Intelligence

Hmmmm... Well in my opinion the one thing that makes humans search for meaning or do anything is because you don't live forever and you have to find meaning or something that would make you important. So if you would live forever that motivation would be taken away and life would just become pure agony and then you wish you could die.

The only thing that motivates humans into finding answers or taking any action is death.

Heh, so the purpose of life is to die. That actually makes sense since the only thing in life that is certain is death.


EDIT:
So if you find the meaning of life (Death) then you don't need life anymore.

Jay.J wrote:

I would think so. Once you've fulfilled your purpose (If you can fulfill it) then you have no more purpose in life, and therefore life is no longer needed, no?

So death actually makes a great deal of sense as a meaning of life.

I just used boredom as an example. The point of that paragraph was to say that there can't be any meaning in afterlife.



-Belial

Well... yes and no. The infinite amount of numbers you speak of are... different. I.e. the space between the numbers get infinitely smaller. So, yes technically there are an infinite amount of numbers but they don't mean anything realistically. Infinite is a good concept, and a difficult one to conceive of, but humans seem to be more focused on the finite. Also, it kind of depends on how you conceive of infinite in the first place...

In the western world, we tend to consider infinite as something that stretches on forever in a straight line (i.e. starting from 0 and going towards +Infinity). Other places, however, have a concept for infinity that is more circular. Every ending is a new beginning and the cycle goes on indefinitely. Well, whatever.

That's only because of chemical processes in our brain though. That's just because of the laws of this universe. If you think about an afterlife in the general mono-theistic way, then after the grave the day of resurrection comes and to that person it's almost instant as time would be sped up for them.

Before that everything is destroyed. EVERYTHING. Apocalypse and such. Everything is then recreated by God and the day of judgment comes. After that you live in Heaven...and can do things that are impossible in this universe because the laws of the afterlife wouldn't be the same as the laws of this life. That's the whole point. To think that your thought process after enlightenment would be the same doesn't make much sense to me. It's a different life, and a different type of life. Of course you're not going to be thinking "I can't die so why rush to do anything". It's more I can do anything, and I can do it forever, and since boredom and sadness are just thoughts in your brain - if those thoughts can't exist and you're actually doing something you want...then isn't that what you'll want then?

I don't really like religion since there is nothing to prove that any deity exists and worshiping a deity gives the same results as worshiping a teaspoon exept if you worship your silverware then you can see your god. Also more wars have been fought over religion then i can count on every pointy piece of my body (That only proves that humans are idiots, fighting over things they can't even prove.).


So i'm sticking with my theory that the meaning of life is death.




-Belial

Belial wrote:

I don't really like religion since there is nothing to prove that any deity exists and worshiping a deity gives the same results as worshiping a teaspoon exept if you worship your silverware then you can see your god. Also more wars have been fought over religion then i can count on every pointy piece of my body (That only proves that humans are idiots, fighting over things they can't even prove.).


So i'm sticking with my theory that the meaning of life is death.

This is the exat reason that some people worship. The belief that through everything they can still *know* (yes some people truly believe that they know a god exists) that a high power is out there watching over them makes them feel safer.

Not seeing hearing or witnessing a god and still believing makes some people feel safer. And how can you truly argue with their beliefs, after all it is THEIR beliefs.

I know that belief is a coping mechanism for a lot of people but it should be kept away from debates since it can't be proven with facts.

Also i once knew a guy who knew he was a potato that doesn't make it true.

EDIT:
Heh, C o w get's edited to potato.


-Belial

A mathematical equation x=x is proven to be true. It has not be tested against every number because we can use common sense to rule that it is true. The same can be said for almost every law, gravity pulls 2 objects together which is a law created by observing the effect between objects, still not tested infinitely. When I arrived at my theory, I deduced what humans on average try to do in their life time. These are survive, procreate, discover, protect. Discover is a means to survival, find out a pointy stick helps you hunt. Protect ensures your food says your and you have it for later, or your seed carries on. Procreate creates a partial copy of yourself with the chance of it being able to survive. This leaves you with 2 goals for humans, survive, procreate. Most people stop here but I continued by looking at cells. When a cell reproduces it makes 2 exact copies of itself, 2 copies have a better chance of surviving than 1, When 2 cells work together they again have a better chance of surviving, 3 division can cause mutation which may make the cell stronger. Thus I deduced that procreation is a means to ensure survival, meaning our only goal in life is survive, meaning we are trying to achieve immortality. So yes I do believe you can logically deduce the meaning of life.

Well actually if a cell evolves to survive better that doesn't mean immortality is the goal. Cells evolve to archive perfection if immortality is perfection then that's where evolution is headed (Unless someone finds a way to make human cell regenerate about 50 times faster and stop the regeneration from slowing down in time).

So if humans continue to evolve someday they might become immortal but that's more of a goal for evolution, but for that to happen the old species has to die. Again the current meaning of life is death.

Also robots are nearly immortal since they don't get old, so if a sentient robot can be made then humans have made something that is immortal.



-Belial

why does the old species have to die? and if your immortal how is death your purpose if your trying to continue to live, cause if you die your not truly immortal...

You can't deduce God with a sound argument. But you can inductively prove him. Induction is based on not right or wrong like deductive arguments though - but they do have strength and weakness. Some arguments are better than others. Those arguments are enough reason to believe. It has nothing to do with coping mechanisms (it might for some).

Also, you don't evolve based on reaching a goal...it's based on chance - and mutations. Other things are adaptations which are beneficial, such as a mitochondria entering a cell or something that's mutually beneficial type thing.

Wait. Hold. Stop. How do you know that evolution isn't based on a goal? What if there is a God and he has a "goal" in mind for evolution? Or, what if the universe has a "goal" in mind... namely that humans evolved so that the atoms could contemplate their own existence. Uh oh, now you've stumbled onto the principle that is named Anthropic. The idea that the universe is the way it is in order to facilitate humans coming to exist.

Also, there is no legitimate test that proves/disproves God's existence.

If there is one, explain it using your inductive logic and I will induct you into the hall of fame. (yes word play was intentional).

diaster wrote:

why does the old species have to die? and if your immortal how is death your purpose if your trying to continue to live, cause if you die your not truly immortal...

If your immortal then the purpose of evolution is fulfilled and then death can't be the meaning of life but right now there aren't any immortal beings.

And the old species has to die because then they aren't the dominating species and the new immortal species will take over. Though overpopulation will be an issue.

Jay.J wrote:

You can't deduce God with a sound argument. But you can inductively prove him. Induction is based on not right or wrong like deductive arguments though - but they do have strength and weakness. Some arguments are better than others. Those arguments are enough reason to believe. It has nothing to do with coping mechanisms (it might for some).

Also, you don't evolve based on reaching a goal...it's based on chance - and mutations. Other things are adaptations which are beneficial, such as a mitochondria entering a cell or something that's mutually beneficial type thing.

If someone can prove god exists they would have done it by now, i doubt some forum is going to show the world that god exists.


Life usually evolves towards something that works best. So the species will become more stronger or if needed just adapt to survive.
The human evolution got started when the climate became warmer and the rainforest in Africa was mostly destroyed. The human predecessor had to learn to live on the ground. When they started to make tools then they started to walk on 2 limbs instead of 4 and their brain became bigger so they became smarter. They evolved to survive better and eventually evolved to become to dominating species.

If evolution would be random most species would just die out because they got bigger ears instead of a bigger brain.


-Belial

Quote :

A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

If X then Y
X
_________
Y

You can't reject it. However, you can't get anything out of the conclusion that wasn't in the premise.

Quote :

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

You can also say it's probably not true because it's based on Strength/Weakness. That depends on how strong the argument is, and how probable you personally think it is. That's what I meant. People don't do it purely irrationally or purely as a coping mechanism. (Belief in God)

Quote :

Also, there is no legitimate test that proves/disproves God's existence.

Yup. That's how God is by definition. That's why it's inductive and not deductive. If God WAS possible to be proved deductively - then you wouldn't have a "choice" in believing in him. That would mean you wouldn't have "Free will" in choosing your belief in him - and there would be no point of belief as a means to determining factor for Heaven/Hell.

Quote :

If someone can prove god exists they would have done it by now, i doubt some forum is going to show the world that god exists.

Quote :

If there is one, explain it using your inductive logic and I will induct you into the hall of fame. (yes word play was intentional).

You both don't seem to have understood what I meant by induction.

Quote :

Wait. Hold. Stop. How do you know that evolution isn't based on a goal? What if there is a God and he has a "goal" in mind for evolution? Or, what if the universe has a "goal" in mind... namely that humans evolved so that the atoms could contemplate their own existence. Uh oh, now you've stumbled onto the principle that is named Anthropic. The idea that the universe is the way it is in order to facilitate humans coming to exist.

I don't. But neither do you. This has no backing. This is a leap of faith - which is actually less rational then just "God exists".

Quote :

If evolution would be random most species would just die out because they got bigger ears instead of a bigger brain.

As far as I understand "mutation" is the key trigger in evolution. Otherwise, what causes things to evolve? What makes something become stronger? You can't just alter your DNA or the protein sequences because it would be better for you. Something needs to change it. That has to be random. Otherwise it's going against the second law of thermodynamics, no? Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Doesn't thermodynamics apply to energy not evolution? Not sure though i don't remember much about it.

In my opinion people believe in god or some other deity because the alternative is realizing that death is the end, as far as they know they are alone in the universe or that they exist because of a huge coincidence. That's why i called it a coping mechanism.
Also even if you knew god would exist you still have the option not to worship or even believe in him/her/it.


If evolution would be completely random then why did mammoths have fur, why fish don't have legs, why don't humans have horns or predators have sharp teeth and claws. They evolve according to their environment or need to survive.

Jay.J wrote:

If X then Y
X
_________
Y

You can't reject it. However, you can't get anything out of the conclusion that wasn't in the premise.

I have no idea what you mean by that.



-Belial

Quote :

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

From wiki. It's supposed to be a universal law applying to everything.

Quote :

In my opinion people believe in god or some other deity because the alternative is realizing that death is the end, as far as they know they are alone in the universe or that they exist because of a huge coincidence. That's why i called it a coping mechanism.
Also even if you knew god would exist you still have the option not to worship or even believe in him/her/it.

What sane person would not worship something they knew was all powerful and could grant them anything they want, or punish them with the worst punishments if they didn't believe? And this is KNOW, not think.

Quote :

If evolution would be completely random then why did mammoths have fur, why fish don't have legs, why don't humans have horns or predators have sharp teeth and claws. They evolve according to their environment or need to survive.

Because that's adaptation, not evolution.

Quote :

I have no idea what you mean by that.

It's straight forward ... simple logic. Replace X with anything and Y with anything. If the premises are true - the conclusion must be true. If being the keyword. Having a sound argument is the premises are also true.

If Jay.J lives in Toronto, Jay.J lives in Canada
Jay.J lives in Toronto
__________________
Jay.J lives in Canada.

Because god doesn't grant anything or punish anyone. As i said before does as much as a teaspoon and knowing god exists only changes that you know what is useless.


So your saying that adaption is mutation towards the better and evolution is a random mutation?

I learned something about thermodynamics last year in school but that was only about energy. I'm checking it out on wiki later.


-Belial

Quote :

So your saying that adaption is mutation towards the better and evolution is a random mutation?

No adaptation is planned change to cope with the environment, for example it's hotter and there's more sun in the area so you have more pigment...and it get passed on in your DNA. That's the same thing as working out, and your muscles get bigger/stronger.

Evolution on the other hand is random mutation. Errors in DNA translation. Causing an extra fin to sprout. Or an extra Foot etc. These random changes throughout the history of the world is what is supposedly what makes one species turn into another throughout time. It's the only reason why some things have to change their adaptations, while others do not.

How can you be so sure that all of the changes evolution has made are random? All the changes evolution has made are necessary for a species, if i see an elephant with wings then i can say it is totally random.

Also the size of your muscles isn't passed on by your DNA.



-Belial

in actuality is more or less random, but like throwing a dart at the bullseye but hitting all over the place random.

an elephant cant be born with wings because it does not have wings in its DNA... but if an eagle was born with an extra wing or w/e it wouldn't be as surprising.

imagine the atmosphere went through a dramatic change and birds had a harder time flying. one eagle might actually be born with an extra pair of wings (four in total) and if that would help it fly, it would help it survive, and it would possibly pass it on to future generations.

the reason we (humans) came into being was because some chimp had a genetic mutation and was born with locking knee caps (feel free to google our history). through time it had children and passed on the locking knee-cap gene and eventually groups and groups of neandrathals could walk up-right, letting them forage longer and travel longer on foot without resting. and after that, after a long while, they became smarter and smarter, learning to use tools and this and that.

but part of evolution isnt as random, like if your dad was lance armstrong and your mom was also an athelete you would most likely be born at least slightly athletic. those kinds of things are passed on. also if one of your parents had an immunity to a certain disease it would also be likely that you would inherit it.

actually i can concur some, because by introducing proteins into a cell we were able to reverse an ostridge into a raptor, basically proving its not really our dna that change so much as our cells learn new tricks, though DNA changes obviously do occur, but evolution is less reliant on it.

Quote :

How can you be so sure that all of the changes evolution has made are random? All the changes evolution has made are necessary for a species, if i see an elephant with wings then i can say it is totally random.

Because that's how evolution works...Tell me if i'm wrong.

How does evolution actually work?? From my understanding during replication some error occurs. We know that even one different mismatched sequence will make something vastly different. It can be good or bad. It just happens though. How else is a reptile turning into a bird? It HAS to be random because there is no benefit. And if you try to argue there is - then why is it only some reptiles that turned to birds, and why we don't actually OBSERVE any of them changing throughout any of recorded history?

This is how it is: Evolution works by:
a) Random chance (Mutations)
b) We don't know the mechanism that triggers evolution yet
c) Adaptations to the environment (Which doesn't explain why it's only some but not others when they have the same problem)
d) Insert your answer here.

Quote :

Also the size of your muscles isn't passed on by your DNA.

No but your phenotype of how built you are and whether you're an ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph are. To some extent you can change that. Two strong peoples babies are more likely to be strong themselves because of that.

Hmmm.. reptiles might have became birds because there wasn't enough food on the ground and hunting is easier when you can snatch you pray from the ground so it has benefits. Flying > Walking.

Also kuro's dart throwing argument makes sense, every mutation isn't the best but it's at least helpful.

The elephant with wings was just for my own amusement.

Spoiler:

Quote :

Hmmm.. reptiles might have became birds because there wasn't enough food on the ground and hunting is easier when you can snatch you pray from the ground so it has benefits. Flying > Walking.

OK, so with that example - what causes them to gain feathers. Grow wings. Have different bone structure. Gain beaks etc. Why are there no transitive animals in the process? You can't just be like "man, there's not enough food on the ground, I wish I could fly!" *POOF* I'm a bird. . And no, some mutations aren't helpful. In the least bit. Those mutated animals tend to die and be outcast. That's something that's actually observed.

Most likely mutation made all of that happen but i was just saying it was helpful since birds own lizards .

It most likely happened over billions of years it certainly didn't happen in 10 minutes... "*POOF* And suddenly Belial grew wings" Or maybe it did...

Some examples on the crappy mutations?
Well yea with that dark throwing example i guess it possible to hit your friend in the eye with a dart. But as far as i can tell evolution helps species survive so it can't be totally random.



-Belial

Belial wrote:

Some examples on the crappy mutations?

there are no crappy mutations for us to show as proof. the thing is, if it was a good mutation, you would probably see it today, like birds or humans. but if it was a bad one that hindered its survival that creature would have died and we wouldn't be able to find any traces of it.

the only few 'crappy mutations' today that we can observe are, possibly, things like being born with an extra arm or whatever.

also on the topic of the ostrich its early ancestor was actually a gigantic bird-raptor with razor sharp claws (on its feet) that would catch prey by running after it and then gorge its eyes/face out for the kill. (discovery channel ftw? )

and after a while as the big animals died out, the ostrich, like many other big animals, evolved into smaller creatures. in this case it became the modern day ostrich bird.