone see that 'how' leads to 'why' which then leads to 'what' . Why some are content with an unanswered question is beyond me.
Diest TKO wrote:baddog1 wrote:
I'm a M.E. with - well - a few U.S. utility patents - all in the world of physics. And it became apparent to me several years ago that the more I learn about our physical world - the less I really know - and will likely ever know. It's the ole speck of dust on a fly's a$$ syndrome!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:
This is off subject, but MEs steal all the AEs jobs... grumbles... Sometimes being the cream of the crop has it's disadvantages. Where did you go to school?
Actually the ME's are hard at work while the (cream of the crop) AE's get all the girls!!! :wink:
University of Central Florida. It's a little (but growing) school on the east side of Orlando formerly known as Florida Tech' University. And you?
rosborne979 wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:I just don't understand why the 'why' box should be considered empty without even a glance into it.
We were asked to choose between 'how' and 'why'.
We know there is value in 'how', and we suspect that 'why' is a mirage...
Would you chase the mirage in hope of an oasis, or take the water which is right at hand.
Why do you base your opinion on suspicion? A roll of the dice would be more certain.
Gelisgesti wrote:Why can't anyone see that 'how' leads to 'why' which then leads to 'what' . Why some are content with an unanswered question is beyond me.
It is exactly that lack of willingness to accept that some questions have no answers that leads some to accept
any answer, regardless of the truth. It's lazy thinking. Religion thrives on that.
Gelisgeti, what makes you so certain there has to be a "why"? Assuming that there is a "why" prohibits you from accepting any truth that may conflict with that conclusion you've already come to.
Eorl wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:Why can't anyone see that 'how' leads to 'why' which then leads to 'what' . Why some are content with an unanswered question is beyond me.
It is exactly that lack of willingness to accept that some questions have no answers that leads some to accept
any answer, regardless of the truth. It's lazy thinking. Religion thrives on that.
Gelisgeti, what makes you so certain there has to be a "why"? Assuming that there is a "why" prohibits you from accepting any truth that may conflict with that conclusion you've already come to.
Because there is an undeniable intelligence in the thing we call 'life'. A rythmic pulse that drives us to ascension. I would more like to discover 'who' we are .... whether we are seed, or fruit. To exchange 'why' with 'is'.
edit: reworded for clarity.
Where is the evidence of this "undeniable intelligence" ?
I can, and do, deny it.
The 'why' question simply refers to causality. The 'how' to the manner of it's occurence.
Does anyone think that something can be 'causeless'?
Eorl wrote:edit: reworded for clarity.
Where is the evidence of this "undeniable intelligence" ?
I can, and do, deny it.
Are you saying life as we know it is void of intelligence?
Gelisgeti,
No, I am saying there is no intelligence behind, no rythmic driving force. Nothing in the least magical about life. It's simply natural. Expected. Inevitable in the right conditions. I'm quite certain it's occured elsewhere than earth, though we may never find it without being extremely lucky.
The idea that there is an objective "why" seems utterly ridiculous to me. It would change everything, and would therefore require some extraordinary evidence to support the notion.
(Indeed, many use the assumption of a "why" to pretend to prove the existence of a "why"-er. )
real life, I think we were all quite comfortable with our definitions of "why" and "how" in this discussion so far.
Eorl,
Do you agree that 'why' refers to causality?
If you agree, then do you think something can be 'causeless' ?
alright then.
No, I think "how" is closer to causality. "Why" is closer to "for what purpose"
Then which one refers to evolution, in your view? Is it not the 'how' ? i.e. the manner or method by which you believe we came to be?
The thing or person which began this method (of evolution) would be it's cause, would it not?
Would that not be 'why' evolution happened? i.e. it happened beCAUSE(due to this cause)............
Do you think anything can be 'causeless' ?
Our evolution from 'Lucy' is not ascension?
Evolving appears to happen in rhythmic starts and stops ... more than likely lags in DNA changes.
There is no possibility of a subjective why.
real life wrote:Then which one refers to evolution, in your view? Is it not the 'how' ? i.e. the manner or method by which you believe we came to be?
The thing or person which began this method (of evolution) would be it's cause, would it not?
Would that not be 'why' evolution happened? i.e. it happened beCAUSE(due to this cause)............
Do you think anything can be 'causeless' ?
Yes, as is mentioned in the first post, "how" is about evolution / creation / etc. "Why" can include "how" but in this case it has been deliberately seperated for the sake of clarity. (That seems to have worked until now.)
