Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Purpose and Consciousness

  1. May 19, 2003 #1
    From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2079&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

    Where does purpose originate? Does the universe have purpose? If not, then why is man endowed with a sense of purpose? How could that be? That would be tantamount to saying the Universe created a sense of purpose outside of itself? ... And yet, who's to say mankind is not the Universe looking back at itself? ...

    Is consciousness an isolated thing? Or, is it really universal? And how is it possible that mankind, through his ability of cognizance, capable of knowing all these Universal Laws pertaining to it? Are we putting the cart before the horse here? If not, then how it is it possible for a Universe without purpose, and hence cognizance, and all the laws that go with it, capable of producing such a creature that is capable of "experiencing it?" ... Are you telling me that something rises out of nothing here?

    Whereas just as we all have a mother and a father in an "earthly sense," why can't we all be children of the Universe, which in fact is the origin of consciousness? While I can assure you mankind is not the origin of consciousnes, but rather "its receptacle."

    And of course why couldn't we argue it from the standpoint of "reason" then? Ha ha! Just joking! Yet I do try to present things in a way that people can accept or reject what I'm trying to say, although that's not always an easy task on this forum, to say the least.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2003 #2
    With the conscious being that assigns it.

    Depends on whether there is a conscious being behind it's production.

    They are "endowed" with this sense because they are conscious.

    Humans are part of the Universe, aren't they?

    We are parts of the Universe, no more or less so than a piece of rock, or a fundamental String. However, yes, we are the only parts (that we know of) that can "look back" at the Universe.

    Define "isolated" and "universal" as they are used in your context, please.

    We're just that good!

    I don't quite get the expression.

    Simple, you take your pick of God or Evolution to answer this question.

    Well, something doesn't really need to "arise" out of anything, but I don't believe I ever said that.

    Our mothers and fathers are as much a part of the Universe as we are, and we are thus "sons and daughters" of parts of the Universe.

    How so?

    P.S. Bet you didn't expect me to attempt an answer at all of your questions, did you? :wink:
  4. May 21, 2003 #3
    Likewise I'll go through Iacchus32's statement and do the same. Here goes:
  5. May 21, 2003 #4
    One that doesn't exist has no origin. You have an assumptionary question.
    Purpose is not of a factual element. It is an opinion. It doesn't not exist whatsoever.
    Who is "man", does this include women? This sexist question is also a loaded question. It assumes "man" is endowed with a sense of purpose. Where you get this idea I'll never know.

    Logic and all rational reason is the "who's to say".

    What is consciousness. Who said it is a thing?
    "If not" an assumption, which if false ruins the argument.

    "capable of producing" what a bold claim is that which states the universe produces such a creature..

    "such a creature that is capable of experiencing it" What creature?

    What is this something. BTW, there is no such thing as nothing. Therefore something cannot possibly arise from "nothing"

    That's about as mystically strange statement as could ever come from a strange congolian hidden bush society. But you're civilized right? That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Children of the universe? WTH?

    Sounds like some philosophical stuff to me. No basis in reality. Can you seriously assure us of this? Do it.
  6. May 21, 2003 #5
    Re: Re: Purpose and Consciousness

    Hope you don't mind if I respond to your responses, LogicalAtheist...

    And you have an assumptionary answer, as you are assuming that it doesn't exist.

    Isn't it you who is commiting the sin of subjectivity now?

    Well, I think that the enormous amount of posts on the subject, here at the PFs, are a pretty good indication that at least some humans have that sense.

    You did, by asking what "it" was. :wink:

    Humans, obviously (no offence).

    I like this, for obvious reasons.


    Calm down, it's a symbolism, used to illustrate our place in the Universe.

    Hmm, Philosophy Forum, philosophical stuff. Yep, definitely out of place. :wink:
  7. May 21, 2003 #6
    Good points, Mentat.

    Of course sometimes I commit the subjectivist fallacy. But I admit it and correct myself IMMEDIATELY!
  8. May 21, 2003 #7
    But, let me point something out here.

    When one creates a word, and gives it some definition, a definition which defines it as some "thing" that is indeed in reality...

    Now I'm talking about this idea of PURPOSE here.

    You must understand the difference between PURPOSE, and say, GRAVITY. Because gravity has a scientific definition, a scientific relationship, etc....

    PURPOSE does not, in the sense of Iacchus32 he wishes to be present.

    So, with that said, think about just the statistical likelihood of a given "word" that is similiar to this, actually being REAL, in reality?

    The likelihood is so close to zero, it can't even be written down. It would take more zeros that could fit in all of space!

    My point is, one cannot pop some random term that fits general properties like PURPOSE into the world, and expect others to take the time to disprove it.

    It's just a word, with some meaning. It's nothing more, despite what one wants it to be. Here's my new term

    Term: Urlat

    Definition: Unconditionally respect for another persons courage.

    1. What's liklihood that such a random term and definition have any place in reality?

    2. That's the basis from which I saw purpose simply doesn't exist. Indeed I am disallowing that so so so so so small statistical chance that this term happens to have some place. But come on now, the line must be drawn much further than that if anything is to be accomplished?

    3. I think the disagreement is non-me people take for granted the idea that any random term and definition can be created, but it means nothing more than that.

    4. Make sense Mentat? Comments please.

    5. I just realized something weird. I type this word URLAT and got the first three letters from right below this type it says:

    "Automatically parse URLs: automatically adds and [/URL] around internet addresses. "

    But then as I firstly created a definition for this term, I wrote "uncondtionally respectfull love for..."

    The first letters of those words are U R L.

    Coincidence? Or is there some purpose to this?

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  9. May 21, 2003 #8

    Heh pretty soon you'll be able to write a book full of these made up words. You already have two. URLAT and "Assumptionary"
  10. May 21, 2003 #9
    In other words what you're saying is that purpose is achieved or, recognized through the state of being conscious. Which I'm in agreement with.

    That's the whole point, did purpose and concsiousness exist before the advent of human beings? If not, then how could all these universal laws which apply to it which, can only be achieved and/or recognized through consciousness, have existed? ... i.e., without some sort of "conscious intent?" ... If not through man's, then through whose?

    So this could very well be the key which unlocks the Great Mystery? ...

    Does consciousness only exist with man or, does it belie an even greater fundamental truth about existence as whole?

    Or are we? ... Let's not get too self-assured now! :wink:

    Did consciousness and purpose come first, or did man come first?

    And yet evolution as an answer (in and of itself), maintains that purpose is only an "illusory faculty" of man's mind? Go figure? ...

    If the purpose of life was solely -- i.e., out of "cause creating an effect" -- to "replicate," then would that also not be the purpose of consciousness? ... to replicate itself?

    Yes, so in this repect the Universe can be viewed as a "living entity" (as stated in an earlier post).

    Are we the creators of the Universe? Or, are we just the "receptacles" which stand in acknowledgment to it?

    It was beginning to look like nobody was going to answer it! But, I'm glad you finally took the interest in doing so ...
  11. May 21, 2003 #10
    Then what is purpose? Are you saying there's no need for the question or, the answer?

    And yet not everyone is in agreement with this. However, it's a great way to dismiss that which you don't wish to accept. It's rather apparent that a sense of purpose does exist, but how you wish to go about defining it is another story.

    It's a matter of "his"-story versus "her"-story I guess? ... And yet when I say mankind, in conjunction with man, I mean the whole ball of wax.

    But where does logic and reason come from? Is this merely a "human invention?" Or, does it belie something that has always been?

    Are you aware of "the fact" -- there you go Alexander, an "observable fact" -- that you exist? Is this not what we construe as consciousness? ... Whereas consciousness is a capacity or faculty, that we experience.

    Without consciousness we couldn't acknowledge the truth to anything. And yet how could these truths still exist, if mankind were not there to acknowledge them?

    To introduce an assumption without any plausibility to it would be heinous now wouldn't it?

    Are we not "by-products" of this "creation" which we call the Universe?

    Mankind of course.

    Which came first? Consciousness? Or, man's ability to "experience it?"

    Are we not all "by-products" of this "living creation" which we call the Universe?

    It's debatable, and yet it's all about the inquiry is it not?
  12. May 21, 2003 #11
    Iacchus32 - I find, based on the whole of your posts, you continue to take on the task of questioning momumental and widely accepted ideas, and provide nothing concrete at all.

    Here is a way I can say the same thing in shorter words

    Iacchus32 - I find, based on the whole of your posts, you continue to philosophize.

    So, indeed we see what philosophy often consists of.

    I consider it a purposeless (get it) task to question such monuments with no evidence. Furthermore, you've failed to heed certain words when creating a new, yet similiarly designs, post.

    My suggestion, whole-heartedly, would be to take your topic, and spend a great deal more time thinking about it. Write it down and analayze it.

    Here is my own rules for working on a claim.

    State the claim (unbiasly) as concise and specific as possible.

    Define all the terms in the claim. Use a few sources, unless your wanting to use a particular definition, or your own terminology.

    As you work out the claim step by step, new words come across from the debaters. Make sure those get defined.

    Once you've looked at a claim more, you will learn more about it, and perhaps come to a conclusion, or at least have more backing your claim.

    Because I find you do not attempt to use reality to back your somewhat unrealistic claims. You usually use nonrealistic concepts to back it. And then us here, who mainly look at things realistically, have an entire different concept of what you are saying.

    This is why I come to fast and hard conclusions about what you propose. Because I am thinking on a realistic sense, you seem more attached to these non-tangable "feeling-like" terms and concepts.

    It's appropriate for philosophy no doubt, and yet I find philosophy inappropriate in reality.

    Not an insult, just a summerization. I'll probably not pop into to many of the phil topics.

    I try, really I do, but there's always some basis on something else involved that I want to contribute to.

    Dam this is a long post. [zz)]
  13. May 21, 2003 #12
    we are...

    didn't i just answered to this?
    we are here on a journey. we must learn from it. what we learn, we keep and try to understand it.
    if we do, we should learn from it and our experiences on how to be free...
    just my point of view thats all
  14. May 22, 2003 #13
    Re: we are...

    Wow, you certainly beat out Iacchus32 for the title of most strange, obscure, nonsensical and completely off topic post ever! Let's explain this!

    didn't i just answered to this?

    *this is an answer? sheesh!

    we are here on a journey.

    * who is we? where is this we? What is this journey?

    we must learn from it.

    *who is this we? why MUST we learn? it's not an option to not learn?

    what we learn, we keep and try to understand it.

    *we don't always keep what we learn. how do you know we all try to understand it? and keep it? what's to understand?

    if we do, we should learn from it and our experiences on how to be free...

    *free? what is free?

    *No offense, but in my work with patients who abuse hilucinagenic drugs, they often speak of these ideas. Is this along those lines?
  15. May 22, 2003 #14
    And yet what we think will very much determine what we do. And we do will very much determine the nature of our world. And the nature of our world will very much determine "the reality" that we percieve. All of which has now become "very concrete."

    So what is it about an idea that's not abstract? What is it about the egg and sperm which are not abstract? In the sense that the whole process of reproduction (to the naked eye) remains a great mystery? ... And yet, once the idea is brought to fruition, then you have your proof, and you have your evidence, that something "concrete" can be brought about by that which is "abstract."
  16. May 22, 2003 #15
    Correction: replace a word "mystery" by the word "chemistry".

    (Don't replace if the word "chemistry" is not in your dictionary).
  17. May 22, 2003 #16
    Are you positive of this? I don't think so either, but I'm not so sure of it as you.

    Well, of course you must recognize that "purpose" does have meaning, but only to sentient beings. On top of which, only conscious beings (please take note of the difference between "sentient" and "conscious") can assign "purposes". Thus, you are right, it's not a force like gravity.

    Ok, I'd say I agree with you, to a point. You see, some things physically exist, and those things have been assigned names. Other things exist only conceptually (as heusdens will readily point out), and those can also be assigned names, but have not affect on the physical world.

    I'm confused, what does URLAT actually stand for?
  18. May 24, 2003 #17
    URLAT was just a few letters put together. Means nothing, stands for nothing!
  19. May 24, 2003 #18
    What is a URLAT?

    I refer you to the URLAT below ...
  20. May 24, 2003 #19
    Mindly Concepts?

    From the URLAT, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2317&perpage=15&pagenumber=2" ...

    Outside of whose "mindly concept?" Are you saying the material world exists outside of what the mind perceives? And yet how do we interface with "that reality" if not through the "contructs" of our minds? Perhaps we should be speaking about those things (concepts) which exist within the mind instead? Also, did it ever occur to you that reality is determined very much -- "in the human sense" -- by what we believe? For if we indeed acted upon what we believed, couldn't it conceivably change the "whole appearance" of the way the world looks? In which case "reality" might very well lend itself to a "different construct?"

    And what makes you the renowned authority on this anyway?

    What is purpose? ... And what is order? ... And where do these two terms come from? If in fact the laws of God were based on order, rather than the "human need" for contrivance" (which, is the only possible alternative for the origins of purpose and order), then why can't we base our lives upon "God's order?" ... Or, would this imply a sense of God "making demands?" Hmm ... Perhaps so with some of your more "primitive societies," where survival was of the utmost, and you didn't go around messing with the "laws of order." In which case I could demand -- i.e., out of a "sense of order" -- that you not be foolish!

    Whether it's God, Communism or whatever "concept" it may be, it tends primarily to serve the "elitists" who are in control. Therefore, if you wish to address the tyranny of the human condition, then I would recommend you start here.

    "Novus Ordo Seclorum" ... Yeah, I think you better watch out for that one! ...

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." So what the heck is so wrong with this? Is this not what made America so great? ... And all founded upon the "concept of God," and the freedom to worship "that God" as one deemed fit.

    And yet without a mind, what would we perceive? It suggests to me that reality and perception are pretty much dependent upon each other.

    But we also change the way the world works by implementing those things which exist in our minds. And in so doing we create a "new reality" which leaves a "new imprint" on our minds. So in this sense it does seem to suggest reality is the "by-product" of the mind. Which then opens up the possibliy of an even Greater Mind (of God's) which sets everything in motion. Remember, how could we "experience" reality (let alone change it) if not for the fact that we were conscious?

    No, I think Madison Avenue has probably already got the patent on that one! :wink:

    If all we have is the mind of man, brought about by evolution or whatever you wish to call it, then all we have is the "contrivance" of the mind of man. Meaning there would be no reality to perceive outside of our own (i.e., through our own contrivance).

    Better yet, why don't we learn how to talk sensibly about God? Of course I realize I'm asking a bit much ...

    This may very well be the case, in which case I'm not in agreement with it.

    They are free to come to this country and worship their own God if they wish ... But they are not free to terrorize other peoples in the name of that God. The same holds true to any country, even the United States.

    And yet were it not for the fact that you insist on deriding and invalidating religion as whole? ... Which seems to suggest you have a distinct problem with people who practice religion.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook