 |
| |
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy You're missing the point |
As are you. 
quote:
A rock can do tons of things. Accelerated to a high enough speed, it can blow up a planet. Compressed to a small enough size, it can become a black hole. There are an unlimited number of things many objects can do. Purpose is functionality that is intended by someone. |
An apple isn't a rock. A rock is just a rock, it has no reason for existsance except, I suppose, to be a rock - to be a hard object and float around in space or clump together, or be kicked around, or whatever the hell. But an apple exists for a very specific reason.
quote:
My purpose in using the legs is to walk around. The purpose in legs existing - there is none. That's the point - evolution has no intent, no purpose. There is no purpose to traits that have evolved - there is merely functionality that happens to be conducive towards the reproduction of those traits. |
You don't give purpose to your legs :rolleys: you're born with them (and you generally start using them before you reach the point of being "intelligent") and you have no choice in the matter. I supose, if you really wanted to, you could ignore the purpose of them and drag yourself and your fully functional legs around on the floor like a moron, but that doesn't change the reason that you're born with legs.
Like I said in the part you cut out from your quote, there is intent. Legs are intended to be used to walk with - it's why we're born with them. Eyes are intended to see, it's why we have them. And apples are intended to spread seeds, it's how the trees have survived.
Is the purpose of sperm also subjective? You could play around with it if you want maybe mix it in your coffee, but it very obviously has a distinct purpose for it's existance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Oerdin quote:
You may remember from science class. |
Of course not, I went to public schools. 
quote:
You can only prove cause and effect if you control for outside factors. Can you really control for all societial changes between 1964 and today? Of course not especially since so many other things have happened (the creation of the pill, the sexual revolution, the break down of families especially in conservative states, etc). |
The cause and effect is obvious, welfare serves to replace fathers just as Social Security breaks generational family bonds in favor of the nuclear family.
I've personally seen it work, my friends were on welfare and the mother and father split up so that she could get welfare. He wasn't a bad man, not at all, he still hung around but he could not legally live with his family.
quote:
Your attempts to blame welfare for everything which has gone wrong in the last 100 years is truly sad. |
Not as sad as that strawman, I believe I blamed weflare for the skyrocketing out of wedlock birthrates. Now, we can see that the greatest factor in poverty rates are the number of families with single mothers, so out of wedlock birthrates are involved there too.
quote:
If welfare only effects a small part of the population but the entire population changes their practices then it is likely other factors are at play. |
Of course there are other factors, typically liberal, from no fault divorce to Hollywood and the drug war, but a large percentage of crime in this country is committed by a small population too and it sure has an effect. Fifty years ago out of wedlock births often ended in marriage, even Pat Robertson started his marriage that way. But now the politicians are there with a check so the woman and man dont need to marry. Is it a surprise when they dont marry because the government is there to play the role of breadwinner?
I'm not a social conservative but even I can admit they're right about this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
As are you. |
Did you get quotes
quote:
An apple isn't a rock. A rock is just a rock, it has no reason for existsance except, I suppose, to be a rock - to be a hard object and float around in space or clump together, or be kicked around, or whatever the hell. But an apple exists for a very specific reason. |
No. They both exist as the result of purely natural processes with no intervention by intelligent actors. There's no reason a tree is fundamentally different from a rock. Any "reasons" for their existance are all explanations of how the interaction of various elements of nature resulted in their formation.
quote:
You don't give purpose to your legs :rolleys: you're born with them (and you generally start using them before you reach the point of being "intelligent") and you have no choice in the matter. I supose, if you really wanted to, you could ignore the purpose of them and drag yourself and your fully functional legs around on the floor like a moron, but that doesn't change the reason that you're born with legs.
Like I said in the part you cut out from your quote, there is intent. Legs are intended to be used to walk with - it's why we're born with them. Eyes are intended to see, it's why we have them. And apples are intended to spread seeds, it's how the trees have survived. |
Intended by whom? Evolution? Evolution is a natural process like gravity. The entire point is that evolution through natural selection has no intent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Did you get quotes
quote:
An apple isn't a rock. A rock is just a rock, it has no reason for existsance except, I suppose, to be a rock - to be a hard object and float around in space or clump together, or be kicked around, or whatever the hell. But an apple exists for a very specific reason. |
No. They both exist as the result of purely natural processes with no intervention by intelligent actors. There's no reason a tree is fundamentally different from a rock. Any "reasons" for their existance are all explanations of how the interaction of various elements of nature resulted in their formation. |
That is, if you are solely intersted in the history of the object and not it's purpose. When you look at an object to determine it's purpose, you should be looking for explanations not of how it was created through 'the interaction of various elements', but how it it carries on the process and interacts with the environment itself - it's reason, it's purpose, it's intention.
A purpose is not something that has happened, it is something that is to happen.
quote:
quote:
You don't give purpose to your legs :rolleys: you're born with them (and you generally start using them before you reach the point of being "intelligent") and you have no choice in the matter. I supose, if you really wanted to, you could ignore the purpose of them and drag yourself and your fully functional legs around on the floor like a moron, but that doesn't change the reason that you're born with legs.
Like I said in the part you cut out from your quote, there is intent. Legs are intended to be used to walk with - it's why we're born with them. Eyes are intended to see, it's why we have them. And apples are intended to spread seeds, it's how the trees have survived. |
Intended by whom? Evolution? Evolution is a natural process like gravity. The entire point is that evolution through natural selection has no intent. |
Intended by it's existance. Evolution hardly even has any relevance to this - evolution is the interaction of life with its environment, it's not something that creates. Life is what creates life itself. Through things like apples, which are grown with the intented purpose of spreading seeds.
quote:
Yes but that reason is contextual... everything can have a purpose in context but you cannot ascribe some absolute purpose to it |
"absolute purpose"? I thought we where talking about intended purpose. There's nothing absolute about intent. Things can be given a second use, or a new purpose, but that doesn't change their original, intended, purpose. As I said, you can put sperm in your coffee, but there's no denying that the purpose sperm exists for is reproduction... and not for use as a condiment. Or you can, as you suggested, use a knife to play a drum. But the knife's intended purpose will become clear once it pierces the skin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
That is, if you are solely intersted in the history of the object and not it's purpose. When you look at an object to determine it's purpose, you should be looking for explanations not of how it was created through 'the interaction of various elements', but how it it carries on the process and interacts with the environment itself - it's reason, it's purpose, it's intention.
A purpose is not something that has happened, it is something that is to happen. |
A purpose is something that cannot be determined from the constitution of the object itself, but the relation between that object and various intelligent actors. One could say, by your logic, that the purpose of rain is to provide water for plants, or that the purpose of gravity is to keep the earth near the sun, but that's absurd.
quote:
Intended by it's existance. Evolution hardly even has any relevance to this - evolution is the interaction of life with its environment, it's not something that creates. Life is what creates life itself. Through things like apples, which are grown with the intented purpose of spreading seeds. |
Life is no different from any other process. There's no real line between life and non-life. Intelligence is what bestows intention, not life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest. 
Let's use these terms:
Function
Intent
Purpose
Let's NOT use them interchangeably.
Apples have a function. That function is to protect the seeds of a tree to help ensure propagation.
There is no intent behind that function, as to have intent requires consciousness. Apples do not possess consciousness, so there is no intent.
To have a purpose is to have a function with intent behind it. Ergo apples have no purpose, as there is no intent to their functions.
How about a knife?
A knife has a function. It's to cut things or be utilized as a tool. It has no intent, since a knife has no consciousness. Function but no intent, so no purpose.
Sexual organs have a function, to reproduce humans. They have no intent (although sometimes my penis seems as if it does). So function but no intent means sex organs have no purpose.
Now, an apple, a knife and sex organs can all serve a purpose, but that is not the same as having a purpose.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Intended by it's existance. Evolution hardly even has any relevance to this - evolution is the interaction of life with its environment, it's not something that creates. Life is what creates life itself. Through things like apples, which are grown with the intented purpose of spreading seeds.
|
Yes but that's *STILL* a contextual thing, there is nothing to "prioritise" that context over any other, so that "purpose" still has equal validity with using an apple as a projectile to terrorise the elderly.
quote:
"absolute purpose"? I thought we where talking about intended purpose.
|
In which case existence predicates essense, which comes back to my original argument.
quote:
As I said, you can put sperm in your coffee, but there's no denying that the purpose sperm exists for is reproduction... and not for use as a condiment.
|
You're appealing to the absurd there but it's missing the point. Suppose sperm was equally useful as an explosive? The intended purpose is similar to the issue of free will and responsibility, sometimes certain objects, actions or concepts take on different purposes and more useful applications or contexts in different ages or in the hands of different people. What makes the intended purpose more relevant, except when describing essense? In which case, see above.
quote:
I don't see what it has to do with anything, though.
|
Well the basic idea was that you cannot perceive an object without ascribing an essense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy Yes but that's *STILL* a contextual thing |
Yes, it's a context of it's design, function, and reason for existance. Seems like pretty important context for determining a purpose or intent, to me.
quote:
You're appealing to the absurd there but it's missing the point. Suppose sperm was equally useful as an explosive? |
That's not something that I really want to imagine, but if you insist...
Sperm would have to explode on it's own for that to be it's purpose. A purpose is something that is obvious from observing the object - it is something that it just does by existing, or is clearly designed for (like the blade of a knife is intended to cut, regardless of it's use, or sperm intended to reproduce, regardless of it's hypothetical explosive properties). If you refine it or mix it with other things to create an explosive, then you are giving it a new use... and really, when put through an industrial process like that, it would cease to be sperm anyways and be a completely new, manufactured, product.
And it's a good thing I made an appeal to the absurd, sicne you seemt o prefer it to the mundane (which you cut from your quote). 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Sperm would have to explode on it's own for that to be it's purpose. A purpose is something that is obvious from observing the object - it is something that it just does by existing, or is clearly designed for (like the blade of a knife is intended to cut, regardless of it's use, or sperm intended to reproduce, regardless of it's hypothetical explosive properties). If you refine it or mix it with other things to create an explosive, then you are giving it a new use... and really, when put through an industrial process like that, it would cease to be sperm anyways and be a completely new, manufactured, product. |
That's a tendency to act in a certain way, not purpose. Purpose is NOT inherent to an object - two identical knives can have been made by different people, but one could have the purpose of cutting bread and the other the purpose of killing people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
That is, if you are solely intersted in the history of the object and not it's purpose. When you look at an object to determine it's purpose, you should be looking for explanations not of how it was created through 'the interaction of various elements', but how it it carries on the process and interacts with the environment itself - it's reason, it's purpose, it's intention
A purpose is not something that has happened, it is something that is to happen. |
A purpose is something that cannot be determined from the constitution of the object itself, but the relation between that object and various intelligent actors. One could say, by your logic, that the purpose of rain is to provide water for plants, or that the purpose of gravity is to keep the earth near the sun, but that's absurd. |
I don't know if you could attribute a purpose to rain, because it's not an actual object - it's an action. It's water falling from the sky. It's like talking about the purpose of an apple falling from a tree, as oppose to just a general apple. But gravity, does have a purpose. It binds and draws mass together, and in that sense, it's purpose is to keep the earth near the sun - not specifically, of course, because that is simply one example, or result of it's function.
quote:
Intended by it's existance. Evolution hardly even has any relevance to this - evolution is the interaction of life with its environment, it's not something that creates. Life is what creates life itself. Through things like apples, which are grown with the intented purpose of spreading seeds. |
Life is no different from any other process. There's no real line between life and non-life. Intelligence is what bestows intention, not life. [/QUOTE]
What is intent but a reason - a reason to exist, a reason for being? In that sense, life can have intent, and while it would be hard to argue what the purpose of life itself is, there is no argument to what the purpose of a heart is, or the purpose of lungs, or sperm, or seeds. It all has a very obvious purpose for it's existance. A reason for being. An intention.
The same can be said for non-living objects, too, of course. I Like I said earlier, the purpose of a rock is to be a rock - a hard material, a solid combination of elements. It's not a particularily interesting purpose, but important none the less, because it's what makes the universe the way it is, and it's what we're standing on - it's what makes earth, well, earth.
If a rock's purpose was to be fluid, then it would all be very different, wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's a tendency to act in a certain way, not purpose. Purpose is NOT inherent to an object - two identical knives can have been made by different people, but one could have the purpose of cutting bread and the other the purpose of killing people. |
Both would have the purpose of cutting.
EDIT: Of course, you could but various different types of blades on a knife which could give it a slightly differen purpose - ie. to tear, shred, pierce, or peal, ect... but it is still a purpose that is inherit to the object, and not something that is tied to the thoughts of some "intelligent actor".
Last edited by General Ludd on 13-01-2005 at 18:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Hmm...I thought apples were supposed to be eaten. Rather strange defense wouldn't you say? |
That apples can be eaten is a happy consequence of millions of years of coevolution between apple trees and things that eat apples.
It works as a defense, as it ensures the seeds get spread and planted, since the fruit is what gets eaten, not the seeds.
quote:
This assumes of course there is no intelligence behind the universe. Quite an assumption... |
No, it only assumes that non-conscious objects do not have an intent, as they can't "intend" to do anything. You're mixing the terms, conflating "purpose" and "function." If you use the word "purpose" to mean "function," it loses its meaning in this debate, because the entire debate is whether or not inanimate/unconscious objects possess some intrinsic meaning beyond their function
Even if an intelligence created an item, the item does not possess an intent, but rather it serves an intent.
quote:
The function of an apple is to be eaten, the purpose is to plant more apple trees. Intent is the unknown. |
No, the function of the apple is protect/propogate the seeds. That is can be eaten is not "why" it exists.
It's purpose isn't to plant more trees. The function of the seed is to reproduce trees. Neither apples nor seeds have purpose, they have function. There is no intent on the part of either apple or seed, as neither are thinking objects.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 13-01-2005 at 20:56
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005 06:23
Well put.
At least they admit that being an "accepted scientific theory" is more important than the facts. 
I made the same mistake I always call people on.
|