Gelisgesti wrote: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.
Whether there is ascension, or rythm, or even a regular pattern, is beside the point. They will all have "how" style natural explanations, even if we never learn them. There are no "why"s.
Which do you think would work out better, to evolve or to devolve?
Diest, back to your question:
"If you were presented to boxes, The first box has the answer to "how we are here," the second box has the answer to "why we are here..."
"Which box would you pick?"
"Which box would hold the greatest benifit to mankind?"
I would choose the HOW box because of the two only it makes sense. I do not seek answers to meaningless questions. I do not ask why-questions about the Cosmos because they presume some kind of a God who has cosmic plans. THAT is a meaningless concept, a writ-large projection of ourselves.
Eorl wrote: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.)
If 'how' is about evolution, then it cannot also be casuality.
What 'causes' evolution?
That would be 'why' it occurs, would it not?
Is evolution 'causeless'?
Can anything be 'causeless' ?
There are no causes in nature (cf. David Hume). Causation is one way to think about observations we make. We do not SEE causality, we THINK it. But evolution is obviously not something that has been planned. Causation has to do with mechanical chains of events. "Why-explanations" presume intentions, goals, plans and a planner. This is the fallacy of teleology when applied to nature. As far as we know only humans make long-term plans, and our tendency to project that human orientation onto the Cosmos is part of the fallacy of theism.
I guess my question can be answered in many ways. I've always interpretated the question as to place the values of purpose versus knowledge.
Again, isn't the possiblity of an empty box just as profound?
JLNobody - Thank you for returning disscussion to the original post.
Diest,
The "profundity" of the empty boxes points to the nature of "normal cognitive enquiry" versus either (a) "the meditational mode" or (b) alternative descriptions of the functionality of "cognition".
I'm just fascinated in how we almost instinctually question our universe.
Fresco, you're going to have to reword that last post. It was over my head. Sadness insues.
Whether you agree or not, let's for arguement sake say that knowledge in either box holds some potential for human betterment.
Let's look at each.
"How," could settle several cultural differences in our world, give us better understanding of our nature and open our eyes to all sorts of other things in the physical realm.
"Why" if it where a universal answr for all would offer humanity the opportunity to unite for a common goal. If it was a individual answer (unique to you), you might be able to live a quality of life that nobody else could; you could truely experiance what is around you. If the box is empty, you could assign a why, you could feel in control of your world.
I'm sure there's cons to these pros, but the dynamic, I find very interesting.
Morning Diest, there are two other 'wh' words that I feel may fill in a blank or two if addressed. How significant are the 'what' or 'who'? Not the sociological questions but the biological concerns. Are they worthy of 'boxdom'?
Featherless biped seems to be an apt but not quite complete description. What influence, if any, have we over the who or what?
Diest,
to expand a little (a) the meditational mode often results in transcendence of "self", hence the "we" in your "wh questions" ceases to have the same significance. (b) by alternative "cognitive functionality" I am refering to the view that "cognition" is synonymous with "life" (The Santiago hypothesis). Thus the "questioning" which arises within cognition is merely a linguistic variant of the general "probing" of the (physical and social environment) by all living organisms. "Knowledge" has no separate status other than a propensity to action. Descriptions of "self" and "universe" necessarily involve a particular state of "structural coupling" in which the observer and observed are two sides of the same coin
Gelisgesti wrote:Morning Diest, there are two other 'wh' words that I feel may fill in a blank or two if addressed. How significant are the 'what' or 'who'? Not the sociological questions but the biological concerns. Are they worthy of 'boxdom'?
Featherless biped seems to be an apt but not quite complete description. What influence, if any, have we over the who or what?
So, the question boxes you;d propose to add are:
"What" are we?
"Who" are we?
Am I correct?
Thanks Fresco!
Yes, the omission of a "what" and a "who" box was notable.
I guess if presented the four boxes,
I don't know that the answer to "who" I am is an external one.
I don't know what kind of tangeble answer "what" I am could yield.
You are a man,
you are a human,
you are x amount carbon, hydrogen, osxygen, sulfer, iron,
you are a robot.
I think I'd still stick with "why" for now. I'd have to see a pretty amazing alternative box to switch.
Fresco, at this moment at least it seems to me that "knowledge" has a pragmatic function; it promotes life. This even includes notions that Nietzsche calls "errors." I suppose he was saying that such errors are "knowledge" that, while obsolete today, have in the past served the goal of survival (i.e., "synonymous with life"). And in addition to being obsolete at the level of Science are false in the sense of the highest philosophical standards of "metaphysical" Truth. Nietzsche's purpose, like that of most philosophers of his time also sought insight for its own more passive sake (something, I suppose, like what is meant today by "basic science"). Such efforts may represent both a "propensity to action" and a kind of "propensity to philosophically enlightened being: to know". I agree that the empty box is fundamental to the human career. "Knowledge" promotes life by guiding action in desired ways, but the transcendence of the whole enchillada by means of mystical unity with the World which is our true being (whether we are alive or dead) is the most important. We become aware of what we truly are. As animals we continue to "probe" after "knowledge" for survival but put that effort in its proper perspective via "structural coupling." Actually, we are one from the beginning, and the coupling is merely the awareness of that fact.
JLN
I can't find any holes in that ...."action" including "refraining from action" would cover the "error" issue.
Okeydokey. Can someone please explain what is going on here?
Just having a little fun I suppose ....
aperson
I haven't looked too hard, but I think it's a box sale. Many colors on the boxes, but it looks like they all have the same content...
aperson wrote:Okeydokey. Can someone please explain what is going on here?
Discussing what the most valueable information in the universe is.
Who?
What?
Why?
How?
I don't think anyone has given any value yet to
Where?
When?
