Purpose and function

[Dan From Smithville]

Post 54 and post 55 agree imo. Post 54 gives my idea of purpose and function and post 55 is a bit of non empirical thinking on the topic and about the unlikelihood of randomly arriving where we are and so the likelihood of a designer, hence purpose.

I've got to get ready for church, but I'll look them over later and get back with you for further discussion. I would like to understand the position of others without mucking that up by my own self.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

List of microorganisms tested in outer space - Wikipedia

There are around 250 different bacteria and fungi who thrive in space

Aggressive Fungus Found Growing in Outer Space - The Permaculture Research Institute

Personally, I support colonizing the moon/ Mars with bacteria and fungi before trying to establish human colonies. In any event, diversity is beneficial

Those little critters -
Bacteria - Wikipedia

Our ancestors
Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

Our foundation. We all survive/thrive/multiply together. Sure, we have lost a few species along the way, but overall, evolution has produced symbiotic biodiversity. There is reason to appreciate and protect all life.

A glorious purpose, no? To fill the universe with life?

I find all that interesting, but you'll have to explain how ability to thrive is synonymous with purpose. That reproduction functions to perpetuate a species and that species seem to overproduce seem to be only functional and not purposeful. I do know that humans often choose to reproduce and decide on numbers, but that is more often aspirational and the results are functional different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This question came to mind some while back and I see hints of the kind of thinking that inspired it here.

I was told that the purpose of DNA and rocks was self-evident. Yet the claimant of this couldn't show how it was self-evident. All that I received was a repeat of the claims of self-evident purpose.

I'm wondering if anyone that claims purpose for natural phenomena could explain how it is obvious so that I can see it too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This question came to mind some while back and I see hints of the kind of thinking that inspired it here.

I was told that the purpose of DNA and rocks was self-evident. Yet the claimant of this couldn't show how it was self-evident. All that I received was a repeat of the claims of self-evident purpose.

I'm wondering if anyone that claims purpose for natural phenomena could explain how it is obvious so that I can see it too.

Hmm, perhaps it is self evident that creationists will claim that something is self evident.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Post 54 and post 55 agree imo. Post 54 gives my idea of purpose and function and post 55 is a bit of non empirical thinking on the topic and about the unlikelihood of randomly arriving where we are and so the likelihood of a designer, hence purpose.

I said I would take a look.

I would say that what life has ended up doing is fill the earth. Life did not decide on that, it just happened, so it is not a purpose that life proposed it is a function that life does.
IMO any purpose is something decided on by someone who can decide. So I can pick up a piece of wood and see a use for it and purpose it for that use.
In the same way life has a purpose because there is a creator who created for a reason. Without a God life just exists and there is no purpose that it exists for.

Just to summarize what I think you are saying here. You are saying that a purpose for evolution would require an agent. In your view, the agent is God.

I would think that just the chance that some look more like poop than others and that this leads to protection of the species would be very small even given big lengths of time, and that this evolution is going on at the same time as other bits of evolution on the same group that look like poop. The chances become even less. Then the same thing is happening with umpteen species who by chance have traits in their population that lead to survival and that this smaller sample of the population has other traits that lead to survival.
To me all this shows purpose. The whole evolution system was set up to lead in a certain direction. Chance is a poor second choice imo for the billions of traits that had to have existed initially to be able to use the genetic system to refine the traits. The whole thing imo reeks of design and purpose even if it might be hard to see on an empirical level.

video of fast tracking evolution animation - Google Search

Here you are stating that purpose is indicated by what we observe in the evolution of traits in populations. I'll leave standing my previous response to this regarding chance and point to my post above regarding how purpose if revealed by what we observe.

In any event, I agree, I was wrong in my previous confusion. It seems your posts are in agreement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmm, perhaps it is self evident that creationists will claim that something is self evident.

I believe that is self-evident.

 

[rational experiences]

Science on earth.
O planet natural formed in space.
It's heavens in Infinity law space is it's owned gases clear.

Planet.

No humans. No thesis about anything is exact and precise versus humans known self destructive cult group behaviour theism.

The sun broke rocks stone infinity law said the human thinker. In that moment evolution in space as a planet ceased.

Hence there is no natural evolution law anymore.

Said humans science. What I learnt from my owned practice. Human theory. Human science. I changed earth myself as advised humans practice of hole digging.

The information says as a human you dug holes personally in pursuit of changing anything or discussing change. A human only behaviour.

When the sun owned origin law breaking of earth rock stone as origin hole digging. Infinite law stopped the attack.

Warning to self don't believe in the suns history.

Teaching never copy suns history as it broke Infinities and planets natural law.

Now if an egotist man hadn't changed earths rock law as a designer machine man himself. The egotist we advise is also not wanted in behaviour human. He would not have been enabled to lie today.

As man said he broke stones Rock planet earth. As if he was the suns origin himself.

Historic the sun had.

And he lied...as science is only a group of mens human choice. The group behaviour has in fact involved human greed and criminal murder to allow criminal life control of men as humans. Science choices included.

Humans who are in a self given unnatural choosing position of I can hence I will. About single self behaviour of single men.

Organised crime is human greed control intent with science invention machines. Past and present human only behaviours our warning.

Is the human warning human man human woman pressing machine buttons in life's threat now.

As man woman are lifes human parents in humans life continuance by human love and human sex. The cell in biologies own future. Ours.

Life is now.

The oldest humans lives now with the forming human now. A baby human considered our human future.

The heavens is meant to be highest greatest life's health biology support in infinities earths sun light laws.

And it's not. As proof human science changed sun law natural in infinity theirselves.

Biology sick in holy water as AI transmitters now increase alien AI machine manifested imagery. Seen in our heavens mass.

As natural image in living water is owned by any natural law. Now is being removed in mass. Waters mass one law is living biology.

Water is a holy mass whose bio imagery is nature animal human and base planet earth images. Living. As earth based nature is rooted in all dust Rock variations. Living.

Not machines.
Not transmitters.
Not aliens.

Correct holy images. The living holy water now is our future. And it's proven being destroyed now of its living microbiology.

Men proved the holy life cell in water changes by man's invented chemistry.

Humans who say love creates is via a human adult parent humans consciousness.

Humans whose mind conscious knows how to design build use operate a machine is a removed parent humans natural mind.

Are today humans mutual life's destroyer.

As a human button pushing did not invent the presence of all life on earth as if they are a God in person. Behaviour theirs self Idolating in organised human groups wants to argue.

The humans warning.

If a book wasn't written and preached who would you be...as a book writer human?

When a human can manipulate and remove mass physical. Then see in water status a living microbiology. It already was living. All you did was knowingly remove physical mass to see it.

As a human manipulating earths mass is always just a human. You didn't move nor time transport physically or bodily yourself...as the idea I transport mass out of its mass...to view a living cell.

Or if science wasn't practiced or written you'd still be just a human on earth living. And the history destructive technology not practiced would have allowed a healthier mutual family life on earth.

The teaching human stated machines transmitters took life's holy living biology water away. Causing humans biology to inherit a bio sacrificed life.

We should all be healthy only in suns infinity laws.

As we are all dying daily from early age sacrifice. It's the technology warning today and it is the same as the past regarding humans biology survival in our holy water life.

Man said mass removal is witnessed instant biology. Mass removal hence is instant biology change too. Waters health to live can instantly change to give healthy and sick biology the same instant death.

What healthy humans witness now is life moving towards its instant cessation in holy water. By review a sick human family member.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human advice.

Men humans claim a tiny speck of a machine by human control owns all of created creation.

Not only did they try to convince humanity that a machine represented planet earth. They claimed machines transmitters invented a humans life.

Consciousness theirs a baby human is from microbe sperm ovary defies any use of an inventors adult human advice. The theist said a bio natural humans life.

Said consciousness human.

For example. A human invented the machine. Needs electricity to operate a machines life. Notice the word life said by an inventor is a displaced word meaning falsely. No machine lives.

Owned the choice to want to compare human animal biology bio chemical pulses to electricity.

By making the preaching claim as just a human that the human is part machine. Just because a human mind used designed then built a machine.

Knowing they invented all mechanics to use electricity their selves by thoughts into a machines manifested type. Notice how a machine was manifested bodily by image vision of a human mind.

Place of image only in mind first.

So we plug a machine into electricity. To give a machine life.

Is a human plugged into electricity?

No.

But inventor compares a dying human whose machine is plugged into electricity and is monitoring a biological life pulse.

Isn't his medical suggestion.

It's his I want electricity by Invention only already using machines plugged into electricity. Answer I want to invent new electricity inside a machines body.

Notice the subject topic machine is exact machine. Inside a machines body is two types of electricity in just the machine.

Human life Inventor not included.

Notice however he includes human lives not actually his own in his machine theories. As if our life as compared to his is meaningless?

By just human comparisons to think.

Is the type of human mind we were warned about.

He'd do or say anything about invention just to be enabled to use it.

If a human can push manually on a human's body to start a heart it's pressure not electrical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This question came to mind some while back and I see hints of the kind of thinking that inspired it here.

I was told that the purpose of DNA and rocks was self-evident. Yet the claimant of this couldn't show how it was self-evident. All that I received was a repeat of the claims of self-evident purpose.

I'm wondering if anyone that claims purpose for natural phenomena could explain how it is obvious so that I can see it too.

The standard example of self-evident is "I am conscious". It is said to be so, because it doesn't require evidence to support. It is a sense follows from itself, hence it is self-evident.
The closest I can get to your example, is not purpose, but rather it is that it is sort of self-evident that "there is something, because there is something".
It connects to the question of "how come there is something and not nothing?" and the answer "because there is". But that is not purpose, that is a sort of self-evident ontology. But the limit is that, it only tells that there is something as something and not if it has a purpose.
Rather than being a purpose, it is in a weird version of function. Something has the function of being something.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human adult man. Not yet a father or is a father. But is a theist.

In design maths men's teachings calculus it leads all earths theses to his machine.

Which you all just happen to ignore as your thought says but I'm not theorising for a machine.

Maths science first idea was with natural man. Star mass fall gain brain changed mans ideas. Design machine lost life's bio virtual reality. Design the built machine then mass a reaction leaves not much of a machine. After.

As machine is contradicted by the reaction again to mass. Mind says origin design aware mind position begins again as if no machine or reaction occurred...just thoughts in his man mind. What was left after by maths was there first mind notified.

Equals you're just a possessed star mind man human theist.

Who actually has a machine built after biologies natural existence with a machine mass blocking his organic bio futures life ahead. Body plus thought.

As if the machine became his man's boy child future life.

In reality science is going to get all life destroyed on earth for lying and not just existing as a holy father brother and baby human.

On earth in earths nature.

True story about the science thinker.

One theist as medical biology says I think a monkey had sex when the heavens water microbe mass changed. Had previous monkey babies.

Birthed a human type monkey who went on existing by human sex.

Atmosphere must have changed so monkey sex only then produced monkeys.

He said in legal terms as humans living is planet heavens exact always is the closest humans thesis only.

Living biology.

A machine man looks by machine into out of space. Falsified that star dust plasma is where his human life began...looking by machine only. All said in his mind.

Those bodies still the same now. He tells a human story only about what he believes changed to get a human. And it's a belief only.

All lies.

Either legal is going to correct humans behaviour or science will destroy life for lying as a human looking out into space is always just a human using a machine.

 

[Balthazzar]

In a recent thread the concepts of purpose and function came into debate and discussion regarding the origins and evolution of life. From that thread it is clear that different people have different ideas of how each of those terms is defined, used and whether and how they can be observed.

For the purposes of this thread, I am defining purpose as the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. There are several definitions, but I found this definition through Google and find it fits closely with my basic definition. Additionally, I thought it was suitable enough as a launching point for this discussion. From my view purpose is a concept associated with an agent. Humans are agents that create with purpose. Of course, there are other living things that do this too. But these are the only things that I know of for which there is evidence to show purpose.

It is more difficult, as it turns out, to come up with a simple definition for function and many exist depending on the context. There are functions in music and math as well as social events. That these may have some fit to the discussion, I am leaving open. As to a definition for the purpose of this thread, I think the one that applies to engineering is sufficient, but that too can be discussed and debated. To launch this thread, discussion is defined as a specific action that a system can perform.

I do not interpret purpose and function to be equivalent. I do not see function as the necessary result of an agent, though agents often use function to achieve some purpose. Somewhere in all of this, it is quite likely that the thread will turn to the concept of intent. I intend it to and hope that it functions in some way to achieve that purpose.

So from these simple beginnings, I would like to increase my understanding and definition of these two concepts through a, hopefully fruitful, discussion and debate. To explore how they are applied and discover what evidence exists to support claims about either. And enhance my view of the relationship between function and purpose and how they are applied to questions like creation, science, and in particular, the phenomena and theory of evolution.

I watched a demonstration that illustrated gravity - I think that was the intent. Anyway, evolution as function I would think works in a similar way. A natural progression, movement, resting place, etc. Purpose for? Continuation of life as an expansion necessity. Natural selection - I think is based on value - As living, thinking beings.

Creationist vs evolutionist - Our depth of understanding limited -

Atoms, single cell organisms, egss, seeds and the universe - suns/stars, planets, empty space - Room for growth and expansion. We see ourselves differently than we see the universe. Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree, evolution has a clear goal.

"A goal is an objective or target that someone is trying to reach or achieve. Goal is also the end point of a race or something that a player is trying to put an object into as part of a game. Goal has other senses as a noun. A goal is an aim or objective that you work toward with effort and determination."

Evolution is not a "someone".
It has no goal. It's just something that inevitably happens because of the variables in play.
It's like saying that the "goal" of the sun's gravity is to make to earth orbit it.

 

[idea]

Evolution is not a "someone".
It has no goal. It's just something that inevitably happens because of the variables in play.
It's like saying that the "goal" of the sun's gravity is to make to earth orbit it.

Evolution is quite different from non-living systems. Life = sentient entities which do not just react, they act. The ability to act = driven by purpose.

Religious people do not have a monopoly on Purpose with a capital "P". I clearly see Purpose and have Purpose, without the need to believe in a God.

Filling the universe with sentient life, each surviving species having proven itself and raised itself from the dust

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is quite different from non-living systems. Life = sentient entities which do not just react, they act. The ability to act = driven by purpose.

Evolution is not a living system. The life forms are living systems.
Evolution is just a natural process that living things are subject to. And the reason they are, is because they reproduce with variation and compete over limited resources. Any systems in such situation would evolve - living or otherwise.

Evolution is not a "force". It's not a "thing". It's just the natural inevitable outcome of things that reproduce with inheritance and variation, and then compete with one another, with the winners producing the next generation.

Religious people do not have a monopoly on Purpose with a capital "P". I clearly see Purpose and have Purpose, without the need to believe in a God.

Sure. But imposing purpose requires sentience. Evolution isn't sentient.

 

[Ella S.]

This question came to mind some while back and I see hints of the kind of thinking that inspired it here.

I was told that the purpose of DNA and rocks was self-evident. Yet the claimant of this couldn't show how it was self-evident. All that I received was a repeat of the claims of self-evident purpose.

I'm wondering if anyone that claims purpose for natural phenomena could explain how it is obvious so that I can see it too.

If by "self-evident" one means that their purpose will demonstrate itself without intervention, then I could say that it is self-evident.

I do not think this purpose is very obvious, though, given that seeing it requires meticulous study and it is only "purpose" in the Aristotlean sense that a boulder rolling down a hill's "purpose" is to reach the bottom. It's about the end goal that is being approached.

Similarly, in mathematics and computer science, a function is merely a transformation of an argument into another argument. Assigning and processing functions is often automated, thus there is usually no agent behind them, either.

When we say that a heart's "purpose" is to pump blood, that a stomach's "purpose" is to digest food, that the purpose of a cat's tail is to help them balance, and so on, we are not implying that any of these were intentionally designed.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is quite different from non-living systems. Life = sentient entities which do not just react, they act. The ability to act = driven by purpose.

Religious people do not have a monopoly on Purpose with a capital "P". I clearly see Purpose and have Purpose, without the need to believe in a God.

And yet...

I disagree, evolution has a clear goal.

"A goal is an objective or target that someone is trying to reach or achieve. Goal is also the end point of a race or something that a player is trying to put an object into as part of a game. Goal has other senses as a noun. A goal is an aim or objective that you work toward with effort and determination."

...what I’ve highlighted in large font, you are still anthropomorphizing Evolution as “someone”, as a person, as a human.

You might as well as stick a sign, and say Evolution is a god.

Evolution isn’t life. And Evolution is certainly not a “someone” or a “human” or a “god”...Evolution isn’t alive.

It is a natural process, not a someone with a goal or purpose. Evolution isn’t sentient or conscious.

Stop anthropomorphizing Evolution.

 

[gnostic]

When we say that a heart's "purpose" is to pump blood, that a stomach's "purpose" is to digest food, that the purpose of a cat's tail is to help them balance, and so on, we are not implying that any of these were intentionally designed.

Yes, humans can assign purposes to certain things, when we study biology.

But what would happen if there were some sorts of abnormalities, like with the cat’s tail, or with the heart or stomach.

For instance, if some cats were born without tails. Would you say a tail-less cat have no balance.

And what if there were problems with heart, stomach, liver, kidney, lungs, etc, due to some sorts of diseases. Would you now say the purpose of heat is to have that disease, and so on with other organs with diseases?

Then you can say the purpose of the eyes is to see. So, if a person was born blind, or become blind later in life, would you change the purpose of having eyes is to be blind?

 

[Ella S.]

But what would happen if there were some sorts of abnormalities, like with the cat’s tail, or with the heart or stomach.

Depends on the abnormality in question. Usually, it's going to be considered either a mutation or a disorder.

For instance, if some cats were born without tails. Would you say a tail-less cat have no balance.

I would not say that a tailless cat can have no balance, with or without the hypothetical given.

And what if there were problems with heart, stomach, liver, kidney, lungs, etc, due to some sorts of diseases. Would you now say the purpose of heat is to have that disease, and so on with other organs with diseases?

A disease is the loss of integrity in the function of an organism. Without an understanding of what the function of these organs are, you cannot define when they are diseased. It's a non sequitur to say that something's function can be to have a disease, because it's a contradiction. You're saying that something's function is to violate its function.

Then you can say the purpose of the eyes is to see. So, if a person was born blind, or become blind later in life, would you change the purpose of having eyes is to be blind?

No. When a species of blind animals arises from seeing ones, their eyes are usually considered vestigial. That said, this was a simplified example and eyes do more than just see, being rather complex organs, and so some of the other functions of eyes might still hold for blind animals.

It's also possible for a feature such as a fin to evolve into a different feature with a different purpose, such as a leg. We have examples of that and the reverse happening.

 

[idea]

And yet...

​

...what I’ve highlighted in large font, you are still anthropomorphizing Evolution as “someone”, as a person, as a human.

You might as well as stick a sign, and say Evolution is a god.

Evolution isn’t life. And Evolution is certainly not a “someone” or a “human” or a “god”...Evolution isn’t alive.

It is a natural process, not a someone with a goal or purpose. Evolution isn’t sentient or conscious.

Stop anthropomorphizing Evolution.

Semantics.
I, as a person, have defined for myself, my own Purpose. My life has Meaning, Direction, and Purpose - without the need of any God. I direct my own path, I create my own peace, I am the master of my own mind, I am my own judge.

I am a professor. I am a parent, and a partner. I am an author. I am more than this life. My legacy will live on, as I wish for all life - to struggle, overcome through self-mastery, our own experiments, our own Knowledge gained through our own experiences and study. It's beautiful - Life! Raw, real, growing, diverse - Life

Purpose - to live. to really, deeply, live.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

In a recent thread the concepts of purpose and function came into debate and discussion regarding the origins and evolution of life. From that thread it is clear that different people have different ideas of how each of those terms is defined, used and whether and how they can be observed.

Purpose and function are dependant on spiritual growth. Lack of spirituality lack of organised life function, which goes onto purpose. Lack of purpose is lack of personal ability and whole desire and full function of the soul. Purpose and function are in essence a requirement of the soul. Someone not in touch and feeding and helping the soul will suffer lack of purpose and function.