What is driving the will to exist?

[thack45]

Living organisms seem to try to exist as long as they can. Not only that but (some/all?) try to maintain and secure the existence of their kind even to the point of knowing (as humans do) that they may not be there to see whatever result this drive might be leading toward.

So what is it that is trying?

 

[Andre]

Maybe because all once living organisms, which did not care about living as long possible and secure the existence of their kind, are all extinct now?

How did Darwin call that?

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what is it that is trying?

I think you can figure this out if you think about it. Did you ever see the episode of Friends where Phoebe and Joey have the argument about whether or not there can be a truly unselfish act?

 

[rewebster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy

 

[leroyjenkens]

The driving will to exist is pain. To voluntarily stop existing, you first have to do something that hurts.

 

[thack45]

Thank you all for the replies.

I think you can figure this out if you think about it. Did you ever see the episode of Friends where Phoebe and Joey have the argument about whether or not there can be a truly unselfish act?

I've seen that episode many times (my wife and I own all ten seasons ). Still, I am not sure that I get your meaning here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thank you all for the replies.
I've seen that episode many times (my wife and I own all ten seasons ). Still, I am not sure that I get your meaning here.

I'm saying apparently "altruistic" acts are actually selfish in some way, shape, or form, and the drive to take care of others, or contribute to something good, the results of which you'll never see, is actually a selfish thing in disguise. We adopt the orphan or the stray cat because we identify with it, and we contribute to environmental causes because we identify with the as yet unborn people who will inherit our mess if we don't clean it up for them.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm saying apparently "altruistic" acts are actually selfish in some way, shape, or form, and the drive to take care of others, or contribute to something good, the results of which you'll never see, is actually a selfish thing in disguise. We adopt the orphan or the stray cat because we identify with it, and we contribute to environmental causes because we identify with the as yet unborn people who will inherit our mess if we don't clean it up for them.

What does this have to do with a given animal wishing to live as long as possible, and why they eat and drink to stay alive? I think you missed the gist of the thread.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What is driving the will to exist?

Sex. Organisms are elaborate mechanisms to ensure the survival of their genes.

 

[thack45]

I'm saying apparently "altruistic" acts are actually selfish in some way, shape, or form, and the drive to take care of others, or contribute to something good, the results of which you'll never see, is actually a selfish thing in disguise. We adopt the orphan or the stray cat because we identify with it, and we contribute to environmental causes because we identify with the as yet unborn people who will inherit our mess if we don't clean it up for them.

What does this have to do with a given animal wishing to live as long as possible, and why they eat and drink to stay alive? I think you missed the gist of the thread.

That's correct, but it's likely because my question wasn't very well constructed. I think I placed undue importance on how the will to exist might play out rather than the 'what and why' aspect of this sense.

I'm asking "what is it that is trying?" because it seems that we are programmed to act this way for a reason (of course). A computer has no means of wanting to exist but is can be programmed to act that way.

As I consider this I have to at times wonder if how we are programmed doesn't imply an ultimate will or intent beyond us.

By the way, this is NOT intended to be a religious thing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As I consider this I have to at times wonder if how we are programmed doesn't imply an ultimate will or intent beyond us.

Which is exactly what I sensed and what my answers address: there is no external force driving the will to exist. The sense of a will or intent beyond us arises as a misreading of the epiphenomena of mundane selfishness.

These things work both for the species and the individual, therefore they constitute the kind of advantage that would be selected. Which is what Andre was pointing at.

 

[thack45]

Which is exactly what I sensed and what my answers address: there is no external force driving the will to exist. The sense of a will or intent beyond us arises as a misreading of the epiphenomena of mundane selfishness.

These things work both for the species and the individual, therefore they constitute the kind of advantage that would be selected. Which is what Andre was pointing at.

First, I certainly agree with you that there --probably-- are no truly selfless acts.

But isn't evolution a sort of external "force"?

 

[thack45]

Living organisms seem to try to exist as long as they can. Not only that but (some/all?) try to maintain and secure the existence of their kind even to the point of knowing (as humans do) that they may not be there to see whatever result this drive might be leading toward.

So what is it that is trying?

I'm saying apparently "altruistic" acts are actually selfish in some way, shape, or form, and the drive to take care of others, or contribute to something good, the results of which you'll never see, is actually a selfish thing in disguise. We adopt the orphan or the stray cat because we identify with it, and we contribute to environmental causes because we identify with the as yet unborn people who will inherit our mess if we don't clean it up for them.

Which is exactly what I sensed and what my answers address: there is no external force driving the will to exist. The sense of a will or intent beyond us arises as a misreading of the epiphenomena of mundane selfishness.

These things work both for the species and the individual, therefore they constitute the kind of advantage that would be selected. Which is what Andre was pointing at.

I realize now that I should have been more clear that I was talking about all life, not just human life.

 

[DaveC426913]

I realize now that I should have been more clear that I was talking about all life, not just human life.

I'm not sure anyone misunderstood that. Seemed pretty clear to me.

I'm still not sure what zooby is getting at.

 

[zoobyshoe]

First, I certainly agree with you that there --probably-- are no truly selfless acts.

But isn't evolution a sort of external "force"?

No. There is no drive behind evolution. It's a default kind of thing. Things just mutate at random. Some of these mutations are bad and the mutants die out. Some mutations are neutral, so they have no effect. Some mutations are advantageous, so the mutants thrive and might even supplant the non-mutated ones.

The other thing that happens is that the environment changes. Suddenly the "neutral" mutants might be at an advantage. Say the climate gets colder and the neutral mutation was thicker fur. Suddenly the neutrals squeak by and live while the normals freeze to death.

There is no "drive" to get better and stronger as some people think. The "fittest" might end up being the smaller, less food dependent members of the troop. Pygmy animals sometimes evolve on islands that get separated from mainlands because the islands cannot support a breeding population of full sized animals.

 

[thack45]

I'm not sure anyone misunderstood that. Seemed pretty clear to me.

I wasn't sure either...

I'm still not sure what zooby is getting at.

 

[thack45]

No. There is no drive behind evolution. It's a default kind of thing. Things just mutate at random. Some of these mutations are bad and the mutants die out. Some mutations are neutral, so they have no effect. Some mutations are advantageous, so the mutants thrive and might even supplant the non-mutated ones.

The other thing that happens is that the environment changes. Suddenly the "neutral" mutants might be at an advantage. Say the climate gets colder and the neutral mutation was thicker fur. Suddenly the neutrals squeak by and live while the normals freeze to death.

There is no "drive" to get better and stronger as some people think. The "fittest" might end up being the smaller, less food dependent members of the troop. Pygmy animals sometimes evolve on islands that get separated from mainlands because the islands cannot support a breeding population of full sized animals.

Although I haven't spent a great deal of time looking yet, I'm having a difficult time finding a definition for evolution synonomous with evolution=random mutation.

I am aware of my ignorance of the matter so I do apreciate any afforded patience, but here is what I can observe:

• 
  
  The geese that hang out by the pond outside my apartment have recent offspring and now hiss at me if I approach them.

• A woodlouse bug was just passing by when it fell on its back. It wriggled and whrithed for a good two minutes, ultimately utilizing a blade of dead grass within reach to right itself and it was back about its way.

• My cats will not leave me alone if I don't feed them (unless of course I continued to not feed them long enough...).

Why?

One more question (okay, well, two): Is our abstract self-awareness a result of evolution? If so, is it a desirable or undesirable; "good" or "bad" mutation? Because right now it's really hindering any efforts I should be making to get ready for work!

Very enjoyable discussion. Thanks all. (and don't worry, I fed the cats)

 

[GeorginaS]

I'm still not sure what zooby is getting at.

I am, but it's really abstract. Once you wrap your mind around it, it makes all kinds of sense.

Although I haven't spent a great deal of time looking yet, I'm having a difficult time finding a definition for evolution synonomous with evolution=random mutation.

Really quickly -- Natural selection defintion:

n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection"

The operative word in that explanation is "and". The word isn't "to" or "in order to". There's no design, there's not compulsion, just mutations that continue. There's nothing "driving" anything. There's nothing making conscious decisions. Genes can't think.

I'm not clear what your list is supposed to represent but,

The geese that hang out by the pond outside my apartment have recent offspring and now hiss at me if I approach them.[/list]

Parents of live offspring have a chemical reaction go off (really simplified version) that creates the reaction of protecting their young. The geese that developed this mutation reared young to the age where they too procreated. But the geese or the chemicals in their brains didn't have a goal. The geese without this mutation didn't have offspring that continued because predators got them. But the geese genes don't have an agenda.

• A woodlouse bug was just passing by when it fell on its back. It wriggled and whrithed for a good two minutes, ultimately utilizing a blade of dead grass within reach to right itself and it was back about its way.

If you fall down, do you get back up again and right yourself? Or do you just lie on the ground where you fell?

• My cats will not leave me alone if I don't feed them (unless of course I continued to not feed them long enough...).

Why?

Because chemicals in their stomach collect and cause a sensation that eventually turns to pain if they don't eat. Once they eat, the pain goes away and they also experience some pleasure. They ask you for food because they know you control it and they're trying to control pain.

Again, I'm not really sure of the significance of that.

 

[rewebster]

What is driving the will to exist?

The desire not to be 'eaten' by another animal, and seeking pleasure when there are no threats apparent.

 

[Galteeth]

Perhaps the OP is trying to ask a slightly different, more global question. Are you asking why, out of random processes, highly dynamic and complex "things" emerge and interact?

Or is this a question about the nature of subjective experience?

It seems to me the OP is not trying to ask a simple evolution question, but perhaps isn't expressing himself/herself clearly.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps the OP is trying to ask a slightly different, more global question. Are you asking why, out of random processes, highly dynamic and complex "things" emerge and interact?

Or is this a question about the nature of subjective experience?

It seems to me the OP is not trying to ask a simple evolution question, but perhaps isn't expressing himself/herself clearly.

Seems pretty clear to me that he is simply asking about "the will to survive".

 

[golem]

I'm glad I stumbled on this interesting thread and I'm glad it's currently active.

I think the question "What is driving the will to exist?" has two components. The first is: What causes an organism to behave in a manner to prolong its existence? Andre provided a good answer: "Maybe because all once living organisms, which did not care about living as long possible and secure the existence of their kind, are all extinct now?" In the competition for existence evolution will favor organisms that behave to preserve their own existence, or better yet, the continued existence of their genes.

The second question is tougher: What is the source of the will to exist? A non-theological answer is required on a physics forum. To push the question further, what is the source of an organism's behavior, whatever it may be. Here we're getting into the question "what is life?" The answer has to distinguish the behavior of a falling rock from the behavior of a growing crystal from the behavior of a virus or other living creature from the behavior of a Martian Rover, programmed to carry on all its functions without further human intervention. That is the problem I was working on when I stumbled on this thread. I'm still working on the answer.

 

[GreatEscapist]

I believe that the will to exist is first to reproduce.
At a deeper level, nowadays, since we don't have to struggle to keep our species alive, I believe it is to contribute something worthwhile, and teach your kids something worthwhile. My goal and drive is to know mooore and moooooooore. I crave knowledge. And I hope to use it someday to do something novel.

I think it nowadays depends on the individual person. I don't think we much follow evolutionary I-have-to-live-longer-to-have-sex stuff.

 

[GeorginaS]

I believe that the will to exist is first to reproduce.

Could/would you explain that thought for me, please? Because there are a whole bunch of folks wandering around existing -- willfully and everything -- without reproducing or having any will to. So. I'm curious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What causes an organism to behave in a manner to prolong its existence? Andre provided a good answer: "Maybe because all once living organisms, which did not care about living as long possible and secure the existence of their kind, are all extinct now?" In the competition for existence evolution will favor organisms that behave to preserve their own existence, or better yet, the continued existence of their genes.

Yes, this is the thing the OP doesn't fully appreciate. With random mutations those that create behaviors that happen to contribute to the well being of the animal will get "selected". A creature born with an under active sense of hunger will be more indifferent to eating than it's fellows, and so, is likely to starve to death before it's old enough to breed. A creature that does not run from danger, but just observes it complacently, will get killed much more quickly than it's fellows, again most likely before it's old enough to breed.

After billions of years of this those things that have behaviors that look like a "will to exist" are the only things around. There is actually no over-riding drive going on here. It's more like a default filter.

 

[thack45]

Yes, this is the thing the OP doesn't fully appreciate. With random mutations those that create behaviors that happen to contribute to the well being of the animal will get "selected". A creature born with an under active sense of hunger will be more indifferent to eating than it's fellows, and so, is likely to starve to death before it's old enough to breed. A creature that does not run from danger, but just observes it complacently, will get killed much more quickly than it's fellows, again most likely before it's old enough to breed.

After billions of years of this those things that have behaviors that look like a "will to exist" are the only things around. There is actually no over-riding drive going on here. It's more like a default filter.

After this and many others posts (and the subsequent digging), I have found that I really didn't have a good understanding of evolution. Thanks to all that posted. :)

So the question now remains: What is driving the will to exist? I mentioned the geese, the cats and the bug (and us humans, of course). All instinctively trying to live. So is self-awareness simply a consequence of random mutation?

 

[GeorginaS]

Seriosly speaking, selfwareness is a result of neuroligical effects controlled by the brian

Poor Brian. He takes flack for everything.

 

[GeorginaS]

Yes, people sometimes are uncontrolable, a moment of enjoyment, getting anry, the minute they realize the truth, get the medal the rpice of their long lasting effort... they may burst into tears,
its an encoragement for the will to go on. New crunches begins. kakakkakaka :D

What you said.

Even though I have no idea what you just said.

 

[golem]

After this and many others posts (and the subsequent digging), I have found that I really didn't have a good understanding of evolution. Thanks to all that posted. :)

So the question now remains: What is driving the will to exist? I mentioned the geese, the cats and the bug (and us humans, of course). All instinctively trying to live. So is self-awareness simply a consequence of random mutation?

Maybe this will help: What you're really after is not the will to exist but the will to reproduce. (And of course we're using the word "will" metaphorically, since only conscious like can actually "will" anything). Most inanimate objects possesses the "will" to exist, as long as they do exist, because their intrinsic structure keeps them from falling apart. However they do no possesses the will to reproduce. The first animate object was what Richard Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene") called the first replicator. It came into existence like all inanimate objects as a result of random interactions of molecules following the laws of nature. But because of its molecular structure and because of the other molecules that happened to be in its environment, it had the capacity to replicate itself by attracting molecules in the surroundings to its surface in a manner that resulted in the formation of a replica of itself. (The actual story is far more complicated and involves the spontaneous origin of metabolic processes, but always in accordance with the laws of nature). Now one could say that this first replicator was the first object to possesses the will to reproduce itself. It reproduced because it could reproduce. Its descendents inherited the same ability, but because of evolution their ability to reproduce gradually improved. Because the molecules necessary for reproduction were in limited supply, the best reproducers began to dominate the population. The whole process of evolution took over, to get us where we are today. The "will to exist" in living organism is a byproduct of the "will to reproduce", because reproduction requires continued existence until the reproductive process is successfully completed. In nature sexual organisms tend to lose the "will to exist" and die once they have finished the task of reproduction.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Could/would you explain that thought for me, please? Because there are a whole bunch of folks wandering around existing -- willfully and everything -- without reproducing or having any will to. So. I'm curious.

Well, yeah, nowadays there are. But if we weren't so pampered by society today, an instinct would be to reproduce.
And most people DO want to, at SOME point in their life. Whether they do end up having kids, or not.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, yeah, nowadays there are. But if we weren't so pampered by society today, an instinct would be to reproduce.

So, let me see if I've got this right - the world we live in nowadays is artificial and not really valid, and this other world you speak of is somehow a better yardstick of humanity and more valid?

 

[thack45]

Validity of social standards aside, unless I'm mistaken; the will to reproduce (or exist) and the instict to reproduce (or exist) are two separate things. I think most people have sensed the instinct to reproduce indepent of any will.

 

[GreatEscapist]

So, let me see if I've got this right - the world we live in nowadays is artificial and not really valid, and this other world you speak of is somehow a better yardstick of humanity and more valid?

*sighs* Things I say never come out right.

Noooo, no. We just have a lot more comfort nowadays, and I think we all know we CAN reproduce, at almost anytime we want. It's not as big of a priority- as evidenced by people that wait till later in life to have children.

This world exists. :P

 

[GeorginaS]

*sighs* Things I say never come out right.

Noooo, no. We just have a lot more comfort nowadays, and I think we all know we CAN reproduce, at almost anytime we want. It's not as big of a priority- as evidenced by people that wait till later in life to have children.

This world exists. :P

Also, this is where you started out:

I believe that the will to exist is first to reproduce.

It's not so much that we have "comfort" these days as we have birth control. We're probably having as much sex as frequently as in any olden days of yore.

There is no 'drive to reproduce' . The humans with strong sex drives had the most sex, therefore they produced the most offspring. Those offspring most likely shared that characteristic. Now, though, we can control the offspring part, but I don't think the sex-having bit has reduced.

 

[GreatEscapist]

There is no 'drive to reproduce'.

Um, are you sure?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Um, are you sure?

If sex were painful do you think we'd ever have to worry about over population?