I guess that you are not planning on having kids soon then.

What's with the need to propagate ourselves through time? — MikeL

There isn't such a thing. Some people do, others don't. There is no need.

Another question and probably more interesting metaphysical question is why do certain people choose to propagate? I believe the answer lies in the nature of spirituality.

I don't get it. What's with the need to propagate ourselves through time? Not just us, but all living things.
--MikeL

Excellent question! And if you don't mind me saying so nut your one of the few brave people who visits theses forums that is willing to ask a question that might undermine our "progressive"/"enlightened" western viewpoint of the western world around us. :D

The answer to your question is either we don't or that we don't know depending on your interpretation. For things such as viruses to animals the reason they propagate themselves is not because they choose to but merely because that is what they do; much like how rain falls, lightening strikes, or how any force of nature works although living things are are a separate thing than the various forces of nature. In the case of viruses, they are not even "living things" (ie. they are garbage that is created from mistakes when copying RNA or DNA) yet they are often more resilient then cells and living things they inhabit. How it is possible for a non-animate thing to propagate itself more effectively than living matter kind of beats me.

Part of the answer may lie in the fact that we really don't have anything better to do, at least if you don't count entertaining ourselves that is. As far as I can tell how the process works is a population of beings ( animals, people, viruses, etc.) are kind of fat and happy (relatively speaking of course), they tend to use their extra energy to produce offspring. If they are not, then they tend not to or at least not as much.

While it may not be the answer you are looking for, it is PLAUSIBLE we (ie sentient beings) are willing to propagate ourselves through time even if it isn't a given there is a reason for doing so simply because it also isn't a given there isn't one either; and until we can determine whether it is or isn't we sort of have to pretend that it is, or at least pretend that it is most of the time we are going about our lives. I could go further down this rabbit hole but I think I have gone far enough to more or less most of the question in your OP.

"We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it"

Not even the beginning of interesting. People can live their life with zero curiosity about the nature of life, but I have found it extremely beneficial in many practical ways to inquire into the nature of nature. But there is no necessity to do so, just as there is no necessity to procreate. If not this life, maybe the next? Evolution of the mind continues no matter what.

Perhaps you don't find it interesting because you don't understand what it is saying; which would be a bit ironic since you claim to be a "curious"/unbiased person.

It may seem rude for me to say this but from what little I can infer from your comments I think it is safe to say that your arguments and position are caused by not clearly understanding the problem that is addressed in the OP and in my posts. After all either common sense and/or a few years of studying philosophy should tell you that is NOT a given that "evolution of the mind continues no matter what"; which obviously could be a contributing factor to the problem in the OP.

Perhaps you don't find it interesting because you don't understand what it is saying; which would be a bit ironic since you claim to be a "curious"/unbiased person. — dclements

Oh, I understand. I'm just a bit more curious. And a few more years of studying nature you will find that evolution of the mind is continuous. It is, shall we say, the purpose of life. If you don't believe me, observe how many minds stop learning vs. how many choose not to procreate. It is what it is.

It's interesting to think there is a masked program running in us, making us think one thing when another thing is true. — MikeL

If there is a mask, it is either because we lack experience or because we choose the mask. Take your national debt/sugar tax example. The national debt is still the debt of the people. The mask here is the people thinking they don't need to pay their debts and that the government needs to trick them into taking responsibility.

In the case of why we desire to preserve and reproduce ourselves, "evolutionary theory" is the mask, where there is no meaning or purpose to "why", but rather, only a series of random encounters between atomic particles. This is why evolutionary theory suggests a process which happens over billions of years; it needs that much time for all the trial and error because there is nothing guiding the atoms in how they interact.

Why the fancy programming? — MikeL

Programming suggests a programmer. If you wanted to create artificial intelligence and you had the means to do it, you would probably not think of your own programming as fancy, but rather useful, meaningful, and good.

Why not just be eaten by the tiger so we can become part of the tiger? — MikeL

For the same reason we don't jump off buildings to ensure the cleaning crew has something to do.

Why do we tend to our offspring so diligently, protect them so fiercely, ensure they have a much better chance of success in this world than we did? — MikeL

The golden rule.

Thanks for your ideas John,
Part of the assertion I am making is that Evolutionary theory is seriously flawed. I can accept the random combination of atoms forming molecules, some of them molecules being enzymatic in function, perhaps even replicative in function, and I can even accept the evolution of molecular systems where A hits B hits C hits A, but I just can't accept that this process is able to create organisms that possess a higher sense of their environment then their apparent senses allow.

And when we begin to introduce the concept I have termed 'masks' revealing a driving force behind us and other animals that makes us do one thing for one reason when another reason is the real motivation, we introduce at the very least a notion of dualism: of a puppet and puppet master, programmer and programmed...and this can easily flow into a creator and created debate, but I will not go there today.

And I do agree that there is a very good reason for these masks... the perpetuation of the species... but my question was, who decided that was important anyway? Saying it is a Golden Rule is true, but why is it the Golden Rule? Saying it is for the same reason we don't jump off buildings is true, but again, my question is why? Why are all lifeforms battling it out for survival? Why run from a bear why kill to survive? Why are those urges so strong? Is there a pot of gold at the end of time?

The cyclical argument that we survive because survival was selected for by evolution is also interesting and a little illuminating if we let it shed a new light on time itself. Because what we really mean is that Time was selected for by evolution. Survival is, of course, survival through time.

You could postulate a resource super rich cauldron where molecules are battling it out, destroying and building each other in an endless cycle that is so chaotic it does not allow the building of complex systems, and then suddenly like falling sideways through a plaster wall molecules crash sideways into time and suddenly the arms race is on in a whole new dimension. They are building upon previous advances and moving away from the cut throat cauldron chaos.

I don't have the answers John, but I do have the questions. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

In the case of why we desire to preserve and reproduce ourselves, "evolutionary theory" is the mask, where there is no meaning or purpose to "why", but rather, only a series of random encounters between atomic particles. This is why evolutionary theory suggests a process which happens over billions of years; it needs that much time for all the trial and error because there is nothing guiding the atoms in how they interact. — John Days

The most outstanding feature of evolutionary theory is not only the magical moment that things all of a sudden start coming to life and self-organizing, but then they start thinking about their self-organizing, having memories of self-organizing, qualia of all things around them, and then start arguing among themselves about whether they have choices in how they are self-organizing. Besides all this, they create illusions of themselves really thinking, and things on the inside appearing outside, and all kinds of other interesting illusions.

Thank heavens that there was enough time for all of this to take shape. I would say about one week for a good creative story teller would be ample. To my taste, the Biblical story is much easier to believe and Greek mythology beats them both for shear entertainment value. All deserve a place in a World Literature curriculum.

Just inflate the operating metaphor of propagation without poetic shame.

Every act is an act of bearing children (replication of acts). To be is to propagate the world with its own features. This is suggestive of memetic theory.

Not procreating in this metaphorical sense is impossible unless you're dead. I suppose this is more an idea of inescapable karmic recurrence.

I don't know. It simply does not make sense. Is there another mask? Why not be, and then be gone? — MikeL

The world is absurdly repititious. You see, we are the only animal that can become aware of the this repetitiousness. I call it "instrumentality"- the feeling of the absurdly repetitious nature of life. We do to do to do. We work to work to work. As far as sexual reproduction, it may have originated as a way to keep out parasites. If the genes are recombined with a different set of genes, it is harder for parasites to invade the host cell(s). However, this is all well and good up until you have a species that can reflect on their own reasons (or lack thereof) to exist and produce more people. This is where nature runs into a cul-de-sac of sorts. This is also why there is such uniquely human phenomena such as existential angst, ennui, instrumentality, absurdity, and the rest. Existence-for-humans is structurally suffering due to the aforementioned self-aware phenomena. Add to this the contingent harms of living in whatever circumstances we are "thrown" into, and we get a real conundrum of why we keep reproducing at all.

For the most part we are motivated by survival, boredom, and dissatisfaction. This leads us to all kind of ways to fulfill our existential desires. However, in the end, it is repetitious absurdity (to do to do to do). It does not end until we end. We hit our existential limits of survival, boredom, and discomforts and then try to allay these lacks of satisfaction by utilizing our historical-cultural settings of available technology, economics, production, consumption, entertainment, and the like.

Why not just be eaten by the tiger so we can become part of the tiger? — MikeL

The tiger eats you to enhance its fitness to reproduce.

There isn't any "reason" for any creature to reproduce, other than sex feels good and eggs get in the way of the sperm race. Reproduction results.

but I just can't accept that this process is able to create organisms that possess a higher sense of their environment then their apparent senses allow. — MikeL

One of the more diplomatic ways of putting it. :)

...a driving force ... that makes us do one thing for one reason when another reason is the real motivation, we introduce the ... notion of dualism: ... programmer and programmed, and this can easily flow into a creator/created debate, but I will not go there today. — MikeL

I think your question really does require us to go there. There can be only 2 fundamental options; either random or designed. The question of "why?" hinges on which option you believe to be more likely. If our existence here is the result of atoms randomly bumping into one another, then there is no "why", because "why" presumes there is a purpose behind the action. Evolutionary theory, by definition, does not suggest there is any purpose behind why we are here, because purpose is synonymous with intent. At best, evolutionary theory only allows for "how".

If you ever meet an evolutionary theorist who asks "why" in the way you are asking, it is either because he does not understand or does not believe his own theory.

And I do agree that there is a very good reason for these masks... the perpetuation of the species... but my question was, who decided that was important anyway? — MikeL

I'm not quite sure I understand how you are using the concept of mask in this context. I would suggest that recognizing that there IS a higher intelligence behind all the complexity we see around us is the removal of the mask.

As for who decides that existence is important, I think ultimately the individual does.

Suicide is an available option, but most people will cling to life. The majority of the world is so enamored with life that they often live as though they will never die. They see meaning and purpose in living. The expression of emotion. Being exposed to new information. Succeeding. There are people who will spend years of their life on games/sports/arts/relationships because those things help them feel a sense of accomplishment as they progress. These are genuine motivations which prove, in practical, day-to-day reality, why it is worth living.

In other words, goodness is good for goodness' sake.

The cyclical argument that we survive because survival was selected for by evolution is also interesting and a little illuminating if we let it shed a new light on time itself. Because what we really mean is that Time was selected for by evolution. Survival is, of course, survival through time. — MikeL

The desire for meaning and freedom from standards can produce some pretty interesting effects. No one wants to be told what they can or can't do when it comes to morality, but neither can we deny a desire for some kind of purpose behind why we exist. Evolutionary theory is like this. The theory is an argument for how all life can exist without any kind of creator behind it. That's fine, so long as it is consistent. But our undeniable desire for purpose breaks the theory. This is why natural "selection" is a contradiction. The theory suggests that organisms which generate mutations which help them to successfully pass on their genes are selected. But if there really is no guidance behind this process, then the word selection becomes meaningless, because organisms with non-beneficial mutations are selected to die. Without intent, the word "selection" becomes meaningless.

Lets say you are asked to separate 1 orange from a group of 10. You could choose to pick one orange and set it aside or you could choose 9 oranges and set them aside. Unless there is some purpose for choosing one method over the other, there in no point is saying one is a selection while the other is not.

Random chance or design; only one of the two can answer why.

For the most part we are motivated by survival, boredom, and dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

Ugh. You are merely relating your own experiences. For the most part I am motivated by creativity and nicely in all arts, and it brings me joy.

There isn't any "reason" for any creature to reproduce — Bitter Crank

Ahh, but this is a good question for those who are exploring more spiritual paths and aren't limited by any artificial materialistic view of life.

There can be only 2 fundamental options; either random or designed — John Days

No, there is the option of creative learning from experimentation, such as what a farmer does via grafting.

"Oh, I understand. I'm just a bit more curious. And a few more years of studying nature you will find that evolution of the mind is continuous. It is, shall we say, the purpose of life. If you don't believe me, observe how many minds stop learning vs. how many choose not to procreate. It is what it is."
--Rich

I'm not arguing against the idea that evolution of the mind, biological entities, computer system designs, etc CAN be continuous for certain periods of time, I'm just pointing out that it is NOT A GIVEN that IT WILL ALWAYS BE SO. If you know anything about a computer hard drive you know that it is great at storing information and what not, but if you ever worked for some time at maintaining computer systems you would also know that it is a given that at some time they will fail and without a backup copy of the information on it, all of it will be gone.

The same can be said also of nearly any time of information storage retrieval system as well. Without a way to continuously protect against information loss, the existing information that is being retrieved and/or archived at any given time may not be around at some later point in time. Since evolution (and progress as well) depends on the preservation of information in the form of RNA/DNA as well as information in general if you consider the evolution of human society, a partial loss could result in a hiccup to any "continuous" evolution you might wish to reference, where as a total loss (such as an large enough asteroid hit earth or large scale nuclear war breaking out) could annihilate any progress made as well as the potential or hope of restarting it again.

Such unpleasant issues have to be taken into consideration if one is serious when they ponder on why we do the things we do.

Ugh. You are merely relating your own experiences. For the most part I am motivated by creativity and nicely in all arts, and it brings me joy. — Rich

Is it? Artistic pursuits are just a second order effect of your underlying boredom. Entertainment is a way to not be bored. You choose mastering an art rather than watching tv or rolling around in horseshit. Or maybe you are dissatisfied not doing art. Maybe you're trying to impress your girlfriend so she thinks you are cool. If she leaves, you'd be more lonely and you'd get bored. Either way it's out of boredom or dissatisfaction.

Now, I don't deny there is pleasure and thus to allay outer boredom we mostly choose that which is pleasurable to us rather than not. Hence rolling around in horseshit would be a less desirable way to pursue entertainment than enjoying the arts.

Is it? Artistic pursuits are just a second order effect of your underlying boredom — schopenhauer1

Well so I can say is there is much diversity in the human spirit and I learn something new about others every day.

No, there is the option of creative learning from experimentation, such as what a farmer does via grafting. — Rich

Which would be design.

More like exploration and experimentation. This is precisely what one can observe of babies right through senior age. There is no mystery of who is creating and how it is being done. It is right there for everyone to see. Pull the cloth off and it is a mirror.

It's interesting to think there is a masked program running in us, making us think one thing when another thing is true.

But back to self-preservation and replication. Why do we want to preserve ourselves anyway? Why the fancy programming? Why not just be eaten by the tiger so we can become part of the tiger? Why do we tend to our offspring so diligently, protect them so fiercely, ensure they have a much better chance of success in this world than we did? — MikeL

If time is subjective as this masked 'programme' of sorts that makes us believe in one thing when the truth is entirely different, you begin to understand how perceptions and our interpretation of reality may actually not be what it is in actuality.

For instance, and this may be an awkward example but it does touch on my point coherently. For one person, when they look at a prostitute they see a body, sexuality, perhaps a deeper disgust and aversion to this said prostitute but nonetheless compelled because of opportunity. They see an object.
When I see a prostitute, I feel pity, sympathy, I think about what would have compelled them to this path, what lifestyle they may have led, their family, their decisions. I feel heartbroken.

That disgust really mirrors their own disgust at themselves but our ego will project that out to others instead (just like when someone may disassociate as a egotistic refusal to live in a reality they either cannot or subjectively refuse to live in). The masses largely believe in realities that are given to them and yet they believe that they are thinking for themselves because how the brain works is dependent on a number of factors. The brain itself is a tool after all and it is how we use it that matters, but consciousness is something far more complex and whilst interconnected, again, it is dependent on a number of factors.

So why do we tend to protect others so fiercely? That is called love, that is consciousness. I feel heartbroken when I see a prostitute because I am morally conscious whereas a man that would feel sexually aroused is free of this consciousness and blindly following this 'programme' as you call it. We can transcend and the fact that you are even asking this question is an example of how.