Philosophy Now Forum

I can accept everything, which exists. There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

But I CAN also change anything, which I do not like.

ken wrote:I can accept everything, which exists. There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

But I CAN also change anything, which I do not like.

I hope you like most everything then.

And what's the reason? Don't just say it; spell it out.

Harbal wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
"I am no longer accepting the things I can't change, I am changing the things I can't accept"

If everyone else here took that attitude it would put you on very thin ice, old chap.

Come now, what he said wasn't that hard to understand:

"I am changing the things I can't accept"

But then I really don't expect those believing themselves somehow better than the rest to understand such words of wisdom.

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:I can accept everything, which exists. There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

But I CAN also change anything, which I do not like.

I hope you like most everything then.

And what's the reason? Don't just say it; spell it out.

If you spelt out exactly which things you are referring to, then i could explain better the reason for it.

But let us assume you are referring to everything on a whole. Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is. Then that 'I', call it whatever you like for now, e.g., conciousness, god, awareness, spiritual enlightenment, etc., etc. will, through that species intellect, be able to see and understand the beauty It is creating, i.e., the Universe Itself.

However, if you were referring to the reason for those things that i do not like, then one of those things is the abuse of children. I may not like it at all but i totally and fully understand WHY it happens.

Although I do not like child abuse, or any abuse for that matter, and I WILL show how together we could rid the "world" of that behaviour completely, I also accept that every adult abuses children, and, every child has been abused.

Now, the reason this happens is because of how human beings, on a whole, learn (better). Although human beings do learn far easier, quicker and simplier by just listening to others, they do not fully understand nor know for sure unless they have had first hand experiences. For example, how many children when told the stove is hot then do not touch it?

The more intelligent human beings, i.e., the younger ones, like to experience things in order to learn and KNOW, for sure, instead of just 'believing,' in of itself, what they are told.

The reason we adults have all experienced child abuse first hand and also commit child abuse now first hand is so that we can fully understand it. Once we KNOW why something happens, i.e., the cause, then we are able to and can prevent it from ever happening again.

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:I can accept everything, which exists. There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

But I CAN also change anything, which I do not like.

I hope you like most everything then.

And what's the reason? Don't just say it; spell it out.

If you spelt out exactly which things you are referring to, then i could explain better the reason for it.

But let us assume you are referring to everything on a whole. Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is. Then that 'I', call it whatever you like for now, e.g., conciousness, god, awareness, spiritual enlightenment, etc., etc. will, through that species intellect, be able to see and understand the beauty It is creating, i.e., the Universe Itself.

Why would you assume that? What makes you think evolution is for the "better"? What makes you think everything exists for the purpose of the evolution of a species intelligent enough to understand who 'I' is?

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: I hope you like most everything then.

And what's the reason? Don't just say it; spell it out.

If you spelt out exactly which things you are referring to, then i could explain better the reason for it.

But let us assume you are referring to everything on a whole. Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is. Then that 'I', call it whatever you like for now, e.g., conciousness, god, awareness, spiritual enlightenment, etc., etc. will, through that species intellect, be able to see and understand the beauty It is creating, i.e., the Universe Itself.

Why would you assume that?

Assume what exactly? I think you may have misread/misunderstood me.

sthitapragya wrote:What makes you think evolution is for the "better"?

I do not recall saying that.

sthitapragya wrote: What makes you think everything exists for the purpose of the evolution of an intelligent enough species ?

I never said that.

I said, everything exists so that 'consciousness', itself, would be able to see and understand Everything, i.e., Its Self. I said, 'It' will USE an intelligent enough species. Through the structure of a "brain", which eventually would evolve, then 'It' will learn and know what 'It' is. The intelligent enough species is just a tool so that thee One can become Self-aware. This 'I' is NOT the intelligent enough species only nor just one of them. This 'I' is the One and only, i.e., the Everything.

sthitapragya wrote:Also, what makes you conclude that more intelligence is better from the evolutionary perspective?

I am not sure how you define 'intelligence', but, to me 'intelligence', is just having the ability to learn, understand, and reason anything, and everything. This ability comes from being open. So the more open you are then the more intelligent you are. But really you can not have "more" intelligence. You are either open or you are not. You are an intelligent being or you are not. Therefore, if an intelligent enough species or one of that species is open enough, i.e., intelligent enough, then full Self-awareness is able to be learned, understood, and reasoned also. In other words the answer to the question Who am 'I' can become known

I never said intelligence, more or less or at all, is better FROM the evolutionary perspective. I just said THROUGH evolution an intelligent enough species will "one-day" evolve, i.e., come into existence. After all it is through evolution how every thing comes into existence, thus is also created.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
If you spelt out exactly which things you are referring to, then i could explain better the reason for it.

But let us assume you are referring to everything on a whole. Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is. Then that 'I', call it whatever you like for now, e.g., conciousness, god, awareness, spiritual enlightenment, etc., etc. will, through that species intellect, be able to see and understand the beauty It is creating, i.e., the Universe Itself.

Why would you assume that?

Assume what exactly? I think you may have misread/misunderstood me.

You said, "Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is."

Why would you assume that?

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Why would you assume that?

Assume what exactly? I think you may have misread/misunderstood me.

You said, "Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is."

Why would you assume that?

Because that has happened already.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
Assume what exactly? I think you may have misread/misunderstood me.

You said, "Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is."

Why would you assume that?

Because that has happened already.

You seem to be implying that the purpose of existence is for the evolution of an intelligent species. Also there is therefore the implication that the purpose of evolution is to reach an intelligent species capable of understanding 'I'. This suggests the end of the purpose of existence and evolution.

There is nothing about evolution that suggests that evolution has any purpose. Evolution is simply a description of a process of nature which is that the fittest survive. There are species which have evolved into extinction. Evolution is not unidirectional otherwise 99.9% of all species which ever existed would not become extinct.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: You said, "Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is."

Why would you assume that?

Because that has happened already.

You seem to be implying that the purpose of existence is for the evolution of an intelligent species. Also there is therefore the implication that the purpose of evolution is to reach an intelligent species capable of understanding 'I'. This suggests the end of the purpose of existence and evolution.

There is nothing about evolution that suggests that evolution has any purpose. Evolution is simply a description of a process of nature which is that the fittest survive. There are species which have evolved into extinction. Evolution is not unidirectional otherwise 99.9% of all species which ever existed would not become extinct.

We already know that intelligent species evolve if the conditions allow it. Evolutionary regression seems very possible in some underprivileged human groups as infrastructures break down. However, a continuation of exponential advancement also seems likely for the wealthy and their affiliates.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the distracting idea of purpose in evolution is to consider how "purposefully" (or not) you grew from a zygote to an adult. In biology there's simply a general drive to grow, multiply, expand in whatever way is possible. That's exactly what you did from zygote to adult, and exactly what the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form.

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely :)

Greta wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
Because that has happened already.

You seem to be implying that the purpose of existence is for the evolution of an intelligent species. Also there is therefore the implication that the purpose of evolution is to reach an intelligent species capable of understanding 'I'. This suggests the end of the purpose of existence and evolution.

There is nothing about evolution that suggests that evolution has any purpose. Evolution is simply a description of a process of nature which is that the fittest survive. There are species which have evolved into extinction. Evolution is not unidirectional otherwise 99.9% of all species which ever existed would not become extinct.

We already know that intelligent species evolve if the conditions allow it. Evolutionary regression seems very possible in some underprivileged human groups as infrastructures break down. However, a continuation of exponential advancement also seems likely for the wealthy and their affiliates.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the distracting idea of purpose in evolution is to consider how "purposefully" (or not) you grew from a zygote to an adult. In biology there's simply a general drive to grow, multiply, expand in whatever way is possible. That's exactly what you did from zygote to adult, and exactly what the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form.

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely

I know this is a fiction, but there is much truth in it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Evolution is the consequence of reproductive success. As any fool can have a baby, or many babies; foolishness is as much an adaptive trait as any other.
If you have to pass an intelligence test before conceiving, then babies more likely to pass the same test would be born.

In some ways civilisation was no friend of preferred evolution, if your preference is smartness.

PS By LUCA do you mean Lucy? Clearly being a naked ape in a natural environment demanded only the smartest ape would thrive to be able to have successful progeny.

ken wrote: There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

I'd agree there was a cause; but not a reason. Maybe this is where you are going wrong and you WindowsBC operating system is reasserting itself.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: You said, "Everything exists, the way it is, so that "one day" an intelligent enough species will evolve, which is capable of finally understanding who the 'I' is."

Why would you assume that?

Because that has happened already.

You seem to be implying that the purpose of existence is for the evolution of an intelligent species.

Firstly thank you for the questioning. It is very refreshing to see. I know that what i want to express is new, and not yet understood. So the more i am challenged/questioned, then the more i am able to learn how to write better. i obviously still have a lot to learn here.

i thought i had explained better four posts back that the purpose of existence is NOT just for the evolution of an intelligent enough species. The purpose of existence is so that Existence ItSelf, can 'understand', see and know the beauty of what It is creating. Everything exists the way it does so that Existence can know Thy Self. 'I' am only able to do this through a species that has the brain capacity to gather, hold and store continual amounts of information. If that species becomes extinct, through their own wrong doings or from no fault of their own, then so be it. That does not matter one bit. 'I' am not in a hurry to go anywhere. 'I' just wait patiently because 'I' know another intelligent enough species will eventually come along, into existence, "one-day".

Existence does not necessarily need an intelligent species at all for existence to exist. Existence will still-always exist, obviously. Existence, exists, because of evolution in action.

sthitapragya wrote:Also there is therefore the implication that the purpose of evolution is to reach an intelligent species capable of understanding 'I'. This suggests the end of the purpose of existence and evolution.

If that is how i came across, then apologies. That is certainly not what i was wanting to say.

"The purpose of evolution", i will use that term loosely for now, is NOT for an intelligent species to understand itself. "The purpose of evolution" is for Existence to understand Its Self.

Existence will always exist. All species can come and go. But the more intelligent a species is then the longer that species could stay for, in existence. For example if a species was truly intelligent, then they would realise that they have a pretty big backyard to go and explore. The rest of the Universe is after all pretty big compared to say the home planet that they began and live on. A truly intelligent species, lets say, would not spend/waste trillions of dollars on defending themselves, from themselves. That IS stupidity, at its best, NOT intelligence. What a truly intelligent species would more likely be to do is to use that, actually worthless human-made paper they call money, on investing in themselves, e.g., in education, health and fitness, exploration, etc.

Hurting, harming, and killing each other just so some can gain more of that paper/plastic stuff is NOT going to help them survive longer. In fact the things they do in order to gain more of that numbered stuff actually kills them earlier. The really stupid part of 'greed', the wanting more of which they do not need, is they are only going to die anyway. So, what is the real purpose of obtaining more money? Paper is after all just a human made paper/plastic, which they make and also then decide what number they will put on it.

Anyway, back to the point.

sthitapragya wrote:There is nothing about evolution that suggests that evolution has any purpose. Evolution is simply a description of a process of nature which is that the fittest survive. There are species which have evolved into extinction. Evolution is not unidirectional otherwise 99.9% of all species which ever existed would not become extinct.

To me 'evolution', is just a word to describe the process of change, which is caused when every action causes a re-action.

So yes you are right in that it could been seen as though there is nothing that suggests that evolution has any purpose, and i do not recall ever saying that evolution, itself, does have a purpose. I just said the purpose of existence comes through evolution. The purpose of existence is NOT for evolution. Evolution is just the perfectly natural process, which describes how creation, itself, actually works. The 'understanding', the seeing and knowing of what the purpose of existence actually IS is what will come through an intelligent enough species.

The purpose of Existence, ItSelf, is so that It/'I' can see (know) the beauty It/'I' am creating.

I hope this clears up what i am trying to express better. If not, feel free to ask any and all questions.

I look forward to being challenged.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote: There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

I'd agree there was a cause; but not a reason.

ken also once agreed there was a cause; but not a reason, BUT, that was until a perfectly sensible reason was revealed, which also made sense with and fitted in with all the other things, which were being revealed.

sthitapragya wrote:Maybe this is where you are going wrong and you WindowsBC operating system is reasserting itself.

Honestly i am not sure what you actually mean here, but do you mean the 'brain in this body', the windows operating system, is just repeating itself. If that is not what you mean, then please explain more. If you want more clarity on what i am expressing, then just ask.

If, however, you believe there is not a reason, then there is nothing i can do about that. I accept that is your belief.

Greta wrote: We already know that intelligent species evolve if the conditions allow it. Evolutionary regression seems very possible in some underprivileged human groups as infrastructures break down. However, a continuation of exponential advancement also seems likely for the wealthy and their affiliates.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the distracting idea of purpose in evolution is to consider how "purposefully" (or not) you grew from a zygote to an adult. In biology there's simply a general drive to grow, multiply, expand in whatever way is possible. That's exactly what you did from zygote to adult, and exactly what the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form.

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely

I don't think there is such a thing like evolutionary regression. Like Hobbes says, if stupidity is what will survive, then natural selection will ensure that stupidity thrives. We might consider it a regression from intelligence to stupidity but from the evolutionary standpoint, it is what it is. The continuous mutations that occur and are passed on to successive generations keep ensuring a change towards something and natural selection does the rest. The something is not possible to know because nature seems to have a more vivid imagination than we do.

The continuous advancement you see in the wealthy is from the economic standpoint. You will find that it is the underprivileged who produce more offspring than the rich do. Also wealth is not a genetic trait. It is simply a temporary environmental factor and does not seem to last long enough to cause a lasting change in species. Today's wealthy can be tomorrow's poor. A hundred years would produce 5 generations or thereabouts. That is not enough length of an environment to be significant to the species. Only if the wealthy remain wealthy for maybe 25000 years or so would there be any evolutionary change.