Re: Is there a purpose to our existense


Alex Mak wrote:
> I am new to this group,


Welcome to the Monkey House!


> but like most people here, i am interested in this
> fundamental question that we seem to all be beating around. We are the only
> self aware intelligence that we know of in the universe,


That's an arguable point. We certainly seem to have more of "it"
(whatever "it" is) than the other African apes, but chimps, bonobos and
gorillas all seem to have a sense of self. If you paint a spot on a
chimp's forehead while she is asleep, and then place a mirror in front
of her, when she wakes and sees her reflection, she puts her finger to
her own forehead, and not to the mirror. That's a pretty clear
indication that she knows she exists independently of her appearance,
which is pretty profound, when you think about it.

Granted, we have a lot more of it, but we really have an extrapolated
version of what they have, rather than something that is fundamentally
different.


> and i am not saying
> we are the only one, but we have a unique position, and a unique perspective
> on the cosmos that none of the millions of other species of life that we
> share this biosphere with can challenge, why?


"Why questions" are notoriously difficult for the sciences to answer,
because the word "why" has multiple implicit meanings, and "acceptable"
answers depend on one's theoretical framework much more than they
depend on the data themselves.

A purely historical answer might be that the mutation that allowed
"higher" brain functions appeared at one point in the past, and it
"worked" better than alternatives that were also available in the same
population, so it persisted at the expense of those alternatives.

A "functional" explanation for why humans alone seem to have the
abilities you note is that we were first to get that mutation, so the
"clever ***" niche is full; no other species developing the same
attrribute can invade the already populated niche.

There are many other possible answers to the "why" question, but I
can't give you an answer that you'll be likely to accept unless/until I
know your theoretical framework.


> Creationism, evolution,
> mythology, whatever you want to call your beliefs, should not be discounted
> just because they are counterintuitive. Understanding the why, is in my
> humble opinion our reason for existence, and I am curious what the learned
> and educated, and passionate people who are as intelligent as anyone else
> have come up with. Please share your views. I personally believe, that our
> reason for being is to learn, that is why nature learns from the mistakes
> and the victories of the previous generations, and reflects that knowledge
> through evolution.


That's a philosophiocal answer, and nothing at all wrong with that, but
I'm not sure how we'd go about testing it in a way that ultimately
distinguished humans from other species (which seems to be part of your
implied goal, correct me if I'm wrong). Chimpanzee mothers teach their
young how to make good termite dipping wands and crack nuts. That's
active teaching, rather than simple trial and error. Does that count
as aquiring knowledge and passing it along to subsequent generations?
It seems so to me.


> I believe in a god, but that god is not anthropomorphic,
> but there is a reason why we believe he is.


Yes, there is a very good reason; we tend to ascribe human
characteristics to things that we don't understand. One important
human characteristic is the ability to be swayed by argument or appeal
to pity. When we didn't understand earthquakes, volcanoes and
lightning, we ascribed human personalities to these phenomena, in hopes
that we could alter their behaviours. Today, our understanding of
volcanoes, lightning and so forth have made such anthropomorphism
unnecessary, but there are many other phenomena we recognise as "bigger
than us" but we still don't understand. We attach the label "God" to
those phenomena and hope to find some way to influence their
behaviours.


> Lets explore this thread, and
> not judge one another for our perticular beliefs, but lets consider them, no
> matter how crazy they may seem, and then make up our own minds.


I don't think your, or most people's, ideas are crazy, but I also don't
think that "meaning" exists outside of our own heads. What is the
meaning of a sunrise? Or a rose? Or a leopard eating a gazelle? Does
that meaning exist in the fusion of hydrogen? The distribution of
pollen by flying insects? What? Does a sunrise mean the same thing if
nobody is awake to see it? Does it mean the same thing to you as it
means to me or to an Inui'it hunter in northern Canada? If not, then
the meaning can't exist in the phenomenon itself, but only in the mind
of the observer or in some interaction between the two. That is,
meaning is not separable from our observation.

That's my feeling about it. YMMV.

And once again, welcome.

.