What is the true purpose of our life here on Earth?

[kaelcarp]

The idea of purpose in itsef requires that the object or individual with a purpose, was given that purpose by a higher authority. If you create your own purpose it is merely a personal desire which cannot be imposed on anyone else, except by force; thus nulifying that individual's personal desire.

 

Wihout a higher authority, there can be no true purpose beyond personal desire.

I don't know. I don't think purpose needs to be objective to exist. We can say that life on Earth has no objective purpose, but it does have a different subjective purpose to each individual.

[James Putnam]

My opinion is: The purpose of life anywhere is to reach the level of development that allows the successful discernment of the purpose of the universe. Beginning at the beginning, the purpose of the origin of the universe was to develop into the full universe. The purpose of the dissassociated early universe was to associate. The purpose of association was to prepare the way for the emergence of environments suitable for the evolution of life. That association achieved its purpose when DNA was assembled. The purpose of DNA was to provide the means by which the plan for life would be fulfilled. The purpose of the plan for life was to achieve the completion of human life. The purpose of human life is to learn the purpose of the universe. This purpose can be revealed through human intelligence. While we are free to invent purpose, we are also programmed to distinguish between invented purpose and that which is intrinsic to our nature. We can choose to learn our intrinsic purpose by learning the means by which it is signaled to us.

 

James

[TeleMad]

My opinion is: The purpose of life anywhere is to reach the level of development that allows the successful discernment of the purpose of the universe. Beginning at the beginning, ...

 

My opinion is: that's a bunch of metaphysical malarkey.

[James Putnam]

My opinion is: that's a bunch of metaphysical malarkey.

 

Ok.

 

James

[BEAKER]

My opinion is: that's a bunch of metaphysical malarkey.

Well put Telemad.

 

"My opinion is: The purpose of life anywhere is to reach the level of development that allows the successful discernment of the purpose of the universe. Beginning at the beginning, the purpose of the origin of the universe was to develop into the full universe. The purpose of the dissassociated early universe was to associate. The purpose of association was to prepare the way for the emergence of environments suitable for the evolution of life. That association achieved its purpose when DNA was assembled. The purpose of DNA was to provide the means by which the plan for life would be fulfilled. The purpose of the plan for life was to achieve the completion of human life. The purpose of human life is to learn the purpose of the universe. This purpose can be revealed through human intelligence. While we are free to invent purpose, we are also programmed to distinguish between invented purpose and that which is intrinsic to our nature. We can choose to learn our intrinsic purpose by learning the means by which it is signaled to us."

 

_James;

Youve gotta realize that if we are all the product of random mutations with no design and on designer; no previously concieved goal nor direction by any thinking force; then all these things you speak of as "purpose" can be nothing more than many happy occurances to a pleasent accidental existance.

 

I have a nice Fender Stratocaster. The purpose of the guitar is to make music. It was designed for that purpose by Leo Fender. Each component of the guitar; hardware, shape, size, positioning, voltage, resistance, etc. - were designed for the purpose of making the whole thing function properly, as well as being pleasent to the eye.

 

Of course it will remain silent until it is picked up and played by someone who understands it's purpose, and has purposly taken the effort to learn how to make it do what it is capeable of.

 

But if it is never played, and never fulfils it's purpose; it remains the product of intense thought and deliberate design by someone with intellegence, who had a vision for it's eventual purpose.

 

If the universe has no such deliberte design, then we are all unspeakably fortunate to have made it through so many possible alternative outcomes, many if not all of which could have been enough to thwart our very existance - certainly according to life as we know it.

 

But to grant the term "purpose" to the things you have listed, without the notion of design, is illogical. These events in psysical history cannot choose their purpose anymore than my guitar can.

 

You may call them what you wish; you may choose what you think about them; you may choose what you say and do about them; but they are what they have always been since the moment they were given their purpose by the Great Designer; without which they would all be simply events that happened, or events that are happening (miraculously!)

 

all that applies to you and me and everyone else.

[kaelcarp]

My opinion is: The purpose of life anywhere is to reach the level of development that allows the successful discernment of the purpose of the universe. Beginning at the beginning, the purpose of the origin of the universe was to develop into the full universe. The purpose of the dissassociated early universe was to associate. The purpose of association was to prepare the way for the emergence of environments suitable for the evolution of life. That association achieved its purpose when DNA was assembled. The purpose of DNA was to provide the means by which the plan for life would be fulfilled. The purpose of the plan for life was to achieve the completion of human life. The purpose of human life is to learn the purpose of the universe. This purpose can be revealed through human intelligence. While we are free to invent purpose, we are also programmed to distinguish between invented purpose and that which is intrinsic to our nature. We can choose to learn our intrinsic purpose by learning the means by which it is signaled to us.

 

James

Why would the purpose of life be to determine the purpose of the universe? What's the purpose of figuring out the purpose of the universe?

[James Putnam]

Well put Telemad.

 

 

 

_James;

Youve gotta realize that if we are all the product of random mutations with no design and on designer; no previously concieved goal nor direction by any thinking force; then all these things you speak of as "purpose" can be nothing more than many happy occurances to a pleasent accidental existance.

 

I have a nice Fender Stratocaster. The purpose of the guitar is to make music. It was designed for that purpose by Leo Fender. Each component of the guitar; hardware, shape, size, positioning, voltage, resistance, etc. - were designed for the purpose of making the whole thing function properly, as well as being pleasent to the eye.

 

Of course it will remain silent until it is picked up and played by someone who understands it's purpose, and has purposly taken the effort to learn how to make it do what it is capeable of.

 

But if it is never played, and never fulfils it's purpose; it remains the product of intense thought and deliberate design by someone with intellegence, who had a vision for it's eventual purpose.

 

If the universe has no such deliberte design, then we are all unspeakably fortunate to have made it through so many possible alternative outcomes, many if not all of which could have been enough to thwart our very existance - certainly according to life as we know it.

 

But to grant the term "purpose" to the things you have listed, without the notion of design, is illogical. These events in psysical history cannot choose their purpose anymore than my guitar can.

 

You may call them what you wish; you may choose what you think about them; you may choose what you say and do about them; but they are what they have always been since the moment they were given their purpose by the Great Designer; without which they would all be simply events that happened, or events that are happening (miraculously!)

 

all that applies to you and me and everyone else.

 

Hi Beaker,

 

I am not clear on what is your position. My position is that the universe operates for a purpose. Nothing that has ever existed is excluded from that purpose. The purpose exists because intelligence existed to cause it. I am not backing off on this because of brash unsubstatiated claims by those who interpret the universe in a mechanical manner. Mechanics has nothing to offer other than meaningless conjecture about how life and intelligence arose. There is something very comfortable about mechanics. It seems organized and analytical. It has convenient limits that give its believers reason to believe they are accomplishing something toward understanding the nature of the universe. The end of the analysis seems to be just around the corner or maybe the next corner. I see this condition as analogous to Bible literalists. The creation of the universe and its purpose is contained between two book covers. That is very convenient. So is mechanical analysis very convenient. The nature of life and intelligence do not have to be found. It must be mechanical because the universe is mechanical and they arose within the universe. So, mechanical analysis conveniently keeps the wraps on the nature of the universe without ever explaining anything. I say this because mechanics does not even explain itself. I have tried to make this point in clear terms by referring to the arbitrary theoretical interpretation of f=ma. The claim I make concerning everything all our intelligence being intrisic to us from our beginning can be established. I introduced a key fact of physical science in order to begin to establish that this must be the case. That fact is that all information we ever receive comes to us in the form of photons.

 

I am not interested in debating with those who would use insult or ridicle in defense of their position. If they do not have something to say that relates to the facts of science, then the point of view is only for themselves or others that like that. I noticed that you have taken a position.

 

Well put Telemad.

 

If you think this helps you make some point, then you are wasting your time.

 

James

[kaelcarp]

Hi Beaker,

 

I am not clear on what is your position. My position is that the universe operates for a purpose. Nothing that has ever existed is excluded from that purpose. The purpose exists because intelligence existed to cause it. I am not backing off on this because of brash unsubstatiated claims by those who interpret the universe in a mechanical manner. Mechanics has nothing to offer other than meaningless conjecture about how life and intelligence arose. There is something very comfortable about mechanics. It seems organized and analytical. It has convenient limits that give its believers reason to believe they are accomplishing something toward understanding the nature of the universe. The end of the analysis seems to be just around the corner or maybe the next corner. I see this condition as analogous to Bible literalists. The creation of the universe and its purpose is contained between two book covers. That is very convenient. So is mechanical analysis very convenient. The nature of life and intelligence do not have to be found. It must be mechanical because the universe is mechanical and they arose within the universe. So, mechanical analysis conveniently keeps the wraps on the nature of the universe without ever explaining anything. I say this because mechanics does not even explain itself. I have tried to make this point in clear terms by referring to the arbitrary theoretical interpretation of f=ma. The claim I make concerning everything all our intelligence being intrisic to us from our beginning can be established. I introduced a key fact of physical science in order to begin to establish that this must be the case. That fact is that all information we ever receive comes to us in the form of photons.

 

I am not interested in debating with those who would use insult or ridicle in defense of their position. If they do not have something to say that relates to the facts of science, then the point of view is only for themselves or others that like that. I noticed that you have taken a position.

 

Well put Telemad.

 

If you think this helps you make some point, then you are wasting your time.

 

James

If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, what created that intelligent entity and why is it not a part of the universe? Additionally, if it is not in the universe, where is it?

[James Putnam]

If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, what created that intelligent entity and why is it not a part of the universe? Additionally, if it is not in the universe, where is it?

 

hI kaelcarp,

 

I do not say that the universe was created by an intelligent entity. I can see why some might view this as a tactic used by a creationist to try to make their argument seem to be scientific and not religious. However, my position, believe it or not, has only to do with acknowledging how far our analysis of the universe will allow us to go. I do see some irony in your question. Mechanical materialists also do not know the origin of their universe. Your question is not anymore a problem for me than it is for anyone else. However, I can say some things about it.

 

I say that the universe was established by intelligence. A reason for taking this position is that intelligence is the only property of the universe that cannot be shown to be caused. I see the portion of intelligence made known to us by the universe to be limited. There is no evidence that it can change or increase itself. That tells me it is not its own controlling cause. I do not know what is its controlling cause; however, it seems to me that it must be a greater intelligence. One that is not limited in the same manner that our portion is limited.

 

What created this intelligence? So far as I can determine, we know of no cause for intelligence other than intelligence. Besides, it doesn't seem that it would matter who was asked about the first cause of the universe. No one knows, by scientific means, an answer for that question. Mechanical analysis also fails to give an answer. I see mechanical analysis as the weaker of the choices, because it cannot provide a cause for intelligence. Mechanical theories can be, and I feel certain are, conjecture; however, the existence of intelligence is definitely not conjecture.

 

why is it not a part of the universe? Additionally, if it is not in the universe, where is it?

In order to answer this question, we would both have to understand each other's view of the nature of the universe. I assume we do not see it the same way. It won't serve any purpose for me to jump my conclusions, anymore than it serves a purpose for others to read only my conclusions. I will point, for those who may be interested, back to the fact that we receive all of our information from photons. This point is well worth pondering. It is the beginning point of determining the role of intelligence. Believe it or not, this beginning point can lead to an answer for: "...if it is not in the universe, where is it?" I do not mean it leads to the identity of an intelligent Creator. I mean it can offer meaning for the phrase "...in the universe,..." In other words, what does it mean to be in or out of the universe? I cannot effectively argue in defense of this position within some small number of forum style messages. However, others can begin rethinking their position for themselves by considering the significance of the fact that: All of our information comes to us in the form of photons.

 

James

[kaelcarp]

hI kaelcarp,

 

I do not say that the universe was created by an intelligent entity. I can see why some might view this as a tactic used by a creationist to try to make their argument seem to be scientific and not religious. However, my position, believe it or not, has only to do with acknowledging how far our analysis of the universe will allow us to go. I do see some irony in your question. Mechanical materialists also do not know the origin of their universe. Your question is not anymore a problem for me than it is for anyone else. However, I can say some things about it.

 

I say that the universe was established by intelligence. A reason for taking this position is that intelligence is the only property of the universe that cannot be shown to be caused. I see the portion of intelligence made known to us by the universe to be limited. There is no evidence that it can change or increase itself. That tells me it is not its own controlling cause. I do not know what is its controlling cause; however, it seems to me that it must be a greater intelligence. One that is not limited in the same manner that our portion is limited.

 

What created this intelligence? So far as I can determine, we know of no cause for intelligence other than intelligence. Besides, it doesn't seem that it would matter who was asked about the first cause of the universe. No one knows, by scientific means, an answer for that question. Mechanical analysis also fails to give an answer. I see mechanical analysis as the weaker of the choices, because it cannot provide a cause for intelligence. Mechanical theories can be, and I feel certain are, conjecture; however, the existence of intelligence is definitely not conjecture.

 

In order to answer this question, we would both have to understand each other's view of the nature of the universe. I assume we do not see it the same way. It won't serve any purpose for me to jump my conclusions, anymore than it serves a purpose for others to read only my conclusions. I will point, for those who may be interested, back to the fact that we receive all of our information from photons. This point is well worth pondering. It is the beginning point of determining the role of intelligence. Believe it or not, this beginning point can lead to an answer for: "...if it is not in the universe, where is it?" I do not mean it leads to the identity of an intelligent Creator. I mean it can offer meaning for the phrase "...in the universe,..." In other words, what does it mean to be in or out of the universe? I cannot effectively argue in defense of this position within some small number of forum style messages. However, others can begin rethinking their position for themselves by considering the significance of the fact that: All of our information comes to us in the form of photons.

 

James

I should say that I find your viewpoint interesting. I myself have no view of how or why the universe was created other than the physical process (I tend to think the Big Bang makes sense). Everything else is conjecture to me, and I love hearing people's ideas. All I try to do is come up with the best questions I can ask about areas I don't quite understand in a person's view. I definitely don't think I have a full grasp of what you are trying to say, so I'm trying to narrow it down.

 

I get now that (correct me if I'm wrong): you are not trying to say that there was an intelligence that existed before the universe that gave birth to it, but that the universe has an inherent, uncaused intelligence with a will and intent of guiding us to understanding of it.

 

You say that intelligence has no cause. I say only that the cause of intelligence is debatable. We don't know if it has one or not. The assumption that intelligence has no cause is a very large one to me. Some scientists believe that intelligence is an emergent property of matter. Some believe that all matter is endowed with a "viewpoint" and that our individual selves see ourselves as separate entities only because we lack the neural connections to see things otherwisse.

 

We have found no evidence of a preference or intention in nature. There is no evidence of any will or intent in the universe. It all makes for a nice, neat conjecture, but I don't understand the basis of it. I don't see how this has any more validity that any other viewpoint.

[Dark Mind]

QUIT QUOTING!!! Those posts are just too insanely long. Just put something like "Refer to: [Thread's name]" or something...

[Queso]

oy, just ignore it and read what's neccessary.

[maddog]

What is the true purpose of sand here on Earth?

To count the passing of time.

What is the true purpose of a virus here on Earth?

To figure out more ways to invade and live off other lifeforms.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

To All,

 

Maybe the purpose of life is an individual quest to find one's purpose ... :cup:

 

Mine is understand the fundamentals of existance down to a one inch equations, as Kaku puts it. :cup:

 

Maddog

[BEAKER]

James,

 

"I am not interested in debating with those who would use insult or ridicle in defense of their position. If they do not have something to say that relates to the facts of science, then the point of view is only for themselves or others that like that. I noticed that you have taken a position.

 

Well put Telemad.

 

If you think this helps you make some point, then you are wasting your time."

 

I'm sorry if you got the impresion I was insulting you. You certainly have your view well thought out within your own mind.

[kaelcarp]

QUIT QUOTING!!! Those posts are just too insanely long. Just put something like "Refer to: [Thread's name]" or something...

Compared to other boards I've posted on, the posts here are extremely short. I guess I didn't realize there was a different etiquette here. I'll try.

[James Putnam]

I should say that I find your viewpoint interesting. I myself have no view of how or why the universe was created other than the physical process (I tend to think the Big Bang makes sense). Everything else is conjecture to me, and I love hearing people's ideas. All I try to do is come up with the best questions I can ask about areas I don't quite understand in a person's view. I definitely don't think I have a full grasp of what you are trying to say, so I'm trying to narrow it down.

 

I get now that (correct me if I'm wrong): you are not trying to say that there was an intelligence that existed before the universe that gave birth to it, but that the universe has an inherent, uncaused intelligence with a will and intent of guiding us to understanding of it.

 

You say that intelligence has no cause. I say only that the cause of intelligence is debatable. We don't know if it has one or not. The assumption that intelligence has no cause is a very large one to me. Some scientists believe that intelligence is an emergent property of matter. Some believe that all matter is endowed with a "viewpoint" and that our individual selves see ourselves as separate entities only because we lack the neural connections to see things otherwisse.

 

We have found no evidence of a preference or intention in nature. There is no evidence of any will or intent in the universe. It all makes for a nice, neat conjecture, but I don't understand the basis of it. I don't see how this has any more validity that any other viewpoint.

 

kaelcarp,

 

I say that, insofar as human logic is concerned, intelligence is uncaused. I mean that no one can define a cause for intelligence. I do not say describe a cause, because others do describe causes. You cited one above. Some think that intelligence can arise from matter. The problem with using matter as a cause is that matter itself is unknown. We only know about properties. We do not know the source of properties, but we know they exist. We know about properties because of their effects. The effects, insofar as physics experiments are concerned, reveal themselves in patterns of changes of velocity. Matter is the word used to represent an imagined mechanical cause of properties of the universe.

 

We know, from our own experience, there is more to the universe than just various patterns in changes of velocity. For example we share love. I think there is purpose and intention in the evolution of the universe. Physics does not show us the intelligent properties of the universe. I have pointed to the fact that all information is delivered to us by means of photons. These are very abrupt, truncated, tiny pieces of information coming to us at the speed of light from various sources. We never see their multitudinous combinations ever repeated. We do not get the time to study the rapid, ever changing storm. Yet, we have the ability to understand a great deal of intelligent information communicated to us by the universe. Photons are defined by physicists as causing changes of position of particles of matter. Where is love or any intelligent experience in this description?

 

Here is an example I give of evidence of intelligent purpose and direction: [This is a url link] Human Intelligence. I would be interested in knowing if you agree with any of it.

 

James