The Role of Mankind

[austintorn@aol.com]

Certainly fundamental substance(s) could be eternal—something has to be. FS is very sturdy and can never wear out, being older than old could ever be old, and therefore can last forever. No more can be made, for it cannot be made. Fortunately, it was flexible in its combinatorial powers.

As for how it could be, there was no reason or cause, for this is not applicable. As for why, ditto. As for why it is the useful type of stuff that it is, rather than inert, the question, again, is not appropriate for that which always was. Nor was there a where to put it, for it was already there. No who or then either—all it is is a what.

The same for your question, Analog, of its operation and method and its logic of being. Nothing could give it logic of being, for there was no before—it just is what it is and works fine, but we can still look into how it works so well.

[Graybeard]

I have no more proof in God's existence as you have proof in God's non existence

If you start from a position of 'unknowing' and you build your knowledge of the Cosmos from the evidence of your senses and your reasoning ability then you do not end up with a Deity.

In other words there is no need to prove Gods non existence! It doesn't enter the picture.

Science accepts evidence of what 'is' based on deduction and reasoning. It only accepts evidence that is unbiased ... peer reviewed and tested without personal influence.

If you postulate a Deity then the onus is on you to prove it.

If a Deity fits all the known facts, then it must also be accepted that Science fits all the known facts just as well. If Occam's razor is applied then it becomes apparent that Deitys are superfluous.

What do you think ??

I adhere to the tenet that "Form follows function."

I interpret function as being the purpose/objective and whilst form arises from function, it has many possibilities and is therefore subjective.

As such, Purpose (objective) precedes Existence (subjective). Can you or anyone else confrim/deny this?

Why do you interpret function as purposive (goal directed). If something, it doesn't matter what, comes into existence by chance, it can be functional. If so, a purpose will be found for this functional object.

This functional object could be perceived as having many purposes dependent on the use or interpretation. This always happens afterwards.

The 'Role' or 'Purpose' of Man can be interpreted in this way. Evolution, on Earth, and in the Cosmos, is a random chance arrangement of matter. Billions upon Trillions of arrangements come into existence, most importantly, and for very obvious reasons, only the functional remain in existence.

Our intrepretations and the purpose ascribed to these arrangements always come after. Man is such an arrangement, despite our complexity. We are built on previous cumulative and functional arrangements that came about by chance, we are just a successful spelling mistake in our DNA.

Some will see this as too coincidental, too impossible, this is because the scale (both time and space) of the Universe can not truly be appreciated by our minds. Our necessary arrogance, our need to be in control, our survival instincts buried deep on our DNA, revolt at this explanation and so it is much easier, and more comfortable to propose, design and place on a pedestal a Deity, built in our likeness

epiphenomenalism is a view according to which some or all mental states are mere epiphenomena (side-effects or by-products) of physical states of the world. Thus, epiphenomenalism denies that the mind (as in its states, not its processing) has any causal influence on the body or any other part of the physical world: while mental states are caused by physical states, mental states do not have any causal influence on physical states.

Sorry to be contentious ... my views only

cool bananas ... greg

[analog]

Why do you interpret function as purposive (goal directed). If something, it doesn't matter what, comes into existence by chance, it can be functional. If so, a purpose will be found for this functional object.

This functional object could be perceived as having many purposes dependent on the use or interpretation. This always happens afterwards.

The 'Role' or 'Purpose' of Man can be interpreted in this way. Evolution, on Earth, and in the Cosmos, is a random chance arrangement of matter. Billions upon Trillions of arrangements come into existence, most importantly, and for very obvious reasons, only the functional remain in existence.

Our intrepretations and the purpose ascribed to these arrangements always come after. Man is such an arrangement, despite our complexity. We are built on previous cumulative and functional arrangements that came about by chance, we are just a successful spelling mistake in our DNA.

Some will see this as too coincidental, too impossible, this is because the scale (both time and space) of the Universe can not truly be appreciated by our minds. Our necessary arrogance, our need to be in control, our survival instincts buried deep on our DNA, revolt at this explanation and so it is much easier, and more comfortable to propose, design and place on a pedestal a Deity, built in our likeness

Hi Greg,

Good argument.

I could see how an individual form could be random and find a random function, but if we look at the progressive design: plants start to grow on Earth; dinasours grow huge to eat plants and distribute seed effeciently, thus further seeding the Earth with vegetation; they die and form oil/fossil fuel below the ground; mankind builds social structure and removes said oil/fossil fuel, whereby he drives around in his/her car and doesn't realize his importance, etc. etc.

I know I left out a bunch of steps, but I'm just pointing out that it would seem the previous stage of life makes provisions for the next stage to function and prosper. If function followed form, would this be necessary or apparent? Why wouldn't we have possibly come before the dinasours? There's also the fact that each form only has enough intelligence to do it's function/job; us/mankind included.

regards,

Tim

[Graybeard]

I'm sorry mate .... I see now that my last post was not clear, my fault.

I agree Form follows Function. I was not really worrying about the Form which I think Leskey had already said is subjective to function. I agree with her.

Leskey, as I read it, was saying that Function serves a purpose, and that this 'purpose' PRECEDES existence.

My argument is that function follows the initial existence of the object. In other words, chance is the 'creator' and function is then attributed.

Hope this has not made it even more confusing

There's also the fact that each form only has enough intelligence to do it's function/job; us/mankind included.

regards,

Tim

I don't know my source for this, possibly Discovery Channel, but the ratio you refer to intelligence:function or function:job is, for most species a 1:1 ratio

But for Chimpanzees it is 3:1. Meaning that a chimp has 3 times the brain or intelligence required for his survival.

A Human has 7:1. What do we do with all this extra, especially as it requires enormous resources to keep the processor going. Well, the results are all around us.

The strange thing is that Dolphins have between 5:1 and 6:1. No one really knows what they do with it as it also requires enormous resources to operate.

cool bananas ... greg

[analog]

Sorry Greg,

I understand now.

A Human has 7:1. What do we do with all this extra, especially as it requires enormous resources to keep the processor going.

I use mine trying to have these tough conversations with some good people like you all.

[leskey]

So...Graybeard.

Science accepts evidence of what 'is' based on deduction and reasoning. It only accepts evidence that is unbiased ... peer reviewed and tested without personal influence.

Does this also apply to evolution?

If you postulate a Deity then the onus is on you to prove it.

I think therefore I Am.

If a Deity fits all the known facts, then it must also be accepted that Science fits all the known facts just as well. If Occam's razor is applied then it becomes apparent that Deitys are superfluous.

What do you think ??

If you're saying, "if a physical event has a cause, then it has a physical cause," I say, "false parsimony and explanatory debt."

Why do you interpret function as purposive (goal directed). If something, it doesn't matter what, comes into existence by chance, it can be functional. If so, a purpose will be found for this functional object.

This functional object could be perceived as having many purposes dependent on the use or interpretation. This always happens afterwards.

The 'Role' or 'Purpose' of Man can be interpreted in this way. Evolution, on Earth, and in the Cosmos, is a random chance arrangement of matter. Billions upon Trillions of arrangements come into existence, most importantly, and for very obvious reasons, only the functional remain in existence.

Our intrepretations and the purpose ascribed to these arrangements always come after. Man is such an arrangement, despite our complexity. We are built on previous cumulative and functional arrangements that came about by chance, we are just a successful spelling mistake in our DNA.

Some will see this as too coincidental, too impossible, this is because the scale (both time and space) of the Universe can not truly be appreciated by our minds. Our necessary arrogance, our need to be in control, our survival instincts buried deep on our DNA, revolt at this explanation and so it is much easier, and more comfortable to propose, design and place on a pedestal a Deity, built in our likeness

Neither your view, nor mine, can assume that the universe is "causally self-contained."

"Self determinism is the causal dynamic of any system that generates its own components and properties independently of prior laws or external structures...Insofar as explanation is largely what science is all about, science would seem to have no choice but to treat the universe as a self-determinstic, causally self-contained system. Thus, questions about evolution become questions about the self-generation of causally self-contained, self-emergent systems. In particular, they become questions about how and why such a system self-generates." - Cheating the Millennium: The Mounting Explanatory Debts of Scientific Naturalism, C. M. Langan.

Wish I could stay, but we're two hours ahead of Oz and I have a life to attend to. Look forward to catching up on your posts tomorrow.

[Graybeard]

Phew .... Thank god that Leskey is in a hurry ... now I will have a chance to think up some answers ....


greg LOLOL

[Graybeard]

Dear Leskey .... hope I haven't got this wrong but I am assuming that each of your replies relates to the quote above it.

So...Graybeard.

Science accepts evidence of what 'is' based on deduction and reasoning. It only accepts evidence that is unbiased ... peer reviewed and tested without personal influence.

Does this also apply to evolution?

uummmm .... Yes. (Why do I feel like I'm steppin on a trap. LOL)

If you postulate a Deity then the onus is on you to prove it.

I think therefore I Am.

I'm not with you on this one. Where is the correlation ? I don't place Philosophy over Science where they disagree, (if I can put it that way) Philosophical arguments cannot change facts

If a Deity fits all the known facts, then it must also be accepted that Science fits all the known facts just as well. If Occam's razor is applied then it becomes apparent that Deitys are superfluous.

What do you think ??

If you're saying, "if a physical event has a cause, then it has a physical cause," I say, "false parsimony and explanatory debt."

All physical events, (are there any other type) have physical causes.
I'm saying that given 2 explanations that both fit the known facts, then Occam's razor says that the simpler one is true (most likely ).

I don't understand false parsimony and explanatory debt ?

Neither your view, nor mine, can assume that the universe is "causally self-contained."

"Self determinism is the causal dynamic of any system that generates its own components and properties independently of prior laws or external structures...Insofar as explanation is largely what science is all about, science would seem to have no choice but to treat the universe as a self-determinstic, causally self-contained system. Thus, questions about evolution become questions about the self-generation of causally self-contained, self-emergent systems. In particular, they become questions about how and why such a system self-generates." - Cheating the Millennium: The Mounting Explanatory Debts of Scientific Naturalism, C. M. Langan.

Call me dumb, but I was referring to Form follows Function ... I don't get this correlation either. I neither agree nor disagree with the above quote you have posted, I would need to think about it much more.

I don't make the assumption that the fundamental substance consists of two elements, like a chicken and an egg. The fundamental substance will (most likely) be a single element and so there is no problem, no paradox. Grandfather paradoxes and other circular-cause-and-effect arguments I leave to Langan and others, along with the fowls they have more time to scratch and peck. LOL

I don't know how the Universe came into being, it may have always been, but from that point on it has been causally self contained. In any case, we are wandering far from the Thread starter.

My quote on epiphenomenalism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was just that. I am not a philosopher, I was just posting a related point of view. I don't place philosophy ahead of Science, the opposite in fact.

cool bananas .... hope I haven't misinterpreted your post ... greg

[Profpat]

[quote=analog;54320] I sleep just fine Pat. I'm Ok with the thought that I/we/mankind isn't the center of the universe or the cause of existence. It's all been here all along, and we're just an equal part.

Just my opinion, and it doesn't mean much,

Tim[/quote

Hi Tim;

Everybodies opinion means very much to themselves, which is really more important than what other people think of it.

I think science, something I always believed throughout my life, affirms, that YOU indeed are the center of your universe.

I'm glad you are sleeping fine Tim. To me a good night sleep is one of the nicer things to life, especially if you have sweet dreams.

Hi Greg;

If you postulate a Deity then the onus is on you to prove it.

This is only true if I want you to accept it Greg. Quite honestly, unlike organized religions, I could care less who accepts this and who doesn't. This acceptance of mine transcends logic, it's called FAITH. My point was if you want me to accept Atheism than you have the burden of proof.

Best to both of you,

Pat

[Graybeard]

My point was if you want me to accept Atheism than you have the burden of proof.
Pat

In that case Prof .... How didIdo ? LOL

best to you to patrick ... cool bananas ... greg