Fred56 Posted December 5, 2007 Author Posted December 5, 2007 You are obviously not seeking an answer, you are seeking an argument. And you obviously believe that this is what I am doing, based on what looks like a fairly flawed set of logical arguments. Think again. If you ask a direct question such as "Does life have purpose?" then it must answered either with a simple "yes" or "no" or begin with "The Purpose of life is:" How did you come to this particular packaged conclusion? Care to show an analysis? What paths of logic or conjecture (or opinion) did you use?Obviously, I have failed to grasp this. So why has evolution continued to 'evolve' organisms? Why, once lifeforms existed that satisfy the 'sufficient condition' -ability to reproduce- arrived, didn't it stop, having achieved its purpose? (my attempt to return to the conjecture you made a while back) P.S. This discussion hasn't touched on viral forms of life yet. What sort of purpose do the viri exhibit, and how is this different (or is it different)? P.P.S "virus" is a Latin word -'wiroos'- (how strange...) which means "venom or acrid element".
Paralith Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 How about this guy? It looks a lot like he disagrees completely with what you are saying: I'll restate the argument he seems to be objecting to: Life certainly exhibits purposeful behaviour, or "has purpose", and one or two posters to this thread appear to agree with this. But not everyone. Especially not the one I just mentioned. Wonder if he might care to explain why he believes that evolution is being misrepresented. Evolution is definitely purposeful, and its goal appears to be "to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living (and evolving). I would say I got that right, despite what some of you obviously have to say about it. I would say iNow is mistaken. But of course, he has every right to believe whatever he likes, as do we all (he doesn't have to explain why, even). I have no idea what counter arguments he might be talking about either, perhaps he also believes he has posted one or two that actually stand up, hard to say. Ad crassendo. Oh right, you guys don't know Latin... Also I have already said something about the difference between "Life has purpose (is purposeful)", and "Life has a purpose"; the latter would be a metaphysical issue or question. Maybe some don't get this either, not much I can do (or want to) about people's particular skills with their native language. I'm sorry Fred, but INow is right and you are incorrect in saying that the purpose , if by "purpose" you mean "function," of evolution is to make organisms more "efficient." One of the possible outcomes of evolution, and the outcome of natural selection, does make organisms more "efficient" - more successful in reproducing in their environment. The exact definition of evolution is simply a change in the gene frequency of a population. This can happen via random mutation and genetic drift, which by no means guarantee a more "efficient" species. Evolution does not have a function. It does not have a predesigned plan. It is merely the description of a naturally occurring, emergent process. And I've been putting efficient in quotation marks because the word efficient implies a kind of streamlining and editing, looking back at previous editions and making changes to make something optimal. Evolution via natural selection does not function this way. There are limitations to the changes it can make, and it does not look back on what worked or didn't work in the past. It only "cares" about what, right now, makes for the most healthy offspring. If that means awkwardly working around/with a previously existing set of characteristics, then so be it. The giraffe has a blood vessel that starts in the chest area, loops all the way up its neck and back down again, for no reason other than the fact that this vessel originally evolved in shorter necked animals, and this elongation has so far not bestowed any reproductive detriment to the giraffe species. It would most certainly be more efficient overall to not bother growing that giant useless vessel, but as long as it doesn't cause any given individual to have more or less successful offspring than another, it will stay. I repeat, individual organisms can have purpose, can have intentional and goal oriented behaviors. But evolution is NOT an intentional, goal oriented motor of change. It is an emergent process.
JHAQ Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 The biological definition of lifes purpose is to survive long enogh to establish an individuals entities genome into the next generation . To what purpose remains unclear .Maybe despite many failures & dead ends an entity with God like powers ??
Fred56 Posted December 5, 2007 Author Posted December 5, 2007 Evolution does not have a function. It does not have a predesigned plan. First sentence is (almost) complete rubbish (approaches the limit, at least): "Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, gathering and accumulating information. The gene-space has or is a surface against which that measurement occurs. The process is some kind of operator, or set of operators..."[/me] Not sure about your reasons for posting the second one. "Pre-designed" implies a designer. Evolution (Life) is its own designer. A 'plan' is something it definitely can be said to have, though, just not in the "usually accepted definition" of plans and planning. Its description is something we apply. I don't grasp your meaning here. There are limitations to the changes it can make, and it does not look back on what worked or didn't work in the past. It only "cares" about what, right now, makes for the most healthy offspring. If that means awkwardly working around/with a previously existing set of characteristics, then so be it. It does 'look back', though. What does DNA represent? individual organisms can have purpose, can have intentional and goal oriented behaviors. But evolution is NOT an intentional, goal oriented motor of change. It is an emergent process. Evolution 'begets' Life. Therefore Life is also evolution (an evolving process). Evolution does not 'emerge' from Life, it's the other way around, viz: "... complex operators or functions, some as old as [E]volution itself, with a complex variable space; many 'variables' are their own complex system, or subsystem. Like a mesh or network, an organisation. This is bound (compelled) by any particular ecological situation, or, what the surface looks like that it's against at the time. Efficiency and its improvement is a goal. It changes its "tune" as the background harmonics change, but it's following an external conductor." [/me]
iNow Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 First sentence is (almost) complete rubbish (approaches the limit, at least):"Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, gathering and accumulating information. The gene-space has or is a surface against which that measurement occurs. The process is some kind of operator, or set of operators..."[/me] Not sure about your reasons for posting the second one. "Pre-designed" implies a designer. Evolution (Life) is its own designer. A 'plan' is something it definitely can be said to have, though, just not in the "usually accepted definition" of plans and planning. Its description is something we apply. I don't grasp your meaning here. It does 'look back', though. What does DNA represent? Evolution 'begets' Life. Therefore Life is also evolution (an evolving process). Evolution does not 'emerge' from Life, it's the other way around, viz: "... complex operators or functions, some as old as [E]volution itself, with a complex variable space; many 'variables' are their own complex system, or subsystem. Like a mesh or network, an organisation. This is bound (compelled) by any particular ecological situation, or, what the surface looks like that it's against at the time. Efficiency and its improvement is a goal. It changes its "tune" as the background harmonics change, but it's following an external conductor." [/me] Fred - Repeating yourself adds no validity to your claim. Can you support this with anything more than your own assertion?
Paralith Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 First sentence is (almost) complete rubbish (approaches the limit, at least):"Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, gathering and accumulating information. The gene-space has or is a surface against which that measurement occurs. The process is some kind of operator, or set of operators..."[/me] Not sure about your reasons for posting the second one. "Pre-designed" implies a designer. Evolution (Life) is its own designer. A 'plan' is something it definitely can be said to have, though, just not in the "usually accepted definition" of plans and planning. Its description is something we apply. I don't grasp your meaning here. What did I say, Fred? I said evolution is only change - whether or not that change is good or bad is irrelevant. That change can come about through mechanisms that are not related to the ability to reproduce or survive, and can therefore yield less "efficient" organisms. What you're talking about is not evolution but natural selection, which is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. And what is the "selector" in natural selection? It's the environment a given animal lives in. The circumstances of that environment (which most certainly includes other organisms) are such that unfit individuals die and do not leave offspring behind. It is not the function or the purpose of the environment to do so; it is just a property of the environment. Natural selection has no more plan or purpose or reason to exist than do dirt and water - which is none. It does 'look back', though. What does DNA represent? DNA represents currently existing plans for an organism. Let's say that circumstances are such that this organism has DNA composition that is different than its parents - through chromosome recombination, or a mutation, what have you. That individual's parents may have been technically more efficient than the individual, but if that individual is still more reproductively successful than other individuals of its species, its genes will get spread on regardless. Evolution 'begets' Life. Wrong. Evolution is a process that happens to life. Evolution did not occur before life existed. Let me state the definition yet again: a change in the gene frequencies of a population. Evolution can't happen until there are reproducing populations. The same for natural selection. Natural selection is the differential survival of organisms. Selection of organisms can't happen until you have organisms to select from.
Sancho Panza Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Here's what I think I know about the whole enchilada: Change is inevitable. The Universe changes constantly, as Life does too. There is compulsion, but also striving, to this change; a contention, a constant egressing or extending (growing) and energy consuming process. Life is cursive: it excurs and incurs constantly. All life observes its environment. It is obliged to do this. It requires a store of energy, and has learned how to meet this requirement in gradual steps, that have yielded an ability to aggregate and communicate better with other lifeforms, and eventually develop, via this more efficient storage, "better communicating" lifeforms (with each other, and with the environment). Life observes. This is an active, energy requiring, and ongoing process. Information, in the form of photons of EMR, chemicals, and electric potential (in special cases), is collected, or received -in the case of prokaryotes via channels or pores (or simple gaps) in their outer wall, or sheath, that contains their substance (prevents it dissipating) and protects it. Life only samples the constant 'flow' of mass/energy and it then uses these samples to 'remember' or map its environment. In eukaryotes, there is more structure, and more 'sophisticated' transport systems (proteins embedded in cell walls). Also, these more developed cells have learned how to live as a single community, an evolutionary step which led to collections of differentiated cells becoming more dependent on the collective behaviour of all the others. Life began because conditions allowed it, and it has a goal-driven purpose, or purposefulness. Current thinking follows the logic that, since it is here, conditions must have been favourable for its existence. What these conditions were can only be modelled, or we can try to recreate the necessary conditions for something like a lifeform to 'come together', to start up, or emerge from a background somehow. Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, gathering and accumulating information. The gene-space has or is a surface against which that measurement occurs. The process is some kind of operator, or set of operators, complex operators or functions, some as old as evolution itself, with a complex variable space; many 'variables' are their own complex system, or subsystem. Like a mesh or network, an organisation. This is bound (compelled) by any particular ecological situation, or, what the surface looks like that it's against at the time. Efficiency and its improvement is a goal. It changes its "tune" as the background harmonics change, but it's following an external conductor. Your turn. Thank you for providing the best possible example of you own failure. The reason that the response should be a simple "yes or no" or begin with "The purpose of life is" lies in the above quote. A reader has no clue to your opinion in response to your own question until the second half of the first sentence of the FIFTH paragraph and even then it is a vague allusion that dies unsupported while you continue your rambling proselytization regarding what I choose to term "Fred's Theory of Evolution". By the way I don't think you can prove to ANYONE that the purpose of evolution is to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, or gathering and accumulating information because your theory only acknowledges constructive evolution and fails to allow for regressive evolution. It also appears that you may be operating from a dictionary definition of evolution. I have yet to read the work of any evolutionary biologist willing to make a similar statement. But since you want to talk about evolution and life as if they were the same thing, consider this. Evolution is a chance process and, in the biological sense, only refers to a heritable change. When evolution occurs it may be advantageous, detrimental or inconsequential to the survival of the evolving organism. Advantageous evolution has an abundance of examples because it does lead to a more efficient or adaptable organism. Detrimental evolution is harder to find because the process of natural selection removes the examples. Examples of inconsequential evolution are available if one looks for them. For instance Polar bears evolved with a black nose. It is certainly arguable that the polar bear would be better camouflaged if it's nose were white like its fur but the hunting ability of the polar bear and the learned behavior covering it's nose while stalking has made the color of his nose inconsequential. Another example of inconsequential evolution would be the sightless eyes of cave dwelling fish. The evolutionary loss of sight does nothing to improve it's survivability or efficiency, yet it regressively evolved from having sight to blindness even though sight is inconsequential to it's environment.
Fred56 Posted December 6, 2007 Author Posted December 6, 2007 Fred - Repeating yourself adds no validity to your claim. Can you support this with anything more than your own assertion? Can you provide evidence that I have made invalid conclusions: which is what you're implying --I can't make my "invalid claim" more valid by repeating it? repeating it? Or can you provide evidence that "repeating myself" adds no evidence? Or that I am claiming (asserting, conjecturing, voicing an opinion about) something? I seriously doubt that you can. But, by all means... I don't think you can prove to ANYONE that the purpose of evolution is to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, or gathering and accumulating information because your theory only acknowledges constructive evolution and fails to allow for regressive evolution. What, on (God's good) Earth is "regressive evolution"? Is this "evolution going backwards" (which I'm sure it doesn't)? Evolution is a chance process and, in the biological sense, only refers to a heritable change. When evolution occurs it may be advantageous, detrimental or inconsequential to the survival of the evolving organism. "Evolution is a chance process" that has yielded an "efficient" array of lifeforms (at exploiting current conditions). This evolved set of Evolution's functional representatives, is mapped to the environment it "finds itself" in, which is constantly changing. Detrimental random "evolutionary changes" do not get mapped, they are disconnected (the evolved set of "functions" does not function as well, and dies out) unless it can exploit some change that occurs subsequently, in which case it needs to be "lucky" twice -to have "made" the genetic change, and to have "anticipated" an external one- it "usually" happens the other way around. This does not imply that evolution and random mutation respond to external change in some "intelligent way", but there is no problem with describing evolution as a response (of some kind)) to external change. Advantageous evolution has an abundance of examples because it does lead to a more efficient or adaptable organism. Detrimental evolution is harder to find because the process of natural selection removes the examples. Quite. Looks like I failed pretty miserably, then. P.S. If you've assumed that the "best possible example of [my] own failure" I posted was concocted for this particular thread, you have done so mistakenly... P.P.S. I'll repeat myself again: I'll repeat myself again: Evolution is what "begets" lifeforms. Therefore Life (in all its forms) is a result -the range of the function of evolution; and so it is perfectly ok to say "Life is Evolution". Even in a psychiatric ward. Even in a psychiatric ward. Evolution is a process that happens to life. Evolution did not occur before life existed. Let me state the definition yet again: a change in the gene frequencies of a population. (apologies for responding in reverse order). This is a "chicken vs egg" argument. Evolution did not "occur" before Life existed, Life somehow "arrived" and evolution came later? A simultaneous appearance is a much more likely scenario... IOW, Life and (its) evolution are the "same" thing.
Paralith Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 P.P.S. I'll repeat myself again: I'll repeat myself again: Evolution is what "begets" lifeforms. Therefore Life (in all its forms) is a result -the range of the function of evolution; and so it is perfectly ok to say "Life is Evolution". Even in a psychiatric ward. Even in a psychiatric ward. The definition of begets: To father, to sire; to cause to exist, to produce. Biological evolution did not cause life to exist. In order to do so biological evolution must have existed before life existed. As a process that happens to life, this is impossible. It only began once organisms capable of begetting more organisms began to exist. The forms that life takes are the result of the process of evolution. But life itself did not come into existence because of biological evolution. The initial formation of life even has its own field of abiogenesis, a field separate and distinct from evolution because of this very fact. You can make witty little remarks about repeating yourself and psychiatric wards as much as you want. That doesn't change the fact that the statement you are positing as true is inherently false. Unless your definition of the words in your statement are different than what I think they are. If that is so, please tell me. (apologies for responding in reverse order). This is a "chicken vs egg" argument. Evolution did not "occur" before Life existed, Life somehow "arrived" and evolution came later? A simultaneous appearance is a much more likely scenario... IOW, Life and (its) evolution are the "same" thing. Saying that "life and evolution began simultaneously" is a far different statement from "evolution begets life." Which one is it that you are actually trying to defend?
Fred56 Posted December 6, 2007 Author Posted December 6, 2007 the fact that the statement you are positing as true is inherently false. Unless your definition of the words in your statement are different than what I think they are. If that is so, please tell me. A word which someone has placed quotes around implies the definition of that word is only itself "implied"... At least when I learned to read it was. But feel free to reach your own conclusions here... It only began once organisms capable of begetting more organisms began to exist. When was this, do you think. Are you saying that after some sort of organisms first appeared, they didn't evolve until they, 'evolved' the capacity to reproduce (how did this come about)? Why didn't these lifeforms just die out (because of the entropy thing)? Inherent falsity should be self-evident, or surrender to analysis. When have I said that Evolution is what caused the appearance of Life? "A simultaneous appearance is a much more likely scenario... IOW, Life and (its) evolution are the "same" thing." Can wit help itself? I wonder... Defensive argument is a bit of a "thread" in this thread. You're accusing me of doing what you (and others) are doing as well. P.S. Some might imagine that I am pounding away on my PC's keyboard, and getting all angry or upset or something. Actually I think this is all pretty heuresement. Watch out for that brick wall.
revprez Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 I got into a stoush with someone who appears to be stuck on the idea that we can't say it's even meaningful, and is no use in any definition (even though he then seems to be quite happy to use purposeful behaviour as a distinctive, and observable phenomenon). Margulis essentially defines life as engines that can replicate. If this definition is sufficient, the purpose of life is to consume and reproduce. Your friend raises an issue of semantics by questioning the meaning of life. Since semantics is a matter to be adjudicated by the sapient and appreciated by the sentient, your friends is pondering the purpose of intelligence. I suggest you focus your discussion accordingly.
dichotomy Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 The exact definition of evolution is simply a change in the gene frequency of a population. This can happen via random mutation and genetic drift Can I add to your definition – An advantageous (for a particular moment in time/space) change forced by shifting environmental pressures. Is it fair to say, that there is no divine or, conscious purpose of life, but there are obviously many examples of successful/unsuccessful instinctive outcomes of genetic change. Instinct imo means an outcome without the use of consciousness. The goal of these instinctive outcomes i would think, to an unpresumptuous human observer, is the perpetuation of life. As far as I'm aware, a chemical reaction doesn't attempt to sustain itself, whilst life forms instinctively and consciously do, is this purpose? So, maybe a conscious human is the only creature that thinks it can see purpose, when in reality, life is as the rest of nature, it just IS. A bunch of causes and effects.
DivideByZero Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 I copied this from my website, http://braintyrant.co.nr To live is to transfer yourself from a high dense area to a low dense area; from high frustration to a relaxed state. One may compare it to osmosis, the diffusion of water from a high concentration to a lower, or electricity, which follows the same law. If one does not relax, if water does not diffuse, or if electricity does not flow, then you, water, or electricity, respectively will be pressured. If one does not act when he or she is in pressure, they will not be following the requirement of the earlier definition of "to live", and thus he or she will die. In addition to transferring yourself from high to low, you must also never live stationary. A poor man always wants money and a rich man always wants more money. Why does the rich man aspire more money? Boredom. A rich man has already accomplished a high to low transfer but now he has nothing to do, hence, boredom. Boredom is the frustration felt against you when you have less room for improvement in your life than you have time to spare. Less room for improvement means you are relaxed but cannot be any more relaxed because you have reached the limit. Being relaxed does not make you happy. Happiness is the illusion of the actual transfer taking place from a higher state to a lower one. As the time in the period of boredom increases, you gradually loose relaxation, thus you become more and more frustrated. That is why when you are bored you must find something to do that will move you to a happy, relaxed state. This is the way life loops. Nature has designed itself to let everything live. Or did God design nature? There is no difference. God might be nature itself, after all, what is nature? If God is not nature, is nature God? People ask these question because they want answers. An answered question brings relaxation; transfer from high to low. If a question is not answered, we get curious. The higher the curiosity of the question, the higher the value. The higher the value, the more relaxation it will bring. Question about God have not been answered and thus they have a high value. If we answer a question with a high value we will be in a higher state of relaxation. After a question is answered, it's value gradually decreases, thus it's relaxation will slowly decay. "Is there such this as God?" is a question with a very high value. Once it is answered, everyone will be relaxed. But it is just a simple yes or no question. The answer is useless to us. It will not matter whatsoever because we can't do anything about it. Once the the value of a big question has decayed down low enough, we will again get bored. Do you see the loop of life? It is Boredom that makes us Discover the world. It is Boredom that makes us thirsty to learn. It is Boredom that makes us do crazy things. It is Boredom that let us live. If you cannot find a way out of boredom, you will start developing illusions such as love, hate, and hope to keep yourself busy, thus keeping yourself out of boredom. This is why we have emotions. They keep us alive. Boredom is like a Black Hole, which is impossible to escape from. It will suck you in and you have to keep getting yourself out, even though you know you there is no way out. Why do we love, hate, and hope? Because they create suffering and, logically, without suffering we cannot get out of it. Remember to go from a high to low situation is to end suffering. Therefore we live to get out of suffering. As time passes, our relaxation goes up. But something must go down to keep the universe balanced. The thing that goes down is Boredom. By down, it means closer to frustration. We can set relaxation to +1 and boredom to -1. The net value is thus 0. And all life s balanced. An optimist will say the meaning of life to to live happily, and a pessimist will say the meaning of life is to end suffering, but a rationalist will say the meaning of life is "to live". Boredom is what triggered me to write this. While I was writing it, I was transferring from a frustrated state, boredom, to a relaxed state. That transformation is now complete and I must confirm, I am feeling relaxed. Sadly, as time will increase, my relaxation will decrease and I will return to the beautiful state of Boredom. - By Nishant Shukla
Sancho Panza Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 Fred, Regressive evolution is the reduction or disappearance of a trait over time. To return to the cave fish analogy, this articular fish evolved eyes and the abiity to see, then as it adapted to it's dark cave environment it lost it's ability to see even though it retaied it's eyes. That is What, on (God's good) Earth is "regressive evolution" To a simpleton it might seem like evolution going backwards but that is a poor description of what occurs. If you think I just made the term up, google it, but IF you get a wiki don't stop there. The bad thing about wiki is that I, who have never held a surgical laser can publish a wiki describing the surgery and if I use enough big words and convoluted thought, it might even be quoted as the "current thinking" on the subject.
Paralith Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 A word which someone has placed quotes around implies the definition of that word is only itself "implied"...At least when I learned to read it was. But feel free to reach your own conclusions here... I know. I do the same thing. But then I clarify why I'm putting that word in quotation marks, to make sure that I am understood correctly. You did not. I invited you to describe to me what different meaning you might have for the word begets. You've implied that your meaning is different but have yet to tell me exactly how. I don't need your permission to reach my own conclusions, but I need your help to correctly understand yours. When was this, do you think. Are you saying that after some sort of organisms first appeared, they didn't evolve until they, 'evolved' the capacity to reproduce (how did this come about)? Why didn't these lifeforms just die out (because of the entropy thing)? Inherent falsity should be self-evident, or surrender to analysis. When have I said that Evolution is what caused the appearance of Life? "A simultaneous appearance is a much more likely scenario... IOW, Life and (its) evolution are the "same" thing." Can wit help itself? I wonder... Defensive argument is a bit of a "thread" in this thread. You're accusing me of doing what you (and others) are doing as well. P.S. Some might imagine that I am pounding away on my PC's keyboard, and getting all angry or upset or something. Actually I think this is all pretty heuresement. Watch out for that brick wall. I subsequently edited my post once I saw your convenient edit. I guess you didn't see it. As I think INow has said before, you're changing the goalposts. To say "evolution begets life" and "evolution and life began simultaneously" are two very different things. Yes, once life began, and began to replicate in such a fashion that the members of the next generation are not always exact genetic copies of the first generation, evolution began also. I never said anything to the contrary. Only that evolution could not exist prior to life - which is what you implied by saying evolution "begets" life, quotation marks or not. To make, to sire, to cause, to get from it - it all requires that evolution existed prior to life. But just because two things begin at the same time most certainly does not mean they are somehow the same thing. Evolution is the description of a change. This is most certainly a different entity from a changing, material organism.
Fred56 Posted December 6, 2007 Author Posted December 6, 2007 To say "evolution begets life" and "evolution and life began simultaneously" are two very different things. This appears to be where the semantic manure hits the discursive fan. What I meant to imply by the statement "evolution begets life", is that the process is the 'agent' that produces new, improved, or even regressed, lifeforms. If your interpretation tells you I'm saying "evolution came first", as you imply, then I apologise for not making this clear. We cannot say one came before the other, or is the proximate cause of the other. i.e. Life didn't "beget" evolution, either, which is what you seem to imply with: once life ...began to replicate in such a fashion that the members of the next generation are not always exact genetic copies of the first generation, evolution began also. evolution began once life "got around to" it? How did it get around to it; via what process? I shall make "some kind" of effort to clarify any meaning that might present semantic problems in future, or "moving forward", as "they" say. P.S. but I don't know that I can agree with the atrophy of functionality -limbs, whale rear legs, our missing tail, the appendix, blind cave-fish- as "regressive", it's still moving in the same direction as every other kind of life, i.e. forwards, not backwards, so I apply the label "redundant scientific distinction" to such observations, that are made by observers and thinkers, and do not concur with it, silly me. P.P.S. You might want to keep closer tabs on my post-posted edits. I like to read it again and sometimes alter the odd thing while I still can -or is this seen as bad netiquette?
Paralith Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 Can I add to your definition – An advantageous (for a particular moment in time/space) change forced by shifting environmental pressures. Sorry, dichotomy, but that's natural selection again. Biological evolution by itself is not necessarily advantageous. Genetic drift, for instance, can cause the loss of advantageous alleles simply through chance. This loss is still considered evolution. Is it fair to say, that there is no divine or, conscious purpose of life, but there are obviously many examples of successful/unsuccessful instinctive outcomes of genetic change. Instinct imo means an outcome without the use of consciousness. The goal of these instinctive outcomes i would think, to an unpresumptuous human observer, is the perpetuation of life.As far as I'm aware, a chemical reaction doesn't attempt to sustain itself, whilst life forms instinctively and consciously do, is this purpose? So, maybe a conscious human is the only creature that thinks it can see purpose, when in reality, life is as the rest of nature, it just IS. A bunch of causes and effects. (emphasis mine) With that, I agree. i.e. Life didn't "beget" evolution, either, which is what you seem to imply with: evolution began once life "got around to" it? How did it get around to it; via what process? I shall make "some kind" of effort to clarify any meaning that might present semantic problems in future, or "moving forward", as "they" say. If that's what I seem to imply then I apologize. Evolution should be thought of as a property of life. Life doesn't start or create evolution; evolution happens when life reproduces non-clonally. An appropriate analogy would be yourself; when you as an embryo first formed, you began to grow. Growth is a property you as an organism have, at least for the first part of your life. That doesn't mean you somehow begot or created growth. It's just what you do. Nor can you be considered equal to growth, as life cannot be considered equal to evolution.
dichotomy Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 Sorry, dichotomy, but that's natural selection again. Biological evolution by itself is not necessarily advantageous. Genetic drift, for instance, can cause the loss of advantageous alleles simply through chance. This loss is still considered evolution. I’d still assume the ‘lost’ advantageous alleles would have been lost for an environmental reason, it wouldn’t be just through chance only. I’d even consider that the alleles loss was a kind of ‘spreading of risk’ in biological terms (Is there a biological term for ‘spreading risk’?). Say if you had a red flower, Blue flower and white flower of the same species. Red might be the only survivor in that group at a moment in time, but depending on how the environment may have changed, white or blue may have been more successful. Thus, the advantage is the variety within the species?
john5746 Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 I agree with YT that life seeks pleasure/avoids pain. I guess this would be more so at the organism level. At the gene level, it is to multiply. Does the universe have a purpose? I doubt it, therefore I doubt life has a purpose. It is up to humans to give themselves purpose, IMO. All Life will die out with the universe eventually anyway, so enjoy it while it lasts.
Fred56 Posted December 6, 2007 Author Posted December 6, 2007 Does the universe have a purpose? I doubt it, therefore I doubt life has a purpose. Purpose and purposive aren't distinct except syntactically (one's a noun, the other's an adjective), but the question was: "does Life have purpose" -i.e. is Life purposeful... There's a metaphysical distinction between "a purpose" (specific), and "purpose" (general). Once more with feeling: The universe is "purposeful" because it is active (changing), therefore its "purpose" or purposefulness is (to) change. We observe it doing this, but any "intelligence" or agency we assign really can't go any further than this (the change we observe). Or we're into anthropomorphism --but we're probably unable to step outside this viewpoint anyway, so that leaves the recognition that any "intelligent" aspects of the inanimate world are entirely of our own making. Only life is an intelligent agent, which can be "independent" (though this is a philosophical kind of distinction, because life depends on the world and its change). We're lifeforms. Life is purposeful, therefore we also are purposeful, or exhibit purposefulness. Compared to an inanimate universe, we lifeforms appear able to "choose", to direct ourselves (and other lifeforms and inanimate things), to our individual and group purposive agency. Inanimate things don't exhibit this same apparent agency. The world has (purposive) agency only in the sense that life is obliged to "keep up with" the changes in it; i.e to evolve. (or maybe I'm all wrong about this, in which case please feel "free" to correct any mistakes...)
hobz Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 To me it seems that when life (in form of humans) proclame that it it self is meaningless or purposeless. If all humans could agree upon this, then, as the most advanced known representative of life, this must be true.
jedaisoul Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 I'll come to my opinions on the original question, but first, an extract from the OP: "A robot cannot learn (they only respond in a preprogrammed way) and evolve due to the accumulation of 'learning' (DNA modifications or mutations -group knowledge)." I think this is not true. A robot can learn. What it cannot do (so far) is comprehend what it has learned. For example, it would be easy to program a small robot to travel in an arbitrary direction until it reaches an obstruction. Then stop and try moving in other directions. By recording how far it travelled and in which directions, it could generate a "map" of it's environment. Ultimately it would be able to move around without bumping in to the objects. That is, until one or more of the objects were moved. Then it could amend it's map to accommodate the change. As far as I'm aware, this is not only theoretically possible, it has already been done. So a robot could learn knowledge that was not pre-programmed into it. What has to be pre-programmed is the ability to learn. But does a robot comprehend what it learned? As far as we can tell, no, it does not. The use it makes of the learning also has to be pre-programmed, so that it does not require the robot to comprehend the knowledge in order to use it. As far as I'm aware no one has so far built a robot capable of comprehending knowledge. However, just because that may be true today, does not mean that it will always be so. ---------------------------------------- Now to the original question "Does life have purpose?". I think we can break this down into three questions: a) "Was life created with a purpose?" Believers in a creator God would say "yes", but I think that scientifically there is no reason to assume that. The probable answer is "no". b) "Has life acquired a purpose?" I think the answer to that is "yes". All life has acquired the purpose of continuing itself. This does not require a creator. It's just that lifeforms that do not have a method of reproduction die out. So those that can reproduce prevail. c) "Is there only one purpose for life?". Humans acquire many different reasons for living: pleasure, money, power, the creation or appreciation of art... The list is extensive, but, on the other hand, most can be equated with pleasure in one form or another. So does that mean that pleasure is the only purpose? I think that the answer is "no", for the simple reason that we've already stated a more fundamental purpose; the continuation of life itself.
Paralith Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 I’d still assume the ‘lost’ advantageous alleles would have been lost for an environmental reason, it wouldn’t be just through chance only.I’d even consider that the alleles loss was a kind of ‘spreading of risk’ in biological terms (Is there a biological term for ‘spreading risk’?). Say if you had a red flower, Blue flower and white flower of the same species. Red might be the only survivor in that group at a moment in time, but depending on how the environment may have changed, white or blue may have been more successful. Thus, the advantage is the variety within the species? No, the allele can be lost simply through chance. This is much more likely to happen in small populations of course, but it can happen that the dice fell in such a way that none of the offspring of the next generation received that particular allele, and so it is lost from the population. Of course alleles can be lost environmentally, but they can be lost this way also, and through a random mutation that renders the gene non-functional, or through a natural disaster that kills all the individuals with that one allele, etc.
iNow Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 Fred - Repeating yourself adds no validity to your claim. Can you support this with anything more than your own assertion? Can you provide evidence that I have made invalid conclusions: which is what you're implying -- Some are invalid, others are just completely unsupported. Here are a few at quick glance of this thread: From post #16: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=374846#post374846 Purpose is an obvious feature of living things From post #24 (which I already challenged): http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=375156#post375156 Evolution's purpose is to produce lifeforms that are more efficient at 'gene-mixing' or measurement of the 'gene-space', and ultimately will produce a lifeform with 'ultimate reproductive ability' Also from post #24 (which Paralith already clarified): 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. In post #38, you stated the following and cited Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five to support someone else's point which was shown false: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=375352#post375352 A child is born with no state of mind, blind to the ways of mankind Post #69 is an especially good one since you'd already been proven false on this claim, but then say it again: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=376197#post376197 Evolution is definitely purposeful, and its goal appears to be "to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living (and evolving). I would say I got that right, despite what some of you obviously have to say about it. In post #74, I agree with your first part of the below, but not the non-sequitur which follows: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=376401#post376401 Life began because conditions allowed it, and it has a goal-driven purpose, or purposefulness. And another from the same post: Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, <...> Efficiency and its improvement is a goal. And... to close out this particular question, post #79, the very one which prompted me to suggest that repeating yourself adds no validity to your claim: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=376598#post376598 First sentence is (almost) complete rubbish (approaches the limit, at least): "Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, gathering and accumulating information. I can't make my "invalid claim" more valid by repeating it? repeating it? That's correct. You win a cookie. Or can you provide evidence that "repeating myself" adds no evidence? Sure. If your claim was wrong the first time, it's still wrong the second time you make it. The very concept of repeating oneself implies duplication of previous. Duplication adds no information to the subject being duplicated. Or... in this case, repeated. Or that I am claiming (asserting, conjecturing, voicing an opinion about) something? I seriously doubt that you can. But, by all means... Sure. That's rather simple. I've already given multiple examples above where you've done this, but here's another in case you still don't believe me. Right back on Post #60: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=375848#post375848 Life is purposeful. Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living (and evolving). Efficiency and its improvement is a goal (that will never be 'reached'),
Fred56 Posted December 6, 2007 Author Posted December 6, 2007 What can I say? Thanks for the cookie. I'll see if doG wants it. P.S. If you seriously "believe" that you have demonstrated something with your "last post", I would say you need to practice the bugle a bit harder. I can't see anything that refutes a single statement I have made. Saying "Some are invalid, others are just completely unsupported" without doing anything more analytical than claiming it's all up the creek is not any sort of analysis. You have simply posted your opinion, which you should at least acknowledge if you do it. "Sheeeyt, brutha, ain' no thang..." "In genetics, we have the complete DNA sequence of several organisms, including man, and we are rapidly learning what many of these genes "do." But this analytic approach cannot tell us how the life of a buffalo differs from that of a butterfly, or even what accounts for the special unity and active wholeness of buffaloes or butterflies or the purposive efforts they make to preserve their own specific integrity." - Leon R. Kass, M.D. "Evolution works without either plan or purpose" … "Evolution is random and undirected” (Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine’s Biology (4th ed. 1998), pg. 658) --These guys need to explain, in that case, why evolution produces valid, well-adapted organisms. In short, I believe they are incorrect. "[W]hat about the accusation that Darwinism is mechanistic and devoid of purpose? Here Goodenough answers that all machines, whether built by humans, like a car, or resulting from mutation and natural selection, like the bacterial flagellum, have a purpose: "organisms, like machines, are nothing if not purposive." -John C Greene National Center for Science Education etc and etc. P.P.S. What was the purpose of your last communique, bro?
Recommended Posts