Does life have purpose?

[mooeypoo]

--I'm having computer troubles, posted mixed stuff.. will sort it out and repost, sorry for that --

-- Okay, I must appologize in advance -- I had some FireFox issues while replying. I ahd to take the post off and re-edit, but I hope I didn't slip in something from another forum... if I did, point it out to me..--

 

 

Not as objects in themselves, no. But I might use one functionally,

 

precisely!

 

You might USE one functionally.

 

Functionally implies that someone/thing USES -- actively -- the 'tool'.

 

That's not what's happening. Evolution is not a conscious or targetted process, and it's not "using" Natural Selection --> therefore it's not quite right to say it's a function.

 

That's the only disagreement I have with that term, but to be honest, I think this isn't the right argument.. it's not entirely important what you decide to call it (I still disagree because of the connotation, which I find important in itself, but still) -- it's how we define it.

 

I keep getting the feeling that you view Evolution through Natural Selection as a sort of 'directed' process, and I think that this is where our disagreement lies in its core.

 

Am I wrong?

 

 

to investigate the possibility of undoing screws, say. I would apply an energy input (torque) to the the screwdriver (me) and map the screw to a new value. That's what functions do, they map or commute things, from one state to another. Lots of them can do it with numbers, but (using) a screwdriver is a function.

Yeah, I don't see how this has anything to do with Natural Selection.. it doesn't describe the "function" of Natural Selection in Evolution *at all*...

 

Unless I again didn't understand you.

 

 

Look at it this way: there's this thing that is a good technique for doing something -let's call this something an algorithm, or a process.

Okay, technique is not the same as function. I have less problems with "technique" but even that is not entirely accurate, because technique ALSO implies that someone/thing is DOING this technique...

 

Natural Selection is another way of saying "How Biological Evolution Works". That's it. It's nothing more than that...

 

 

If I use this technique, I become something that is more than it was, a thing that can now do some action, thanks to this new technique or method an apparatus. OK but I haven't stopped being what I was before, and if I lose or discard this appendage, or tool, I'm back to how I was.

 

Indeed. But Natural Selection is not that at all; there are no "options" to Evolution, and Nature "picked" this one. Natural Selection is the *EXPLANATION* of how Evolution works in biological beings.

 

 

If the tool is a screw-turning thing, when I hold it I'm a thing that can turn screws, a screw-turner, but I'm still me. If I disconnect from this device, or extension, it's still itself. The language is confusing --we call the thing we use the same name as what we do with it. i.e the language we use is full of verbal nouns

 

I don't understand what you're saying here.... The fact something uses a tool doesn't change its being, yeah, I agree, but that doesn't mean that if it is causing a change it must be "using" a tool.

 

It's all about the language... again -- I think we're arguing the wrong thing. You seem to think of Evolution as an "animate" thing with a purpose and a target, as if we - humans - are this "peak" of its function..

 

That's not the way things are at all.

 

Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how best' to collect the 'wanted' data).

Yeah, that's a bit generalized, but okay, yes, Science is the method of gathering data and figuring out how things work.

 

Notice that Science is not JUST gathering data.

 

Theories that connect data together are also essential, and in Science they also have a 'set' of rules how to be done.

 

Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood.

e.g.

Tabernarius modi sciens instrumenti, paret aptissimu sumer.

 

is this channel noisy? do you need some technique or method (like a dictionary of some kind), to commute the message?

 

Nothing is truly objective, which is why we HAVE the scientific method, to try and eliminate objectivity as much as possible.

 

The fact you run a "Double Blind" experiment, for instance, is not quite because you don't trust the scientists running it, but because you want to eliminate their unconscious impact on raw data, which is a human thing to do -- even if they don't WANT to impact anything, we're human beings.

 

 

Scientific Method defines what we can see as fact and theory so we can explain our world better.

 

Now.. is it just me, or is this last part about Science supposed to be in our *other* discussion? I don't quite see how it fits in here.

 

And one last thing -- Fred, I understand that you have a convinction, I have another, but you seem to completely disregard 90% of what I'm saying, and then pick only one point I make and answer that.. As a result, we keep going in circles, when you later pick the OTHER points which I already answered or addressed at some way or another in that post.

 

I respect you and read all you are saying, as you can see.

 

Do the same for me, please. It's getting *quite* frustrating, to answer thorroughly, and get a half-paragraph-long question that addresses only a *PART* of my point.

 

 

 

~moo

[Sancho Panza]

Fred, You bounce like the shocks on a fifty dollar Buick. You start by asking the question, " Does Life have purpose?" and when someone offers an answer you bounce the question to "What is the purpose of life?" when someone answers that question you again bounce the question to "What is the purpose of evolution?". Then your question becomes all about genetics, then process, then function, then result. Bouncey, bouncey, bounce and all of a sudden you're talking about screwdrivers and reducing the noise in the channel when you are the source of the noise.

 

You must either be waiting for someone to tell you what you want to hear or you just enjoy changing the rules to keep the argument going. Wait there is a third possibility maybe, just maybe, you don't know how to ask the question you really want answered.

 

p.s. Tabernarius modi sciens instrumenti, paret aptissimu sumer doesn't really translate unless it refers to a Sumerian Bartender. Check your spelling and conjugation

 

Sancho Panza

[iNow]

Nothing is truly objective, which is why we HAVE the scientific method, to try and eliminate objectivity as much as possible.

Taken in context with the rest of your post, I'm pretty sure you meant the above to say: "to try and maximize ojectivity as much as possible," not to "eliminate" it. Yes?

[mooeypoo]

Taken in context with the rest of your post, I'm pretty sure you meant the above to say: "to try and maximize ojectivity as much as possible," not to "eliminate" it. Yes?

 

Exactly.

 

My point was that the scientific method was created *because* humans are , in their 'core', not objective. We devised a system to maximize the production of objective results - and that is the Scientific Method.

 

 

Thanks

 

~moo

[Norman Albers]

"...fifty-dollar Buick", that was a cool line. R. Feynman said that for sure he could only say the purpose of life is to do it again.

[Fred56]

What exactly is this "scientific method" that some of you seem to believe is some magical trick that Science does? Is it like a genie? What does it do? Where is it? Does it look like a collection? OR is it some vague concept that no-one can define?

That's not what's happening. Evolution is not a conscious or targetted process, and it's not "using" Natural Selection --> therefore it's not quite right to say it's a function.

So natural selection is something that "sits around", doing nothing? evolution "knows nothing" about it? How does it "work" then?

Scientific Method defines what we can see as fact and theory so we can explain our world better.

All by itself?

I understand that you have a convinction' date=' I have another[/quote']I wonder what it is? Are you going to tell us?

[iNow]

And one last thing -- Fred, I understand that you have a convinction, I have another, but you seem to completely disregard 90% of what I'm saying, and then pick only one point I make and answer that.. As a result, we keep going in circles, when you later pick the OTHER points which I already answered or addressed at some way or another in that post.

 

I respect you and read all you are saying, as you can see.

 

Do the same for me, please. It's getting *quite* frustrating, to answer thorroughly, and get a half-paragraph-long question that addresses only a *PART* of my point.

 

What exactly is this "scientific method" that some of you seem to believe is some magical trick that Science does? Is it like a genie? What does it do? Where is it? Does it look like a collection? OR is it some vague concept that no-one can define?

 

So natural selection is something that "sits around", doing nothing? evolution "knows nothing" about it? How does it "work" then?

 

 

So much for your calm and kind request.

[Fred56]

Tabernarius modi sciens instrumenti' date=' paret aptissimu sumer doesn't really translate unless it refers to a Sumerian Bartender. Check your spelling and conjugation

[/quote']

How about you do this? You haven't tried to translate what it says, saying "it doesn't translate", implies you don't understand it. The channel is noisy -my point.

[Sancho Panza]

Fred, didn't you insinuate that you held some type of degree in science? Most kids learn scientific method to facilitate their 5th grade science project.

 

Scientific Method.

1.State the problem

2.Make Observations

3.Form a Hypothesis

4.Do the Experiment

5. Draw a conclusion

 

The problem here is that you continue to alter the variables when it comes to stating the problem (asking your question) . Either by intent or folly your constant playing with the variables confounds addressing your question by using the scientific method. Here is a link that will explain scientific method to you at an elementary school level

http://www.brandonbeltz.com/scimeth/index.htm

 

By the way Tabernarius is latin for bartender, sciens is latin for understanding and sumer refers to sumeria. if the rest of that gibberish you wrote is supposed to be latin there are no such latin words to translate. I am beginning entertain the notion that the signal noise you are experiencing may be caused by a thin barrier constructed out of a ductile material with the atomic number of 13 that you are using to line your galea

 

Sancho Panza

coito ergo sum

[Paralith]

What exactly is this "scientific method" that some of you seem to believe is some magical trick that Science does? Is it like a genie? What does it do? Where is it? Does it look like a collection? OR is it some vague concept that no-one can define?

 

Here you are, Fred. Have a go at this magical mysterious undefinable thing.

 

So natural selection is something that "sits around", doing nothing? evolution "knows nothing" about it? How does it "work" then?

 

Natural selection is a process. Processes don't "sit around." Evolution is a process, not a conscious entity. Evolution doesn't "know" anything. Both you and others in this thread have previously exhibited a quite decent understanding of how natural selection works. Your asking this question is downright ridiculous at this point.

 

All by itself?

 

It's the scientific method, Fred. Do methods do things all by themselves? No more than processes think or sit around.

 

 

I'm going to have to add my voice to moo's distaste with your discussion methods, Fred. You only respond to specific points within a person's posts that you feel like responding to, and then ask the same questions again that we already answered, but you just didn't feel like paying attention to the answers at the time. Then you ask ridiculous questions like, "Does the scientific method do things by itself?" that are things a two year old child would ask. Though considering you blatantly ignored moo's much more polite requests, I don't know why I'm even wasting my proverbial breath.

[Sancho Panza]

Excuse me I made an error YOU DID NOT INSINUATE THAT YOU HAD A DEGREE IN SCIENCE. In post 117 you actually state you have one but for some reason you don't say from where. Do they have an injunction?

 

Please forgive my error.

 

Sancho Panza

[mooeypoo]

So much for your calm and kind request.

 

Should I be surprised he attacked Sancho back instead of relating to any useful subjects?

 

Seriously, Fred, are you AFRAID of dealing with certain issues? Your evading the questions and throwing Red Herrings around along with infinite non sequitors, straw men and some generous amount of personal incredulity.

 

Scared much?

[Fred56]

Huh?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's the way to do it. Feign ignorance.