life: purposed to continue

No.
You still persist in misunderstanding the difference between "purpose" and attribute.

Again the woo woo call: you question our "integrity" because we fail to fall in with your unsupported superstition.

If you believe that then your general ignorance is more profound than I feared.

Then you are blind as well as stupid: where did you miss "It's alive and I'm not, for one"?

There is NO inherent "purpose".
Limited scope of comprehensible knowledge?
From the intellectual vacuum that is yourself...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nope....

oli, compared himself to a rock and still has not defined a difference other than to say 'life just is'

but you assisted in sharing what the current definitions are and what is to be observed when considering something alive. Each of the line item conditions, share that life is "purposed." The definition you provided allows any mind of comprehension to logically understand that the observed processes are the evidence to identify a living structure.

they basically support the philosophical analogy, that

life: purposed to continue!

You did good........... perhaps unknowingly, unpurposefully but material was provided.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i see your point

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ignorance in action once more.
That is not what I posted.

No they don't.

But it does not follow that life=purpose

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all, except to crackpots with an agenda.

Strange isn't it that YOU consistently failed to provide anything to support your argument, but take anything posted by someone arguing against as being validation of your own idiocy?

 

nope... the comment was clear,


Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

Bishadi, you are wasting your time.
These guys are locked in their thought process, and as such
do not have to answer questions in which the answer may create contradiction.
You will get nowhere.

jan.


i see nothing in there about agreeing with me.


but i can see quite clearly from the many threads, posts and most everything you 2 represent................. jan said what is pretty clear and concise

to me your both trolls

and do nothing for others except keep you noses in threads with no intention of anything but your own "PURPOSE"

i have no problem with it as i know "the bad will always go extinct, eventually!"

 

what agenda?

claim it since you suggested it

 

Then you display your lack of understanding once more.

As opposed to an idiot who cannot or will not support his own argument other than to repeat ad nauseam?

That purpose being: point out the errors of others.

Can you support that?

 

Show me how, point by point.

 

No it doesn't make sense, since life isn't created, it grows out of the general environment, so there is no entity encompassing all of life which could have a purpose or intention.

In general, life has the superficial appearance of having the intention to continue itself, simply because to have any other characteristics would mean prompt extinction, which some enlightening exceptions. Some insects sacrifice themselves for the good of their relatives, because those relatives are able to carry the shared genes for the phenotype of personal sacrifice. Genes are the units of selection, and genes cannot have intention, since they are just chemicals.

We should not confuse individual purpose for a universal purpose. It is clear that having an individual purpose or not is a product of our genes, shaped by evolution. In some cases, and individual does not seek to continue itself.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Said the troll.

No, we're just answering your question, but you won't have it.

So now I'm just "bad" ? I thought I was a demon..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i answer every question but will stop addressing yours if you will not answer mine

you asked me to post a response to each item of the 'life' definition

if i do, will you answer each question i ask? yes or no!

as it seems self evident to read each items within your definition, then anyone can see the 'inherent' aspect of life.

Do you not see them within each heading? Yes or no!

 

Yes, as I have been doing.

No.

 

The agenda that
A) life has purpose is to be accepted as fact (without supporting evidence)
and this will be followed by
B) you are privy to some sort of knowledge that the rest of us aren't.

It's a standard woo-woo method...

 

that aspect is not even considered relevant nor within any context of the post, thread or within any portion of the conversation

that is what to address; the process and inherent reality of that concept (it grows)

and so when that becomes the conversation then that can be what you use as your opinion. Has nothing to do with the thread

exactly....

such that anything living has that 'appearance' or being 'purposed'... did not say who, what, why, when or where.... but that 'life' itself... just does what it does as if it was in a process that is inherent.

i like the sacraficing of life for life, that is a huge item in many relms

but i disagree in the genetics (chemistry) aspect you propose, as now you find where the real battle is.

not going there, as that is God talk and we talking about a philosophical approach to addressing what we can experience, not the speculative ideas of the universe.

the thread is simply to address an idea of something we all can experience: life!

 

What you STILL fail to address is that purpose requires intent and intent is a product of volition.
Where does the volition come from?

 

Ok, then you will be answered

reproduction: life giving of itself to continue (is there a purpose to reproduce? yes or no)

responses to stimuli: within an environment, an action can be predetermined by a life (purposed by evolution; genetically evolved to react) (is there a purpose that a life would respond to stimuli? Yes or no)

adaptation: the life intents to survive and will genetically adjust to changes of the environment. (is there a purpose that a living structure will adapt to its environment? Yes or no

growth: basic common sense..... a life will absorb from the enviroment to grow........... definitely purposed!

metabolism: upon the collection of resources, will react, absorb and descard; purposed


organization: self explanitory; combined to support the total unit; again purposed

homostasis: a process; with purpose, intent, function







no need to ask anymore questions: you either get it or you don't




every line item within the definition of life, performs the analogy that



life: purposed to continue.

 

Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on

not all life is cognitive

 

Correct: so how can there be purpose?

You wouldn't recognise cognition if it bit you.

It's a long while since I've come across such patently flawed "thinking".

 

From the point of view of an individual animal, there is no purpose to continue, only to spawn, only to protect it's children, only to eat. Only humans can conceive of the ultimate result of these actions.

 

As others have pointed out nicely: No.

It's obvious you feel otherwise, yet you have yet to provide any support for this position. If you're going to assert some sort of teleological position then you must provide a supporting argument.

It's not about requiring others to prove the contrary: it is you who introduced a proposal. The onus of defense then rests on you.
Go back to the OP and instead of posing a simple yes/no question, provide an argument.

e.g.:

If A then B.
A
Therefore B.

Simple modus ponens usually can suffice for any argument.