# I've been refining an argument — ethics isn't a human invention. It's what a finite universe with conscious agents structurally requires
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404
**Category:** Philosophy
**Tags:** moral-philosophy
**Created:** [May 14, 2026, 1:07pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404 "2026-05-14T13:07:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 8:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/21 "2026-06-15T08:06:21Z")
aka “What’s the purpose of purpose?”
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 9:57am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/22 "2026-06-15T09:57:39Z")
Life has no conscious purpose. For a conscious purpose you need a goal. The phenomena of life has no such thing.
Life strives only to ensure it’s own existence and its borderline mechanical in that regard.
What does “purpose of purpose” even mean?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 10:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/23 "2026-06-15T10:11:03Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> What does “purpose of purpose” even mean?
It means once you see the answer, you stop putting the question ad infinitum ad nauseam…you start living it.
The point behind all the mechanics is love—the path back to original (everpresent) communion.
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Life has no conscious purpose.
cuz it is it—when conscious
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Life strives only to ensure its own existence
So why do we hunger for More once basic needs are met (& even when they aren’t)… if that _only_ is a fact? Why with _that_ More do strivings for mere survival _cease_… basic needs met, unmet, or exceeded… even to the point of willing to risk survival… to live/die for the More?
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 3:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/24 "2026-06-15T15:06:54Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> It means once you see the answer, you stop putting the question ad infinitum ad nauseam…you start living it.
Life is living. Hence the circle fits even your definition.
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> The point behind all the mechanics is love—the path back to original (everpresent) communion.
The concept of love exists only for dioecious and/or gonochoric species of life.
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> cuz it is it—when conscious
And when conscious it strips itself from the laws of nature, life and biology because its now an individual on an abstract thinking path of “i dont understand anything” and then shortly after proceeds to mystify and enshrine it’s own biological functions such as “love”.
Self-awareness is attributed to the individual and not to life itself.
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> So why do we hunger for More once basic needs are met (& even when they aren’t)… if that _only_ is a fact? Why with _that_ More do strivings for mere survival _cease_… basic needs met, unmet, or exceeded… even to the point of willing to risk survival… to live/die for the More?
Life that lacks the ability for abstract thought and self-awareness is one with itself and has neither a concept nor a use for what you speak of.
The peak of the pyramid of needs for all basic forms of life is between physiological needs and safety needs.
Then for the few species that evolved for gregariousness, the proto incentives of love & belonging was born in order to solidify the herd/flock traits.
Only lastly, for an absolute minority of species which attained self-awareness does the last 2 steps of the pyramid hold any kind of potential meaning at all.
Your hunger for more than basic needs is an unfortunate result of being born a discordant anomaly.
Something that is so out of sync with itself, with the basic tenets of life that it questions it’s own existence and seeks “reasons” for it.
Had you been born as a species that prefers solitude over sociality, or without the ability for abstract thought, then your needs would be completely different too.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 3:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/25 "2026-06-15T15:08:57Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> You are playing sophism. Sincerely.
> Again: Whats the purpose of the phenomena called life?
I’m not playing sophism. You are mistaking mechanism for purpose.
It’s like saying the purpose of a lightbulb is to consume electricity.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 3:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/26 "2026-06-15T15:59:21Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> I’m not playing sophism. You are mistaking mechanism for purpose.
>
> It’s like saying the purpose of a lightbulb is to consume electricity.
There is a difference between something that has been designed and something that is an emergent phenomena.
We are the creators of the light bulb and we created it for the specific purpose of creating light through the consumption of electricity.
Life is emergent, it defines it’s own purpose, that purpose judging by it’s mechanism is to maximalize it’s own chances at survival and to keep on existing.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 4:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/27 "2026-06-15T16:00:40Z")
You can judge the lightbulb by its mechanism too, regardless of how it came to be, and it’s still a mistake to assign purpose that way.
Is the purpose of a rock to sit there?
No. It just sits there.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/28 "2026-06-15T16:28:48Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Life is living. Hence the circle fits even your definition.
more like a triangle because it’s triadic mutual implication
but definitely not circular reasoning
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> The concept of love exists only for dioecious and/or gonochoric species of life.
I don’t know what you just said, but the correct answers to math are regardless of what species you are … and the same is true here.
It’s about original personhood… there couldn’t be any artificial/contingent personhood without them.
Original personhood is life itself.
We co-define our relationship to each other via consent. We want More until we achieve unity within and between all persons—unity-in-distinction only possible for original personhood, but the point of our existence forever.
There is nothing without mechanism/behavior/how it moves/responds… because there is nothing without original personhood who gave stuff it’s mechanism. Even a rock is configured and not nothing/void. If the periodic table of elements was arranged correctly, it would probably show this more beautifully.
Mechanism is how. There is no how without a what or a why. It is triadic. The only way you get a change in mechanism (how), function (why), or substance (what) is if a mind gets involved or was always involved.
It all boils down and adds up to original personhood.
A new how/mechanism or a new quality/why or a new substance/what doesn’t come out of (emerge from) nothing—it is unlocked from the eternal. Only that which is in alignment with original personhood will endure.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 5:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/29 "2026-06-15T17:17:13Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> We co-define our relationship to each other via consent. We want More until we achieve unity within and between all persons—unity-in-distinction only possible for original personhood, but the point of our existence forever.
This is so far removed from reality that i cant even address it.
How do you contrast what you wrote with life, a phenomena that decided halfway through its infancy that consent does not exist and the easiest way to self sustain is by murdering and cosuming itself?
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> Mechanism is how. There is no how without a what or a why. It is triadic.
If this were true then you’d have to contend with the notion of why life exists.
The how in and of itself is one of the wildest and most disagreed upon topic already, but assuming that there is a why, now thats just out of this ballpark as a whole.
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> You can judge the lightbulb by its mechanism too, regardless of how it came to be, and it’s still a mistake to assign purpose that way.
>
> Is the purpose of a rock to sit there?
>
> No. It just sits there.
Judging the lightbulb by its mechanism is willful ignorance when you know that it was designed and for a specific purpose. That in and of itself answers the what, the how, and the why you eluded to.
Something in the case of life you wont be able to do.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/30 "2026-06-15T18:41:05Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> phenomena that decided halfway through its infancy that consent does not exist
That is the decision to remove consent—impossible if consent is not a choice.
To be… to do… to consent… cannot be a question if it is mere mechanism.
brb (sorry…bbl)
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 6:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/31 "2026-06-15T18:54:18Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Judging the lightbulb by its mechanism is willful ignorance when you know that it was designed and for a specific purpose. That in and of itself answers the what, the how, and the why you eluded to.
>
> Something in the case of life you wont be able to do.
It’s not willful ignorance of design. It’s wilfull ignirance of what purpose is.
Purpose is not something you can backtrack to from mechanism, period. Mechanism only gives how.
And even then, Darwinist evolutionary theory is incomplete. Survival of the fittest is much of, but far from all of the how.
It is simply one given precondition for life. You might as well say that the purpose of life is to lock oxygen.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 9:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/32 "2026-06-15T21:11:07Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> Purpose is not something you can backtrack to from mechanism, period.
Even if i accepted this argument, its still just appeal to ignorance.
Just because you cant backtrack purpose from mechanism does not mean that it has no purpose.
Yet at the same time mechanism CAN be purpose. Thats simply teleonomy. Any system that seems goal-directed but has no conscious plan.
To resolve this deadlock you would have to provide a purpose for life that is beyond the mechanism itself.
Alas thats gonna only happen through unsubstantiated esoteric concepts like religion and spiritualism, to which we can only agree to disagree.
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> That is the decision to remove consent—impossible if consent is not a choice.
Thats a very convenient way of thinking.
An individual life is already considered an agent. It acts upon its own volition, benefit and makes choices no matter how simple or insignificant.
Within nature consent is actively communicated by living beings.
Life can react to other life offensively or chose not to. A male can petition a female for mating and the female can decline and even fight back.
The idea that consent in nature cannot be given is only valid if consent is considered to be a legal standard instead of a behavioral one.
From any other perspective, life exercises consent on a regular basis and its expressed through behavior.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 9:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/33 "2026-06-15T21:18:21Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Even if i accepted this argument, its still just appeal to ignorance.
> Just because you cant backtrack purpose from mechanism does not mean that it has no purpose.
I never said it didn’t. But, if it does, you will not find it by backtracking from mechanism. The purpose of life is not adaptation for survival any more than it is to sit for a rock or consume power for a bulb.
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Yet at the same time mechanism CAN be purpose. Thats simply teleonomy. Any system that seems goal-directed but has no conscious plan.
You would have to show how. Simply pointing out a mechanism that is precondition is not sufficient for establishing purpose, as pointed out above.
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> To resolve this deadlock you would have to provide a purpose for life that is beyond the mechanism itself.
I really don’t. Like I wouldn’t either for the above examples. I don’t need to show what a rock’s purpose is to point out that saying that it is to sit, for the reason that it is sitting, is fallacious.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2026, 10:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/34 "2026-06-15T22:23:43Z")
iow you’re going to have to distinctly establish the upgrade from feature to purpose.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2026, 12:00am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/35 "2026-06-16T00:00:37Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> I never said it didn’t. But, if it does, you will not find it by backtracking from mechanism. The purpose of life is not adaptation for survival any more than it is to sit for a rock or consume power for a bulb.
There is a lot to argue here.
Ranging from the fact that you are perfectly capable of making conclusions about a lightbulb’s purpose based solely on it’s mechanics, to the fact that you are moving systems that follow laws and rules to static objects.
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> You would have to show how. Simply pointing out a mechanism that is precondition is not sufficient for establishing purpose, as pointed out above.
It is self evident how.
Purpose is the reason for which something is created, done, or exists.
Life either has a purpose for which it has been created, or it doesnt.
If its the prior, then i prove it or justify it. Who created it and for what purpose?
If its the latter however, then all those words are without merit. It was not created, it was not done, it has no reason for being, and it has no preordained purpose either, meaning all you are left with is existence, the mechanism. The fact that it attains purpose through it’s own existence.
Again: I do not inherently disagree with what you are suggesting, but that argument misses a key piece, which is the designer, the planner, the purpose giver.
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> I really don’t. Like I wouldn’t either for the above examples. I don’t need to show what a rock’s purpose is to point out that saying that it is to sit, for the reason that it is sitting, is fallacious.
You do cause you made the claim and the rule.
You suggest that life cannot exist through self-actualization, for no reason or purpose.
This clearly relegates the reason/purpose to a higher order or a designer.
And since its you who made the claim, it only makes sense that you point out the purpose or the designer.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2026, 12:17am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/36 "2026-06-16T00:17:02Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> iow you’re going to have to distinctly establish the upgrade from feature to purpose.
a feature becomes a purpose when the mechanism itself drives the survival and continuation of the entire system. Without a conscious creator, “purpose” is defined retrospectively by what works to keep the system existing.
But we can compress this into a much more on hands example: Do you have a purpose?
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2026, 12:38am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/37 "2026-06-16T00:38:14Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Without a conscious creator, “purpose” is defined retrospectively by what works to keep the system existing.
So the purpose of a rock is not getting pulverized?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2026, 1:59am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/38 "2026-06-16T01:59:53Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> legal standard instead of a behavioral
Can you please clarify the difference …from your perspective?
Where do legal standards spring from?
Do they all recognize consent?
If they don’t, are they not a standard of divergence?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2026, 2:05am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/39 "2026-06-16T02:05:23Z")
What got the system to exist in the first place has more relevance to what its purpose is.
Ask the rock artist what its purpose is.
If you put your own purpose into it, you’re _re_purposing it rather than giving it one from scratch—otherwise it could’ve been suitable (fitting) for _no_ purpose.
Until you ask the artist, you’re really just giving “just so“ stories/narratives. And if they don’t recognize the consent of all stakeholders, those stories are false… in every way it is possible to _be_ false.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2026, 3:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/40 "2026-06-16T03:11:18Z")
So you are saying taxes are intrinsically evil?
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404.md?page=3)