Death

[wigginhall]

I'm amused not offended.  I used to have New Age friends, who would rhapsodize about the unseen intelligence in life, and the spirits who accompany us.  What they call a bubble bath in Cockerney.

[Shaker]

Additionally - as trite and shopworn as this is, as I fully acknowledge - the notion of purpose in life (rather than of life, which implies that there's a one-size-fits-all purpose for everyone alike) is a specific thing decided (or not) by the individual. Lives have proximate meanings, AFAIC; this meaning of my life decided by me based on what I value. To look for an ultimate meaning of all life - life in general - is to chase a fantasy, as I see it.

Is life supposed to have a "direction"? Why? Does it need one? I tend to bumble around doing stuff and have managed more or less happily so far. I'm suspicious of these notions of over-arching purpose and direction.

[wigginhall]

Yes, and then you always get someone who will tell you what the direction is.  No thanks.

[ekim]

Yes, and then you always get someone who will tell you what the direction is.  No thanks.

Ah, just you wait and see!  Wormwood is on its way!  You have been warned!

[ippy]

I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!!  It is seen as a threat.  A security issue. 

primeeven if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.

We've had far too many years of superstition based religious nonsense fed to us and now we no longer fear being burnt at the stake or hung drawn and quartered etc, we're not going to take it sitting down any more and then you say you're wondering why, 'People get all their hackles up'?

Why even educational standards are rising all over the world, have you seen the classic film 'The Wizard of Oz', the scene near to the end of the film where the curtain is lifted, if you haven't seen the film maybe it's time you did, an enlightening moment. 

My biggest bone with any religion is where it's taught as fact to children and any remaining religious believers are just a bunch of lost causes, not a lot you can do with them save the odd one here and there.

Regards ippy.

[Shaker]

Yes, and then you always get someone who will tell you what the direction is.  No thanks.

Yes, they always claim to know on your behalf, don't they? No, sorry - this is my life I'm talking about here, not yours.

[Gordon]

I'd just like to add that I have no plans to die: it isn't for me, and over the years I've accrued a humongous pile of nothing to work my way through - and I've hardly made a dent in it!

[Aruntraveller]

Additionally - as trite and shopworn as this is, as I fully acknowledge - the notion of purpose in life (rather than of life, which implies that there's a one-size-fits-all purpose for everyone alike) is a specific thing decided (or not) by the individual. Lives have proximate meanings, AFAIC; this meaning of my life decided by me based on what I value. To look for an ultimate meaning of all life - life in general - is to chase a fantasy, as I see it.

Is life supposed to have a "direction"? Why? Does it need one? I tend to bumble around doing stuff and have managed more or less happily so far. I'm suspicious of these notions of over-arching purpose and direction.

Them's my sentiments. Always hated that question you used to get asked at job interviews ; "Where do you see yourself in 5 years time?"

Well, 1. I don't even know where I see myself tomorrow; and 2. You are already anxious to get rid of me?

[Shaker]

Them's my sentiments. Always hated that question you used to get asked at job interviews ; "Where do you see yourself in 5 years time?"

There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?

[ippy]

There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?

Uttoxeter?

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

torridon,

In post 124 you have agreed that there could be a possible philosophical argument for Nature itself being Intelligent.   You have also conceded that Natural Selection could be seen as metaphorical.  We have also argued that Intelligence could create Intelligence.

I only hope that future discussions will take into account this wisdom instead of going back and forth on the same issues.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

torridon,

In post 124 you have agreed that there could be a possible philosophical argument for Nature itself being Intelligent.   You have also conceded that Natural Selection could be seen as metaphorical.  We have also argued that Intelligence could create Intelligence.

I only hope that future discussions will take into account this wisdom instead of going back and forth on the same issues.

Cheers.

Sriram

Just to be clear on that, the phrase "Natural Selection" could be seen as metaphorical, yes;  the phrase describes a real world phenomenon of Nature in metaphorical language.  Nature doesn't actually do any selecting in the normal everyday sense of the word "select" which implies a conscious choice from available options.  So if I say Natural Selection is a metaphor, that is a comment on language and its flexibility and ambiguity; it is not a comment on the nature of fundamental reality.

[Sriram]

Just to be clear on that, the phrase "Natural Selection" could be seen as metaphorical, yes;  the phrase describes a real world phenomenon of Nature in metaphorical language.  Nature doesn't actually do any selecting in the normal everyday sense of the word "select" which implies a conscious choice from available options.  So if I say Natural Selection is a metaphor, that is a comment on language and its flexibility and ambiguity; it is not a comment on the nature of fundamental reality.

Yeah,...I have already discussed that.

The issue is not just about a word here and there.  It is about the way in which the term Natural Selection is used as though it is a well defined process (like a quality control or manufacturing process, for example) through which complexity increases.

NS is a chance environmental influence. It could go one way or the other...and no direction or outcome can be defined in advance.

Genetic variation on the other hand, is where adaptations can happen.  So, if Nature is Intelligent, and works through DNA, its effects can be seen in genetic variations which lead to emergent properties, further leading to complexity and human development. 

[Stranger]

The issue is not just about a word here and there.  It is about the way in which the term Natural Selection is used as though it is a well defined process (like a quality control or manufacturing process, for example) through which complexity increases.

It is a well defined process and it is rather like quality control. All genetic variations are (by virtue of being instantiated in an individual organism) placed into the environment and if they perform well (reproduce more than others) then the variation spreads through the population.

It isn't complexity that increases, it's fitness (suitability for the environment). That might mean more or less complexity.

NS is a chance environmental influence. It could go one way or the other...and no direction or outcome can be defined in advance.

The direction is towards increased fitness for the environment - the population become better adapted to its environment.

Genetic variation on the other hand, is where adaptations can happen.

An adaptation is just a random variation that happens to work well in the environment and is therefore 'selected'. That's what the process of natural selection does: it selects adaptations from random variations.

So, if Nature is Intelligent, and works through DNA, its effects can be seen in genetic variations which lead to emergent properties, further leading to complexity and human development.

Evidence? Reasoning?

[torridon]

.

Genetic variation on the other hand, is where adaptations can happen.  So, if Nature is Intelligent, and works through DNA, its effects can be seen in genetic variations which lead to emergent properties, further leading to complexity and human development.

Complexity increases in the short term in defiance of the entropy gradient with the overall result that life emerges from lower levels of complexity (where local conditions favour it) and intelligence evolves from life (where local conditions favour it), but seen in the big picture these are fleeting exotic phenomena within the grander arch of thermodynamic law which eventually extinguishes all life. 

We don't have any evidence for particular cell mutations being 'intelligent'.  Could we say that Nature is in some sense intelligent because the fundamentals of reality allow for intelligence to arise.  Similarly could we say that the Universe is in some way sentient because the fundamentals of reality allow for consciousness to arise.  Here you are into realms where empiricism is of no use and in the absence of data the whole debate risks descending into self important undergraduate waffle.

[Sriram]

Complexity increases in the short term in defiance of the entropy gradient with the overall result that life emerges from lower levels of complexity (where local conditions favour it) and intelligence evolves from life (where local conditions favour it), but seen in the big picture these are fleeting exotic phenomena within the grander arch of thermodynamic law which eventually extinguishes all life. 

We don't have any evidence for particular cell mutations being 'intelligent'.  Could we say that Nature is in some sense intelligent because the fundamentals of reality allow for intelligence to arise.  Similarly could we say that the Universe is in some way sentient because the fundamentals of reality allow for consciousness to arise.  Here you are into realms where empiricism is of no use and in the absence of data the whole debate risks descending into self important undergraduate waffle.

Forget for the moment that Intelligence has arisen through evolution. That seems to be occupying your mind.

Imagine that human Intelligence has not arisen at all and that we are still one million years before present.  We can still see many forms of intelligent adaptations and survival strategies that enable species to survive.   These happen due to genetic variations that are guided by some form of Natural Intelligence.....such that in spite of adverse environmental factors organisms manage to survive.

That is what I am talking about.

[wigginhall]

That sounds like the old and discredited argument, that because there is order in the universe, therefore there is an Orderer.   It doesn't follow.

[Sriram]

And...who discredited it precisely??!!  You??!!

[Stranger]

Imagine that human Intelligence has not arisen at all and that we are still one million years before present.  We can still see many forms of intelligent adaptations and survival strategies that enable species to survive.   These happen due to genetic variations that are guided by some form of Natural Intelligence.....such that in spite of adverse environmental factors organisms manage to survive.

That is what I am talking about.

It's a nice little story but there is no evidence for it. Natural selection acting on random variation is quite sufficient to explain what you refer to as "intelligent adaptations and survival strategies".

The theory of evolution is one of the greatest and most far-reaching insights in all of science and you seem to have missed the point entirely...

[Gordon]

And...who discredited it precisely??!!  You??!!

It's the hackneyed old teleological argument, as beloved by silly creationists who re-label it as 'intelligent design' or 'creation science', Sriram. It has been discredited many times over the centuries, such as by David Hume.

[torridon]

The theory of evolution is one of the greatest and most far-reaching insights in all of science and you seem to have missed the point entirely...

Quite.

[torridon]

Imagine that human Intelligence has not arisen at all and that we are still one million years before present.  We can still see many forms of intelligent adaptations and survival strategies that enable species to survive.   These happen due to genetic variations that are guided by some form of Natural Intelligence.....such that in spite of adverse environmental factors organisms manage to survive.

There's no evidence for individual mutations being 'guided'; no evidence for mutations happening due to some extraneous intervention.  Maybe there is a relation between complexity and scarcity so the best we can say is that the laws of probabilty are such that life/intelligence/consciousness must occur within certain distribution and probability limits and as we discover the incidence and complexity of life throughout the universe we will be able to put numbers on that relation.

[wigginhall]

And...who discredited it precisely??!!  You??!!

Well, is there any cogent argument for design?   There are pure assertions, it is so, because I say so, and various God of the gaps arguments, which are also empty.   Anything else?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the hackneyed old teleological argument, as beloved by silly creationists who re-label it as 'intelligent design' or 'creation science', Sriram. It has been discredited many times over the centuries, such as by David Hume.

Ah yes, David Hume who famously and apparently discredited the idea of a creator by positing a stone appearing out of nowhere ......while foolishly omitting to say how we would ever know that it didn't come from somewhere.

Still Hume has provided atheists with warm piddle to the ears and I'm sure there are even those who love him out of a narrow nationalism.

[Gordon]

Ah yes, David Hume who famously and apparently discredited the idea of a creator by positing a stone appearing out of nowhere ......while foolishly omitting to say how we would ever know that it didn't come from somewhere.

Still Hume has provided atheists with warm piddle to the ears and I'm sure there are even those who love him out of a narrow nationalism.

I was going to mention Dawkins, Vlad, but I suspected that might be too stressful for you this early in the day.

Oops!