First post and some questions to prompt discussion.....

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hello, first post so thought I would open with pertinent questions to prompt discussion, given the level of collective consciousness that seems apparent in our digital age.

What would we call and how would we position with respects to purpose, the life forms evolved from life of the planet earth that can realize not only its own contingency but also that of life of the planet more generally?

Given the time scales when talking about the life cycle of stars and solar systems, how long would it take a system of life evolution of a planet to evolve a life form that can make attempts towards it’s (and the life system more broadly) continuance beyond the life span of the planet that, in part, allowed the conditions for such a system’s manifestation?

Finally, and to tease the nihilists among you, is sentient life a mistake and should there be a return to rocks?

I have read a number of posts regarding similar themes and topics, so I suspect that a particular line and genre of replies will be made. All I can do is hope that the reasonable and rational among you can accept the latent definitions in my above questions, and indulge me when making your replies and communicating your thoughts.

Quintilian

2

The only purpose is the unceasing vitality of nature. Life creates more of itself because it can.

Hard to answer this question when we have an n=1 for planets with life right now. Not the best sample-size for making that call. There is some good work going on at UC Berkely right now on astrobiology, so they might have a better system . . . but I’m kinda inclined to be skeptical of that whole deal.

As for ‘evolving’ towards that continuance . . . well, I can’t think of any selective pressures that would really result in that, so it would have to be a side-effect (such as tool-making and curiosity combined with a pretty successful species that has mastered the environment enough to try this). So, ‘time’ isn’t really the variable here.

Nahh, I likes life as it is.

3

No it creates more of itself for absolutely NO REASON AT ALL! It is just a quirk sequence of cause and effect, it is similar to gravity, it just happens because the laws of physics move matter in a certain quirky way.

check out:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=153243

4

Potato potato.

I do agree that life creates itself as a matter of simple chemical interactions, no purpose or anything like that.

5

I’m not convinced i understand this question so apologies if i have split out the quotes incorrectly, that there is one “purpose” that we are all heading towards realising always presupposes some kind of prime mover type doctrine (in my eyes)

is this realisation of it’s own contingency but also life of the planet some kind of heideggaian dasein, existence being an issue for dasein type idea?

dunno but sounds a simple enough question you just have to work out how long it would take to discover another planet with similar atmosphere/gravity etc (even though we can only answer this as humans until we discover radically different forms of live from carbon based ones

surely a nihilist would see that the vacuum of morals/purpose/god etc meaning that the notion of a mistake is meaningless, things just are

6

I suppose the key to understanding these types of questions (Harrumph perhaps comes the closest) is to realise life as a system of interdependencies between what we as humans sometimes falsely view as separate organic entities/states.

When I ask what would we call, can also be easily be read as; what position with in such a system of interedependent organic entities and states, would we assign to the entity/state that can realise the systems (hence also its own) contingency, and also realise and imagine the actions that could extend the systems existence beyond the life span of the planet, in our case the planet earth.

My use of the term purpose in this context is a little regrettable and I could refer you to the ideas of the great minds. But I prefer to engage with resource to expanding upon what I mean by the term in the context I use it here. Again, this term interdependency perhaps best illustrates my use and perhaps even binding it with a second term to form ‘functional interdependencies’ illuminates my use further for you.

When I am talking about the time required for a life system on a planet to evolve an entity/state capable of such realisations and potential capacity to make provision for such a systems continuance beyond, for want of a better term, ‘home planet’, this is from the point of view of what we know about evolution.

For example, for the planet earth humans are perhaps the only entity/state that is capable of such realisations and we can talk about, with reasonable levels of probability, the time taken for us to have evolved from decreasingly less complex entities/states. Note that this would be a series of time slices as it depends on where we first decide to locate where and what we have evolved from. So, the important numbers to tease out in the context of these questions, is comparing the natural life span of a life bearing planet (dependent upon external events and the life cycle of stars) and the time taken for the system of life on that planet to evolve an entity/state to realise the above points.

On a final note and returning to this term purpose (which I found grammar inclined me to use) and to pick up upon Harrumph’s comment regarding god i.e. prime mover type doctrines; I don’t think my use implies this nor was it my intent to imply it. However, I could accept that I am pushing forwards a ‘purpose for humans’.

p.s.

My tease regarding nihilists requires knowledge of a highly esoteric debate following from a number of further esoteric writings made by Nietzsche that are, none-the-less, related to the subject matter I raise i.e. anti-life?.