Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a common fallacy is to think that because atoms have no purpose and since we are made of atoms that we therefore have no purpose.
of course, atoms also dont have thoughts or emotions or dreams yet we do.
another fallacy is to ask what is the purpose of life?
thats like asking what is the purpose of purpose.
living IS the purpose.
our purpose doesnt need a purpose to still be a purpose.
its a purpose even without a purpose.
"There is no ‘redness’ in nature, only different wave lengths of radiation." - Alfred Korzybski, "The Nature of Language in the Perceptual Processes," reprinted from Perception: An Approach to Personality (1951)
. . . .
Faith is false substitute for the truth. It is a defect of human nature that has to do with the fallacy of perception, which was first observed by David Hume, and, more recently, Alfred Korzybski. See David Hume, Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777); and Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1933). The fallacy operates similarly in every sphere of inquiry where the issue is in doubt; it is a form of mental blindness that is inextricably bound in the human psyche. The truth, which is generally seen, will nevertheless not be recognized unless one is able, at least for a moment, to suspend belief. It is the difference between sight and perception - the difference between what the eye sees and the mind’s eye perceives - the difference between what is true and what we perceive as true, though false. Still, we persist in believing that things are ordered as we perceive them; when in truth what is perceived to be the cause may not necessarily produce the effect. Do you see red? If you believe that you see red, then, as Korzybski points out, you are mistaken. All faith (viz., the presumption of what is not susceptible of proof) is dependent upon doubt, in the absence of which there is no basis for belief. That is the difference between perception and reality, the difference between faith and the truth.
Perhaps it's the non-believers who suffer from this mental blindness.
Perhaps the perception of those you quote is also somewhat skewed. Don't all men fall prey to their own perception of things, no matter how much "logic" they think they are using?
a common fallacy is to think that because atoms have no purpose and since we are made of atoms that we therefore have no purpose.
of course, atoms also dont have thoughts or emotions or dreams yet we do.
another fallacy is to ask what is the purpose of life?
thats like asking what is the purpose of purpose.
living IS the purpose.
our purpose doesnt need a purpose to still be a purpose.
its a purpose even without a purpose.
Another "common fallacy" is to label certain things (atoms) as being purposeless when, in fact, they may indeed actually have a purpose.
Well said. It is up to the individual to give his life 'purpose' beyond that, if he feels it needs it.
I have more of a tendency (sometimes) to reflect on what what my purpose might have been, rather than trying to create or discover what my purpose is or will be.
Mostly I just go with what seems right and hope for the best! Usually things turn out okay in the end. Some would call it God's grace. Other's would call it a positive outlook.
I usually think of it as the former,but I respect the right of those who choose to think of it in terms of the latter.
I don't believe oxygen or water have a purpose until a mind creates a purpose for them. They just exist. They just follow the laws of physics, but they don't have a purpose until something with a mind has a purpose in mind for them.
The wind, dust, water, and sediments made the Grand Canyon. But, they did not design it, they did not have a purpose for it, they did not plan it, they did not have a goal to build the Grand Canyon or a purpose for it after it came into existence. They don't have a mind, so they can't give it a purpose. They unwittingly created the Grand Canyon simply by bouncing around following the laws of physics.
I believe that is how we were made as well. Our story is more involved but we were just as unplanned, undesigned, unintended, and purposeless as the Grand Canyon. And we remain purposeless unless and until a mind decides to create a purpose for us.
This is not to say the Grand Canyon does not have an impact on the things around it as it mindlessly follows the laws of nature. Due to its depth, it provides shelter from the sun to some plants and animals, etc. But, it wasn't designed for that purpose if there was no mind that designed it. It just is, and living things take advantage of what it is.
Similarly, we play a role in the ecosystem. But, that is not our purpose, because no divine mind exists to make it our purpose. We breathe oxygen, but it is not oxygen's purpose to give us life, because it wasn't created for that purpose. It is just there and we breathe it.
The fact that something is performing some function doesn't mean that function is its purpose. The function doesn't become the purpose until a mind gives that object that purpose. A rock may be holding a fallen branch off the ground. It is performing the function of holding the branch up. But, that is not its purpose until a mind gives it that purpose. A human logger might come along and decide to use the rock to hold up the branch so that he can more easily cut the branch with his chain saw. Now the rock has a purpose; the purpose of holding the branch up, because a mind that could see the usefulness in the rock's ability to keep the branch off the ground planned to use the rock for that purpose. The logger had an intention for that rock, and it that moment it had a purpose.
It takes a mind to have a "reason". It takes a mind to "intend" or "desire" or "aim" or have a "goal". A purpose simply can't exist without a mind. Objects can do things, but without a mind to give them or their behavior purpose, they don't have purpose.
One last thing, when I say, "there was no divine mind" as if it were stating a fact, I acknowledge that there is the possibility a divine mind might exist, but I highly doubt it. In any case, it becomes quite cumbersome to qualify every sentence I write with, "I acknowledge the remote possibility that there could be a divine mind, as it is impossible to prove there isn't one, but similarly I can't prove fairies don't exist, but I really doubt they do. So, let this paragraph qualify all of my the above post.
Wow! I was expecting a "you got me!" from you. Silly me
Although I don't agree with you, I appreciate all the thought you've put into this and I find your point of view interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
I don't think man or a mind has to create a purpose for something in order for it to have a purpose. And I don't hink it takes a mind to have a "reason". I guess your understanding of these difinitions and my understanding are just different. I can agree to disagree on this.
Wow! I was expecting a "you got me!" from you. Silly me
Although I don't agree with you, I appreciate all the thought you've put into this and I find your point of view interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
I don't think man or a mind has to create a purpose for something in order for it to have a purpose. And I don't hink it takes a mind to have a "reason". I guess your understanding of these difinitions and my understanding are just different. I can agree to disagree on this.
I said IF our reality was mindless and purposeless there is no way for either phenomena to exist.
But "said" is all you did. You have not backed this up in any way. You just declare it to be so because it fits with the conclusions you want to reach.
Further, as was pointed out by another user, we do not fully understand consciousness so you simply have no basis on which to say how it can, or cannot, come to exist. Maybe when we learn more about it we can reach a point where we can declare such things, but here and now it is just fantasy and you choose your fantasies with care to fit the conclusions you want to be true.
We are all agog of course however to see you actually establish your claim rather than just repeat your claim. Build us a model and show what in that model precludes the existence of consciousnesses in a purposeless universe.
We are all agog of course however to see you actually establish your claim rather than just repeat your claim. Build us a model and show what in that model precludes the existence of consciousnesses in a purposeless universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
