A thread on why we're here

[IronWing]

Random is loaded and incorrect term to use wrt to the physics, chemical processes, and ultimately biological processes expressed in evolution. Random implies that stuff just falls together in a big pile and a monkey in an ugly suit jumps out. Undirected might be a better term.

 

[chris9641]

Why isn't it a random event? This planet only seems special cause you're here observing it. There's an incalculable number of planets in this universe that we have no idea about, and there's evidence of more than one universe which favors my particular hypothesis. Just because we can't see intelligent life from here doesn't mean it's especially rare. We can't see much of anything with real detail.

An ants world doesn't extend far past my counter top, but that doesn't mean I'm the only intelligent(? :^D ) life in the universe, or that I'm especially rare.

So should we stop asking questions of the origin, meaning, and purpose of human existence because it may be a random event? Didn't the pursuit of knowledge spring from these questions? Aren't we self-aware because of these questions?

 

[rudeguy]

There is no reason why.

What a loaded question. This is the ace up your sleeve?

not an ace up my sleeve, just adding some intelligent input

Compared to your ignorant trolling

 

[lxskllr]

So should we stop asking questions of the origin, meaning, and purpose of human existence because it may be a random event? Didn't the pursuit of knowledge spring from these questions? Aren't we self-aware because of these questions?

We should stop asking pointless questions. Studying the nature of things is a noble pursuit, but trying to define the /reason/ we're here isn't. There's no evidence that supports a supernatural reason for existence, and by looking for one you narrow the scope of your quest for knowledge, and will inevitably fail.

 

[TridenT]

snip

The shit you just posted really shows how much of an ignoramus you are.

Stop getting awed by the lack of your ability to understand a lot of shit (stupidity versus complexity. You're in the former.) and stop making such ridiculous assumptions.

:thumbsdown:

 

[MrMuppet]

Random is loaded and incorrect term to use wrt to the physics, chemical processes, and ultimately biological processes expressed in evolution. Random implies that stuff just falls together in a big pile and a monkey in an ugly suit jumps out. Undirected might be a better term.

I'm a determinist too, but I don't deny the implications of Heisenberg's uncertainy principle. Reality will "appear" random, regardless.

 

[IronWing]

So should we stop asking questions of the origin, meaning, and purpose of human existence because it may be a random event? Didn't the pursuit of knowledge spring from these questions? Aren't we self-aware because of these questions?

Origin - Research is ongoing into teasing out the details as far as the surviving evidence allows.

Purpose and meaning are purely human constructs. We can assign any answer we wish and never be wrong or right.

 

[TridenT]

Origin - Research is ongoing into teasing out the details as far as the surviving evidence allows.

Purpose and meaning are purely human constructs. We can assign any answer we wish and never be wrong or right.

This.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

We should stop asking pointless questions. Studying the nature of things is a noble pursuit, but trying to define the /reason/ we're here isn't. There's no evidence that supports a supernatural reason for existence, and by looking for one you narrow the scope of your quest for knowledge, and will inevitably fail.

The only way to discover if a question is truly pointless is to first ask it. Refusing to consider questions that have not been proven pointless is what limits "scope" of knowledge. Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves anything.

 

[IronWing]

I'm a determinist too, but I don't deny the implications of Heisenberg's uncertainy principle. Reality will "appear" random, regardless.

My point wasn't intended to be a case for determinism but more to the idea that the interactions of matter and energy follow discernible rules, that molecules assemble according to understood patterns and processes, and that each step of the way these processes had to be followed. Okay, maybe that sounds a lot like determinism. Let me eat dinner and come back and try again.

 

[TridenT]

The only way to discover if a question is truly pointless is to first ask it. Refusing to consider questions that have not been proven pointless is what limits "scope" of knowledge. Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves anything.

We don't live on if's. We live on assumptions and evidence. Lack of evidence usually is an argument against. I say I have a magic dragon. I have no evidence to prove it. You're not going to think I really have a fucking magic dragon or really live like there's a 50/50 fucking chance that I do.

Your argument is the argument that a lot of agnostics use, and it's not pragmatic in any form at all.

My point wasn't intended to be a case for determinism but more to the idea that the interactions of matter and energy follow discernible rules, that molecules assemble according to understood patterns and processes, and that each step of the way these processes had to be followed. Okay, maybe that sounds a lot like determinism. Let me eat dinner and come back and try again.

I do not see the problem with determinism.

Materialism and determinism go hand in hand. If you're an atheist (AKA pragmatic agnostic) then nihilism follows soon after.

I'm out of this thread. I already know where it is going. Just realize that most of you are ignoramuses.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If you had to come up with some reason, what would it be?

I'm starting to feel like if you stand back and look at things, it's obvious that we are the reason. Perhaps to allow for vessels to house souls, I don't know, but something this impressive isn't here 'just because'.

It's only obvious if you assume that humans are the greatest things in the Universe, and it's hard to look at that objectively given our obvious bias. We aren't the biggest, tallest, longest, strongest, fastest, most abundant or longest living species on a single planet in the Universe, and that's assuming that the greatest thing in the Universe has to be an animal or indeed any species confined to our planet. That's awfully presumptuous. How can we possibly know that objectively?

 

[lxskllr]

The only way to discover if a question is truly pointless is to first ask it. Refusing to consider questions that have not been proven pointless is what limits "scope" of knowledge. Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves anything.

The supernatural can never be proven, so there's no point in asking. Every single thing that's ever been seen by humans can be explained in supernatural terms, and that couldn't be refuted with certainty, so why bother?

 

[chris9641]

We should stop asking pointless questions. Studying the nature of things is a noble pursuit, but trying to define the /reason/ we're here isn't. There's no evidence that supports a supernatural reason for existence, and by looking for one you narrow the scope of your quest for knowledge, and will inevitably fail.

And I think this is where modern science fails... these "pointless" questions lead us here, these pointless questions inspired Plato, Spinoza, Descartes...to me your faith in a noble pursuit with lack a reason is ridiculous.

 

[chris9641]

Origin - Research is ongoing into teasing out the details as far as the surviving evidence allows.

Purpose and meaning are purely human constructs. We can assign any answer we wish and never be wrong or right.

Knowledge is a human construct no?

 

[MrMuppet]

Knowledge is a human construct no?

Animals "possess" knowledge too.

 

[Jeff7]

Why isn't it a random event? This planet only seems special cause you're here observing it. There's an incalculable number of planets in this universe that we have no idea about, and there's evidence of more than one universe which favors my particular hypothesis. Just because we can't see intelligent life from here doesn't mean it's especially rare. We can't see much of anything with real detail.

An ants world doesn't extend far past my counter top, but that doesn't mean I'm the only intelligent(? :^D ) life in the universe, or that I'm especially rare.

This. Our detailed sample size of planetary systems is still <1. From what little I do know of statistical analysis, I think that you need more than one sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.

It's only obvious if you assume that humans are the greatest things in the Universe, and it's hard to look at that objectively given our obvious bias. We aren't the biggest, tallest, longest, strongest, fastest, most abundant or longest living species on a single planet in the Universe, and that's assuming that the greatest thing in the Universe has to be an animal or indeed any species confined to our planet. That's awfully presumptuous. How can we possibly know that objectively?

We're extremely good at housing and distributing bacteria. Maybe that's our purpose, and the bacteria are the ones that the designer was interested in. Or we were just an incidental development along the way: Some of the designer's bacteria breeders went and became sentient. Oh well.

 

[lxskllr]

And I think this is where modern science fails... these "pointless" questions lead us here, these pointless questions inspired Plato, Spinoza, Descartes...to me your faith in a noble pursuit with lack a reason is ridiculous.

The "reason" is knowledge, and it's the only reason needed. I don't have faith in anything, other than the scientific method. That's the only way truth can be discovered. Intermediate untruths may distract, and divert, but ultimately the method prevails, and we learn.

 

[MrMuppet]

My point wasn't intended to be a case for determinism but more to the idea that the interactions of matter and energy follow discernible rules, that molecules assemble according to understood patterns and processes, and that each step of the way these processes had to be followed. Okay, maybe that sounds a lot like determinism. Let me eat dinner and come back and try again.

It sure does.

Perhaps you would prefer the word "probabilistic"?

Just the same, the big bang was a singularity, as such the "laws" of nature break down (as we know them) just the same.

 

[MrMuppet]

There's an incalculable number of planets in this universe that we have no idea about, and there's evidence of more than one universe which favors my particular hypothesis.

I would like to add infinite time to that. Or the possibility of infinite cycles of big bang and big crunch.

Infinite cycles would result in infinite universes, so either would be "enough" to satisfy a virtually infinitely small probability of "intelligent" life.

 

[Dumac]

not an ace up my sleeve, just adding some intelligent input

Compared to your ignorant trolling

Don't flatter yourself. All you've done is regurgitate a non-argument that brought nothing to the table originally, and fails to do so again now.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

We don't live on if's. We live on assumptions and evidence. Lack of evidence usually is an argument against. I say I have a magic dragon. I have no evidence to prove it. You're not going to think I really have a fucking magic dragon or really live like there's a 50/50 fucking chance that I do.

Your argument is the argument that a lot of agnostics use, and it's not pragmatic in any form at all.



I do not see the problem with determinism.

Materialism and determinism go hand in hand. If you're an atheist (AKA pragmatic agnostic) then nihilism follows soon after.

"If's" are "assumptions and evidence." Your attempts at argument are all over the place. "Lack of evidence usually is an argument against." is a simple truism. Look at the long history of society, church and, established scientists using lack of evidence to promote their own viewpoint and were eventually proven wrong. My viewpoint may be equally wrong but, I'm willing to consider you have a magic dragon (it would explain so much).

You also know I am not an agnostic and pragmatism is not well suited to philosophical questions. Determinism also negates the gift of free will. Materialism has nothing to do with determinism unless you believe you can buy your way to happiness?

Honestly, you've thrown out so many misused, ill thought, indefensible philosophical buzzwords, I don't think anyone could follow your train of thought if you had one.

 

[mrCide]

It's so incredibly egotistical to think that humans have any real meaning to the universe. We are here in the same reason that Mars is there, or our sun, or our galaxy. Chance.

We are but a spec of a spec of dust in time that will fade away as fast as we came, much less our planet or even our solar system.

 

[MrMuppet]

I would like to add infinite time to that. Or the possibility of infinite cycles of big bang and big crunch.

Infinite cycles would result in infinite universes, so either would be "enough" to satisfy a virtually infinitely small probability of "intelligent" life.

Of course, if the universe "itself" is infinitely large, we would not need either.

We don't know how large the universe is since nothing travels faster than light and we can't observe farther than the event horizon. The universe may be infinitely large on its own.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The supernatural can never be proven, so there's no point in asking. Every single thing that's ever been seen by humans can be explained in supernatural terms, and that couldn't be refuted with certainty, so why bother?

The asking of questions we do not currently have the ability to answer is what frees our minds to consider new relationships between things we do know. In other words, if we only consider how to make cars go faster, we'll never consider taking to the air. That is why we should "bother."