Can Mathematics Predict Higher Levels of Complexity?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure what you mean.
"Sentient being" ?

Well, until now, I would have assumed that you were on of those (sentient beings). What I mean is that "purpose" is synonymous to "intent" and only a living being can "intend" to do/create something. And only a sentient being can ponder something's purpose.

I have no reason to
think that means anything more than
the laws of nature in action (for now).

The laws of nature are not alive, they don't have purposes, because that would imply conscious choice.

Anyway, what's a justification ?

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that word. What I meant was that a reason can only be assigned to an act by a being that can ponder the act (or by the being that performed the act).

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the difference between making a
point and expressing a purpose? What is
the point to this thread? Or, what is the
purpose of this thread?

Clearly there must be a "sense of purpose"
in you asking me to explain myself. Otherwise,
what's the point?

If we can't get past this, then why bother?

The purpose of this thread is to determine
the in/existence of a purpose to what we
define as life or sentient life.

But, you're right, basicly if many people here
do not wish to call serving the laws of nature
a "purpose" then what other arguments can
we produce here - observation's all we got.

I don't fully agree with that though, I think
our purpose is simply to be statisticly better
catalysts for entropy than the non-organic.

Originally posted by Mentat
...
What I mean is that "purpose" is synonymous
to "intent" and only a living being can
"intend" to do/create something. And only
a sentient being can ponder something's purpose.
...
The laws of nature are not alive, they don't
have purposes, because that would imply
conscious choice.

Hey, according to our observations so far -
niether are we. And that's my point.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Hey, according to our observations so far -
niether are we. And that's my point.

We're not what? Alive?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
We're not what? Alive?

Yes. Unless you wish to define the
word alive as "complex cabonous molecules"
or something...
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference
for the "purpose" part in this case.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Yes. Unless you wish to define the
word alive as "complex cabonous molecules"
or something...
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference
for the "purpose" part in this case.

Live long and prosper.

Excuse me, but we fit all of the different Biological criteria for being alive, therefore we are alive.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Excuse me, but we fit all of the different
Biological criteria for being alive, therefore
we are alive.

No offense, but this is getting funnier
by the post (in a normal conversation I would
say by the minute but this is a web forum ).
And what ARE the Biological criteria for
being alive ?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

The biological creteria for alive:

being able to reproduce (through mitosis or meiosis)
having herediatry material

Of course, this data is gathered from the characteristics of life on earth. If there is life on other planets, then there may be other criteria. But the current information allows the aforementioned to be realiable creteria for life on earth.

 

[Veral]

What is the purpose of a Euglena? What is the purpose of a cockroach? What is the purpose of a dog? In essence, you are asking a redundant question: the purpose of a cat is to be a cat.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Veral
What is the purpose of a Euglena? What is the purpose of a cockroach? What is the purpose of a dog? In essence, you are asking a redundant question: the purpose of a cat is to be a cat.

And yet, the cat also has an impact on its environment, which is to say, the purpose of a cat is also to keep the population of rodents down.

 

[Mentat]

Again, the point needs to be brought out: A purpose is assigned by conscious beings. If a cat was not created by a conscious being, then it has no purpose, until assigned one.

Let's take a dog, for example (since they are infinitely more useful, IMO ), that has been trained to be a drug-dog. This dog's purpose is to find drugs. It has been assigned this purpose by a conscious being. However, another dog (perhaps the drug-dog's brother or sister) is used for hunting, and so it's purpose is to hunt.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
No offense, but this is getting funnier
by the post (in a normal conversation I would
say by the minute but this is a web forum ).
And what ARE the Biological criteria for
being alive ?

A species of living things are supposed to be able to reproduce more of themselves.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to change to adapt to their environment.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to take in nutrients.

There are a few more criteria, that FZ+ knows better than I do. I know that not all of the criteria are excepted by all people. In fact, they are all debatable. My point is that we meet all of them, and so we are alive.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, the point needs to be brought out: A purpose is assigned by conscious beings. If a cat was not created by a conscious being, then it has no purpose, until assigned one.[/color]

Let's take a dog, for example (since they are infinitely more useful, IMO ), that has been trained to be a drug-dog. This dog's purpose is to find drugs. It has been assigned this purpose by a conscious being. However, another dog (perhaps the drug-dog's brother or sister) is used for hunting, and so it's purpose is to hunt.

Cats don't need people in order to eat mice, in which case people may "expidite" this tendency for "their own" purposes.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Mentat
A species of living things are supposed to be able to reproduce more of themselves.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to change to adapt to their environment.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to take in nutrients.

There are a few more criteria, that FZ+ knows better than I do. I know that not all of the criteria are excepted by all people. In fact, they are all debatable. My point is that we meet all of them, and so we are alive.

Yep. The standard bread and butter criteria are:

Nutrition
Reproduction
Sensitivity
Excretion
Movement
Growth
Respiration

Maybe some others.

But it's pretty clear we are alive, since the idea of life itself was created using us as the model. It is debatable though whether this idea of life is reflected in the real world, though... Ie. while this biological list holds true for all Earth life, all things which cover it may not neccessarily be considered by us as alive, and all things which do not cover this list may still be considered by us as alive. It's a very subjective thing, our concept of life.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, what is the purpose of this thread?

We should start a new thread on THAT issue!


... and honestly, I don't know anymore, although I started it!

Nevertheless this tread already developed for 5 pages.
Would that be intended that way, doesn't it follow from the way the thread proceeds, there is purpose to the thread, which is above and besides any one's individual intent's and purposes?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Cats don't need people in order to eat mice, in which case people may "expidite" this tendency for "their own" purposes.

Are cats conscious? If so, then they can make their own purposes (as I said in my previous post).

 

[Netme]

The reason why you cannot find the true purpose of existence is because you avoid to think about what may make you feel threatend or even scared of your creator which has ultimately lead you into a confused state of mind where you make up gods of good nature and religion only to ease the fact that you are resisting the human urge to find the truth.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Netme
The reason why you cannot find the true purpose of existence is because you avoid to think about what may make you feel threatend or even scared of your creator which has ultimately lead you into a confused state of mind where you make up gods of good nature and religion only to ease the fact that you are resisting the human urge to find the truth.

What if the way to find truth lies in denying that urge? Unless you claim to have found ultimate truth, you cannot deny this possibility.

Some people are so busy searching for truth that "it's as though Truth came knocking on your door, and you said 'go away, I'm looking for Truth', and so it goes away..." (from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
A species of living things are supposed to be
able to change to adapt to their environment.

A species of living things are supposed
to be able to take in nutrients.

And so on and so on - physical processes,
groups of molecules taking the path
of the laws of nature. But, what's the
difference in the "purpose" part ?
Either you get to the super-natural anti-science
and hence anti-observation and anti-proof part
or just give up this pointless line of argument.
You only have these two separate ways to go
and explain yourself when you say "purpose".
Being vague won't solve the issue.

Peace and long life.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are cats conscious? If so, then they can make their own purposes (as I said in my previous post).

To some extent they are at least. But are they consciouss about their own purposes?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
And so on and so on - physical processes,
groups of molecules taking the path
of the laws of nature. But, what's the
difference in the "purpose" part ?

How about the fact that unconscious entities cannot make purposes? How about the fact that you must be alive to be conscious?

Either you get to the super-natural anti-science
and hence anti-observation and anti-proof part
or just give up this pointless line of argument.
You only have these two separate ways to go
and explain yourself when you say "purpose".
Being vague won't solve the issue.

I wasn't trying to be vague, I thought I was rather clear. It's pretty obvious that I was saying you must be conscious to assign purpose to anything. This is a readily demonstrable, and easily observable, fact.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
To some extent they are at least. But are they consciouss about their own purposes?

Yes, otherwise they couldn't assign the purpose at all.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, otherwise they couldn't assign the purpose at all.

The fact that we see purpose in a cat's behaviour does not mean the cat itself must be conscious of that.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
I wasn't trying to be vague, I thought I was
rather clear. It's pretty obvious that I was
saying you must be conscious to assign purpose
to anything. This is a readily demonstrable,
and easily observable, fact.

No, you ARE being vague. According to
science you are not conscious - it's an
illusion. What you "experience" is the direct
result of physical laws and "you" have no
ability to really define purposes or anything
else for yourself.

Saying I CAN this or that means that you deny
the currently most likely explanation that
science has for this. So, there's really no
purpose to speak about but the laws of nature.
Unless of course you do claim the currently
"super-natural" stuff.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

pur·pose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrps), n.

1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" (Sarah Josepha Hale).

2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.

3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.

4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.


Idioms:

on purpose
Intentionally; deliberately.

to good purpose
With good results.

to little/no purpose
With few or no results.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The fact that we see purpose in a cat's behaviour does not mean the cat itself must be conscious of that.

That's the point: The cat's behavior has no purpose, until some conscious entity (whether it's the cat, some human, or any other conscious entity) assigns it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

No, you ARE being vague. According to
science you are not conscious - it's an
illusion. What you "experience" is the direct
result of physical laws and "you" have no
ability to really define purposes or anything
else for yourself.

What theory dictates this?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
What theory dictates this?

Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

Since when do any of these Sciences dictate that consciousness cannot be produced by a complex relationship of neurons?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

And what about sociology, economy and psychology?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Since when do any of these Sciences dictate
that consciousness cannot be produced by a
complex relationship of neurons?

Since the time that they were all based on
physical laws which in turn do not support
the existence of a consciouss - capable
of free and independent thought being.
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time. According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.

Originally posted by Mentat
And what about sociology, economy and psychology?

The reason these exist and indeed the separation
exists between the original 3 sciences which
I mentioned is the complexity of our Universe.
If we could explain sociology from direct
physical systems using just the laws of
physics then we wouldn't need it at all.
However, the complexity is so great that
this does not appear to be possible at a high
level even within the next few centuries from now.

So, since we are not able to make the
connections for now because they are so
complex, we have many sciences each dealing
with different levels and types of patterns
in the Universe. You can also see that the
higher the complexity of the systems a theory
studies the less certain its laws become and
more and more statistics is being used as
the basis of the theory without clear formulated
laws.

There does not, according to modern science,
appear to be any fundumental reason why
these sciences should be separate or independent
besides the complexity issue I mentioned above.
The separation is made only due to compromise
between the usefullness and the practical
ability to make it of a scientiic field as well
as our historical semantic division of the
Universe into the relevant "parts". That's why
it's all called science - all of the observed...

Live long and prosper.