Why isn't our purpose as living things to serve the motion of lifeless matter? — Πετροκότσυφας

Are you able to rephrase this statement? Or elaborate?

When you focus right down to it, every single behavior and action conducted by not only humans but all living things can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

This is demonstrably false. There are probably an infinite number of human actions that are not conducive to living. Just stop and think about it for a moment. Human beings are a rather risky species of animal. — Thorongil

I agree with Thorongil.

What's an example? — ThinkingMatt

Play. Prayer. Art. Music. Beauty. God. Nobility.

Man The Player is, as Thorongil says, a rather risky species of animal, who quite often gambles with his future. In addition, man is also a "useless" animal if looked at strictly from the materialistic perspective. We're certainly not very efficient at reproducing.

I mean we're capable to reproduce from when we're ~14, but most of us don't have children until mid 20s or sometimes in our 30s-40s. That certainly means we're quite busy doing other things during this time. We're by all means not focused on spreading our genes - if we were, we would have organised society differently, with marriages as early as 14. I think early marriages would be better - but for many of us, society forces us to live unmarried till well into our 30s.

Life is just a particular configuration of matter, so all there is matter and its motion. The "purpose" of life is not to sustain itself, it's to sustain motion the motion of matter. — Πετροκότσυφας

>:O >:O

The eternal dance of atoms in the void - remember when Democritus laughed?

Play. Prayer. Art. Music. Beauty. God. Nobility. — Agustino

Play - is a mechanism (1) to learn (2) to reinforce and build social relationships - both are advantageous in terms of creating properous survival/ life.

Prayer - purpose of praying (1) to ensure a good relationship with god out of a fear that death will be painful. Having a good relationship with god is based on the premis that he has control over whether you live or die. Having a good relationship with god hypothetically insinuates he will choose to either keep you alive (survival) or bring no pain with your death which is what we fear (perhaps ideas with endless pain in hell as well).

... I can keep going @Agustino

Play - is a mechanism (1) to learn (2) to reinforce and build social relationships - both are advantageous in terms of creating properous survival/ life. — ThinkingMatt

I most often play by myself. And I certainly don't "learn to reproduce" by playing the piano for example. Nor does it make me prosperous. Really, if being propserous was my goal, I should never touch the piano again, since it's wasting my time and keeping me away from activities that earn money. But to the contrary - I want to be propserous so that I can play the piano in freedom, without being disturbed by the need to work. Most of us separate our passions from our work.

Prayer - purpose of praying (1) to ensure a good relationship with god out of a fear that death will be painful. — ThinkingMatt

Absolutely not true.

Having a good relationship with god is based on the premis that he has control over whether you live or die. — ThinkingMatt

He has control anyway, whether I pray or not.

Having a good relationship with god hypothetically insinuates he will choose to either keep you alive (survival) or bring no pain with your death which is what we fear (perhaps ideas with endless pain in hell as well). — ThinkingMatt

Wrong. Job was a righteous man, highly virtuous, and God still allowed him to lose everything and suffer greatly. He was not spared, but quite the contrary.

... I can keep going Agustino — ThinkingMatt

No, I'd rather prefer if you put an end to the BS actually... ;)

Life is just a particular configuration of matter, so all there is matter and its motion. The "purpose" of life is not to sustain itself, it's to sustain motion the motion of matter. — Πετροκότσυφας

Fair statement - it essentially substitutes the contention that the purpose of life is continuing the cycle of life (reproduction). Though still leaves us questioning the purpose of why we need the continuation of life (reproduction) to happen. Or in your context, what the purpose of continuing motion is.

Fair statement - it essentially substitutes the contention that the purpose of life is continuing the cycle of life (reproduction). Though still leaves us questioning the purpose of why we need the continuation of life (reproduction) to happen. Or in your context, what the purpose of continuing motion is. — ThinkingMatt

Okay here's what will happen. Regardless of what purpose we tell you that life has (call it X), you'll ask "Why do we need to do X? What are we doing it for?". If it's the purpose of life, then there is no further purpose to account for it - that's precisely what makes it the purpose of life.

So you're playing a silly game with us, that we cannot win. So stop it! QUIT IT!! >:O Quit trolling us!

@Agustino that's your job - by being able to disprove my logic with your own ahahah

that's your job - by being able to disprove my logic with your own ahahah — ThinkingMatt

Logic can neither be proved nor disproved. It suffices that I point to the fact that you have no reason for questioning a final purpose based on asking what its own purpose is, for there cannot be an infinite regress of purposes in the first place. So your expectations that there will be a purpose to a final purpose is silly.

Well, no. You gotta choose. You can't have both. Once you have done that, we can go on. — Πετροκότσυφας

Okay for the sake of the discussion let's say the purpose of life is the continuation of motion. Why does the continuation of motion need to occur?

So your expectations that there will be a purpose to a final purpose is silly. — Agustino

Is it though? Or is it a logical sequence of steps to find the origin or absolute beginning? Logically everything must start from one point. Unless you believe in closed loop paradoxes. Where the begging of syestem is started by the ending of the same system which makes it circular.

I think an intriguing point about all of this is that now evolutionary biology has been accepted as the kind of secular/scientific equivalent of 'a creation myth', that it carries with it many often unstated connotations and assumptions. — Wayfarer

Agree. The Big Bang, Natural Laws, Natural Selection are just words and phrases that are used to create a concept that replaces God. It is its own form of religion. Such concepts transfer the human ability to choose to an outside supernatural force that guides them.

The French philosophers (e.g. Bergson, Foucault) understand the process. This transfer of power creates social control. In this particular case, control is a tug-of-war between the Church, which interprets the Laws of God, and Science which interprets and uses the Laws of Nature. It is subtle but quite pervasive and real with very real consequences.

The most fundamental consequence is loss so meaning in life. If one is just a puppet of outside forces, then why should one continue to exist? What is the motivation? If one takes back choice and admits to one's ability to create via intuition, then new meaning enters into one's life. Camus created great stories and great ideas. Sisyphus was half-way there. The meaning is in life but he should be thinking of new ways to roll that boulder up that mountain. Repetition (habit) is boring. Practice creative intuition.

Okay for the sake of the discussion let's say the purpose of life is the continuation of motion. Why does the continuation of motion need to occur? — ThinkingMatt

Motion is creation of something new.

Is it though? Or is it a logical sequence of steps to find the origin or absolute beginning? Logically everything must start from one point. Unless you believe in closed loop paradoxes. Where the begging of syestem is started by the ending of the same system which makes it circular. — ThinkingMatt

How are you going to recognise that the origin is the origin if you'll keep asking what's the purpose what's the purpose to everything that is said to you? What's your criteria for recognising that origin?

It needs to occur so that motion can continue. — Πετροκότσυφας

In terms of physics motion of energy (which is essentially what we are talking about), continues as a means to evenly distribut energy amungst all matter situated within the universe until is reaches a state of equalibrium, when no matter is able to transfer energy between each other. Where the universe will be therefore stagnant.

If this is the case you left with another question being 'why does the universe need to be stagnant or in equalibrium?'

Motion is creation of something new — Rich

Maybe in some sense. Let's say that statement is true - motion means for something to go in a specified direction or to change position. Though as I've said:

Logically everything must start from one point. Unless you believe in closed loop paradoxes. Where the begging of syestem is started by the ending of the same system which makes it circular. — ThinkingMatt

How are you going to recognise that the origin is the origin if you'll keep asking what's the purpose what's the purpose to everything that is said to you? What's your criteria for recognising that origin? — Agustino

Fair statement - essentially when you can not derive any further. Which as you stated is difficult or impossible to identify. So perhaps that's reason to suggest a situation that we are in a closed looped paradox.

Fair statement - essentially when you can not derive any further. Which as you stated is difficult or impossible to identify. — ThinkingMatt

If you cannot provide a means to identify it, then we'll have to treat it as impossible, in which case it's time to dismiss your concerns as children's play. You were merely trolling us afterall.

Nope, because we've already defined continuation of motion as the purpose of everything (life being just a part of everything). — Πετροκότσυφας

I'll have to read the article before commenting on what they suggest.

Though based on your quote above, if the continuation of motion is the entire purpose of existence then logically it still has to have a starting and ending point or it exists as a close loop paradox where it's begging is derived by its end.

Logically everything must start from one point. Unless you believe in closed loop paradoxes. Where the begging of syestem is started by the ending of the same system which makes it circular. — ThinkingMatt

Here one must become spiritual. The Daoist simply say the beginning is the Dao that spirals (not circles) into a wave of creative energy. This would be the equivalent of Bergson's Elan vital.

If you cannot provide a means to identify it, then we'll have to treat it as impossible, in which case it's time to dismiss your concerns as children's play. You were merely trolling us afterall. — Agustino

You're right that if it has a separate beginning and end it is impossible to identify which make my argument mute. Though if you agree it's circular (as in its begging ist started by its own end) then it is theoretically possiable to prove. Eg in the same way that they proved the earth is round

Here one must become spiritual. The Daoist simply say the beginning is the Dao that spirals (not circles) into a wave of creative energy. This would be the equivalent of Bergson's Elan vital. — Rich

perhaps - though I'm not familiar with Bergson's Vital force but at least you've given me something to go onto ahaha thanks for the discussion non the less @Rich

Was the purpose of this thread to identify the logical status of infinite regresses? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't believe that that's where we've ended up

Though if you agree it's circular (as in its begging ist started by its own end) then it is theoretically possiable to prove. — ThinkingMatt

Proving that the Earth is "round" (ie spherical) is an empirical matter. Proving that an argument is circular is a logical matter. The two aren't proved in the same manner.

Furthermore, there's nothing to be circular in the first place. What is circular? Your question asking what's the purpose of the purpose? Your approach isn't circular, but it's unfruitful because you're starting from the wrong assumptions and therefore asking the wrong questions. You should first determine what kind of questions you should ask from a final purpose. If you're looking for a final purpose, you cannot go around asking what is it's purpose, because you'll end up in an infinite regress (and not only that but if you ask what is its purpose that logically presupposes that it's not a final purpose). Rather you have to change the criteria based on which you're searching for the final purpose of life, because clearly inquiring what's the purpose to each purpose you're presented only leads you to an infinite regress, and is therefore not going to be conducive to your investigation. If you really want to find out what this final purpose is, then you need to adopt a better criteria of truth.

Some sort of spiritualism must re-enter into one's existence in order to feel meaning again. It is the life force within is that gives birth to our ability to imagine and create. The most straightforward way to understand this is via any of the arts. I practice dance, piano, drawing, Tai Chi/Qigong, and singing - as well as philosophy!

Some sort of spiritualism must re-enter into one's existence in order to feel meaning again. It is the life force within is that gives birth to our ability to imagine and create. The most straightforward way to understand this is via any of the arts. I practice dance, piano, drawing, Tai Chi/Qigong, and singing - as well as philosophy!

Proving that the Earth is "round" (ie spherical) is an empirical matter. Proving that an argument is circular is a logical matter. The two aren't proved in the same manner. — Agustino

I disagree - A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519−1522). They physically traveled in the same direction until they inevitably arrived to the same point to which they originatly started.

If you were to conduct the same experiment in terms of the universe you would have to travel in the same linear direction in time (like we are) until you reach the end of existence of the universe or time and space and see if ends completely or in Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián case you arrive back where you started. Whether humans can come up with a way of surviving this experiment is another question.

If you were to conduct the same experiment in terms of the universe you would have to travel in the same linear direction in time (like we are) until you reach the end of existence of the universe or time and space and see if ends completely or in Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián case you arrive back where you started. Whether humans can come up with a way of surviving this experiment is another question. — ThinkingMatt

:s I don't remember we were discussing whether the universe has a spatial or temporal end or not...