Clarification of Terms

[jan]

I will try to show that several specific terms are independent. We will use this at the end of this post to examine a recent claim.

Intentionally
If somebody, a person, is doing something willingly.

Purpose
If something has a final cause, if something is designed to achieve something. This is not the same as being made intentionally. For example, if I draw some idle sketches on a notepad, I do it intentionally, but these sketches don't have a purpose. On the other hand, living beings do have a purpose: reproduction, but as far as we know, they have not been created by somebody having this purpose in mind. Instead, this purposefulness is a side effect of adaptive selection.

Order
This is a term that can be explained as low entropy. Something showing order does not have to have a purpose, and it does not have to be created intentionally. Imagine a beach with big stones and small stones separated by the waves. This shows order (lower entropy than all stones of all sizes mixed), but this order does not serve any purpose, and no maker made it intentionally.
On the other hand, I can create some white noise intentionally, so being created intentionally does not necessarily imply order.
If something serves a purpose, it usually does not show the highest possible degree of entropy. But on the other hand, it also usually doesn't show the lowest possible degree of entropy. So order, intention and purpose are independent.

Predictable
The predictability of something is limited by our limited knowledge, limitations of numeric computations (nowadays called "Chaos Theory"), and in principle limited by Heisenberg's Principle.
Something can be made intentionally and can be highly predictable (like a clock) or highly unpredictable (like a good novel).
Something can be highly predictable (movements of the planets) or highly unpredictable (like the weather) without being made intentionally.
Similar arguments show that having a purpose and being predictable is independent.
It seems as if something is more predictable if it is highly ordered. But that does depend on how accurate you want to predict something. Assume we have a closed box containing two gases in turbulence. The future states of this box can be highly unpredictable. On the other hand, a box with two gases in perfect diffusion, that is, maximized entropy, that is, minimized order, can be highly predictable: it will become a box with two gases in perfect diffusion. In fact, being ordered and being predictable are independent.
Note also that a "chaotic" system can be very predictable. For example, the solar system is a chaotic system, but for most practical purposes, it behaves very predictable.

Meaning
I know what the word "meaning" as in "the meaning of the word "meaning"" means. I have trouble to understand what the word "meaning" means in terms like "meaning of life". I used to think that it means the same as "purpose", but that can't be true. Assume the purpose of our life is to enhance the majesty of Yahweh, or to amuse or feed the evil god Chtulhu. Obviously, this purpose doesn't make our lives meaningful. I also was speculating if it could mean something like "what makes your life pleasant" or "what makes you leave the bed in the morning". But on the other hand, it seems as if "meaning of life" is more than just a synonym for drugs, love, curiosity or hormones. Perhaps "meaning of life" doesn't have any meaning.

Now what is the canonical position (well, my personal version of it) of materialism about life, the universe and everything?

As far as we know, the universe was not made intentionally, and life was not created intentionally. There are strong hints that I was not created intentionally, since I was born very, very shortly after the marriage of my parents, but my daughter has been made intentionally.

As far as we know, the universe does not serve any purpose. The purpose of life is reproduction. As far as I know, my existence serves no special purpose, besides that I try to have some fun and have some minor importance as a tax payer.

According to Thermodynamics, the order within the universe shrinks. Since the ecosystem is not a closed system, this does not prevent life from increasing order. With regard to the state of my house, I would hesitate to say that I am increasing order in any significant way.

On a large scale, the universe seems to be predictable, that means, we have some evidence for a cosmologic theory that tells us how the universe started and what its future will be. Living creatures try to manipulate other living creatures, which means that living creatures are usually not very predictable. In especially, human beings can be rather unpredictable.

As far as we know, the universe has no meaning. Although I said that the purpose of living beings is reproduction, that doesn't mean that this has any meaning. On the contrary, I would say that all this struggle for life seems pretty meaningless. It is neither surprising nor inconsistent that many people choose not to reproduce. Since I am not certain what the meaning of "meaning" is, I have no idea whether or not my life has any meaning.

The word "random" can be used as a synonym for "unintentional", "lacking purpose", "chaotic", "unpredictable" or "meaningless", although I would say that its most common meaning is "probability theory can be applied here". Now compare the following quote:

Originally posted by The Sage of Baltimore

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???

 

[Franko]

Intentionally
If somebody, a person, is doing something willingly.

Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

 

[hgc]

... On the other hand, living beings do have a purpose: reproduction, but as far as we know, they have not been created by somebody having this purpose in mind. Instead, this purposefulness is a side effect of adaptive selection. ...

While organisms that do replicate are what we'd call successful, based on that they do replicate successfully, I don't have any reason to think that this represents any kind of purpose in terms of the creation (abiogenesis --> evolution) of organisms. It may justifiably be viewed as a purpose of life for humans (for themselves and other organisms), but that's merely human consciousness interjecting purpose where nature had none.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow Jan! Lot of good stuff there.. Need to chew for a while...

 

[Pahansiri]

Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Unwillingly being it shows no signs of being a thinking living being. Unless you can prove otherwise?

Also just to pre-point out the contraction in what you will say I will do it now.

You have said and will say “prove you have any more free will then the moon”

So.
If you will say the moon is willingly orbiting the Earth that would be a contradiction of your no free will belief.

 

[Franko]

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Pahansiri:
Unwillingly being it shows no signs of being a thinking living being.

Ahhh, so it would be accurate to state that:

The Moon unwillingly orbits the Earth, if the Moon were a “thinking living being” (like an amoeba?) than it would probably stop orbiting the Earth.

Is that what you believe Pahansiri?

Also just to pre-point out the contraction in what you will say I will do it now.

You have said and will say “prove you have any more free will then the moon”

So.
If you will say the moon is willingly orbiting the Earth that would be a contradiction of your no free will belief.

I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

 

[Pahansiri]

Ahhh, so it would be accurate to state that:

The Moon unwillingly orbits the Earth, if the Moon were a “thinking living being” (like an amoeba?) than it would probably stop orbiting the Earth.

Is that what you believe Pahansiri?



I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

Greetings Franko.

Will you ever answer a question?


It amazes me that you seek to answer a question with a question seeking to ask your question by putting words into the others mouth, rather then just answer and support your statements and beliefs?

I will ask again. You believe I must assume the moon is willingly orbiting the Earth.

So I will ask again.

1- Prove the moon is a thinking being and has chosen to orbit the Earth.

Just the facts please.

Ahhh, so it would be accurate to state that:

The Moon unwillingly orbits the Earth, if the Moon were a “thinking living being” (like an amoeba?) than it would probably stop orbiting the Earth.


Is that what you believe Pahansiri?

Fact 1. The moon is not a living thing and can not choose to stop or start orbiting the Earth. UNLESS you can prove it can.

Fact 2: I never said an “amoeba” spelled amoebae was a thinking being, did ? But unlike the moon at least it is a living thing, well unless your proof the moon is a living thinking thing proves other wise.

Fact 3; Being I never even mentioned an amoebae and more so never said it was able of thought your statement is silly, dishonest and illogical.

I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

I know you would say that and as always I will prove you wrong. You tell the moon to walk across the room and get a snack. Yell as loud as you can to it right now. I on the other hand while I am not really hungry and should save my appetite will go eat a chip.

You see I have that choice the moon does not, UNLESS you demonstrate it is capable of thought.

 

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
Prove the moon is a thinking being and has chosen to orbit the Earth.

The Moon is no more of a “thinking being” than Pahansiri is a “thinking being” (according to Materialism). [According to Materialism] the Moon and Pahansiri both have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero [or “free will” = zero; for both MOON and PAHANSIRI]).

Both the Moon and Pahansiri are made of “matter” and nothing else. And (as any little Materialist is brainwashed into believing) the behavior of ALL “matter” (energy) is controlled by the laws of Physics.

Pahansiri:
Fact 1. The moon is not a living thing and can not choose to stop or start orbiting the Earth.

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Pahansiri:
Unwillingly

So if the moon cannot choose to start or stop orbiting the Earth, then how can you claim that it is unwillingly orbiting the Earth? That would seem to imply that if it could stop orbiting the Earth it would?

Pahansiri:
I on the other hand while I am not really hungry and should save my appetite will go eat a chip.

You see I have that choice the moon does not.

Actually I could just as easily say that the Moon has “chosen” not to eat, and therefore has more “free will” than you do, since you are unable to “chose” not to eat.

I know you would say that and as always I will prove you wrong.

Of course you knew it! “I” knew it too. And that is because (like “I” keep telling you) “I” am merely a figment of your imagination.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Even though I have FRANKO on ignore, it is easy for me to see that he has crapped on a thread before it has even got off the ground.


And thanks Pahansiri, for aiding and abetting...

Maybe you could point out where anything Franko said, and your reply, addressed Jan's comments..


Anyone? Doesn't this qualify for the ' Jerk ' clause of the forum rules?

I'm going to e-mail Hal.. Anyone care to join?


( Sorry Jan, for joining the derailment )

 

[hgc]

Yes, Franko, go take a flying f&ck at the moon. It will understand that it wasn't intentional.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe you could point out where anything Franko said, and your reply, addressed Jan's comments..

Nope, he derailed the entire thread based on a single word.

Sort of like "Name That Tune", Franko can hijack a thread in one word, Alex.

( Sorry Jan, for joining the derailment )

Me too.

BTW, very methodically laid out post, Jan.

 

[Pahansiri]

The Moon is no more of a “thinking being” than Pahansiri is a “thinking being” (according to Materialism).

Well my friend as you know but will not admit
1-I am not a materialist but respect their beliefs as I do yours.
2- I believe your statements of Materialism is well let us say a fib, unless you can prove Materialism believes that.. I will not hold my breath as your record of proving what you say or believe is poor.

[According to Materialism] the Moon and Pahansiri both have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero [or “free will” = zero; for both MOON and PAHANSIRI]).

Really that sounds like your belief not that of Materialism. I.e.

Originally posted by Franko

I would say that YOU and the MOON have equal amounts of “free will” (i.e. zero).

So are you now saying you are a “ Franko style materialist”?

Please stop the heavy drinking you forget what you post and believe.

Both the Moon and Pahansiri are made of “matter” and nothing else.

You said you do not believe there is matter, man are you confused as to your beliefs.

Yes my body and the moon is comprised of matter. Can you show me the moon’s brain, what it uses to think?

Crickets.

And (as any little Materialist is brainwashed into believing) the behavior of ALL “matter” (energy) is controlled by the laws of Physics.

1- I am not a Materialist, HELLOOOOOOO…lol
2- In fact other then where you above said you were a Materialist your belief in no form of free will makes your belief just that, in your belief we are a hunk of matter being forced to do what it is made to do.. NO brain no mind no” soul”…

Franko you are killing yourself here.



ahansiri:
Fact 1. The moon is not a living thing and can not choose to stop or start orbiting the Earth.

Franko:
Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Pahansiri:
Unwillingly

You have the order of how this came about but that is ok and all is true so far.

So if the moon cannot choose to start or stop orbiting the Earth, then how can you claim that it is unwillingly orbiting the Earth? ?

Unwillingly as it has NO will, no thoughts unless you can prove it does, asking for the well many times.

That would seem to imply that if it could stop orbiting the Earth it would?

Really, show where I said that, OK?


LOL I have pointed out it is an inanimate object with no thought or ability to think or choose to do anything or not to do anything or “know” it is doing anything. Have you not been reading what is written?

Take a deep breath and read.

quoteahansiri:
I on the other hand while I am not really hungry and should save my appetite will go eat a chip.

You see I have that choice the moon does not.

Actually I could just as easily say that the Moon has “chosen” not to eat, and therefore has more “free will” than you do, since you are unable to “chose” not to eat.

Really? And I would say prove it and you would just do another fine dance and avoid answering or providing any proof for your silly statement.Right?


Franko you make this far too easy.


quoteahansiri :I know you would say that and as always I will prove you wrong.[/quote]

Of course you knew it! “I” knew it too. And that is because (like “I” keep telling you) “I” am merely a figment of your imagination.

Let us count the contradictions in your belief just in this statement.

1- if you were a figment of my imagination you could not know anything as you would be a figment of my imagination. Do you ever think about or read what you say?
2- If I knew it as I do and you agree I knew it that would indicate thought and thought denoted a form of free will. If there were no form of free will and we were as you believe programmed robots we would all “think” the same thing….

I love ya Franko.. you are silly.

 

[hgc]

Pahanrisi,

Stop trying to reason with the lunatic. You will get no where, and another thread is dead.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

BTW, very methodically laid out post, Jan.

I really liked what Jan had to say, and don't have anything to add at the moment.

I hope some of our more astute members will expand or comment in a relevant way..

This Post really needs to be nominated for something..

What is Mercutio's(?) award?

 

[jan]

Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

I am tempted to say: "The Logical Goddess whips her into doing it." But the canonical answer is, of course: as far as we know, the moon, as being not a person, per se can't do anything intentionally.

Oh boy, I am derailing my own thread...

While organisms that do replicate are what we'd call successful, based on that they do replicate successfully, I don't have any reason to think that this represents any kind of purpose in terms of the creation (abiogenesis --> evolution) of organisms. It may justifiably be viewed as a purpose of life for humans (for themselves and other organisms), but that's merely human consciousness interjecting purpose where nature had none.

I am fully aware that my usage of the term "purpose" is a bit of a stretch of the common usage. Usually, one would tend to include intentionallity, and a materialist usually would avoid to say that creatures serve a purpose, since it sounds like the boring old intelligent design fallacy. Nevertheless, I would say that living creatures have something stones don't have, and this something deserves a name. If you know a better word, I would be lucky to replace "purpose". But I guess you are talking about what I called "meaning". Some people think the meaning of life is procreation, some people don't.

Wow Jan! Lot of good stuff there.. Need to chew for a while...

Thanks. I will forgive you your participation in derailing.

BTW, very methodically laid out post, Jan.

I am happy some people managed to read the whole post without falling asleep before hitting the punch line.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Intentionally
If somebody, a person, is doing something willingly.

... As far as we know, the universe was not made intentionally, and life was not created intentionally.

Really good stuff, Jan. At the same time, to say that 'the universe was not made/created willingly.' seems awkward to me. When I think of defining God(s), I usually think in terms of intentionality, by which I mean goal-directed effort, e.g., intentionality capable of abrogating natural law, with the intent of excluding such superfluous constructs as those posed by pantheism.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Hey, I have a question ...

Is the Moon willingly or unwillingly orbiting the Earth?

Whether it is willingly or not, that has no bearing on whether human beings have free will. Humans are, if you'll notice, a wee bit different than the moon.

And you must face the possibility that each human gets to make decisions about a certain amount of subatomic particles.

Also, what would be the point of everything being predetermined? I submit to you that TLOP act more as some sort of Supreme Commander more so than being omnipotent.

The universe does seem to serve no purpose, Jan. Humans too. All our consciousness and awareness and intelligent seems to ultimately serve no purpose either. We still are subject to all the same things animals are. Our awareness affords us no special purpose other than to discover more about the purposeless universe.

Eventually, we or someone like us will know everything.

Then what?

 

[hal bidlack]

this thread was reported, with the complaint being Franko derailing the thread.

While derailing threads is somewhat rude, it is not a rules violation. Indeed, one person's derailing might be another's key point. I can not think of a way to enforce staying on topic without introducing a level of censorship I find unacceptable.

hal

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I submit to you that TLOP act more as some sort of Supreme Commander more so than being omnipotent.

The map is not the territory. The 'Laws of Physics' are human constructs, testable explanations that describe ever more closely what matter does. Matter does not obey the 'Laws of Physics' but, rather, the 'Laws of Physics' obey the dynamics/attributes of matter.

Eventually, we or someone like us will know everything.

Bullpuckie. Who made up that rule? How, for example, would we know that we knew everything?

 

[Yahweh]

this thread was reported, with the complaint being Franko derailing the thread.

While derailing threads is somewhat rude, it is not a rules violation. Indeed, one person's derailing might be another's key point. I can not think of a way to enforce staying on topic without introducing a level of censorship I find unacceptable.

hal

If anything at all, I might suggest you create a new topic (I dont know, something called "Does the moon have free will") and move the appropriate posts there, with notification/consent of course.