|
| Thread: Free Will |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted December 15, 2010 01:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why? The purpose of life isn't to live. It's to pass on genetic information.
What a sad outlook on life. 
If you really think that is the purpose of lif you should be unfaithfulto your wife and sleep with as many women as you can. You should encourage your children to do have as much sex with as many people as possible.
I think genetic information should be kept confidential. Progressives must not be allowed to have access to such information.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 02:19 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 02:20, 15 Dec 2010.
|
why is it that important to pass on YOUR OWN genetic information?
that is egoist, why is it so important who the children are from?
your wife got a child, and is it really important if she got him from another man? will you love him less?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 03:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why? The purpose of life isn't to live. It's to pass on genetic information.
According to what?
As to the statement itself, the purpose is to perpetuate our own existence. If you had to deal with the people I do on a regular basis, that premise would make you very, very sad.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 04:30 AM |
|
|
|
I can imagine. there is a difference between perpetueting the espece and perpetueting your genes.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 08:05 AM |
|
|
Corribus, think about the constitution:
"All men are created equal!"
If genetics should play a role in society - like risk assessment of insurances - there would first have to be a change of constitution.
Not to mention that an insurance mnakes no sense when it is possible to genetically determine the natural lifespan or something.
And about the purpose of life - isn't the purpose of life what WE decide it to be? I mean, we are able to conscious thought, planning and so on, that's why I would assume that the purpose of OUR life is to give us our own purpose.
BOTH points logically amount to NOT simply passing on genetic information, but trying to "repair" it; there are so many genetically passed on defects and ailments that it would be folly NOT to try and erase them at this point (making insurance risk analysis unnecessary anyway).
Of course, humans being what they are, they won't be satisfied with curing genetic diseases - they will try to make the genetic information "better". Someone will have the idea that, just as an example, bone structure should be a bit harder, which will probably lead to calcification with 50 or something. 
You know what I mean.
But in general I don't think there is anything wrong with going that way - a hundred years ago people would have been frightened about a lot of things as well that are now standard medical procedures. As always we just have to make sure there are no madmen with visions of perfection and the like.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 09:37 AM |
|
|
Passing out your genetic information is not the goal, but using at maximum your genetic information to leave a mark behind you. Having a family and kids is the most standard thing, anyone physically normal can reach this goal, nothing exceptional. Renouncing at this comfort because you have aptitudes which require your full time and forces, this is exceptional.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus 
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 03:53 PM |
bonus applied by Mytical on 20 Dec 2010. |
Edited by Mytical at 11:37, 20 Dec 2010.
|
What difference does it make whether the purpose of life is depressing or sad? Concluding that an argument is wrong based on your emotional response to it is fallacious.
@JJ
Quote:
If genetics should play a role in society - like risk assessment of insurances - there would first have to be a change of constitution.
Indeed. I wasn't necessarily advocating the position that genetics should be used for insurance underwriting. However, does it not seem rather peculiar that an insurance company can use the fact that you are a smoker to raise your insurance premiums but cannot use the fact that you are genetically predisposed to lung cancer? One might try to argue that, well, once is a conscious choice of action and the other is not, but even this is not so simple. What if genetics play a role in whether or not someone becomes a habitual smoker? If we can make the case that every human trait or course of action is, at least to some extent, caused by genetic factors, than EVERY risk determination made by insurance companies is implicitly formulated out of genetics (at least to some degree). So what's the option, then - do away with risk analysis altogether? Well, that's not really fair, either, is it? Of course, as far as health insurance goes, we're already there.
Beyond that, while the constitution does make some general claim about all men being created equal, I think that's a poor way to word it. It's pretty clear that all men aren't created equal. We can hardly conclude that a person born with no brain is equal to a person born with a brain, or that a person with Down syndrome is physically equal to a person without Down syndrome. Hell, a person with brown hair isn't equal to a person with blond hair - they have different hair color, after all! What the Constitution should say is that while all people are not created equal, they should be treated as equals under the law.
However, that said - I'm not sure I see what insurance coverage has to do with the way that people are treated by laws. Insurance companies are private enterprises, after all (although that's clearly not what our current leadership has in mind). Why should they have to treat different people equally?
Quote:
Not to mention that an insurance mnakes no sense when it is possible to genetically determine the natural lifespan or something.
Well, yes, if you could accurately prognosticate the future, insurance would make little sense. But insurance is really a matter of risk and gambling. It's all a matter of degrees of uncertainty. Genetics information only narrows down the degree of error - it doesn't eliminate it. At what degree of "narrowness" would you consider insurance companies and unnecessary? I'm not sure a non-arbitrary answer exists to that question.
Quote:
And about the purpose of life - isn't the purpose of life what WE decide it to be? I mean, we are able to conscious thought, planning and so on, that's why I would assume that the purpose of OUR life is to give us our own purpose.
Simple answer? No.
If I'm reading you correctly, you feel that our (capacity for)conscious thought gives us the means to determine our own purpose.
I feel this is a circular argument that ignores the larger picture. One must still answer what is the purpose of our conscious thought. The purpose of our conscious thought is to allow us to determine our purpose? This argument is an oroborus that ultimately leads nowhere and answers nothing.
Our capacity for conscious thought didn't evolve in a vacuum. Conscious thought gives us a selective advantage over other organisms. Our species has few physical advantages over other creatures. We don't have talons or sharp teeth or incredible speed or great strength or fast reflexes or dangerous toxins or camoflauge or capacity for flight. We perpetuate our genetic material by conscious thought, which allows us to develop and use tools, solve complex problems, and organize into complex social structures.
Do we have some other purpose beyond that? Well, you'll have to explain a rational reason for it. Why would it evolve? If we have some deeper purpose, such as reaching the stars, or creating works of art, how do you justify it scientifically? I'm not sure you can. So then you are left with two options: either we have no other purpose *or* we have a divine purpose.
Mod Note: Though I don't agree with you all the time, you have a very good posting style, and are always well thought out and researched. You probably have at least a dozen earned but not given bonuses laying around.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 05:06 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:10, 15 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
As usual, Elodin's post isn't worth replying to, loaded as it is with scientific falsehoods and logical fallacies.
Do try to point out scientific falsehoods and logical fallacies in my post. As for your latest post I find you espousing things that I find morally questionable. I will certainly point out things you are pushing as scientific fact that are not.
As for your claim that the purpose of life is to "pass on genetic information", that can't be supported scientifically and while you would get progressives to agree with you the vast majority of people know that such a claim is just bunk.
Your claim is that people who are unable to have children have no purpose in life. Your claim is that the elderly have no purpose in life. Your claim is that those who chose never to have children have no purpose in life. Such thinking leads to the pseudoscience of eugenics.
I find your position to be sad, morally questionable and scientifically unprovable. People are much more than baby making machines.
Quote:
It's pretty clear that all men aren't created equal.
What a sad statement. The equality of each person is not based on his physical or mental capacity. Such thinking has lead to quite a few mass murders and indeed progressives ever since the 19th century have historically advocated murdering "lesser races", the handicapped, the elderly, ect based on the arguments you have presented.
Your claim that all people are not equal is NOT a scientific claim. You have NO chance of proving it scientifically.
Thankfully MOST people recognize the innate dignity of a human being and thus we can have a civilized society based on the fact that all people are indeed equals.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 06:53 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
Ok, let's first address the insurance part.
I'd say, that genetics aren't necessary for risc calculation - statistics are completely sufficient. Health insurance has, especially when it's a PUBLIC health insurance, the purpose anyway to divide the burden of healths costs on as many shoulders as possible. It hasn't the purpose to extract from everyone what their health will actually cost.
For the insurances it makes no difference anyway - it's just that the premiums for the innsured people may go up.
This position is reflected in the "All men are created equal" tenet. Of course we are not all equal, but in an abstract way we are, because potentially we might be everyone, a lowly slave or serf or worker or genetically damaged or a good-looking, healthy, movie star or whatever. DETERMINING whether we have genetic damages or preferences or whatever doesn't help - it's only when we would be able to DO something about them, that this would become interesting.
Quote:
Quote:
And about the purpose of life - isn't the purpose of life what WE decide it to be? I mean, we are able to conscious thought, planning and so on, that's why I would assume that the purpose of OUR life is to give us our own purpose.
Simple answer? No.
If I'm reading you correctly, you feel that our (capacity for)conscious thought gives us the means to determine our own purpose.
I feel this is a circular argument that ignores the larger picture. One must still answer what is the purpose of our conscious thought. The purpose of our conscious thought is to allow us to determine our purpose? This argument is an oroborus that ultimately leads nowhere and answers nothing.
Our capacity for conscious thought didn't evolve in a vacuum. Conscious thought gives us a selective advantage over other organisms. Our species has few physical advantages over other creatures. We don't have talons or sharp teeth or incredible speed or great strength or fast reflexes or dangerous toxins or camoflauge or capacity for flight. We perpetuate our genetic material by conscious thought, which allows us to develop and use tools, solve complex problems, and organize into complex social structures.
Do we have some other purpose beyond that? Well, you'll have to explain a rational reason for it. Why would it evolve? If we have some deeper purpose, such as reaching the stars, or creating works of art, how do you justify it scientifically? I'm not sure you can. So then you are left with two options: either we have no other purpose *or* we have a divine purpose.
There might be a misunderstanding here, I'm not quite sure about that.
What I mean is, that we have the right and the capacity to SET our own purpose (as opposed to determining whether god, the universe, nature, life or whatever else has something for us in mind and what that is), no matter what. We can choose. We don't have to follow nature or whatever. As a race (although we are lacking the racial solidarity, set) and as an individual.
As an individual you MAY relish in the purpose to spread your genetic material as far as possible, siring or bearing as many children as possible with as many different partners as possible - but you may concentrate on a couple of children as well - or none at all, finding another purpose.
Being able to conscious thought and having free will we can even oppose against any purpose life may have or not have reserved for us.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 15, 2010 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Concluding that an argument is wrong based on your emotional response to it is fallacious.
Indeed. You still failed to respond to my question by what authority is the purpose of life to pass on genetic information.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 16, 2010 04:57 PM |
|
|
@JJ
First let me thank you for making an effort to understand my point of view.
Quote:
I'd say, that genetics aren't necessary for risc calculation - statistics are completely sufficient. Health insurance has, especially when it's a PUBLIC health insurance, the purpose anyway to divide the burden of healths costs on as many shoulders as possible. It hasn't the purpose to extract from everyone what their health will actually cost.
Which I personally disagree with, but I don't want to drag the discussion down a gutter. At least, not that gutter.
Excluding "group based" insurance policies for a moment: If we are talking about insurance policies that are tailored to the individual, genetics seems to be a major part of risk analysis. If the premium is based on risk, and genetics determines a large part of the risk, doesn't it seem silly (excluding various philsophical and emotional factors - let's keep it strictly science-based for the moment) to exclude them from the risk calculation? To me that's like telling a gambler that he should calculate the odds of drawing a full house without considering how many cards there are in the deck.
Quote:
This position is reflected in the "All men are created equal" tenet. Of course we are not all equal, but in an abstract way we are, because potentially we might be everyone, a lowly slave or serf or worker or genetically damaged or a good-looking, healthy, movie star or whatever.
I'm not sure I follow how we are created equal, even in abstract way. Are you speaking about our potential?
Quote:
What I mean is, that we have the right and the capacity to SET our own purpose (as opposed to determining whether god, the universe, nature, life or whatever else has something for us in mind and what that is), no matter what. We can choose. We don't have to follow nature or whatever.
I certainly agree that conscious thought gives each individual the luxury of taking a self-defined role (job, hobby, whatever). I might even be willing to call it a "higher purpose". And no, there's nothing that forces you to spread your genetic material - and there are some people that choose not to.
That said - the primary reason we (or any life form) have evolved to be the way we are is to give us a selective advantage (over other organisms) at replicating our genetic material. Furthermore, the society we have created has - to some extent - reduced the hold of natural selection over our species. Through advanced medicine and law, disadvantaged individuals have a much higher likelihood of spreading their genetic material than they would in more primitive societies.
It might appear that society would thus be detrimental to our purpose of competitive reproduction. After all, if a less fit human has a higher relative chance of reproducing with respect to their chance in the absence of society, then this means the chance of a fit human reproducing in modern society (relatively speaking) goes down. That might be true to some extent, but the advantage society brings is providing a network that ensures that the chance of any and all human individuals being able to reproduce goes up (compared to other species). Even disregarding that, note that within our society, selection still plays a role. Fit females still prefer fit males, and vice versa. Also, age-related diseases such as cancer and dementia will never be weeded out by selection because doing so would provide no selective advantage. By the time you get these diseases, you're too old to reproduce.
In the end, the main purpose of humanity (I'll use this term rather than speaking of individuals - as maybe that will be more comfortable to some) is to reproduce. We are ultimately slaves to biology, and biology is a slave to chemistry.
Think of it this way. Small molecules reached a (statistical) thermodynamical endpoint and managed to organize themselves into biological molecules. Biological molecules organized themselves into living creatures to ensure their reproduction over other biological molecules. And some living creatures organized themselves into societies to ensure their reproduction over other living creatures. There's ultimately little purpose to any of it - molecules, biological or otherwise, don't have any goal when they reproduce. They just do, because thermodynamics drives chemical reactions. Genes don't try to outcompete each other. The competition is driven by statistics and the tendency of physical systems to seek out nadirs on potential energy surfaces.
This is about the point that you-know-who would say something banal like, "LOL!! Sorry, but you should go around raping babies if we're all just molecules!!" Let me therefore be clear: none of this is to say that rights and laws are not important. It's just to say that I don't believe that there is any ultimate Higher Purpose (distinguished using caps from the higher purpose I begrudgingly admitted to earlier) that drives their need.
People find that conclusion to be uncomfortable, which probably goes a long way toward explaining why they cling to religion. Most religions teach that we are somehow special and that we serve some Higher Purpose that is not shared by other, "lower" creatures. But to my mind, no religion ever satisfactorily answered what that higher purpose is. Yes, we are supposed to lord over the earth or something like that, but what is the purpose? Why are we here? Why is there an earth to lord over it? Why does it need lording over? If there was a god who created this mass of tumbling molecules we call the universe, why did he do it? Why did he make us? What are we supposed to do? We are supposed to be good and treat each other well, but why? So we can get into heaven. Why? What are we supposed to do there? Live forever and ever and ever and ever, strumming harps or snowing virgins? What's the point?
In any case, this is sort of going far afield from the topic at hand. Le me therefore bring it back to free will.
To be quite honest I haven't really solved that problem for myself yet. This is the way I currently see it.
It's logically inconsistent for an omnipotent being to exist and at the same time preserve individual free will - but also I don't believe in any omnipotent being. Given the probabilistic nature of the universe at the quantum level, I don't believe that the history of the universe is following a narrowly defined trajectory. On the other hand, at the macroscopic level and over large sample sizes, physical systems exhibit statistical trends. So I do believe the universe - and everything in it - is following a broadly defined trajectory. We might predict that trajectory in a general sense - we do it all the time on a localized level and cosmology is making strides toward prediction on a more generalized, universal level.
To us as individuals, I feel this means we do have free will and free choice. Our choices are, however, influenced by our biology and chemistry. Thus, while biology would have us TEND toward one trajectory, we may utilize ENERGY to choose a different trajectory. Biology might demand, for instance, that we have sex with every member of the opposite sex that we observe. However, we usually choose not to, for various reasons. Which requires energy. I've already advocated a thermodynamical model of economics, and I feel these principles also apply to society, human interaction, law, war and pretty much everything else as well. I see no reason why they shouldn't apply to human choice (or choices of other creatures) as well. Note that some individuals and societies are not as well able to exercise control over their biological trajectory as others - and what these people become are rapists, murderers, thieves and other social outcasts.
In any case, that's my philosophy in a nutshell. You might think it cold or sad or whatever, but actually I find it liberating. It is true that this worldview implies the world is a jungle. However it also implies that I'm free to define whatever purpose for myself I want. I'm not a slave to religion, or what some mythical god says I'm supposed to do or not do. I can eat pork on Friday if I want, or have lascivious thoughts without feeling guilty. I don't live in fear of hell if I look at a picture of boobies or envy my neighbor's snow shovel. More than that, I appreciate the fragility and importance of society and human-created laws and morals at keeping the jungle at bay, and this world view makes me understand the crucial goal of maintaining the integrity of society by following the laws we've created and punishing those who don't. Morality doesn't disappear in a godless world. It's more important than ever! Because if our society collapses, there's no safety net, no god who will swoop down and rescuse the good people from all the evildoers, no heaven for those who stick it out. I find human accomplishments amazing - we had no divine being to help us create our system of morals or laws. This makes me proud, that we built this world with out own sweat and blood and tears, and makes me want to defend it at all costs. And so I must, because no god is going to do it for me.
WE ARE THE CREATORS. WE ARE THE ARCHITECTS.
And by our choices, our buildings stand or fall.
@OD
Quote:
Indeed. You still failed to respond to my question by what authority is the purpose of life to pass on genetic information.
I don't really understand what you are asking. You want to know who gave us this purpose, or who says this is our purpose?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2010 06:26 PM |
bonus applied by Mytical on 20 Dec 2010. |
Edited by Mytical at 11:43, 20 Dec 2010.
|
I have a bit of a problem to bring the two "pieces" of this post together. Let's atart with this:
Quote:
To us as individuals, I feel this means we do have free will and free choice. Our choices are, however, influenced by our biology and chemistry. Thus, while biology would have us TEND toward one trajectory, we may utilize ENERGY to choose a different trajectory. Biology might demand, for instance, that we have sex with every member of the opposite sex that we observe. However, we usually choose not to, for various reasons. Which requires energy. I've already advocated a thermodynamical model of economics, and I feel these principles also apply to society, human interaction, law, war and pretty much everything else as well. I see no reason why they shouldn't apply to human choice (or choices of other creatures) as well. Note that some individuals and societies are not as well able to exercise control over their biological trajectory as others - and what these people become are rapists, murderers, thieves and other social outcasts.
In any case, that's my philosophy in a nutshell. You might think it cold or sad or whatever, but actually I find it liberating. It is true that this worldview implies the world is a jungle. However it also implies that I'm free to define whatever purpose for myself I want. I'm not a slave to religion, or what some mythical god says I'm supposed to do or not do. I can eat pork on Friday if I want, or have lascivious thoughts without feeling guilty. I don't live in fear of hell if I look at a picture of boobies or envy my neighbor's snow shovel. More than that, I appreciate the fragility and importance of society and human-created laws and morals at keeping the jungle at bay, and this world view makes me understand the crucial goal of maintaining the integrity of society by following the laws we've created and punishing those who don't. Morality doesn't disappear in a godless world. It's more important than ever! Because if our society collapses, there's no safety net, no god who will swoop down and rescuse the good people from all the evildoers, no heaven for those who stick it out. I find human accomplishments amazing - we had no divine being to help us create our system of morals or laws. This makes me proud, that we built this world with out own sweat and blood and tears, and makes me want to defend it at all costs. And so I must, because no god is going to do it for me.
WE ARE THE CREATORS. WE ARE THE ARCHITECTS.
And by our choices, our buildings stand or fall.
So abruptly confronted with it, I'm a bit sceptical about the "thermodynamics of individual behaviour" (largely because I believe in the quantum mechanics model, explaining inconsistencies, logical failures and genius "jumps" better, in my opinion, but there might be something like a combined theory of both) but that aside, I find myself in comfortable agreement with you. I find human accomplishments amazing as well, and I'm also proud to be a member of our race.
However, what I disagree with is this:
Quote:
In the end, the main purpose of humanity (I'll use this term rather than speaking of individuals - as maybe that will be more comfortable to some) is to reproduce. We are ultimately slaves to biology, and biology is a slave to chemistry.
In the end, humanity will make itself free of being a slave, of genetics, biology and chemistry - or die trying.
If there IS a purpose at all, then that purpose can only be to somewhat up the quality of our existance; beat diseases; beat - ultimately death, whatever that means; beat genetics, beat chemistry - in a word. Be the master of our destiny in every sense.
The beginnings are there. Artificial reproduction; cloning; hormone therapy; gene-tailoring, you name it.
This isn't without danger, and I'm CERTAIN, there will be unfortunate mishaps on the way - but that is in the nature of things.
Ultimately WE are our own purpose.
That's what we have these mental capacities for.
Compared with this, insurance seems to be trivial.
However, I#ll counter your point, saying, that there is no need for an insurance anymore when the knowledge about your future ailments is too good. If you HAD to pay a high premium, you'd obviously save it to invest the money in upping your overall chances.
With a low premium on the other hand, you'd forego it, since you wouldn't need it.
Insurances are in reality against the really expensive things only. It allows to make use of expensive methods of healing, when you need them.
This may be the connection with the part you wasn't ceratin what I mean:
Quote:
Quote:
This position is reflected in the "All men are created equal" tenet. Of course we are not all equal, but in an abstract way we are, because potentially we might be everyone, a lowly slave or serf or worker or genetically damaged or a good-looking, healthy, movie star or whatever.
I'm not sure I follow how we are created equal, even in abstract way. Are you speaking about our potential?
What I mean is this: no one knows why (s)he is who (s)he is. I mean, you are Corribus, but you could have been anyone else. No one is PICKING what he or she will be born like, what genetics will be dominant or underdeveloped or faulty, how intelligent we are and so on. So that makes us all equal on the level that we have to play with the hand we are dealt, and we didn't do anything for it - we just get it and can't influence that hand (although, I might add, there is this idea that we pick our parents, but I don't think much of it).
A little bit quotey for my taste, but interesting regardless.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 16, 2010 11:03 PM |
|
|
By Hobbes' reasoning, we're all equal in the sense that a sword to the throat will take care of one man just as easily as it will take care of another. There are no gods among men.
He was around through the bleak times of the British civil war and, not surprisingly, he didn't have much levity when analyzing the nature of humanity. Still, I do find his means of finding "equality" between people interesting. Of course, we're not equal in the sense that the gene pool is equally appealing from one person to the next, but I would say we're all in the same general tier of life. You might be a king or a street sweeper, but sooner or later you dance with the Reaper (i.e. you die).
Now, let's take this equality business a step further. A person can have a 'weak' gene pool (which we'll just define as a set of traits that people generally don't want), and yet be very fortunate with other circumstances that are likewise outside of their control. What if you're born with a weak gene pool, yet you are the first son of a great monarch? You have before you wealth, prestige, respect, and an upcoming job with fantastic pay and perks to say the least. You might say that all of that is based on luck, but isn't having good genetics equally just based on luck? Einstein was brilliant because he was born brilliant. He did not earn it anymore than a person earns being born the son of a monarch. In either case, you are reaping the benefits of something that you did not earn. So can't it be said that monarchs truly are better than commoners? After all, they were born in a more powerful position, and it will likely stay that way until the day they die.
Also, equality largely depends on what you consider desirable. What standard are you using to determine what is good and what is bad? If a person is a fat retarded midget that lives life in a state of glorious optimist euphoria, and another person is a strong, athletic, attractive, and intelligent CEO of a major company that lives a stressful and off-balance life, which one is in a superior position?
Well, from an evolutionary perspective, the later one is clearly in a superior position because is far more able to defend himself and produce a progeny. But is that necessarily a meaningful standard to follow when determining who is truly getting the short or long end of the shaft?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 16, 2010 11:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is about the point that you-know-who would say something banal like, "LOL!! Sorry, but you should go around raping babies if we're all just molecules!!"
Please avoid personal insults. And certainly stop putting words in my mouth. That is provocation.
Quote:
In the end, the main purpose of humanity (I'll use this term rather than speaking of individuals - as maybe that will be more comfortable to some) is to reproduce. We are ultimately slaves to biology, and biology is a slave to chemistry.
You are of course entitled to your belief. But it is not a scientific belief. Science can't speak to the purpose of human life. I personally believe humans are much more than baby making machines.
Certainly I can't agree that those who are unable to reproduce have no purpose in life or that the elderly no longer have a purpose or that those who chose not to reproduce have no purpose.
Also, you are wrong that people are slaves to biology. If you were an actual slave to biology every time you got a sexual impulse when you saw a woman you would rape her or at the very least approach her for sex. Since sexual impulses, the urge to eat, ect, can be controlled you are wrong to say that a person is a slave to biology. Another good example of people not being slaves to biology is that of selfless individuals who sacrifice their lives for others. The impulse to preserve one's life is strong but they rise above it. So no, people are not merely dancing to their genes.
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow how we are created equal, even in abstract way. Are you speaking about our potential?
Potential has nothing to do with the equality of man. If I am stronger and smarter than you that does not make you my lesser.
Again, you are entitled to your belief but it is not a scientific belief. You can't use science to prove that all people are not equal. All you can say is some people are stronger, some are more intelligent, some can run faster, ect. You can not establish through science that any person is superior to another person. In fact the hypothesis that some people are inferior to others lead to the despicable practice of eugenics. The founder of Planned Parenthood, M. Sanger believed in eugenics and established it to help eliminate "the lesser races" and "undesirables" (supposedly inferior people.) Eugenics was pushed by progressives beginning in about 1880. Hitler was not the first one to say that not all human beings are equal and to want to eliminate the genes of "inferior" people from the gene pool.
Quote:
People find that conclusion to be uncomfortable, which probably goes a long way toward explaining why they cling to religion.
No, people just find the position that there is no purpose to life but making babies to be wrong. Some people's own opinions are their religion and they refuse to consider other options.
Quote:
It's logically inconsistent for an omnipotent being to exist and at the same time preserve individual free will - but also I don't believe in any omnipotent being.
You are wrong. There is nothing illogical about an omnipotent being who grants people the ability to make their own decisions.
Quote:
However it also implies that I'm free to define whatever purpose for myself I want. I'm not a slave to religion, or what some mythical god says I'm supposed to do or not do.
Thankfully Christianity is very liberating unlike some religions such as anti-theism.
Of course everyone is free to decide what their purpose in life is. Thankfully I can think for myself and am not a slave to the mythical dogma some people put forward as science that in fact is not scientifically provable.
Quote:
More than that, I appreciate the fragility and importance of society and human-created laws and morals at keeping the jungle at bay, and this world view makes me understand the crucial goal of maintaining the integrity of society by following the laws we've created and punishing those who don't. Morality doesn't disappear in a godless world. It's more important than ever!
I disagree with your claims.
I think we see what happens in societies without God. All officially atheist nations have been very oppressive and guilty of mass murder.
Man made laws in such societies says to kill those who "have no purpose" or who are "not the equals of others" in society. The elderly, the handicapped, the infertile, the "lesser races", those who practice religions other than anti-theism.
So my counter-claim would be that in a nation that does not believe in God morality does disappear, and my claim has the support of history. Indeed, in a world without god there is no basis for calling anything moral or immoral because morality becomes just one person's opinion.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 17, 2010 02:45 AM |
|
|
According to Angelito calling someone's statement silly or ridiculous is an insult and will be penalized. I suggest you edit your last paragraph.
You are entitled to your viewpoit that life has no purpose but it is one I don't agree with and can't fathom.
There are different kinds of love and certainly all of them do not involve hormones. And as I am aging my love for my wife continues to grow, not to wane so I certainly disagree with you about love being only hormones.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 17, 2010 03:46 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Having read your response, I don't have much to add. I think on most points we are in reasonable agreement. A few minor things:
First, quantum mechanical models are not in opposition to thermodynamical models. In fact, they complement each other rather well. In a localized regime, quantum theory predominates. When talking abount ensembles of molecules (or events), where statistics and trends are important, the sum total of many quantum events are properly described by thermodynamical models.
Quote:
In the end, humanity will make itself free of being a slave, of genetics, biology and chemistry - or die trying.
Well, we are certainly trying our hardest. But I wonder, in the event that we escape from our bondage to the forces of nature - will be still be human? By which I might mean: is a human unfettered by molecular influences capable of emotion?
Quote:
However, I#ll counter your point, saying, that there is no need for an insurance anymore when the knowledge about your future ailments is too good. If you HAD to pay a high premium, you'd obviously save it to invest the money in upping your overall chances.
With a low premium on the other hand, you'd forego it, since you wouldn't need it.
Good point.
@Blizz
Quote:
By Hobbes' reasoning, we're all equal in the sense that a sword to the throat will take care of one man just as easily as it will take care of another. There are no gods among men.
True, but some people are more fragile than others.
Quote:
Still, I do find his means of finding "equality" between people interesting.
Eye-opening perhaps but not very compelling. We all share mortality as a common feature, but I'm not sure that makes us all equals. Just our end-points - by which point most of us have passed on our genetic material in the best way we can, and those who are stronger have done a better job of that. So the endpoint really doesn't matter much in the long run.
Quote:
Now, let's take this equality business a step further. A person can have a 'weak' gene pool (which we'll just define as a set of traits that people generally don't want), and yet be very fortunate with other circumstances that are likewise outside of their control. What if you're born with a weak gene pool, yet you are the first son of a great monarch? You have before you wealth, prestige, respect, and an upcoming job with fantastic pay and perks to say the least. You might say that all of that is based on luck, but isn't having good genetics equally just based on luck?
As I've mentioned earlier, society has in some ways circumvented the laws of natural selection. One need only look around at all the procreating bumbling idiots to see that this is the case. 
I think the important thing to realize is that, unlike most other species, for humans survival of the collective is as important as survival of the individual. If the individual genome can benefit from society, then the perpetuation of some inferior genomes is a inconsequential price to pay for that added security. It is a near certainty that if the benefits of society somehow disappeared, those procreating bumbling idiots would soon disappear with them.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2010 09:21 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
Quote:
@JJ
Having read your response, I don't have much to add. I think on most points we are in reasonable agreement. A few minor things:
Yes, I agree completely:
Quote:
First, quantum mechanical models are not in opposition to thermodynamical models. In fact, they complement each other rather well. In a localized regime, quantum theory predominates. When talking abount ensembles of molecules (or events), where statistics and trends are important, the sum total of many quantum events are properly described by thermodynamical models.
Right. I think, that the workings of the brain include a lot of quantum effects. However, body, genetics, biological needs and necessities may well follow thermodynamical models, and all things considered it wouldn't be all that surprising when indeed both would be the twlo sides of the human coin.
Quote:
But I wonder, in the event that we escape from our bondage to the forces of nature - will be still be human? By which I might mean: is a human unfettered by molecular influences capable of emotion?
I'm sure that humans have already changed a lot and will still change more. Considering how harsh living has been for common people, slaves, beggars, women and so on in earlier times, feelings and attitudes have changed a lot. Live expectancy has more than doubled, life is thought a lot more valuable and so on.
I suppose that this development will continue. We'll beat more deseases, we'll beat the programming that leads to cells stopping to regenerate, and this will change us even more.
And in the end? We may indeed stop being "humans" as we know them. But we are what we are, aren't we? Once humans, always humans, with or without emotions.
Quote:
I think the important thing to realize is that, unlike most other species, for humans survival of the collective is as important as survival of the individual. If the individual genome can benefit from society, then the perpetuation of some inferior genomes is a inconsequential price to pay for that added security. It is a near certainty that if the benefits of society somehow disappeared, those procreating bumbling idiots would soon disappear with them.
Well, in fact today people who'd clearly not made the cut in earlier times are surviving, and there is ample prove that this is just as well. Look at a guy like Stephen Hawking. Society allows professional diversification, and I suppose that is true for genetical diversification as well. Physical fitness isn't all there is, and like there are nigh-on perfect examples of the human race there are those who haven't much going for them - but that's not THEIR fault, is it?
Of course, that will become radically different when we CAN alter genes. In that case, being "too imperfect" may just mean that your parents couldn't afford a genetic examination/treatment...
EDIT:
I'll add something because I just stumbled on it, since I'm just watching a movie with Eli Wallach whom I somewhat adore since The Good The Bad And The Ugly, him playing The Ugly.
Wallach's just become 95, since he's born in 1915. This year he played in two movies, Roman Polanski's Ghost Writer and Oliver Stones Wall Street continuation.
Wallach is married. For 62 years. With one and the same spouse, Anne Jackson, actress, STILL teaching (with 84).
They have 3 children.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted December 18, 2010 12:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
According to Angelito calling someone's statement silly or ridiculous is an insult and will be penalized. I suggest you edit your last paragraph.
You are entitled to your viewpoit that life has no purpose but it is one I don't agree with and can't fathom.
There are different kinds of love and certainly all of them do not involve hormones. And as I am aging my love for my wife continues to grow, not to wane so I certainly disagree with you about love being only hormones.
"According to Angelito calling someone's statement silly or ridiculous is an insult and will be penalized"
i never made fun of your statement,jsut pointed out that at the fist glance it was kind of funny.Since when does saying that something sounds funny become an insult?
nevermind
My opinion that Love is just an instinc and hormones comes from this
http://www.divorcerate.org/
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml
In a society where are free to choose,no family tradition "harrasement",divorce rates are high.
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted December 18, 2010 01:46 AM |
|
Edited by pei at 01:47, 18 Dec 2010.
|
its really scary to start thinking that we are genetically predisposed to do this or that thing, one begins to stray from the extent to which a person is an individual or not.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2010 08:42 PM |
|
|
Seraphim:
Some people get divorced... this proves what, exactly?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
