The Nature of Purpose

[Nick Soapdish]

In general, there are really only two different view points in the world. Either there is purpose and design to this Universe (usually theistic) or there is not (usually atheistic).

These viewpoints offer interesting and opposing perspectives on human nature. To the atheist, the belief that the Universe has purpose is ultimately anthropomorphic because purpose is a humanistic characteristic. They believe the theist is merely transposing the human qualities of awareness and intention onto the Universe as a whole.

This view demands that our purpose and awareness are things that emerge from processes that underneath it all, are indifferent and unthinking. They see the brain as a physical organ that is wholly responsible for our cognizant experience, and any talk of freewill or purpose is only describing the elaborate order and structure of the brain--our purpose and freewill are produced by unwilling mechanisms.

The view of the theist is quite different. Instead of order and structure producing purpose and awareness, they see purpose and awareness as producing order and structure.

The theist generally perceives the human mind to be ultimately creative. We can make structure and order through our creative ability. Our awareness is fundamental, and things with structure and order are derived from an awareness.

To the theist, the brain is not all there is to the mind. The human mind has a likeness of God, and that likeness is the portion of it that belongs outside of the physical Universe. Like the Matrix, we are "plugged-in" to the physical world to be active participants in inventing it through the actions of our will. But God is the foundational mind, the One that created the Universe's structure and order from the beginning.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

There's a third view, though, that people create purpose, even if it isn't inherent. Sartre talks about it, as I recall.

 

[robtex]

So Andy you don't see the brain as an organ of the body? Brain and mind are synonyms. I feel like you are playing symantics by saying qoute, "the brain is not all there is to the mind."

What portion is outside the physical universe? I don't see how anything can be "outside the universe"

Your idea suggests a cosmic consciousness but cosmic consciousness (that which binds all thinks in your case God) would suggest a homogenized notion on God and the univerese. Clearly there is not such a solidified opinion. Also by the diversity of faiths and the existance of non-faith purpose is not clear cut to mankind either making cosmic consciouness less likely a reasonable explaination of our existance.

When you say the universe are you also saying God? By your post it seemed you consider the two one and the same.

I didn't understand your order/structure & purpose/awareness theory ?

Interesting propositions you propose to describe your faith.

 

[robtex]

These viewpoints offer interesting and opposing perspectives on human nature. To the atheist, the belief that the Universe has purpose is ultimately anthropomorphic because purpose is a humanistic characteristic. They believe the theist is merely transposing the human qualities of awareness and intention onto the Universe as a whole.

If I can isolate this paragraph for a second,

If God was anthropormorphically inclined in his creation of a man and the universe few new contingencies arise:-

1) Why would an omni-potent God need to create other things besides mankind if his fixation was on mankind? And why chose to make man dependant on the use of resources, particually food at the detriment of non-anthropormorphic creatures?

2) evolution: For the theists who attempt to marry evolution and creationism why would a God who is end interest is anthropormorphically based wait a specified amount (billions of years) before creating the product that motivated his creation?

3) For those that believe man is made in the image of God and apply such theory in an anthromorphic interpretation knowing that man is not omnipotent than how do they propose God can be while still being anthromorphically inclinded?

To me the notion of an anthromorphically inclined deity furthers the theory that

"Theist is merely transposing the human qualities of awareness and intention onto the Universe as a whole."

For two reasons:

1) We know what a human looks like and how to find one yet we don't know what God looks like or how to physically find him. And I have to qualify phyically. I would say you either find him or not and physically is a reaonsable and just standard of measurement.

2) Theists who contend that God is the universe or God = universe and whom are anthromorphically inspired in their faith face the further complication that the stars, planets, and other stuff in space doesn't look human nor can it even support life by standards of humans on earth. IE God = universe and God is anthromorphic are mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[JerryL]

The view of the theist is quite different. Instead of order and structure producing purpose and awareness, they see purpose and awareness as producing order and structure.

Which seems to beg the nature of God. This requires purspose and awareness to preceed order and structure, which means it's unordered, unstructured purpose creating order.

To the theist, the brain is not all there is to the mind. The human mind has a likeness of God, and that likeness is the portion of it that belongs outside of the physical Universe. Like the Matrix, we are "plugged-in" to the physical world to be active participants in inventing it through the actions of our will. But God is the foundational mind, the One that created the Universe's structure and order from the beginning.

The emperical data would seem to run contrary to this. There is no part of the personality nor person which cannot be changed by physical manipulation of the brain. While we lack the skill and knowledge to selectively change all parts; they have all been observed to change

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Which seems to beg the nature of God. This requires purspose and awareness to preceed order and structure, which means it's unordered, unstructured purpose creating order.

Then what is the meaning of "unstructured" and "unordered"? To me, it implies something which is irreducible, as anything that is reductionistic is also structured. So we can conclude that God is irreducible and He is not a "structure" of any sort.

Our consciousness seems to share this quality (as being non-reducible). To me this is the strongest point against the awareness out of structure view.

Also, I believe the use of the word "purpose" might be confusing. Our will is fundamentally creative and free, which is what I am really talking about. A purpose such as "I want to wash my car today", it an outcome of that will, but it also requires the existence of independent objects, such as my car.

The emperical data would seem to run contrary to this. There is no part of the personality nor person which cannot be changed by physical manipulation of the brain. While we lack the skill and knowledge to selectively change all parts; they have all been observed to change

This only seems to show that we get feedback from the Universe, and things that happen to us change our condition. For example, I am a very different person now than I was when I was an infant due to physical processes that have been affecting me. Not sure how this runs contrary to what I said.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Sorry Robtex, I thought I responded to you a while ago, but it seems I did not actually submit the post...

So Andy you don't see the brain as an organ of the body? Brain and mind are synonyms. I feel like you are playing symantics by saying qoute, "the brain is not all there is to the mind."

The brain is a physical organ, and the mind is our consiousness. Materialism is the philosophy that states they are one in the same--that there is no dimension to us that is not physical. However, I believe the brain is only one side of the coin, and we have a non-physical part of us as well (the soul).

I don't see how anything can be "outside the universe"

Most theists view God as transcending the physical Universe.

When you say the universe are you also saying God? By your post it seemed you consider the two one and the same.

No. I believe the Universe is God's creation and He exists independently of it.

1) Why would an omni-potent God need to create other things besides mankind if his fixation was on mankind? And why chose to make man dependant on the use of resources, particually food at the detriment of non-anthropormorphic creatures?

I believe the physical Universe was created as a stage for mankind to develop relationships. I haven't given much thought as to why He has given us animals to eat.

2) evolution: For the theists who attempt to marry evolution and creationism why would a God who is end interest is anthropormorphically based wait a specified amount (billions of years) before creating the product that motivated his creation?

I have no reason to believe that God is in a hurry, is impatient or gets bored. I'm sure there is a reason He did it they way He did, but I do not think God feels it is important that I know that particular reason.

3) For those that believe man is made in the image of God and apply such theory in an anthromorphic interpretation knowing that man is not omnipotent than how do they propose God can be while still being anthromorphically inclinded?

I believe we have some likeness to God, but we do not have all likeness to Him--we are not replicas.

1) We know what a human looks like and how to find one yet we don't know what God looks like or how to physically find him. And I have to qualify phyically. I would say you either find him or not and physically is a reaonsable and just standard of measurement.

I do not believe our likeness to God is in the physical, but rather in the spiritual.

 

[JerryL]

Then what is the meaning of "unstructured" and "unordered"? To me, it implies something which is irreducible, as anything that is reductionistic is also structured. So we can conclude that God is irreducible and He is not a "structure" of any sort.

That's an odd definition. What is "reduceable"?

Also, I believe the use of the word "purpose" might be confusing. Our will is fundamentally creative and free, which is what I am really talking about. A purpose such as "I want to wash my car today", it an outcome of that will, but it also requires the existence of independent objects, such as my car.

I don't agree that will is free. I'm not sure how you mean "creative" here.

This only seems to show that we get feedback from the Universe, and things that happen to us change our condition. For example, I am a very different person now than I was when I was an infant due to physical processes that have been affecting me. Not sure how this runs contrary to what I said.

Your assertion: Your consiousness is not phyical.
My point of fact: Your consiousness can be altered physically by drugs, a stroke, a lobotomy, etc.
My conclusion: Your consiousness is indeed physical as it is physically alterable.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't agree that will is free. I'm not sure how you mean "creative" here.

Your assertion: Your consiousness is not phyical.
My point of fact: Your consiousness can be altered physically by drugs, a stroke, a lobotomy, etc.
My conclusion: Your consiousness is indeed physical as it is physically alterable.

An alteration to our physical brain doesn't mean that it's not free. It only means that drugs can bind it. The normative means through which the brain functions on a day to day basis is decision making. Or is that wired as well? Give me a break...

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

An alteration to our physical brain doesn't mean that it's not free. It only means that drugs can bind it. The normative means through which the brain functions on a day to day basis is decision making. Or is that wired as well?

It is indeed wiring. It's not uncommon for a stroke or lobotomy to make a permenant and fundamental change to your personality.

All evidence says that your personality, your mind, what have you is the sole result of your brain.

 

[Quiddity]

It is indeed wiring. It's not uncommon for a stroke or lobotomy to make a permenant and fundamental change to your personality.[/color]

All evidence says that your personality, your mind, what have you is the sole result of your brain.

So how much control of your actions would you say you have?

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

I figure that the human tendency to perceive purpose in the universe ultimately comes from our ability to perceive motive and purpose in the actions of others of our own species. We are merely extending this ability to concieve of the universe itself as having a purpose.

 

[Quiddity]

I figure that the human tendency to perceive purpose in the universe ultimately comes from our ability to perceive motive and purpose in the actions of others of our own species. We are merely extending this ability to concieve of the universe itself as having a purpose.

A human tendency that serves no purpose. It would be beneficial of mother nature to rid itself of it.

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

A human tendency that serves no purpose. It would be beneficial of mother nature to rid itself of it.

~Victor

Mother Nature is still working on ridding humans of their purposeless appendix.

 

[Quiddity]

Mother Nature is still working on ridding humans of their purposeless appendix.

If you say so. I won't hold my breath.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A human tendency that serves no purpose. It would be beneficial of mother nature to rid itself of it.

What pompous ignorance. You have neither indicated nor demonstrated the slightest interest in, or understanding of, psychology or sociology. On what basis do you make such a claim? Are you aware, for example, that the inability to 'read' intention is diagnostic of many forms of autism?

 

[Quiddity]

What pompous ignorance. You have neither indicated nor demonstrated the slightest interest in, or understanding of, psychology or sociology. On what basis do you make such a claim? Are you aware, for example, that the inability to 'read' intention is diagnostic of many forms of autism?

Should have hinted at my sarcasm. Perhaps you should ask Sunstone.

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

So how much control of your actions would you say you have?

That depends on who you assert "me" to be and how you define "control". My brain has complete control in the same way a car's systems have complete control over what it does.

 

[Sunstone]

Anyway, I think purpose in nature or the universe is a construct of the human brain. There is no purpose to nature or the universe, we merely imagine it. Which is why questions about the purpose of nature or the universe are often cognitively meaningless.

 

[Quiddity]

That depends on who you assert "me" to be and how you define "control". My brain has complete control in the same way a car's systems have complete control over what it does.[/color]

Horse manure to the fifth power. Tell it to the courts and see if they buy it.

~Victor