The Role of Mankind

[Profpat]

Sorry Tim, Fred tucks me in every night.

Your prior post does help me understand what you are looking for. EVERYTHING!!

[analog]

Is our role a part of anything less than EVERYTHING?

Some would think so, but I don't.

[leskey]

[quote=Graybeard;54344]
Hi, Graybeard.

Going back to last night...sorry, I was in a hurry.

I don't place Philosophy over Science where they disagree, (if I can put it that way) Philosophical arguments cannot change facts.

Do you agree that they can co-exist?

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 ).

Yes, there are other types of events other than physical. However, if you haven't personally experienced any, it's only natural that scepticism would prevail.

I don't understand false parsimony and explanatory debt ?

This is when a "theory" becomes deceptively simple by ignoring any deficiencies or, by hiving them off to other scientific disciplines, who hive them off to other scientific disciplines, who hive....

Call me dumb...

Never!

...but I was referring to Form follows Function ... I don't get this correlation either.

Tim and I agree that in design, there is a brief/purpose/goal/utility criteria to be met. A person doesn't just go to work and make something and then think what can this be/what purpose can I use this for? So the form of an object follows the function or purpose for which it is intended to be used. The purpose is objective, the form is subjective. Subjective being the possibility of many different final outcomes for the same purpose (eg. if you asked a room full of people to draw a tree, no two drawings would be identical)...

I neither agree nor disagree with the above quote you have posted, I would need to think about it much more.

OK. I'm taking the self-determinist>self-actualizing path which hopefully eliminates any bias or prejudice regarding diety/ies.

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.

"The purpose of this thread is to explore our function in this world, whereby perhaps we can understand our needed form."

Can this be done effectively without establishing the basis of our origin? What do you think, Tim? Keep us under control...

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.

In the context my other statements here, you can guess that I disagree with the concept of epiphenominalism. If many of the functions of our physical being are controlled by the same organ that we "think" with, it's equally safe to say that indeed, "We are what we believe."

Good chattin' with you GB.

[Profpat]

Is our role a part of anything less than EVERYTHING?

Some would think so, but I don't.

I think you answered your question Tim. We are not everything, but a integral part to everything, since we are here. My purpose is to be, or not to be, that is the question. But if I'm not to be, who would take care of Fred. Fred is part of everything and probably just as necessary as I am. ( I can't believe I just text that )

Best to all,

Pat

[analog]

Fred is an equally important part of the whole Pat, just as you or I, but that doesn't mean we have to think about Fred crawling all over us.


BTW: My previous posts only represent my method of logic; that doesn't make them right. This thread isn't just about me, but I have to explain the framework I pull my logic from, whereby my views are better understood.

Like I said, there are those that may see our role as nothing more than life getting a chance to live, with no further implications than spiritual, mental, societal, political, etc. We welcome those views also. This isn't; The Role of Mankind according to Tim. I say, let's discuss everyones views.

[leskey]

Hi, Tim and Pat.

I wan't ignoring you in my previous post, I just hadn't caught up yet.

[leskey]

Now I have warned you Pat, that I'm no physicist, but this fascinates me. There is a recurring theme in all of Existence of go, go , go - energy>motion (and in the case of Life)> drive>survive>procreate>continuum... Everything is compelled to be dynamic. Even when something appears inanimate and/or inert, it's composition is a synthesis of dynamic component parts. So...

When Einstein came up with: E=mc 2 ,

Does anyone else think he'd, well, "found God?" That in fact this is the mathematical definition of all there is: an overriding and underlying (oh please, someone stop me!) "Force" that is responsible for all of Existence?

[analog]

Hi Leskey,

We knew you weren't ignoring us.

Here's a post from our good friend Dave, which explains Einstein's famous equation as it relates to an absolute motion framework.

Even in my theory Tim, a particle condenses to wave symmetry (high frequency short wavelength) until it no longer has harmonics associated within it. This requires angular momentum to sustain it as a particle. I believe neutrinos are good examples of such particles. If you would like to get an idea of the math, just assume “Absolute Motion” is twice the speed of light and make a graph of motion changing from 2c linear to 2c angular or vibrational motion. Consider the area swept out by the change to represent energy; you’ll see why E=mc2 works. Energy is a measure of the change of the distrubution of absolute motion.

[leskey]

Mankind represents a redistribution of energy

If "energy is a measure of the change of the distribution of absolute motion," how does the redistribution of energy affect absolute motion?

[Graybeard]

1 .. Why is it that evolution saw fit to give us those attributes you are refering to?

2.. It is obviously preparing us to do a job here; so what are we really doing with those attributes that we were so fortunate to develop?

3.. Just saying that evolution prepared us doesn't tell us much about what it prepared us for.

4.. How does evolution know what to give us?

5.. Tim and I agree that in design, there is a brief/purpose/goal/utility criteria to be met. A person doesn't just go to work and make something and then think what can this be/what purpose can I use this for?

Tim / Leskey .... I don't underestimate the wisdom of either of your posts that I have quoted above.

Perhaps I should make my position clearer .... this is my opinion and I am not forcing it ... but at the least it will enable us to communicate much more clearly about where we are coming from.

If I just address point 5 first. We are a tool making animal, we are complex. Evolution has already reached a very advanced stage (for this Planet ?) once individual species progress to this stage (tools). We are not the only species that has done so, but we are the most advanced ... which is rather stating the obvious.

Of course, once we have reached this stage, for the very first time we have influence over our own destinies to a certain extent. We can alter our environment .... prior to this we were subject to our environment. Now it can be clearly shown that what we make, we make for a purpose.

But we, Homo Sapiens, along with Neanderthal, inherited this (toolmaking) from Homo Heidelbergensis, who inherited it from Home Ergaster, who inherited it from Homo Habilus (Handyman). These were species that preceded us and left us their legacy, they were not Human but Hominids.

The whole process from Handyman to us covers just 2.5 million years. If the lifespan of Earth represented 1 hour, this would be equal to just a few seconds.

Prior to that, for the whole hour, Function was determined AFTER creation of the object. In other words, there was no pre-defined purpose. The object evolved, if it was functional, then it continued in existence, otherwise it went extinct.

Now, Tim & Leslie, no offence, but points 1 - 5 I am in disagreement with. But, please, to save me writing my reasons down here again, could you please read the following few posts in this THREAD. Its not long. it has only six posts and only two are mine

After reading them, you may not agree with me but you will understand my angle ....



Then we can continue back here

cool bananas .... Love this thread Tim ... greg