WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

[TimeSeeker]

If we don't copy the universe, what do we copy?

There is always imagination, but the universe's stuff is tried and tested...

On what is imagination based?

Wherever and however you get your inspiration from. Some would argue that psychedelic experiences are not world-inspired.

[TimeSeeker]

You do not come across as one who is even able to be questioned in regards to what you say you "understand".

You come across as what you say you "understand" is absolutely true, right, and correct.

I have corrected you about 10 times so far.

How can I be "absolutely right and correct" when that is not even an objective on my radar?
My goal is to be LESS WRONG. That is a different objective to being "absolutely right".

I am less wrong by virtue of lots of PRACTICE. By making many errors, correcting them and learning from them, and learning never to repeat them again. Experience.

It is what it is. And it works just fine for me.

The fact that I "come across" as anything is a sign that are comparing me to something - that says more about you than me.
You are welcome to question me. You need extraordinary evidence to prove me wrong and correct me.

[Dubious]

Then again, it may be that the time wasted in the dark ages and other retrograde periods made the difference. Perhaps if humans had managed to be a few hundred years' more advanced by this time, maybe our current wicked problems would be more manageable?

Who knows! Perhaps we'd already be extinct or in some way debilitated enough to have any further influence on the future. But it's an interesting speculation. Carl Sagan, I recall, mentioned something like it when he contemplated the idea that humans may already have landed on the moon by the time Dante wrote the Divine Comedy if the Ancient World would have been allowed to continue its intellectual momentum. I can imagine the possibility of that IF printing presss were available to make those societies more secular in its distribution of knowledge.

BTW, it is almost certain that another intelligent species would take our place if we died out, not just possible. It took just 60 million years for the shrewlike monotreme-like mammals that survived the dinos' asteroid and supervolcanoes to evolve to today's mammalian line. After each extinction, recovery is exponentially faster because the existing DNA (even in simple organisms) is more developed. I expect that, if we died out, rats would start the next line leading to intelligence, and they would be far more intelligent and robust than the protothera. Thus the next emergences would occur much more quickly again.

This sounds extremely farfetched! I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that intelligent life would once again assert itself if we go defunct. Frankly, it doesn't make sense because a new evolutionary period would have to commence. As you mention, it may not start with slime ponds and bacterial formations but its operation would still be so complex as not to follow it's previous course in creating intelligence. Evolution is subject to a lot of random events which influence the outcome that to presuppose the near certain appearance of intelligence a second time around is nearly impossible to fathom....which is not to say it absolutely can't happen, only that it has an extremely low probability of happening.

[TimeSeeker]

This sounds extremely farfetched! I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that intelligent life would once again assert itself if we go defunct. Frankly, it doesn't make sense because a new evolutionary period would have to commence. As you mention, it may not start with slime ponds and bacterial formations but its operation would still be so complex as not to follow it's previous course in creating intelligence. Evolution is subject to a lot of random events which influence the outcome that to presuppose the near certain appearance of intelligence a second time around is nearly impossible to fathom....which is not to say it absolutely can't happen, only that it has an extremely low probability of happening.

Translation: we are special!

Closet arrogance

If we go extinct- the planet wouldn't even notice. Evolution didn't create us on purpose. Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

[Age]

You do not come across as one who is even able to be questioned in regards to what you say you "understand".

You come across as what you say you "understand" is absolutely true, right, and correct.

I have corrected you about 10 times so far.

How can you correct what I say you 'come across as', to me?

I just expressed how you come across, to me, on these pages.

How can I be "absolutely right and correct" when that is not even an objective on my radar?

A very peculiar question you just asked.

Does a human being NEED to have an objective of being absolutely right and correct, to obtain that?

Some people just stumble across the absolute truth and correctness of some things, without ever having that objective prior.

My goal is to be LESS WRONG. That is a different objective to being "absolutely right".

To be LESS WRONG one first has to accept that they could, at least, be WRONG.

If you really want to be LESS WRONG, then WHAT is it that you are WRONG about. Maybe I could guide you in the RIGHT direction?

To me, you do NOT come across as being wrong at all, about any thing.

You may not intend to portray a certain aspect of your self, nor even have a certain objective on your radar, but that in of itself does not mean that you do not portray a way, to others.

I am less wrong by virtue of lots of PRACTICE. By making many errors, correcting them and learning from them, and learning never to repeat them again. Experience.

You are so called "LESS WRONG" relative to WHAT exactly?

It is what it is. And it works just fine for me.

Well that is just great then.

I sincerely hope you are happy.

The fact that I "come across" as anything is a sign that are comparing me to something - that says more about you than me.

Yes I am comparing you to some thing. I am comparing what you say (try to show and appear as) to what you actually believe (who you really are).

You are welcome to question me.

I have questioned you. I, once again, did it just now. I questioned you in relation to 'science' and its supposed ability to copy Nature. You, once again, however, did not respond to my questions of you.

You need extraordinary evidence to prove me wrong and correct me.

You go on about not having an objective of being absolutely RIGHT, and, that you are wanting to be LESS WRONG, but then, once again, and within the exact same post, you state something as blatantly obvious, and very opposite, as this remark.

You BELIEVE that you are so RIGHT that you BELIEVE only "extraordinary evidence' could prove you wrong and correct you.

To me, you come across as more and more arrogant with each post. You appear to really believe that you are absolutely true, right, and correct about all things.

[Age]

This sounds extremely farfetched! I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that intelligent life would once again assert itself if we go defunct. Frankly, it doesn't make sense because a new evolutionary period would have to commence. As you mention, it may not start with slime ponds and bacterial formations but its operation would still be so complex as not to follow it's previous course in creating intelligence. Evolution is subject to a lot of random events which influence the outcome that to presuppose the near certain appearance of intelligence a second time around is nearly impossible to fathom....which is not to say it absolutely can't happen, only that it has an extremely low probability of happening.

Translation: we are special!

Closet arrogance

If we go extinct- the planet wouldn't even notice.

Evolution didn't create us on purpose.

Are you absolutely sure?

You come across as though you KNOW this as an absolute fact.

For a human being supposedly without an objective of being absolutely true, right, and correct, you certainly come across differently.

Some might even suggest that this another type of closet arrogance. That is; pretending to be one thing, by saying some thing, but actually showing the exact opposite, from their real intention within their words.

Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

You, once again, come across as though you HAVE and KNOW the answers.So, I will question you again;

How do you KNOW that evolution does not have a purpose?

Is it absolutely true, right, and/or correct that evolution does not have a purpose?

[TimeSeeker]

This sounds extremely farfetched! I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that intelligent life would once again assert itself if we go defunct. Frankly, it doesn't make sense because a new evolutionary period would have to commence. As you mention, it may not start with slime ponds and bacterial formations but its operation would still be so complex as not to follow it's previous course in creating intelligence. Evolution is subject to a lot of random events which influence the outcome that to presuppose the near certain appearance of intelligence a second time around is nearly impossible to fathom....which is not to say it absolutely can't happen, only that it has an extremely low probability of happening.

Translation: we are special!

Closet arrogance

If we go extinct- the planet wouldn't even notice.

Evolution didn't create us on purpose.

Are you absolutely sure?

You come across as though you KNOW this as an absolute fact.

For a human being supposedly without an objective of being absolutely true, right, and correct, you certainly come across differently.

Some might even suggest that this another type of closet arrogance. That is; pretending to be one thing, by saying some thing, but actually showing the exact opposite, from their real intention within their words.

Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

You, once again, come across as though you HAVE and KNOW the answers.So, I will question you again;

How do you KNOW that evolution does not have a purpose?

Is it absolutely true, right, and/or correct that evolution does not have a purpose?

The stupid has come out to play again. How do you know that Evolution DOES have a purpose?
Do you even know what purpose is?

You are still stuck in your absolutist/gnostic mindset.

I don't know anything. Nor am I absolutely sure of anything. It's not absolutely certain. It's the least wrong hypothesis I am aware of.It's sufficiently certain for my own needs/utility. Everything I say is a best-bet.

It is because I recognise this is why I call myself a gambler. I gamble with certainty.

If you have a less-wrong/more certain hypothesis - present it. Or shut the fuck up.

[Age]

Translation: we are special!

Closet arrogance

If we go extinct- the planet wouldn't even notice.

Evolution didn't create us on purpose.

Are you absolutely sure?

You come across as though you KNOW this as an absolute fact.

For a human being supposedly without an objective of being absolutely true, right, and correct, you certainly come across differently.

Some might even suggest that this another type of closet arrogance. That is; pretending to be one thing, by saying some thing, but actually showing the exact opposite, from their real intention within their words.

Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

You, once again, come across as though you HAVE and KNOW the answers.So, I will question you again;

How do you KNOW that evolution does not have a purpose?

Is it absolutely true, right, and/or correct that evolution does not have a purpose?

The stupid has come out to play again.

How do you know that Evolution DOES have a purpose?

Talk about STUPID. WHERE did I even remotely elude to that assumption you just made here? In other words, WHERE did I say that evolution does have a purpose?

I think you will find, the answer is nowhere.

I asked you specific questions, which, once again, you completely ignored. You just went off making assumptions, and then going off down some different completely off topic and well worn path, which you inevitably end up.

How about just for once ignoring YOUR assumptions, and just answering MY actual written questions instead. Instead of ignoring my questions and answering your OWN assumptions?

You have even said that I can question you, yet when I do, you do NOT answer the questions.

I know that you can not answer them sufficiently, and that is the reason why you do not, but do TRY TO to go off on another tangent. But this is all here for people to read and see (and understand).

[TimeSeeker]

Are you absolutely sure?

You come across as though you KNOW this as an absolute fact.

For a human being supposedly without an objective of being absolutely true, right, and correct, you certainly come across differently.

Some might even suggest that this another type of closet arrogance. That is; pretending to be one thing, by saying some thing, but actually showing the exact opposite, from their real intention within their words.






You, once again, come across as though you HAVE and KNOW the answers.So, I will question you again;

How do you KNOW that evolution does not have a purpose?

Is it absolutely true, right, and/or correct that evolution does not have a purpose?

The stupid has come out to play again.

How do you know that Evolution DOES have a purpose?

Talk about STUPID. WHERE did I even remotely elude to that assumption you just made here? In other words, WHERE did I say that evolution does have a purpose?

I think you will find, the answer is nowhere.

I asked you specific questions, which, once again, you completely ignored. You just went off making assumptions, and then going off down some different completely off topic and well worn path, which you inevitably end up.

How about just for once ignoring YOUR assumptions, and just answering MY actual written questions instead. Instead of ignoring my questions and answering your OWN assumptions?

You have even said that I can question you, yet when I do, you do NOT answer the questions.

I know that you can not answer them sufficiently, and that is the reason why you do not, but do TRY TO to go off on another tangent. But this is all here for people to read and see (and understand).

You didn't say It. I inferred it.

Because I am a gambler.

You challenged my claim that "evolution does not have a purpose". In doing so you are asking me to prove a negative. Which any logician would explain (and understand) is impossible.

What you CAN do with a negative claim is contradict it. With positive evidence.

And so if you are questioning/disagreeing/challenging my claim that "Evolution does not have a purpose" then all you have to do to contradict it is to provide counter-evidence.

Show me evidence for Evolution's purpose.

Or shut the fuck up.

[Dubious]

This sounds extremely farfetched! I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that intelligent life would once again assert itself if we go defunct. Frankly, it doesn't make sense because a new evolutionary period would have to commence. As you mention, it may not start with slime ponds and bacterial formations but its operation would still be so complex as not to follow it's previous course in creating intelligence. Evolution is subject to a lot of random events which influence the outcome that to presuppose the near certain appearance of intelligence a second time around is nearly impossible to fathom....which is not to say it absolutely can't happen, only that it has an extremely low probability of happening.

Translation: we are special!

Closet arrogance

If we go extinct- the planet wouldn't even notice. Evolution didn't create us on purpose. Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

Absolutely, and I've written so many times. Not only does evolution not have a purpose except that of adaptation, we also have no purpose in the universe which depresses a lot of people. One would think that if the universe did have a purpose for us evolution would have progressed in a more straight forward manner. Purpose is usually preconceived and planned prior to it occurring.

[TimeSeeker]

Absolutely, and I've written so many times. Not only does evolution not have a purpose except that of adaptation, we also have no purpose in the universe which depresses a lot of people. One would think that if the universe did have a purpose for us evolution would have progressed in a more straight forward manner. Purpose is usually preconceived and planned prior to it occurring.

Then what do you mean by "I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that intelligent life would once again assert itself".

You have no clear, universal definition/test for "intelligence" NOR "life" and so how do you determine if any particular thing is "intelligent" or "alive" ?

I suspect that your sentence reads better as "I've never heard of any biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist or evolutionist claim that another life form like us, humans, would assert itself".

[Age]

Translation: we are special!

Closet arrogance

If we go extinct- the planet wouldn't even notice.

Evolution didn't create us on purpose.

Are you absolutely sure?

You come across as though you KNOW this as an absolute fact.

For a human being supposedly without an objective of being absolutely true, right, and correct, you certainly come across differently.

Some might even suggest that this another type of closet arrogance. That is; pretending to be one thing, by saying some thing, but actually showing the exact opposite, from their real intention within their words.

Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

You, once again, come across as though you HAVE and KNOW the answers.So, I will question you again;

How do you KNOW that evolution does not have a purpose?

Is it absolutely true, right, and/or correct that evolution does not have a purpose?

The stupid has come out to play again. How do you know that Evolution DOES have a purpose?

And once again you have been editing your response while I am replying to your response.

Do you even know what purpose is?

I have a view. Do you know what purpose is?

You are still stuck in your absolutist/gnostic mindset.

You could be so far off from what the truth is that this is, once again, hilarious.

For your information your OWN assumptions are completely leading you astray from what the actual truth is here.

I don't know anything. Nor am I absolutely sure of anything. It's not absolutely certain. It's the least wrong hypothesis I am aware of.It's sufficiently certain for my own needs/utility. Everything I say is a best-bet.

Stating some thing as though it is absolutely true, right, and/or correct does NOT come across as not knowing anything, does not come across as not being absolutely sure of any thing, does NOT come across and not being absolutely certain, is NOT the least wrong hypothesis at all.

The only person you are fooling here is your self.

Why can you not understand that WHEN you stop writing as though you are 100% true, right and correct, then I will stop asking you questions to back up and support what you write?

By just turning it around and stating that you do NOT know any thing, does not retract what you previously wrote. Either write in a way that appears as though you really want to be LESS WRONG and that you are NOT coming across as absolutely true, right and/or correct, or continue as you are, and then expect to be questioned.

It is because I recognise this is why I call myself a gambler. I gamble with certainty.

Off topic.

What you call your self, has no bearing on what you show your self to be.

If you have a less-wrong/more certain hypothesis - present it. Or shut the fuck up.

That is the way to "argue" in a philosophy forum. Do not answer clarifying questions, just tell the other to shut the fuck up. Another fine example you have just displayed about how people argue, in this day and age.

WHY do you not just ANSWER the questions I ask of you? Do you have some thing to fear?

You were acting all big and brave a few minutes ago by saying. "You are welcome to question me". But when I do ask you questions, you do NOT answer those questions.

Could it just be YOUR answers will expose some thing of which you totally do NOT want to see nor hear? Or, some thing else?

What other reasons do you have for NOT answering MY questions?

For your information, from a certain perspective, YOUR so called "hypothesis" could NOT be more wrong if it even tried to be. The truth is your BELIEFS are so distorted that, at the moment, you are incapable of seeing the truth.

By the way, if you really want to be less wrong, and discover what is more right, then just answer My questions, openly and honestly. That way I can and will expose a less wrong and far more certain TRUTH.

I have learned, from people just like your self, that it is a complete waste of time providing the actual TRUTH of things to people like you because you are absolutely incapable of SEEING IT.

[TimeSeeker]

Are you absolutely sure?

You come across as though you KNOW this as an absolute fact.

For a human being supposedly without an objective of being absolutely true, right, and correct, you certainly come across differently.

Some might even suggest that this another type of closet arrogance. That is; pretending to be one thing, by saying some thing, but actually showing the exact opposite, from their real intention within their words.






You, once again, come across as though you HAVE and KNOW the answers.So, I will question you again;

How do you KNOW that evolution does not have a purpose?

Is it absolutely true, right, and/or correct that evolution does not have a purpose?

The stupid has come out to play again. How do you know that Evolution DOES have a purpose?

And once again you have been editing your response while I am replying to your response.

Do you even know what purpose is?

I have a view. Do you know what purpose is?

You are still stuck in your absolutist/gnostic mindset.

You could be so far off from what the truth is that this is, once again, hilarious.

For your information your OWN assumptions are completely leading you astray from what the actual truth is here.

I don't know anything. Nor am I absolutely sure of anything. It's not absolutely certain. It's the least wrong hypothesis I am aware of.It's sufficiently certain for my own needs/utility. Everything I say is a best-bet.

Stating some thing as though it is absolutely true, right, and/or correct does NOT come across as not knowing anything, does not come across as not being absolutely sure of any thing, does NOT come across and not being absolutely certain, is NOT the least wrong hypothesis at all.

The only person you are fooling here is your self.

Why can you not understand that WHEN you stop writing as though you are 100% true, right and correct, then I will stop asking you questions to back up and support what you write?

By just turning it around and stating that you do NOT know any thing, does not retract what you previously wrote. Either write in a way that appears as though you really want to be LESS WRONG and that you are NOT coming across as absolutely true, right and/or correct, or continue as you are, and then expect to be questioned.

It is because I recognise this is why I call myself a gambler. I gamble with certainty.

Off topic.

What you call your self, has no bearing on what you show your self to be.

If you have a less-wrong/more certain hypothesis - present it. Or shut the fuck up.

That is the way to "argue" in a philosophy forum. Do not answer clarifying questions, just tell the other to shut the fuck up. Another fine example you have just displayed about how people argue, in this day and age.

WHY do you not just ANSWER the questions I ask of you? Do you have some thing to fear?

You were acting all big and brave a few minutes ago by saying. "You are welcome to question me". But when I do ask you questions, you do NOT answer those questions.

Could it just be YOUR answers will expose some thing of which you totally do NOT want to see nor hear? Or, some thing else?

What other reasons do you have for NOT answering MY questions?

For your information, from a certain perspective, YOUR so called "hypothesis" could NOT be more wrong if it even tried to be. The truth is your BELIEFS are so distorted that, at the moment, you are incapable of seeing the truth.

By the way, if you really want to be less wrong, and discover what is more right, then just answer My questions, openly and honestly. That way I can and will expose a less wrong and far more certain TRUTH.

I have learned, from people just like your self, that it is a complete waste of time providing the actual TRUTH of things to people like you because you are absolutely incapable of SEEING IT.

Why do you think I am here to argue?
I am here to correct your errors in reasoning.
Because I know what errors are (having experienced them first-hand).

You don't know what errors in reasoning are. Because you haven't experienced them.

It is BECAUSE I am successful at pointing out your errors is why I "come across" as whatever it is that I come across as.

Naturally. The way to (always) prove me wrong - is to point out an error in reasoning AND provide corrective feedback.

If you can't do both of those things then shut the fuck up

[TimeSeeker]

What you call your self, has no bearing on what you show your self to be.

I am not "calling myself" a gambler. I ACT like a gambler.

I ACT on incomplete information.

I ACT before I have "absolute certainty".
I ACT well aware that I could've made an error in reasoning.

Still. I neither need nor want absolute certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

[Age]

The stupid has come out to play again.

How do you know that Evolution DOES have a purpose?

Talk about STUPID. WHERE did I even remotely elude to that assumption you just made here? In other words, WHERE did I say that evolution does have a purpose?

I think you will find, the answer is nowhere.

I asked you specific questions, which, once again, you completely ignored. You just went off making assumptions, and then going off down some different completely off topic and well worn path, which you inevitably end up.

How about just for once ignoring YOUR assumptions, and just answering MY actual written questions instead. Instead of ignoring my questions and answering your OWN assumptions?

You have even said that I can question you, yet when I do, you do NOT answer the questions.

I know that you can not answer them sufficiently, and that is the reason why you do not, but do TRY TO to go off on another tangent. But this is all here for people to read and see (and understand).

You didn't say It. I inferred it.

Because I am a gambler.

You challenged my claim that "evolution does not have a purpose". In doing so you are asking me to prove a negative. Which any logician would explain (and understand) is impossible.

What you CAN do with a negative claim is contradict it. With positive evidence.

And so if you are questioning/disagreeing/challenging my claim that "Evolution does not have a purpose" then all you have to do to contradict it is to provide counter-evidence.

Show me evidence for Evolution's purpose.

Or shut the fuck up.

You are even more blinded then I previously noticed.

This has NEVER been about challenging your views/beliefs. This is about me saying and showing how you write as though you are absolutely sure of things. What I am challenging is HOW do you KNOW, for sure, that what you are writing is absolutely true, right, and correct?

If you do NOT know, for sure, that it is absolutely true, right, and correct, then just do not write it as though it is absolutely true, right, and correct. Then I will NOT challenge you.

If the truth be KNOWN I could NOT care less if 'evolution has a purpose or not'. What I care about is YOU writing as though you KNOW what the actual TRUTH IS, (especially when obviously you do NOT). What I care about more is that when i bring this to the forefront you take a stance and make up some stupid allegation and then make another stance that you are not doing that, what you are obviously doing.

As for showing you the evidence for evolution's purpose. Remember it is YOU who is stating, claiming, insisting, and re-affirming that evolution has no purpose. I have NOT claimed any thing here, other than, of course, you are making claims as though they are 100% true, right, AND correct.

How about YOU start backing up your claims, by answering my supposed "welcomed" questions.