Our lack of Purpose

[Hjarloprillar]

This thread, and many who participate in it, seem to be of the opinion that it is humanity that lacks a purpose. Everything in the Universe has some function, including humans and that function could be interpreted as a purpose. Evolution is often used as an example of a process that is not guided by purpose, and that is correct, evolution is guided, (if guided is the proper term) by an organism's reaction to the environment. Each species strives to reproduce and this could well be described as a purpose. Perhaps those who don't see humanity as having a purpose, simply do not see the purpose right in front of them. Purpose might not always be profound, sometimes it could be quite mundane.

Doc

At core im a big kid. Mudane is anathema.

Near all species have 'succeeded' in purpose by viable niche where they continue.
What niche does reason allow?
Any damn one it chooses to inhabit.

Yet we expand destroy and consume without reason or forethought.

Give me humanity for 100 years of direction and war/poverty/ignorance will vanish.
The Human race will leave the cradle and become more than blind willful selfserving children.
I 'know' it can be done.

my 2 cents

Prill

[thedoc]

Purpose might not always be profound, sometimes it could be quite mundane.

Doc
Near all species have 'succeeded' in purpose by viable niche where they continue.
What niche does reason allow?
Any damn one it chooses to inhabit.

Prill

Reason will thrive in an environment where reason is valued, when people don't value reason or intelligence, the stupid will thrive instead. When a woman selects a man to have children with, does she select a great intellect, or a big dick?

[Arising_uk]

... When a woman selects a man to have children with, does she select a great intellect, or a big dick?

Depends upon the women I guess.

Is it an either or situation?

On the whole I'd think they select for a variety of reasons.

[Greylorn Ell]

Purpose might not always be profound, sometimes it could be quite mundane.

Doc
Near all species have 'succeeded' in purpose by viable niche where they continue.
What niche does reason allow?
Any damn one it chooses to inhabit.

Prill

Reason will thrive in an environment where reason is valued, when people don't value reason or intelligence, the stupid will thrive instead. When a woman selects a man to have children with, does she select a great intellect, or a big dick?

It doesn't particularly matter. IQ scores of the children of highly intelligent parents follow the same Gaussian distribution as the scores of children born of average, or even low-IQ parents. The only difference between the distributions is that those from smart parents are shifted higher by about 5-10 ticks.

The shift is accounted for by environmental factors. Intelligent parents are more likely to provide an environment conducive to developing intelligence, and will take education more seriously. Thus, a child with an IQ of 70 born to smart parents is more likely to bump up to 80 during the course of his life, than if he were born to average parents.

Geniuses are more often born to average parents, because most parents are average. Parents with 140 IQs are as likely to give birth to a genius child as are parents with IQs of 60; the difference is that geniuses born to low IQ parents are less likely to thrive, and to live a full life.

Despite the best efforts of humans for generations, their expectations that the progeny of kings will have the skills necessary for kingship have rarely been met. For evidence, delve into the accomplishments of British royals.

[Greylorn Ell]

This thread, and many who participate in it, seem to be of the opinion that it is humanity that lacks a purpose. Everything in the Universe has some function, including humans and that function could be interpreted as a purpose. Evolution is often used as an example of a process that is not guided by purpose, and that is correct, evolution is guided, (if guided is the proper term) by an organism's reaction to the environment. Each species strives to reproduce and this could well be described as a purpose. Perhaps those who don't see humanity as having a purpose, simply do not see the purpose right in front of them. Purpose might not always be profound, sometimes it could be quite mundane.

Doc

At core im a big kid. Mudane is anathema.

Near all species have 'succeeded' in purpose by viable niche where they continue.
What niche does reason allow?
Any damn one it chooses to inhabit.

Yet we expand destroy and consume without reason or forethought.

Give me humanity for 100 years of direction and war/poverty/ignorance will vanish.
The Human race will leave the cradle and become more than blind willful selfserving children.
I 'know' it can be done.

my 2 cents

Prill

Ming,

You might be able to pull it off if, and only if, you can come up with a description of the full nature of human beings, one that accounts for all the experimental, empirical, and anecdotal evidence, and verify this description with the full tools of science.

Until we determine exactly what we humans are-- biological machines, or biological machines with God-created "souls," or something else entirely, we are doomed to remain at diverse purposes.

Greylorn

[thedoc]

Doc
Near all species have 'succeeded' in purpose by viable niche where they continue.
What niche does reason allow?
Any damn one it chooses to inhabit.

Prill

Reason will thrive in an environment where reason is valued, when people don't value reason or intelligence, the stupid will thrive instead. When a woman selects a man to have children with, does she select a great intellect, or a big dick?

It doesn't particularly matter. IQ scores of the children of highly intelligent parents follow the same Gaussian distribution as the scores of children born of average, or even low-IQ parents. The only difference between the distributions is that those from smart parents are shifted higher by about 5-10 ticks.

The shift is accounted for by environmental factors. Intelligent parents are more likely to provide an environment conducive to developing intelligence, and will take education more seriously. Thus, a child with an IQ of 70 born to smart parents is more likely to bump up to 80 during the course of his life, than if he were born to average parents.

Geniuses are more often born to average parents, because most parents are average. Parents with 140 IQs are as likely to give birth to a genius child as are parents with IQs of 60; the difference is that geniuses born to low IQ parents are less likely to thrive, and to live a full life.

Despite the best efforts of humans for generations, their expectations that the progeny of kings will have the skills necessary for kingship have rarely been met. For evidence, delve into the accomplishments of British royals.

Actually it does, I've seen plenty of parents and children, and except for the occasional down syndrome, smart parents have smart children, and below average parents have below average children. As a biology teacher once said, "When you plant corn, you usually get corn." The idea that anyone can have exceptional children is a pretty, liberal idea, that doesn't hold up in practice. The problem with Royalty is that inbreeding usually lowers the overall capability, not just those qualities needed for ruling.

[Greylorn Ell]

It doesn't particularly matter. IQ scores of the children of highly intelligent parents follow the same Gaussian distribution as the scores of children born of average, or even low-IQ parents. The only difference between the distributions is that those from smart parents are shifted higher by about 5-10 ticks.

The shift is accounted for by environmental factors. Intelligent parents are more likely to provide an environment conducive to developing intelligence, and will take education more seriously. Thus, a child with an IQ of 70 born to smart parents is more likely to bump up to 80 during the course of his life, than if he were born to average parents.

Geniuses are more often born to average parents, because most parents are average. Parents with 140 IQs are as likely to give birth to a genius child as are parents with IQs of 60; the difference is that geniuses born to low IQ parents are less likely to thrive, and to live a full life.

Despite the best efforts of humans for generations, their expectations that the progeny of kings will have the skills necessary for kingship have rarely been met. For evidence, delve into the accomplishments of British royals.

Actually it does, I've seen plenty of parents and children, and except for the occasional down syndrome, smart parents have smart children, and below average parents have below average children. As a biology teacher once said, "When you plant corn, you usually get corn." The idea that anyone can have exceptional children is a pretty, liberal idea, that doesn't hold up in practice. The problem with Royalty is that inbreeding usually lowers the overall capability, not just those qualities needed for ruling.

Brit Royalty is noted for its efforts to avoid inbreeding. Ever heard of the Hapsburgs? Princess Diana? Etc.

Clearly your personal opinion trumps the scientifically performed intelligence studies that you've never bothered to read. I guess I'll have to forget all that bullshit science and listen to you and your high school biology teacher, whose knowledge about corn necessarily extends to insights about the human mind. Or not. I'm favoring the "or not" position.

Gl

[Hjarloprillar]

Greylorn

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends"

Nowhere did i refer to 'intelligence'.
"Give me humanity for 100 years of direction and war/poverty/ignorance will vanish.
The Human race will leave the cradle and become more than blind willful selfserving children.
I 'know' it can be done."
Requires naught but the mean top of bell.

My position as Einstein penned is that 'imagination' is far more important. [in understanding reality]

Thus i bypass this branch of conversation. You and doc can duke it out while i have another tequila.

Prill [Ming the MERCILESS]
___________________________________________
or 'oink'
I usd to play css-1/2life with nik .. 'piglet'

when ist spawning i globaled 'oink.'
so many went 'yay piglet is here' ~[im behind wreck car in nw .quick we can take down a pack of kids with awps.]
'warm up your boomstick'
those were the days. challenge awareneess concentration and a hot boomstick.

'i smell bacon' was standard comeback.
so many hillarious moments, especially in halflife2 with gravgun. 'Death by toilet'

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends"

Nowhere did i refer to 'intelligence'.
"Give me humanity for 100 years of direction and war/poverty/ignorance will vanish.
The Human race will leave the cradle and become more than blind willful selfserving children.
I 'know' it can be done."
Requires naught but the mean top of bell.

My position as Einstein penned is that 'imagination' is far more important. [in understanding reality]

Thus i bypass this branch of conversation. You and doc can duke it out while i have another tequila.

Prill [Ming the MERCILESS]
___________________________________________

Ming,

Do you have an outside source for that excellent opening quote, or is it yours? I ask because I hope to use it. One of those pithy statements that feels right.

Your comments are often oblique, so we both know that you can refer to intelligence without ever using the word.

You'll get no argument from me that beon-level imagination is often more important than brain-level intelligence.

While plenty of imagination is available at the top of the curve, as well as from the slopes, it has traditionally been controlled and manipulated by those from other places, whose rather limited raw intelligence is well compensated for by ruthless cunning. I do not know how to analytically define those places, but know that the US White House is well populated by masters of these nefarious arts.

You would be poorly advised to abandon this branch of conversation, for two reasons.

1. thedoc is not a kindred spirit, and I'll not kill time pretending otherwise.

2. My family owns the Australian tequila import franchise.

Greylorn

[Hjarloprillar]

Greylorn

No it is not mine. unattributed, I believe.
like
"It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home

Mr Eclectic lives next door to Mr Oblique. Thus certain people whine ' you should learn about comprehension'
those people are on a list...heehee

" the US White House is well populated by masters of these nefarious arts"
i'm shocked by that position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
[20 seconds]

please continue with conversation.
im waiting for next post with a glint in eye.

I own tequila, under table.

prill

[the Hessian]

What purpose/goal does humanity have?

My purpose right now is to respond to your post. Hopefully this answer serves to show that whatever problem you are trying to point out is really a function of the way you are formulating the question.

[Advocate]

Meaning is a potion of salience, perspective, and priority. It is unique in every case. Our collective meaning is that which we share, which isn't much but it's enough if we only recognize it.

[RCSaunders]

What purpose/goal does humanity have?
none but survival it seems.

How can we tout reason as "a game changer" when we in action behave like cockroaches.

where is our imagination and chutzpah...f***** if i know

There is no collective, "our," purpose.

Only individual human beings have purposes, ends, goals, and objectives. There are no other purposes, except individual purposes.

The purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it, and that is the source of all values.

See VALUES and The Moral Nature

[Harbal]

What purpose/goal does humanity have?

The purpose of humanity is to ask questions, and then find the answers.

[Advocate]

[quote=Harbal post_id=472666 time=1600720385 user_id=9107]
[quote=Hjarloprillar post_id=163162 time=1395235311 user_id=8075]
What purpose/goal does humanity have?
[/quote]

The purpose of humanity is to ask questions, and then find the answers.
[/quote]

Is it?