life: purposed to continue

Bishadi, no offence but I am seriously struggling to understand your English, so apologies if I pick up the wrong end of whatever stick you're hurling around with abandon.

That's my point. It isn't - yet it fulfils your apparent criteria to have a purpose.

There is nothing "self evident". This is just a catchphrase for those either unable or unwilling to explain. If it is so self-evident - provide the evidence and explain why it is evidence. Shouldn't be too difficult? Man is not external to "life". We are not an external assignor capable of assigning purpose to life as a whole, only to our own usage of the individual life we have.

There is no intent in evolution. If I filter rocks through a sieve and discard the ones that didn't get through, was the purpose of those rocks that got through "to survive"? Yet this is all evolution is - the filtering out of species unfit for continued survival.

Irrelevant. That life has continued is NOT evidence that continuation is its purpose. Is the sun's purpose to continue? Is a rock's?

None of which proves purpose. You are merely observing a mechanism... the end result of a series of unchosen actions. We have defined that mechanism as "evolution". The same way that we describe the mechanism by which water flows downhill as "gravity".

It didn't evolve "just to survive". It happened to survive because it evolved. You have your view back to front in terms of what is going on.
Your view point seems to be that life is actively seeking to evolve, so that it can survive. This just is not demonstrably true.
Purpose comes from seeing the desired end result and aiming for it. You enter and run a race because you want the medal at the end.
Life doesn't have an end result. It just is what it is. We, as individuals, assign our own life some meaning, some purpose. But that is as far as it goes.

And yet this "solid truth" is founded upon nothing but statements of confidence. I admire your bravado but your arrogance is somewhat misplaced.

If you continue to spout unsubstantiated claims then you will continue to get people arguing against you. The activity in this thread is not as much to do with the subject matter but the characters involved.

:shrug: You previously argued that "a rock is not alive and therefore can not have purpose" and now you bring in the example of a wave? Hmmm. So not only do you fail to argue the initial point - instead choosing to ignore the criticism of your argument, and instead bring in the same genus of example in an attempt to support your claim?

I don't think anyone has issues with "Life continues - it is what life does". But it is your use of the word "purposed" that people have issues with.

"Purposed" implies an aiming to an end result.
Someone splashes the surface of a pond... for a reason. Maybe it is to see the ripple. The ripple continues... not because it was purposed to do so, but because that is what ripples do. If it didn't it wouldn't be a ripple.

You might claim that life was purposed. It's unsubstantiated, but okay, that's a claim. But life is defined as continuing. If life didn't continue it wouldn't be life.
It is thus merely tautology to say "life: purposed to continue."
If you mean "Life: purposed" then okay - a claim that life was brought into being for a reason.

It had nothing to do with Oli - it was me reaching a logical position on your arguments thus far... that your OP was nothing more than "Rock: Purposed to do what a rock does". I.e. it says nothing.

And you are misusing the word "purpose" again.
By existing, anything can be said to be what it is. A rock is a rock. Life is life.
If I define X to be something made of granite, then what am I actually saying if I say "X: Purposed to be made of granite". Nothing.

Likewise life continues. It is one of the defining natures of life. If life didn't continue it wouldn't be life.

"Anything: Purposed to meet all of its defining charateristics"


So of what relevance is "Life: Purposed to continue"? None.


"kind of basic" indeed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, this doesn't make any sense, unless you believe in a god, who defined the purpose at life's creation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think your "ouch" is the result of social conditioning, a need to be accepted.
Survival (living successfully in the world) has nothing to do with genes, if you think differently then please demonstrate.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fine, whatever. We are arguing for nothing. The chain of cause and effect leads to life which seeks to continue itself, since any other model wouldn't continue, and would thus be dead. This is not all that profound.

I thought you were trying to say something about the intent of the existence of this overall process.

 

sorry, but rocks and being alive don't jive (IMO)

life: purposed to continue

is self evident!

define life, purposed (with a 'd') and continue......

l

that is just silly

evolution is a process and that process shares a continual change of life, over time, as evolving

WOW! A living thing continues; is purposed. And since extinctions did not level ALL life and it 'continued' to progress (evolve)... then to observe the natural process, is extremenly relevant. The problem is, that argument shuts down most every context you can post. Eg... you put up the sun, and rocks to debate extinctions and living structures.

driven by the intent of life; to continue

that mechanism of defining life at the molecular scale is what is missing and causing such confusion with the scope of the thread.

most do not comprehend what life is; ie..... google up a definition of life, check each line item definition that are used to describe life; do each have an inherent intent?

if a lion cannot each zebra, it will change its diet for the environment; same applies to most all life; it will either adapt or be extinct.

So there is a survival INSTINCT to all living things. (it is actively continuing, just not thinking about it)

OK.... so at least we got past basic instinct

because that word 'purpose' is completely different with a 'd' as the suffix, as it represent the past tense of it existing, not its causation.

that is not may fault, that is the audiences' as it seems the word used in not only rarely used but also often mis-defined...

just as your example

"Purposed" implies an aiming to an end result.

No!.......... it does not imply 'end result'

that is your error of the words definition and use, not mine

'purposed' in the context means "set in motion" or once 'caused'.....

i am not defining what caused it, what the reason is, nor how, but that once it 'is' (as a life being identified as existing).... then it's 'life' is to continue

exactly!

Life: purposed to continue................. ONCE caused, that is just what it does!

The pond analogy was to share the direction; of action. Once started; it just does what it does.

so life: once purposed (in action) is to continue

life: purposed to continue

i like it more and more as it is completely logical, verifiable, founded in common sense and definitely resiliant





the thread title is pure

 

that is the last thing on my mind

as you were the individual who comprehended the thread but it was not that you are observing the sciences to back it up, but that you are considering an outside force (the hand of God) as giving that purpose.

where in complete contract, i contradict both the religious analogy of there being a separate entity pullng strings, as well i already know the reductionary frame of chemical processes to define life are a joke

so in a real sens jan, i am against both teams that hold onto complacent acceptence over reality

when you get a fevor, the genes within the cell nucleus, create protiens that increase metabolisms that elevate your body temperature, which thereby offer the additional energy to build the antibodies to fight the illness: all autonomically.

be glad you don't have to rely on prayers and magic

 

Holy shades of Socrates!

Bishadi, I do think I'm starting to get somewhat of an idea as to what you're saying (with the exception of how it applies to 'life').

Just so I get a better idea of your teleological thinking here let me ask you this: what is the purpose of a hammer?

....yes, I'm serious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

no i stumbled onto an ideology that is universal.

it was an accident in writing one day and i have been thinking about it for a while.

it sets a rule in motion that is true (pure)

 

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

that is a word or frame of thinking that i cannot say i apply to

Just an FYI.... as then it means i have to speculate.

such as: mass; defining itself to create itself (yin/yang)

and i try and stay out of that type of thinking unless stoned out my "begezzers"

because 'life' is actually what unveiled how existence works; (both that we (mankind) are doing the defining but also that the molecular scope of how mass and energy works, unfolds by defining life at that scale) Weird but true!

me not so teleo but the 'hammer' means, there is a last 'word'

not theologically, not magically, not a computer, dream or just a hypothesis;

(it leans on another philosophical statement)

If existence only operates ONE way: then the math is the 'name' to know!

whenever you think of me, think of someone with both feet flat on the ground. Meaning, if i represent something, be certain it applies across the board in perhaps a dozen or so disciplines of knowledge, not to mention, i grind most everything down to a finite principle (framework), that is defined in math (the last word)

 

So how then does your sense of 'purposed' differ from this:

?

 

because that is looking at existence as a whole, and i am referencing a 'life'

such as anything 'alive' you could tangibly account for

 

So 'life' isn't part of existence as a whole???

 

It is, as we all, are too. We live within existence. (some call it God, some call it mother nature, i call the total of existence; the boss; the garden)

and we all just here in our wee little time, learning as 'knowledge evolves'

so i like to contribute what wee little bits can give the next generation a chance you and i did not have; the truth in ONE pass. (sure it's sometime in the future, but i am not wasting my life)

But to take the whole universe, hold it in my hand (imagination) and say, 'it's alive'.... is nothing i wish to talk about.

what i was talking about is the philosophical implications when comprehending the statement and that it can be understood within the experiences of any person. (i like the combining truths)

it was an analogy, that is a bit more substantial than i originally thought.

As it combines more than one framework of comprehensible knowledge.

Putting them (branches of knowledge) together is what i do for a living/life.

 

The you are in fact not differing from the teleological definition.

I asked you how your 'purposed' differed from Teleology.

You said:

implying some sort of difference.

But now you're reverting.

??

 

because the word 'purposed' with the 'd' suffix is not suggesting an ending result such as stating 'the purpose of life is to do xyz.....'

it is more like "The purposed strategy is to leave it up to each related product groups"

such as to say, the life (stategy) is put into action. So once the 'life' is purposed (began) it is 'to continue'

life: purposed to continue

i don't know what that means

but the word "purpose and purposed" have huge differences, meanings and implications (same roots but different) (the "tense" is completely different)

that is what has this thread upside down; most never use the word 'purposed' with purpose to purposely do something good with it,

i guess :shrug:


here is another example: "he was purposed to fight against....... "

he was born to fight.

so is life purposed to continue?

 

The tense makes them completely different words?
I run, yesterday I ran.
Please do learn English.
There is no "huge difference, meaning or implication".

 

See Oli's comments.

You're just playing semantic games now.
There is no difference between your 'purposed' and a teleological system.

 

are you suggesting there is no difference between the words purpose and purposed?


now we can see why your comprehension is weak


go away quack

 

Not at all.
I stated it quite clearly, there was no "suggestion".

The beam in your eye is showing.

Pot/ kettle.

 

no it seems you wish to put me in a basket to label

and Oli and you both apparently are not educated enough to read on your own


nothing in teleo even uses the word 'purposed'


as well purpose has a complete tense difference with a 'd' on it


it seems perhaps..............once again.... integrity is what ruins your comprehension