Does life have purpose?

[thedarkshade]

Uh, hum, I'm positive that life doesn't have a purpose, unless you give it one.

In a way, you're right. In philosophy this can otherwise be said "existence foregos essence". That means humans become the way they work things out, as when humans are born they are "tabula rasa".

[Paralith]

Except that we, and other animals, also appear to be able to behave (expend energy) doing things that cannot possibly be related to reproductive success, and the eventual juxtaposition of haploid germ cells and formation of a zygote (or 'simple' budding for most single-cell or 'single-capsule' lifeforms).

 

We're unable to explain, say, why fully-grown horses gallop around a field, leaping, prancing and kicking (as do many other animals), and expend energy doing nothing more purposeful than 'letting off steam' (expending energy to expend it), apparently. We call this "play" (and there are gaming theories related to this sort of activity), but I doubt that anyone can successfully assign a reproductive behaviour label to this (or do the converse).

 

Why do we philosophise, or think about anything other than immediate concerns? Is it really all devoted to an ultimate reproductive goal and survival? Where does the search for, say the godhead, or godhood, fit in?

 

I disagree.

 

Fully grown animals can still play. Play can still be practice for valuable skills they will use elsewhere, exersize for skills and muscles that need to be kept in condition, as a way to from closer bonds within your social group. For the horse to run in a field may be an expression of its happiness, for they love wide open spaces, and they are meant to love wide open spaces because that is the environment to which they are adapted and which they function best in.

 

And I've already addressed why we philosophize about and discussed things that seem unrelated to reproduction. Our ability to do so in the first place would be nonexistent without its relationship to increased reproduction. Our desire to understand, to know, to explore, is part of our instincts that go with our intelligence and our high flexibility as a species to exploit so many different environmental niches.

 

And yes, even the search for a god, or some higher moral principle, can have its reproductive purpose. We are group living animals. The group that cooperates better than other groups will be able to procure, for all its members, better resources, and increase their reproductive fitness. But groups are vulnerable to cheaters - members who do not cooperate or reciprocate, but take advantage of other, more trusting members. Cheaters like this need to be punished somehow. But punishing them can be difficult. It may be physically dangerous to yourself, it may give you a bad reputation in the group, the cheater's family may come after you. But if you have a religion, if you have a supernatural god who deals out the rules and lays down punishment instead, no one individual has to pay the cost of punishing cheaters, and the group has greater motivation to cooperate and work together.

 

These things are not conscious. No human or animal thinks to itself, "gosh, I better do this, because it might increase my reproductive success somewhere down the line!" We have urges, feelings, emotions, curiosities, genetic suggestions that lead us toward these beneficial activities. As humans we can choose to ascribe whatever motive we desire to the things that we do, and being conscious, intelligent animals, have more ability to do so than any other living thing. But to think that we are somehow above and free of our evolutionary history is simply incorrect.

 

In a way, you're right. In philosophy this can otherwise be said "existence foregos essence". That means humans become the way they work things out, as when humans are born they are "tabula rasa".

 

I thought the tabula rasa theory went out the window some time ago. Since it's not true.

[thedarkshade]

I thought the tabula rasa theory went out the window some time ago. Since it's not true.

"Tabula rasa", whose best deputy was John Locke ,says that when humans are born, they're just like a empty book, and during the life (empirism) that book is gradually filled.

By saying that tabula rasa went out of the window you're saying that that book is filled before we're born. Jean-Paul Sartre would call this madness because what you're saying is essence foregos existence, and in philosophy that is wrong my friend!

[iNow]

No. Tabula rasa is blank slate. The "empty book" to which you referred above. When we are born, we have certain inherent tendencies and abilities, hence, the slate is not blank, nor is the book empty. This does not dictate a filled slate or a filled book, just a non-empty or non-blank one.

[thedarkshade]

No. Tabula rasa is blank slate. The "empty book" to which you referred above. When we are born, we have certain inherent tendencies and abilities, hence, the slate is not blank, nor is the book empty. This does not dictate a filled slate or a filled book, just a non-empty or non-blank one.

We have only few things, like instincts, and that's normal, even animals have those. I was referring to mental abilities.

[iNow]

We have only few things, like instincts, and that's normal, even animals have those. I was referring to mental abilities.

 

And we have some of those when we are born also. Hence, tabula rasa thrown out the window.

[thedarkshade]

And we have some of those when we are born also.

I just said that!

And instincts are 1/200000000000 of what we learn in life, so tabula rasa stands!

[iNow]

Define "blank" for us. Your definition seems contrary to the standard.

 

You're effectively saying, "We have stuff there when we are born, so it's totally blank!" It makes no sense.

[thedarkshade]

Define "blank" for us. Your definition seems contrary to the standard.

 

You're effectively saying, "We have stuff there when we are born, so it's totally blank!" It makes no sense.

Listen iNow. Everybody know that when people are born they have instincts, because if they didn't have them, they'd be just like robots without batteries. When I said blank, i was referring to mental abilities, ability to have an understanding of the world. And what does a 2 days old baby think about the world? Nothing, because his brain blank!!!

Happy?

[MrMongoose]

The purpose of life is to increase the rate of entropy production of a system (lets say a planet), i.e. if the circumstances are right, not living is against the Second Law. As long as the resources exist to support life, life will exist to destroy those resources.

[Fred56]

I disagree.

 

Fully grown animals can still play.

I believe I say the exact same thing' date=' So what is it you are disagreeing with (I'm somewhat perplexed)?

Play can still be practice for valuable skills they will use elsewhere, exersize for skills and muscles that need to be kept in condition, as a way to from closer bonds within your social group.

How do you explain a solitary fully-grown animal doing this? Are they practising closer bonding with imaginary companions? I agree that play, like that seen in new-born lambs and calves, appears to fit your definition, this can be said to aid learning and habituation to the environment and their role in it. So why do lambs (and antelopes) exhibit "pronking"? I believe this particular behaviour is yet to be explained in such terms, particularly when it's observed in fully-grown individual members, and appears to involve only the individual (it doesn't look much like a group activity).

[iNow]

Listen iNow. Everybody know that when people are born they have instincts, because if they didn't have them, they'd be just like robots without batteries. When I said blank, i was referring to mental abilities, ability to have an understanding of the world. And what does a 2 days old baby think about the world? Nothing, because his brain blank!!!

Happy?

 

You have just stated that we have instincts.

You have just stated that babies which are two days old think "nothing" about the world, because "his brain is blank."

 

I will be happy when you support those two statements with some evidence.

 

 

Since you made the claims, the onus is on you to support them. I am trying to think of just how mean I want to be to you when I prove your second statement COMPLETELY false, but then realize you're a bright kid who means well, and that I don't want to be mean at all.

 

So... Please... define "instincts" and also support your claims (that we have instincts AND have blank brains at 2 days old) or admit that you have no evidence for believing so.

 

I will now reassert that we are not born as blank slates, but instead specially woven canvases with paint already on them.

[Fred56]

"A child is born with no state of mind, blind to the ways of mankind" -Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

[Reaper]

"A child is born with no state of mind, blind to the ways of mankind" -Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

 

Really? How do we know that?

[Fred56]

How much of your infancy can you recall with any clarity? What's your earliest memory? What exactly is a "state of mind"?

 

One big problem, as in any discussion about things like this, is that the terminology is overloaded with various hues of meaning. Purposefulness, as exhibited by a lion stalking it's prey, or that same prey sensing danger and running away, can arguably be said to be different from Purpose, but purpose is purposefulness, and also purposeful behaviour. With a capital P it seems to suddenly become a much broader concept.

My first argument with the guy in the OP was about an objection to his claim (and the same claim some are making here) that: "Life has no purpose". Clearly this has a problem with explaining what the lion or it's prey are doing, in that case. Are they just following a script, or their DNA-determined role, and the conditioning their instincts (DNA) gave them?

 

Comment: who thinks there's no difference between: "does Life have a purpose?", and "does Life have purpose?"

[Reaper]

OK, how much of your infancy can you recall with any clarity? What's your earliest memory? What exactly is a "state of mind"?

 

Just because I don't remember a whole lot from my infancy doesn't mean that my mind was empty. And my earliest memory dates back to around 2 years old, maybe a little younger than that. All it really means is that I don't recall what was going on in my head at infancy.

 

Anyways, both iNow and Paralith have shown that the idea of Tabula Rasa is false. When you are born, there are some mental and physical abilities that are a priori, and your body and brain is taking in information even before you actually exit the womb.

[iNow]

One big problem, as in any discussion about things like this, is that the terminology is overloaded with various hues of meaning.

How many meanings of the word "blank" do you have?

[Paralith]

How do you explain a solitary fully-grown animal doing this? Are they practising closer bonding with imaginary companions? I agree that play, like that seen in new-born lambs and calves, appears to fit your definition, this can be said to aid learning and habituation to the environment and their role in it. So why do lambs (and antelopes) exhibit "pronking"? I believe this particular behaviour is yet to be explained in such terms, particularly when it's observed in fully-grown individual members, and appears to involve only the individual (it doesn't look much like a group activity).

 

Somehow exersize of needed skills and muscles doesn't apply to solitary animals? expressions of happiness for being in the environment you're meant to enjoy doesn't apply to solitary animals?

 

Pronking, also called stotting, is often used a way to show off the animal's health and strength; look how high I can jump. They often do it when they sight a predator, to in essence say to that predator, "Hey, I'm am in really good condition here, see what I can do? I could outrun you no problem. Don't even bother." It's worth it to do so, because discouraging the predator with a few jumps is a lot easier on the animal than actually running full out to escape, let alone the stress they avoid.

 

Now, as to this whole tabula rasa thing. When a child first comes into existence, it has no experiences, no memories. That much is certain. When a child first comes into existence it has a brain designed to understand and organize experience in a specific fashion, and genetic impulses that will motivate it to achieve various reproductively valuable goals once it starts to experience things.

[iNow]

Now, as to this whole tabula rasa thing. When a child first comes into existence, it has no experiences, no memories. That much is certain. When a child first comes into existence it has a brain designed to understand and organize experience in a specific fashion, and genetic impulses that will motivate it to achieve various reproductively valuable goals once it starts to experience things.

 

Your point is valid overall, but I must contest the part about a child being born not having memories. There are clear indications that the neural structures involved in memory show significant activation during both gestation and birth, so it can be said with great confidence that there are "memories" in a newborn child. The issue seems to be in the ability to "recall" those memories, most likely since language and context are not yet well formed, so the memory is more of a foundational neural web.

 

Again, though, you and I seem to agree on the point that the tabula rasa argument has been thoroughly debunked. Only if the proverbial "tablet" has been narrowly defined as only a tiny subset of the childs experience does it hold any water at all (such as defining the table to refer to sex... clearly, the child has not yet experienced anything about that, nor gone through puberty, so the sex "tablet" is blank, but not the tablet defining the complete mental atributes of the child at birth).

 

 

Did I just say "sex tablet?" Hmmm...

 

 

 

Oh yeah... back on topic. "Purpose" is subjective, and hence assigned arbitrarily. There is no inherent purpose in anything really. Purpose is a human concept, not a property of nature itself.

[Paralith]

Your point is valid overall, but I must contest the part about a child being born not having memories. There are clear indications that the neural structures involved in memory show significant activation during both gestation and birth, so it can be said with great confidence that there are "memories" in a newborn child. The issue seems to be in the ability to "recall" those memories, most likely since language and context are not yet well formed, so the memory is more of a foundational neural web.

 

That's why I said, when a child first comes into existence, not when a child is first born. Obviously the brain is active and probably gaining experience for some time before actual birth. At exactly what point during development it can be said that the child can begin to "exist" and to experience, I'll leave up to debate; I think science doesn't have a current consensus on that point, anyway. But you're right, in essence we agree with each other. I was just trying to describe the only way in which tabula rasa could possibly have some biological truth to it.

[iNow]

Thank you for the clarification of your point. I didn't fully recognize the context of the word "existence" in your post when I first read it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Aren't newborns born with a fear of heights and a sucking reflex, among other things? They also "know" that they're supposed to pump their heart and breathe. They know about being hungry or thirsty, cold or hot, uncomfortable, etc, and that crying is the solution to all these problems. Anyhow, the slate may be mostly blank, but it is not completely blank.

 

Actually, I don't know why I am still here as it seems Fred56 is not as open to discussion as he says he is.

[Reaper]

Actually, I don't know why I am still here as it seems Fred56 is not as open to discussion as he says he is.

 

That's probably because he was looking only for validation.

 

Fred56 can hold any opinion he wants, but if he wants to convince us that there is some mysterious purpose to life that science hasn't yet uncovered, or any of the things that he has been preaching lately, then he is going to have to do a lot better than this.

[Paralith]

Aren't newborns born with a fear of heights and a sucking reflex, among other things? They also "know" that they're supposed to pump their heart and breathe. They know about being hungry or thirsty, cold or hot, uncomfortable, etc, and that crying is the solution to all these problems. Anyhow, the slate may be mostly blank, but it is not completely blank.

 

Actually, I don't know why I am still here as it seems Fred56 is not as open to discussion as he says he is.

 

You are right, of course. I just think the only way tabula rasa might possibly apply is to experience. A baby might have all those reflexive instincts, but they haven't experienced heights yet, haven't experienced breathing yet - even though they already have a preprogrammed response for when they do experience these things.

[Fred56]

Fred56 can hold any opinion he wants, but if he wants to convince us that there is some mysterious purpose[/b'] to life that science hasn't yet uncovered, or any of the things that he has been preaching lately, then he is going to have to do a lot better than this.

Or maybe Lockheed wants to believe that this is all very mysterious, perhaps he thinks he's some kind of preacher man who has determined the obvious purpose to my thread? Right back atcha.

 

A second category of behavior produces a broad descriptive sweep. It takes in all behavior we might label purposive or goal-driven. In some contexts ... the term “action” is preferred over behavior, and we say that humans engage in actions, meaning that what we observe about them publicly are behaviors which have an underlying purpose. Seeing someone have lunch in the college cafeteria we are observing the behavior of eating. Had we seen that person earlier in the morning, we might have observed her parking her car in the new structure. A description of her actions in both situations would link them through conversations which would reveal that she is a student at the college: she drives to class in the morning, takes two classes, has lunch, leaves for paid employment in the afternoon, etc. The point of all this is that her actions over a broad range of her day are governed by a sense of purpose, that she is a student and expects to graduate from college in four years with a degree in nursing. While at any point in time it is likely that she does not feel this sense of purpose, that is how she would analyze her actions and make sense of them to a stranger, if asked.

-wikipedia.org