The Purpose of Life

[reaper]

I added the spike so ya'll wouldn't stretch the truth.  but yeah I'd probably die falling out of the airplane, but I think there's been cases of people living so I added the spike

[quadz]

OK back. Sorry again Quadz.

OK.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Like most philosophical, theological, and scientific theories, we're really doing nothing more here than skirting around the edges of that great unanswerable question: What is the Purpose of Life?

I've put my idea on the table: That the purpose of life is to create more life.

Which translates at our genetic level to: The purpose of a self-replicating molecule is to replicate.

Which doesn't say much, as it simply labels its 'purpose' in terms of its function.


 

[Tubby]

the continuation of any species is dependent on the population's ability to re-produce, so by the biological definition of "life", in essence you are saying that the purpose of life is to live.(notice I said the biological definition of life.. being that WE ARE HUMANS this does not apply to all of aspects of life. Finding a mate and reproducing is only one aspect of our interactions with society, aka our social life)

So it's just a very limited, ignorant point that you are making tubby. Maybe YOU should take a look at the bigger picture here...

Answer this question:

If the sole purpose of life is to live(I have already established that it's what you are saying essentially..), what is the purpose of fulfilling Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

and

What is the purpose of life for a dog that has been spade or neutered(or anything that cannot produce offspring)?

Haunted, once again, I didn't say the purpose of life is to 'live'. I said I think the purpose of life is to 'make more life' (procreate).

There is a big difference between these two terms: Living is what individuals do because they're alive. Procreating is what individuals do to make more life.

Your assertion that reproduction is only one aspect of human life is, of course, correct: There's a lot more to life than that. But, without reproducing there wouldn't be any more life...

That's why I suggest that 'making more life' must be the ultimate purpose of life. Not the ONLY purpose, but the ULTIMATE purpose.

As for as the neutered dog's purpose in life - it may become a great pet, but in the strict biological sense it's defunct, if not a burden. Which is why, in nature, so many animals either kill or abandon any of their offspring which are unlikely to ever reproduce due to disability, deformity, sickness, etc.

[Tubby]

OK back. Sorry again Quadz.

OK.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Like most philosophical, theological, and scientific theories, we're really doing nothing more here than skirting around the edges of that great unanswerable question: What is the Purpose of Life?

I've put my idea on the table: That the purpose of life is to create more life.

Which translates at our genetic level to: The purpose of a self-replicating molecule is to replicate.

Which doesn't say much, as it simply labels its 'purpose' in terms of its function.


 

Quadz, the self-replicating molecule (DNA / RNA / prions etc.) is the perfect example of my assertion that the ultimate purpose of life is to create more life: What purpose do these molecules - which are the fundamental building blocks of life - have if not to replicate? Do they have any other purpose?

Although I guess using the word 'purpose' here is somewhat inconsistent with the rest of my argument, as it implies a 'reason for being' which probably doesn't apply at the molecular level - but I guess that's a whole new topic in itself!!

[quadz]

Quadz, the self-replicating molecule (DNA / RNA / prions etc.) is the perfect example of my assertion that the ultimate purpose of life is to create more life: What purpose do these molecules - which are the fundamental building blocks of life - have if not to replicate? Do they have any other purpose?

My point: "The purpose of a self-replicating molecule is to replicate." is a tautology.

The conclusion is equivalent to the premise.

So, saying "the purpose of life is to create more life" reduces to a tautological argument at the genetic level.

Although I guess using the word 'purpose' here is somewhat inconsistent with the rest of my argument, as it implies a 'reason for being' which probably doesn't apply at the molecular level - but I guess that's a whole new topic in itself!!

Let's say for the sake of argument, that at the mollecular level we can agree these molecules have no 'reason for being'.

Is it plausible, then, to expect the complex chemical reactions produced by these molecules to suddenly obtain a 'reason for being' once these chemical systems reach a certain threshold of complexity?

In short: If DNA has no reason for being, is it possible to rationally conclude the structures produced by DNA do have a reason for being?


 

[Tubby]

Quadz, the self-replicating molecule (DNA / RNA / prions etc.) is the perfect example of my assertion that the ultimate purpose of life is to create more life: What purpose do these molecules - which are the fundamental building blocks of life - have if not to replicate? Do they have any other purpose?

My point: "The purpose of a self-replicating molecule is to replicate." is a tautology.

The conclusion is equivalent to the premise.

So, saying "the purpose of life is to create more life" reduces to a tautological argument at the genetic level.

Although I guess using the word 'purpose' here is somewhat inconsistent with the rest of my argument, as it implies a 'reason for being' which probably doesn't apply at the molecular level - but I guess that's a whole new topic in itself!!

Let's say for the sake of argument, that at the mollecular level we can agree these molecules have no 'reason for being'.

Is it plausible, then, to expect the complex chemical reactions produced by these molecules to suddenly obtain a 'reason for being' once these chemical systems reach a certain threshold of complexity?

In short: If DNA has no reason for being, is it possible to rationally conclude the structures produced by DNA do have a reason for being?


 

I agree, Quadz. We can't rationalise that complex organisms produced by 'purposeless' molecules suddenly, somehow, develop a 'reason for being'.

But I inserted the word 'purpose' into the argument because the complex molecular structures which we call 'human beings' have somehow evolved an ability to ask these questions, and one way human beings ask these questions is to enquire as to the 'purpose' (of life or whatever).

In other words, just because a structure is composed of simple building blocks, doesn't mean that the structure must necessarily remain as simple as it's components.

[|iR|Focalor]

As far as YOU are concerned? So I take it you've studied the universe first-hand and discovered life elsewhere? Care to share this evidence you've found?

Yes I believe it's known (as much as we can say anything is known) that life exists elsewhere, something like - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck, and even if it doesn't there's still a duck somewhere.  Personally I have zero doubt about this, just like if I get pushed out of an airplane and fall on a spike I'll die.

Well then lets establish that this is NOT FACT. It's just what you believe, what you have faith in. It looks like faith, it quacks like faith, so it's faith.

There is a human woman with a fleshy cannon-like anomaly protruding from her forehead with which she shoots shards of bone at others and she has wings attached to her ass and she can fly faster than 400mph. Well... I don't have proof or a picture... but she still exists somewhere. Personally, I have zero doubt about this.

 

[quadz]

But I inserted the word 'purpose' into the argument because the complex molecular structures which we call 'human beings' have somehow evolved an ability to ask these questions, and one way human beings ask these questions is to enquire as to the 'purpose' (of life or whatever).

Yes - but just because we have the ability to arrange words and ideas in the form of a question, doesn't in itself guarantee the question is meaningful.  ("How high is up?")

It may be that "what is the purpose of life?" is an arrangement of words and ideas that isn't actually meaningful, at least in a cosmological context.  (Like asking, "what is the purpose of hydrogen?")

In other words, just because a structure is composed of simple building blocks, doesn't mean that the structure must necessarily remain as simple as it's components.

The phenomena of complex structures arising from simple beginnings is indeed well known, and indeed pre-dates biological life:



But just because galaxies formed, doesn't necessarily indicate they have a purpose.

So, "what is the purpose of galaxies?" may be another non-meaningful arrangement of words and ideas into a question.


Dunno.

[[BTF]Sigma]

Prepare to feel really, really small.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

[quadz]

Prepare to feel really, really small.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

Badass.

[Laurelin]

Great video!

Tubby - I was just trying to get you rolling - I wasnt rebuking anything.

[QwazyWabbit]

... and on the seventh day God rested.And on the 8th day God created guns so that Man might carry concealed.
And God gave Adam a chrome and stainless companion, in a hardwood
presentation case and Adam called her name Colt and Browning and
Smith. And Adam made a holster of the thick hide of bovine creatures
and wore his gun slung low. And God saw that it was good.

[|iR|Focalor]

I think the quote you were looking for was:

"God created man - Sam Colt made them equal."

[QwazyWabbit]

I think the quote you were looking for was:

"God created man - Sam Colt made them equal."

I wasn't looking for a quote. Since the paragraph I posted was an original work of mine from some time ago.

[Tubby]

But just because galaxies formed, doesn't necessarily indicate they have a purpose.

But galaxies don't have the ability to ask questions about why they exist. Human beings do, and human beings typically rationalise such things as having some sort of 'purpose' or 'meaning'. I know that's not science, but it's how most human beings generally do things.

We could probably split hairs about the definition of the word 'purpose' and it's use in the context of this argument forever, but I think it's a reasonable word to use on this particular discussion board. We don't all have PhD's in Physics: Everyone knows what we're talking about.

Having said that, I do agree that "just because we have the ability to arrange words and ideas in the form of a question, doesn't in itself guarantee the question is meaningful." (Quadz).

I guess it's a matter of striking a balance between humanity & science. After all, the question 'what is the purpose of life?' is as much a human question as it is a scientific one.