11 May 2009, 7:02 am
11 May 2009, 7:38 am
Yeah, of course, there is really no other logical explanation.
(Sorry, but I'm somewhat amused over people's exagerration of how easy it is to destroy humanity.)
11 May 2009, 8:56 am
Yeah, of course, there is really no other logical explanation.
(Sorry, but I'm somewhat amused over people's exagerration of how easy it is to destroy humanity.)
humanity boggles people, cus we're aware of ourselves as both individuals and as a species.
thats why we often think of ourselves as special, as in "meant to gather all knowledge" "meant to" do something or other.
we're only meant to live untill we die.
oh and as for destroying humanity, if we go by pure maths, i think it should be about as easy as to destroy mosquito-nity.
11 May 2009, 9:42 am
Yeah, of course, there is really no other logical explanation.
(Sorry, but I'm somewhat amused over people's exagerration of how easy it is to destroy humanity.)
(sigh) Ok humanity may not be easy to destroy but people in the past have had a good go at it... and it may not be the only logical reason but It's the one I've came to.
ardea_rising
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 59
Location: The Grim North
11 May 2009, 11:41 pm
12 May 2009, 12:14 am
12 May 2009, 10:23 am
Yeah, of course, there is really no other logical explanation.
(Sorry, but I'm somewhat amused over people's exagerration of how easy it is to destroy humanity.)
(sigh) Ok humanity may not be easy to destroy but people in the past have had a good go at it... and it may not be the only logical reason but It's the one I've came to.
no human has ever tried to destroy humanity. even hitler imagined europe for germanic people - in other words, he sought to save large portions of humanity.
also, no death toll inflicted by humans, has ever been very significant, compared to our total population.
since ww2 our entire population has only multiplied, and thas the highest number of deaths inflicted by fellow humans.
12 May 2009, 1:28 pm
12 May 2009, 2:21 pm
12 May 2009, 3:09 pm
A chicken is an egg's way of producing other eggs.
ruveyn
Or, perhaps, an egg is a chickens way of enslaving thousands of humans to produce more chickens.
its there simply for the purpose of the "chicken or the egg" riddle.
which i have solved btw:
the fetus develops before the shell.
the shell defines the egg, otherwise its just a fetus.
the fetus belongs to the species of the chicken.
the chicken came first.
12 May 2009, 4:04 pm
12 May 2009, 6:05 pm
Asking what our purpose is makes as much sense as asking what the purpose of an electron is, or the purpose of the sun or the universe. You could say the sun's purpose is to give out light and heat but I don't buy it, the sun merely exists and a by product of its existence is light and heat. Same with humans, we existed due to purely contingent facts (stars forming, suns forming planets, basic life occuring, basic life evolving, ect). The fact we developed society, culture, ideas, religions and indeed the ability to ask the question "what is our purpose" is purely incidental, merely one of many potential by products of our existence. It makes no more sense to ask questions about the purpose of everything we have created than a star in relation to the light and heat it puts out. You could ask it as a scientific question (resulting in astronomy for the star, psychology, sociology and anthropology for us) but that is purely descriptive, describing relational properties, it provides no explanation of any deeper meaning.
If seeking deeper meanings, consider that purpose is an intential state based upon consciousness and the universe cannot have intensions as it has no consciousness. So unless you posit a God, it's only ever going to be purpose from our intensional perpective, which might sound meanful given that the word purpose has important uses in everyday English, but simply is not relevant on an non-intensional universe which lead to our existence. Purpose is just not a defendable term when used outside everyday English, such as asking these questions 
Last edited by oppositedirection on 12 May 2009, 6:21 pm, edited 4 times in total.
12 May 2009, 6:13 pm
If seeking deeper meanings, consider that purpose is an intential state based upon consciousness and the universe cannot have intensions. So unless you posit a God, it's only ever going to be purpose from our intensional perpective, which might sound meanful given that the word purpose has important uses in everyday English, but simply is not relevant on an non-intensional universe. Probably
thats two hi-5's from me in one day!! !
damn i like this forum!
like when people go "whats the meaning of life?"
well first of all, "meaning" has no f'ing meaning, the word came to be sometime after the human species "spiritual revolition" some 150-175 thousand years back (or so i would assume). point is, "meaning" is a biologically new term. life existed before the word. so... the question pretty much falls dead to the ground right there
12 May 2009, 6:15 pm
12 May 2009, 6:16 pm
:S
not really
im an atheist, and i say chicken, as i explained above. the fetus comes before the shell. its a matter of chronology
12 May 2009, 6:22 pm
not really
im an atheist, and i say chicken, as i explained above. the fetus comes before the shell. its a matter of chronology
