Philosophy Now Forum

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:24 pm Thanks for your comments, I now know which sections need more clarification and research.

I haven't stayed up to date, did somebody explain that your theory is religion dressed as science yet?

I haven't stayed up to date, did somebody explain that your theory is religion dressed as science yet?

Do you mean like 'Intelligent-design/creationism'?, or Christian-Science?
I don't believe so.
My theory can be taken as having a religious or a scientific explanation, depending entirely upon which you prefer to believe in.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:51 pm

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:24 pm Thanks for your comments, I now know which sections need more clarification and research.

I haven't stayed up to date, did somebody explain that your theory is religion dressed as science yet?

I don't think it deserves the term "theory".
It's just a set of purely personal assumptions and prejudices.

Any "meaning" given to life has to be wholly personal.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:29 am To me, the human being creature's behavior has radically changed 'mostly' compared to every other known creature.

I don't think so.

60 million years ago ALL mammals were tree dwelling rodents.
Humans still climb trees, and have the same basic limb structure as the first amphibian that walked out of the water 200 million years ago; A two part limb with five digits; with the lower part of the limb being divided in two for twisting; and the upper part equipped with a ball joint for rotation.
Now compare the Blue Whale. Look at the massive set of adaptations that it has undergone.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:51 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:51 pm

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:24 pm Thanks for your comments, I now know which sections need more clarification and research.

I haven't stayed up to date, did somebody explain that your theory is religion dressed as science yet?

I don't think it deserves the term "theory".
It's just a set of purely personal assumptions and prejudices.

Any "meaning" given to life has to be wholly personal.

Harsh but fair. I withdraw my wayward use of the term theory.

Any "meaning" given to life has to be wholly personal.

I disagree, most "meaning" of life theories are personal, and try to explain it in 'human' experiences,etc.
However my theory covers the whole of life on Earth, from the 3.5 billion yr old bacteria, and the entire evolution of life on this planet, including the individual cells in every living thing. I believe that life not only has meaning and a purpose but that it also has a specific aim, (except on Earth it has gone terribly wrong, which is why it has become so chaotic and cruel) I therefore believe that my theory is unique, and i hope to prove this when i submit my updated version.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:29 am To me, the human being creature's behavior has radically changed 'mostly' compared to every other known creature.

I don't think so.

60 million years ago ALL mammals were tree dwelling rodents.
Humans still climb trees, and have the same basic limb structure as the first amphibian that walked out of the water 200 million years ago; A two part limb with five digits; with the lower part of the limb being divided in two for twisting; and the upper part equipped with a ball joint for rotation.
Now compare the Blue Whale. Look at the massive set of adaptations that it has undergone.

I was talking about 'behavior'. Meaning, to me, the behavior in humans has changed more than behavior has in any other animal.

Human beings may still climb trees, but not because they have to but only because they want to. No other animal behaves in ways that human beings do. For example, no other animal works all week to then go to a bank to get money out to then go to a shop to buy things, which are mostly done out of boredom. Other animals just do what is necessary to stay alive. Human beings are not satisfied with that and behave in very many varying ways, out of boredom.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:44 pm

Any "meaning" given to life has to be wholly personal.

I disagree, most "meaning" of life theories are personal, and try to explain it in 'human' experiences,etc.
However my theory covers the whole of life on Earth, from the 3.5 billion yr old bacteria, and the entire evolution of life on this planet, including the individual cells in every living thing. I believe that life not only has meaning and a purpose but that it also has a specific aim, (except on Earth it has gone terribly wrong, which is why it has become so chaotic and cruel) I therefore believe that my theory is unique, and i hope to prove this when i submit my updated version.

It does not matter how far it goes back nor how much you include. There is a more serious problem with setting out on this journey.
1) If I paint a picture I might want it to "mean" something. But there are also many meanings equally valid that other people have. In the universe THERE IS NO PAINTER. And you cannot tell, even if there was one, whether that painter had intended any meaning in the first place; and how would you know the mind of God? But one thing is for sure, if there is no painter then there is no absolute and starting purpose or meaning.
2) The universe is unimaginably large, and we inhabit a tiny planet which has life on it. From such a limited experience you are simply not qualified to determine if there is any meaning to any of this, and in no way capable of saying what that meaning is if there is one.
This all leads back to the fact that we decide our own meanings for our own life, and it is not possible for any theory (or whatever) to trump that.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:29 am To me, the human being creature's behavior has radically changed 'mostly' compared to every other known creature.

I don't think so.

60 million years ago ALL mammals were tree dwelling rodents.
Humans still climb trees, and have the same basic limb structure as the first amphibian that walked out of the water 200 million years ago; A two part limb with five digits; with the lower part of the limb being divided in two for twisting; and the upper part equipped with a ball joint for rotation.
Now compare the Blue Whale. Look at the massive set of adaptations that it has undergone.

I was talking about 'behavior'. Meaning, to me, the behavior in humans has changed more than behavior has in any other animal.

So am I talking about behaviour. Structure conditions behaviour. There is nothing like Whale song; swimming is unlike tree climbing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:00 pm

I don't think so.

60 million years ago ALL mammals were tree dwelling rodents.
Humans still climb trees, and have the same basic limb structure as the first amphibian that walked out of the water 200 million years ago; A two part limb with five digits; with the lower part of the limb being divided in two for twisting; and the upper part equipped with a ball joint for rotation.
Now compare the Blue Whale. Look at the massive set of adaptations that it has undergone.

I was talking about 'behavior'. Meaning, to me, the behavior in humans has changed more than behavior has in any other animal.

So am I talking about behaviour. Structure conditions behaviour. There is nothing like Whale song; swimming is unlike tree climbing.

Thank you for your stating the obvious, but can you clarify why you are doing this?

Why are you talking about "structure conditions" behavior when I obviously was not?

The behavior of taking things out of context, and then replying from one's own take of things is another very common, and very obvious, human only behavior. This type of behavior is what I was obviously talking about. Again, it is yet another example of just how much human behavior has changed considerably from all other animal's behavior has. "Structure condition behavior" is something I have never heard of before nor even really care about in relation to what I was saying.

Since 'whale' can be defined as an animal that sings and swims then the behavior of a whale has not changed that much at all since the whale has been in existence.

There is also nothing like human speech; flying is unlike tree climbing. But so what?

Compared to any other animal that has been in existence for as long as the human animal has, to me, the behavior of the human animal has changed radically. Whereas all other animals behavior has remained relatively the same; they just out act out of instinct, to survive. The human animal acts out of instinct, to survive, as well as behave, or misbehave being the true sense, in countless other ways, which are just plain wrong.

If this is on dispute, then show why. But bringing completely out of context concepts into the picture here is not clearing any thing up.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:44 pm

Any "meaning" given to life has to be wholly personal.

I disagree, most "meaning" of life theories are personal, and try to explain it in 'human' experiences,etc.

But Life, Itself, and the meaning and the purpose of Life is much bigger than just humans, themselves. The human experience of only a very miniscule few million years can only give a relatively very narrow and short sighted view of things. If one wants to look at and see the big and true picture of things, then they need to look from not just the human perspective but from the ALL perspective. That is the only way one is going to see the whole and truest picture.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:44 pmHowever my theory covers the whole of life on Earth, from the 3.5 billion yr old bacteria, and the entire evolution of life on this planet, including the individual cells in every living thing.

Thus your closed and very narrow view of things.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:44 pmI believe that life not only has meaning and a purpose but that it also has a specific aim, (except on Earth it has gone terribly wrong, which is why it has become so chaotic and cruel)

Since your so called "theory" has life, itself, starting or beginning at a particular time here on earth and you believe that life also has meaning, purpose, and an aim, then you will have to also explain who or what started "this life" here on earth and who or what gave "this life" meaning, purpose, and an aim also. As well as you will have to explain what all these things are exactly as well as all the other things that you are trying to explain.

You will also have to explain how if life started here on earth, then how life "except on earth" could go so (personally emotive word) "terribly" wrong? The contradiction between how life started here on earth with a purpose and an aim but here on earth life has supposedly gone so "terribly" wrong also needs to be explained. If life has started on earth with an aim then how life, on earth, has gone and is going is exactly the way life was meant to go.

Obviously if something as big as life, itself, has started with an aim, then whatever happens was meant to happen. There is nothing you could say to refute this.

Even if one believes that they know life has gone "terribly" wrong and they believe that they know what is right and how to fix everything, then obviously that was the aim of life, when life began. You obviously are not separate from life. You a part of life, so whatever you think, it is because of life, itself, and not because you are above nor beyond life. Either you accept that you are a part of the meaning, purpose, and aim of life, or you do not. So, which one is it?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:44 pmI therefore believe that my theory is unique, and i hope to prove this when i submit my updated version.

Proving that your so called "theory" is unique I think you will find that you will have no trouble at all with. Proving that your "theory" is even somewhat correct however you might find you have a difficult time with though.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:15 pm

The Woodster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:44 pm

Any "meaning" given to life has to be wholly personal.

I disagree, most "meaning" of life theories are personal, and try to explain it in 'human' experiences,etc.
However my theory covers the whole of life on Earth, from the 3.5 billion yr old bacteria, and the entire evolution of life on this planet, including the individual cells in every living thing. I believe that life not only has meaning and a purpose but that it also has a specific aim, (except on Earth it has gone terribly wrong, which is why it has become so chaotic and cruel) I therefore believe that my theory is unique, and i hope to prove this when i submit my updated version.

It does not matter how far it goes back nor how much you include. There is a more serious problem with setting out on this journey.
1) If I paint a picture I might want it to "mean" something. But there are also many meanings equally valid that other people have. In the universe THERE IS NO PAINTER. And you cannot tell, even if there was one, whether that painter had intended any meaning in the first place; and how would you know the mind of God? But one thing is for sure, if there is no painter then there is no absolute and starting purpose or meaning.
2) The universe is unimaginably large, and we inhabit a tiny planet which has life on it. From such a limited experience you are simply not qualified to determine if there is any meaning to any of this, and in no way capable of saying what that meaning is if there is one.
This all leads back to the fact that we decide our own meanings for our own life, and it is not possible for any theory (or whatever) to trump that.

1) There could be a painter. To say, THERE IS NO PAINTER, is to suggest that you know what the Truth IS. If there is a Painter, then maybe the Painter could be known, and told. When the Painter reveal Itself, then one would actually be able tell if there was intended meaning or not. When the Painter/God does reveal Its Self, then that is how one would also know the, (incorrect saying), "mind of God".

2) The actual size of the Universe is very easily imagined.

If there is meaning to Life or not, then that could be determined by one, and some one could be capable of saying what that meaning is, after all it only takes one to say some thing that could actually be true, which could then become well known by everyone else.

It may be true that you all, individually, decide your own meaning, for all things. But if you, collectively, decide a meaning for any thing, then that would trump individual meanings. And, if you ALL collectively decide the same meaning for say Life, Itself, then that would very easily, very simply, and very obviously trump your own previously held individual meaning/s.

Age wrote:
Life itself and the meaning and the purpose of Life is much bigger than just humans themselves . The human experience of only a very miniscule few million years can only give a relatively very narrow and short sighted view of things . If one wants to look at and see the big and true picture
of things then they need to look from not just the human perspective but from the ALL perspective . That is the only way one is going to see the whole and truest picture

The human experience is indeed absolutely miniscule and in the grand scheme of things means nothing at all
But I have absolutely no problem in accepting the insignificance of our existence because it is just temporary
Knowing that this mind in this body is merely passing through is something I can and have come to terms with

Since your so called "theory" has life, itself, starting or beginning at a particular time here on earth and you believe that life also has meaning, purpose, and an aim, then you will have to also explain who or what started "this life" here on earth and who or what gave "this life" meaning, purpose, and an aim also.

No one can explain how life on Earth began, once again you are asking for evidence. My theory concerns why life evolved, not how

The contradiction between how life started here on earth with a purpose and an aim but here on earth life has supposedly gone so "terribly" wrong also needs to be explained. If life has started on earth with an aim then how life, on earth, has gone and is going is exactly the way life was meant to go.

Life on Earth has gone wrong due to unforeseen circumstances during mankind's early development.

Obviously if something as big as life, itself, has started with an aim, then whatever happens was meant to happen. There is nothing you could say to refute this.

Yes i can refute this because what has happened on Earth was not meant to be. Without knowing what life's aim was, how can you say that it has gone "exactly the way" it was meant to?


Just because i think differently from everyone else doesn't mean that i'am "separate from life", or not part of it's meaning.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:50 pm

Age wrote:
Life itself and the meaning and the purpose of Life is much bigger than just humans themselves . The human experience of only a very miniscule few million years can only give a relatively very narrow and short sighted view of things . If one wants to look at and see the big and true picture
of things then they need to look from not just the human perspective but from the ALL perspective . That is the only way one is going to see the whole and truest picture

The human experience is indeed absolutely miniscule and in the grand scheme of things means nothing at all
But I have absolutely no problem in accepting the insignificance of our existence because it is just temporary
Knowing that this mind in this body is merely passing through is something I can and have come to terms with

Okay