Meaningless and purposeless CHANCE is the God of the atheists.

Jenwitemi:

Meaningless and purposeless CHANCE is the God of the atheists.

Aliens from planet coocoo is the God of the theists

Krayola:

I think any world view that gives life (on earth), or humans, some special standing in the entire universe is most likely distorted.

That seems to suggest that if some comet landed on earth and wiped out all life, the universe would have been a failed venture. Dunno about that. . . What would the universe do differently if life on earth were wiped out?

NOTHING. . , The universe will still be the way it is even if our entire solar system goes away(something that will eventually happen). . . .

Jenwitemi:

Meaningless and purposeless CHANCE is the God of the atheists.

What is this worshiper of aliens saying?. . . . . . . .Jenwitemi my man. . .Do aliens celebrate Christmas?. . . By the way the aliens you believe in, which planet or solar system did they come from?. . .

Krayola:

Aliens from planet coocoo is the God of the theists

Point of correction, God(s) of the theists. Of course you are right there. Everyone has their own god(s) that they worship, both theists and atheists.

mazaje:

What is this worshiper of aliens saying?. . . . . . . .Jenwitemi my man. . .Do aliens celebrate Christmas?. . . By the way the aliens you believe in, which planet or solar system did they come from?. . .

I don't worship any aliens oh, my man. I only believe that they exist and they originally created our physical bodies before the process of self-replication of the bodies was set in motion.

If aliens celebrate xmas? I don't know, nor do i really care.

These aliens can come from anywhere and everywhere. The vedic literature says that there are four hundred thousand different species of alien humanoids in this universe alone. Is that accurate or not? I don't really give a rat's behind. I only believe that they exist and have always been here. But don't let us derail this thread by going off topic.
Aliens have purpose, by the way.

Jenwitemi:

I don't worship any aliens oh, my man. I only believe that they exist and they originally created our physical bodies before the process of self-replication of the bodies was set in motion.

If aliens celebrate xmas? I don't know, nor do i really care.

These aliens can come from anywhere and everywhere. The vedic literature says that there are four hundred thousand different species of alien humanoids in this universe alone. Is that accurate or not? I don't really give a rat's behind. I only believe that they exist and have always been here. But don't let us derail this thread by going off topic.
Aliens have purpose, by the way.

And their purpose is to create physical bodies for humans, abi? Nothing do you my man. . .Enjoy the holiday. . . .

mazaje:

And their purpose is to create physical bodies for humans, abi? Nothing do you my man. . .Enjoy the holiday. . . .

That is just one single purpose that they have. They probably serve as multiple a purpose as there are humans on this planet. Who says that their purpose have to be singular? How many purposes do you serve in this life, mazaye?

When we humans become matured enough(we definitely are not yet) we will be tasked to go and terraform other planets, as well, the way these aliens did planet earth, and ironically we would be the aliens then, when we do visit other uninhabited planets. The purpose is to keep populating the universe with all kinds of life forms.

@Krayola

Krayola:

I did not ask for the definition of an ecosystem. I asked u to explain how EVERY species in an ecosystem is INDISPENSABLE and what exactly u mean by the term when u use it. U did not deal with the question i raised. How is every species indispensable? Defining an ecosystem has nothing to do with what i asked u.

Every creature is INDISPENSIBLE to an Eco system because the creatures don’t just contribute to the ecosystem but they are part of the ecosystem. So if any creature is removed that particular ecosystem collapses in that it changes.

Krayola:

My question is that did the stripes appear BECAUSE they helped zebras avoid predators, or did they appear by chance and then helped those that had them outlive those that didn't and pass the genes on. That makes a big difference to your theory

Yes Zebras developed the stripes in as a strategy to evade preys like lions. But your argument here has no bases because even if the strips appeared by chance the fact remains that the existence of lion in the environment affected the evolution of Zebras. If there were no lions then the Zebras that evolved didn’t evolve strips may have survived along with those that did. In the end the resultant of would have been very different from what it is today.

The strips made Zebras what they are today, it helped them survive some of the threats of being eaten by lions; weather this strips came by chance or not does not matter here. What matters is that the danger presented by lions affected the evolution of Zebras.

Krayola:

You said the universe is designed for the life in it to thrive. I'm saying how did u come to this knowledge of the universe. Not just our planet, not just our solar system, but the whole universe. . .

Is our earth not part of our universe? The fact that there are parts of the universe hostile to life does not disprove that the universe is designed for life. You car is designed to accommodate you, but you can only be accommodated in a small potion of the car, in the seats; the fact that other parts of the car, like the engine, the tires and the roof, are uncomfortable and inhabitable to humans does not mean that the car is not designed for humans.

Also some scientists believe that the chances of earth being the only planet in the universe that harbors life is very slim.

Krayola:


They are just words. context is everything. why is nudity in classical art considered beautiful, but an exotic dancer considered obscene by many? I was expressing myself in a way that comes naturally to me. They were not insults nor were they meant to ridicule anybody. I also think under aged kids have no business on a public internet forum. I get your point tho and i will tone it down.

You didn’t insult anybody, that not what I mean by obscenities. You used the “F” words. Arts that involve nudity are usually restricted to children and usually came with a warning. Even rap music that contains such words is labeled, with a warning.

I believe that it is wrong to display classical arts involving nudity to the full view of under aged people. I know this is done in some places but I think it is wrong.

Thank you

Krayola:

What about the gun, the printing press, the washing machine, toilet paper, the automobile, air conditioning . . What natural factors led to these inventions and does the world outside Africa have a monopoly on these factors?

I never said that ALL inventions are instigated by natural disaster. Like they say “necessity is the mother of all inventions”. Survival of natural disasters is a necessity for the survival of humans; hence natural disaster gave humans the impetus to so many inventions.

But even the things that you mentioned above are driven by mans urge to deal with nature and natural disasters. Let’s quickly go through the items you presented.

Gun—Part of the reasons why guns are invented was to secure one from threats in the environment like enemies and etc; also included are natural threats like wild animals and etc. It also helps man in hunting wild animals, in dealing with very fast animals. Nature definitely is definitely one of the factors that instigated man to make advancement in weaponry.

Printing Press—Helps man spread the news of an oncoming natural disaster faster than he would have been able to. Men that have survived natural disasters can write a book about how to deal with such disasters and hence preserve their knowledge and also circulate it easier. Natural disasters may not directly be the instigator to the invention of the Printing press but it definitely contributed in the evolution of printing. Some books are printed to survive natural disasters like rain and extreme cold.

Washing machine – Isn’t this obvious!!!! Our forefathers didn’t have to invent a washing machine because they didn’t have as much impetus or need for it as the European had. Rivers always flowed in Sub Sahara Africa, and the sun is always there to dry your cloths after washing them; while in Europe during winter the rivers and lakes are frozen. How do you was your cloths in a very cold water or in a frozen water. They had to invent machine that heats up the water, washes cloths and dries the cloths for them. Otherwise how do you dry cloths in winter when the sunlight is hardly felt?

Toilet Paper – Isn’t this obvious. In Africa due to the perpetual summer and evergreen forests and ever flowing rives, our forefathers had very little impetus towards looking for alternative means to wipe themselves. They can relieve themselves in the next forest and take a bath in the next river. What do they need toilet paper for? Nature gave it all to them. In Europe during winter everywhere is frozen, it is extremely uncomfortable and injuries to health to take off your cloths in the cold weather to relieve yourself. And afterwards you wouldn’t find rivers or liquid water to wash off with. Hence they had to think of a way to relieve themselves inside the warmth of their houses, and invent material in place of water with which they can wipe themselves.

Automobile—Isn’t this obvious!! Have you ever tried traveling in winter? No matter how warmly you are dressed after a while of walking in the cold winter you will start freezing. Hence they had to look for a way to travel in a container in which the temperature is controlled. Even the ancient roman horse driven vehicles, some of them have a cubicle enclosed and protected from the elements. All these contributed in the development of automobiles.

Air conditioning – Here you are definitely kidding!! The temperatures pretty much remains at the same comfortable zone all year round in Africa, hence the African has the least need to control or condition the temperatures of the air in his environment. In Europe during summer it’s very hot and during winter it’s very cold. Europeans in their quest to achieve a relatively stable temperature invented air conditioners. Since they are used to a relatively cool weather, with an air conditioner they can maintain this coolness during summer, and maintain it also during winter. The air conditioner helps to maintain a narrow range of temperature in a room by giving out cold air when the room is hot and giving out warm air when the room is cold.

Moreover even if natural disaster instigated them to only a few inventions; by inventing these few inventions they developed a culture of invention, while the African remained in the state of relying on nature to provide for him.

Nature is too kind to Africans. The harshness or severity of weather in Europe is the best thing that ever happened to cultures that evolved in Europe. Histories have been wondering why some tribes of people ventured into the cold, severe and unmerciful hands of European weather, while some remained in the warm and comfortable cradle of mother Africa.

Thanks

mazaje:

@ Justcool. . .I really appreciate your rejoinders. . .That was what I expected for aletheia but he just kept running round and round in a circle. . . .

Thank you too.

mazaje:

Don't get me wrong because I never stated that any thing was purposeless, I just wanted him to tell me the purpose since he claimed to have special knowledge. . . .The primary purpose of every living thing on earth and in other parts of the universe if there are any is SURVIVAL. . . . .

Okay I understand where you are coming from and I agree with your premise on the purpose of every living thing.

mazaje:

This is a VERY FALSE statement. . . .Scientists currently believe that 96% of the universe is either dark matter or dark energy, meaning that a scant 4% of the universe is even conceptually accessible by us. Of that 4%, virtually all of it is comprised of empty space some two degrees above absolute zero, which is instantly lethal to living beings. So essentially the universe is almost entirely off-limits to humanity and other living beings, and of that which is not off-limits, almost all of that is trying to kill us or destroy life. Life can not survive out there in space in its natural form, so the nation that the universe was created or designed for life is false. . . . .

The fact that most part of the universe is inhospitable for life does not imply that the universe is not designed for life; all the conditions necessary for the life exists on earth and since the earth is part of the universe, one can say that the universe is designed for life.

The whole part of thing does not have to be hospitable to that which it is designed for. Think about your house, you can only live in the rooms of your house; the others parts of the house like the roof, the walls, the pillars are inhospitable for you. Does this mean that the house is not designed for you? No!

Think about a man in a rocket; the cubicle that is designed for the man, the only place that is habitable for the man in the entire rocket does not represent 4% of the entire rocket, yet the rocket is designed for him.

The whole universe doesn’t need to harbor live or be habitable for life, to be designed for life; therefore I think my premise holds.


Thanks

justcool:


Every creature is INDISPENSIBLE to an Eco system because the creatures don’t just contribute to the ecosystem but they are part of the ecosystem. So if any creature is removed that particular ecosystem collapses in that it changes.

Ok. A change in an ecosystem is the same as a collapse. If you say so.  

justcool:

Yes Zebras developed the stripes in as a strategy to evade preys like lions. But your argument here has no bases because even if the strips appeared by chance the fact remains that the existence of lion in the environment affected the evolution of Zebras. If there were no lions then the Zebras that evolved didn’t evolve strips may have survived along with those that did. In the end the resultant of would have been very different from what it is today.

The strips made Zebras what they are today, it helped them survive some of the threats of being eaten by lions; weather this strips came by chance or not does not matter here. What matters is that the danger presented by lions affected the evolution of Zebras.  

If I go to intentionally disrupt an ecosystem, destroying some species in there, and new species come about eventually as a result of my willful disruption of the ecosystem, wouldn't you be able to make this same argument that my purpose is to help new species spring up? That if Krayola did not exist we would have had a different result?

You see what I'm getting at when I say this theory is too convenient? It wouldn't matter how things turn out u can always fit it into your worldview.

Natural and artificial factors affect what species come about and what go extinct. . . It's a complex matrix that can yield lots and lots of different results. I think nature is indifferent. . . it just does it's thing. .  species try to survive and some are successful while some fail.

justcool:

Is our earth not part of our universe? The fact that there are parts of the universe hostile to life does not disprove that the universe is designed for life. You car is designed to accommodate you, but you can only be accommodated in a small potion of the car, in the seats; the fact that other parts of the car, like the engine, the tires and the roof, are uncomfortable and inhabitable to humans does not mean that the car is not designed for humans.

I don't have to disprove anything. I'm not even trying to disprove anything. I'm just asking you to explain how you came to realize that the entire universe is designed for the life in it to thrive?

My car is designed to get me and my friends around. I am aware of the functions of most of the parts of my car and I can explain how they help my car to do what it does. What data do u have about the entire universe that lead you to believe conclusively that it was designed for the life in it to thrive? Can you honestly say you know what most of the parts of the universe do, and why they do them?

justcool:

I never said that ALL inventions are instigated by natural disaster. Like they say “necessity is the mother of all inventions”. Survival of natural disasters is a necessity for the survival of humans; hence natural disaster gave humans the impetus to so many inventions.

But even the things that you mentioned above are driven by mans urge to deal with nature and natural disasters. Let’s quickly go through the items you presented.

Gun—Part of the reasons why guns are invented was to secure one from threats in the environment like enemies and etc; also included are natural threats like wild animals and etc. It also helps man in hunting wild animals, in dealing with very fast animals. Nature definitely is definitely one of the factors that instigated man to make advancement in weaponry.

Printing Press—Helps man spread the news of an oncoming natural disaster faster than he would have been able to. Men that have survived natural disasters can write a book about how to deal with such disasters and hence preserve their knowledge and also circulate it easier. Natural disasters may not directly be the instigator to the invention of the Printing press but it definitely contributed in the evolution of printing. Some books are printed to survive natural disasters like rain and extreme cold.

Washing machine – Isn’t this obvious!!!! Our forefathers didn’t have to invent a washing machine because they didn’t have as much impetus or need for it as the European had. Rivers always flowed in Sub Sahara Africa, and the sun is always there to dry your cloths after washing them; while in Europe during winter the rivers and lakes are frozen.  How do you was your cloths in a very cold water or in a frozen water. They had to invent machine that heats up the water, washes cloths and dries the cloths for them. Otherwise how do you dry cloths in winter when the sunlight is hardly felt?   

Toilet Paper – Isn’t this obvious. In Africa due to the perpetual summer and evergreen forests and ever flowing rives, our forefathers had very little impetus towards looking for alternative means to wipe themselves. They can relieve themselves in the next forest and take a bath in the next river. What do they need toilet paper for? Nature gave it all to them.  In Europe during winter everywhere is frozen, it is extremely uncomfortable and injuries to health to take off your cloths in the cold weather to relieve yourself. And afterwards you wouldn’t find rivers or liquid water to wash off with. Hence they had to think of a way to relieve themselves inside the warmth of their houses, and invent material in place of water with which they can wipe themselves.

Automobile—Isn’t this obvious!! Have you ever tried traveling in winter? No matter how warmly you are dressed after a while of walking in the cold winter you will start freezing. Hence they had to look for a way to travel in a container in which the temperature is controlled. Even the ancient roman horse driven vehicles, some of them have a cubicle enclosed and protected from the elements. All these contributed in the development of automobiles.

Air conditioning – Here you are definitely kidding!! The temperatures pretty much remains at the same comfortable zone all year round in Africa, hence the African has the least need to control or condition the temperatures of the air in his environment. In Europe during summer it’s very hot and during winter it’s very cold. Europeans in their quest to achieve a relatively stable temperature invented air conditioners. Since they are used to a relatively cool weather, with an air conditioner they can maintain this coolness during summer, and maintain it also during winter. The air conditioner helps to maintain a narrow range of temperature in a room by giving out cold air when the room is hot and giving out warm air when the room is cold.

Moreover even if natural disaster instigated them to only a few inventions; by inventing these few inventions they developed a culture of invention, while the African remained in the state of relying on nature to provide for him.

Nature is too kind to Africans. The harshness or severity of weather in Europe is the best thing that ever happened to cultures that evolved in Europe. Histories have been wondering why some tribes of people ventured into the cold, severe and unmerciful hands of European weather, while some remained in the warm and comfortable cradle of mother Africa.

Thanks

WOW!!  WTF?!?!

This debate continues, but still not a single person has offered formal criterion for designating design. I do not think that anyone has even defined the word yet.

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

@Jenwitemi

Meaningless and purposeless CHANCE is the God of the atheists.

Probability and statistics are an integral part of physics and engineering. The most direct and well known example would be in quantum mechanics. Phenomenon like quantum tunneling(diodes/transistors), photon scattering(lasers), and photon diffraction(cameras/lasers) are a few examples that you have likely benefited from without even knowing it. Statistics and probability in terms of cosmology and biology should not be treated with any less credibility than it is in quantum physics. If anything, biology is merely a subset of chemistry, which is itself a subset of physics. It is much the same with cosmology.

Purpose and meaning are subjective and only exist within the minds of individuals. Naturally they are differ from person to person. It is hubris for we as humans on a small rock, in a solar system at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy(one of many), to project meaning and purpose onto Universe as if it is for lack of a better word meaningful.

Why is intelligence reflectin only on humans?

^^^

Did you never see ants build a colony?
Or a Pride of Lions set up a hunt and spring a trap?
The cunning of hyenas?
A rodent that examines a trap then walks off in a huff at your attempt to catch it?

Not only humans exhibit intelligence

Idehn:

This debate continues, but still not a single person has offered formal criterion for designating design. I do not think that anyone has even defined the word yet.

@Jenwitemi Probability and statistics are an integral part of physics and engineering. The most direct and well known example would be in quantum mechanics. Phenomenon like quantum tunneling(diodes/transistors), photon scattering(lasers), and photon diffraction(cameras/lasers) are a few examples that you have likely benefited from without even knowing it. Statistics and probability in terms of cosmology and biology should not be treated with any less credibility than it is in quantum physics. If anything, biology is merely a subset of chemistry, which is itself a subset of physics. It is much the same with cosmology.

Purpose and meaning are subjective and only exist within the minds of individuals. Naturally they are differ from person to person. It is hubris for we as humans on a small rock, in a solar system at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy(one of many), to project meaning and purpose onto Universe as if it is for lack of a better word meaningful.

@Idehn
How are you?

Your line of argument wouldn’t get us anywhere. While I agree that everything exists in the mind; in this thread we are looking at the universe from within the mind.

If we go by your argument, then one can argue that the universe the way that we see it doesn’t exist as such. One can also argue that we don’t exist at all as such. Without the mind or perception, the universe has no form, and there is nothing like solidity and etc. Everything is energy we see it the way we do because our senses try to make sense of the impulses they receive from the outside. We can never see the outside the way it really is.

You can’t use the mind where it suits and disregard it where it doesn’t suit your argument. We can either argue from the perspective of the mind or from without the perspective of the mind. You can mix the two just to win the argument.

Also if one can ague that the meaning we see in the universe is false because it only exist in our mind, or because it is only the perception of our minds; then one can also argue that all the premises of science are false because they are just interpretations of the universe as it appears to our mind or our senses or as observed by our senses.

The bottom line it that it doesn’t matter what the universe actually looks like, we will never know this. But as long as we are all humans, our minds have evolved to perceive the universe within a narrow range or perception peculiar to humans; in other words, humans perceive things relatively alike, but still within a narrow or certain range.

Like all instruments of measurement, each is only accurate to a certain extent. But as long as we use the same instrument through out an entire experiment, we are okay; this is a scientific principle.

We should apply the same principle in the argument; as long as we all base our argument from the perception of humans we can arrive at a reliable conclusion.

You can’t mix the two perspectives in the same argument; just as you can’t use two different measuring tools, with different ranges of accuracy, in the same experiment.


Thanks

Off topic @ aletheia

_{[size=4pt]Reports of bomb blasts in Jos[/size]}

What's d difference's btw instinct and intelligence? I do not think purpose is subjective, since it is tied its usefulness or synonymous.

@Enigma:
[size=3pt]Sadly it's true, though I am currently in xxxxxxx, but I confirmed the news from my family there. Help us pray.[/size]

@ aletheia

Lord have mercy; happy Christmas, bro. And happy Christmas to all as well.

justcool:


Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today;

Do you have any data correlating frequency and/or severity of natural disasters to level of technological advancement?  

I did some checking and the far East and middle east are historically the worst hit areas for natural disasters. . except diseases which are more evenly spread.  SO far I can find nothing to support your theory. This site has a very very comprehensive, detailed list of worldwide disasters from 1900-2008. It's a file you have to download and I've been going through it like say I no get life for a while but your theory is not supported at all. http://infochimps.com/datasets/disasters-wordwide-from-1900-2008

For example, the areas most frequently and severely hit by earthquakes are indicated on the maps. Besides Italy, nowhere in Eurpoe even shows up on the radar. California no even pop.  scroll halfway down this page to see the maps http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/01/15/earthquake-data/

And based on your theory Africa should have space age flood prediction/prevention technology because flood don dey show us pepper since nineteen gbogboro.

If u can show me some kinda paper or report from anthropologists or any academics or sumn that shows a corelation between natural disasters and technological advancement I will really really appreciate it. I don't want to dismiss your theory until I'm sure it deserves to be dismissed. My own sense tells me it's not valid. . . but what do I know  

To be honest this theory of yours is so out there that I don't even know how to respond to it.

@justcool
Hello justcool. I am doing fine now that I am on break. I started my graduate studies sometime ago so I have not even had time to even think about having fun. How have you been?

Your line of argument wouldn’t get us anywhere. While I agree that everything exists in the mind; in this thread we are looking at the universe from within the mind.

If we go by your argument, then one can argue that the universe the way that we see it doesn’t exist as such. One can also argue that we don’t exist at all as such. Without the mind or perception, the universe has no form, and there is nothing like solidity and etc. Everything is energy we see it the way we do because our senses try to make sense of the impulses they receive from the outside. We can never see the outside the way it really is.

How so? When someone some dies does the Universe not continue on even though they had a mind and could perceive it? If so does that fact change when millions of people die as is the case now? If not, why would it be different if all minds ceased? The purpose and meaning ascribed by the millions if not billions of humans that have lived and died has not changed the nature of the Universe save the part of they interacted with. However, the "thing" we call purpose/meaning still remained apart of their mind(in the form of neurons).

You can’t use the mind where it suits and disregard it where it doesn’t suit your argument. We can either argue from the perspective of the mind or from without the perspective of the mind. You can mix the two just to win the argument.

Also if one can ague that the meaning we see in the universe is false because it only exist in our mind, or because it is only the perception of our minds; then one can also argue that all the premises of science are false because they are just interpretations of the universe as it appears to our mind or our senses or as observed by our senses.

To say something is subjective and/or to say it exist in their mind is not say it is false. It is only to say that any truth values related to that "thing" must be applied on an individual basis. When some one says the purpose of a car is to go to work that maybe true for that individual. It may even be true for many individuals. But some people will have variations/additions of said purpose such as needing to by groceries or transport other people etc,  In order to ascribe truth values to statements of purpose/meaning we must evaluate them on a case by case basis.

The bottom line it that it doesn’t matter what the universe actually looks like, we will never know this. But as long as we are all humans, our minds have evolved to perceive the universe within a narrow range or perception peculiar to humans; in other words, humans perceive things relatively alike, but still within a narrow or certain range.

Like all instruments of measurement, each is only accurate to a certain extent. But as long as we use the same instrument through out an entire experiment, we are okay; this is a scientific principle.

I agree with you completely and I am glad that you said this. I think people mislabel Science as being objective when it is really more Inter-Subjective.  What I mean is that every one who practices science agrees to a set of norms(the inter part) and follows through with them. In science these norms are to some extent arbitrary(as is the case with BTU/inch/cup/lb) what is important is that they are agreed upon. This helps people make similar observations(the subjective part) of the same phenomenon as other observers. In this way we approach objectivity in lieu of the fact that we can never actually achieve it in practice.  

So saying something is subjective and/or in the mind does not attempt to disregard the mind but to recognize it as apart of human endeavor. That is why I ask that someone state/define their criterion that people are using to ascribe design for use/criticism. If we cannot even agree on a set of norms used to describe "design" their is no point in carrying the conversation further as the natural end would be confusion. For example, how could anyone practice science without first establishing norms for measuring distance, time, mass etc,  The end result would just be much confusion. We need an Inter-Subjective consensus before we can begin discussion.

@Kay 17

What's d difference's btw instinct and intelligence? I do not think purpose is subjective, since it is tied its usefulness or synonymous.

Ownership is a useful property too however it is still subjective. If someone steals the shirt off your back, the shirt won't get up and return two you. There is no property inherent in the definition of "shirt" that we can meaningfully call ownership. Ownership is property that exist within the mind of individuals(most in fact). However, even on earth we can see that different groups of people have different definitions for ownership (communist,capitalist,anarchist etc, ). There are different groups with their own Inter-Subjective consensus. However, this does not make ownership any less subjective. In a similar fashion, much of the same thing can be said about purpose/meaning.

I think that instinct is different form of memory used by an organism if not an intelligent one. For clarification I am using memory in the sense
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory. Memory can take many forms. In humans the most basic form of memory is the DNA. However, when you store passwords on your computer that too is a form of memory however extended. You are using your computer(transistors specifically) to store and retrieve information. I believe instinct is just information stored at the DNA level.

Why is intelligence reflectin only on humans?

I do not believe it is. Other organism exhibit intelligence in many ways like humans.

@Krayola,

Thanks for your response, I will treat the points you raised accordingly:

Krayola:

Do you have any data correlating frequency and/or severity of natural disasters to level of technological advancement? 

I don’t need to show any special date, just ask yourself "which race contributed the most to the technological advancement of mankind?" Then ask yourself which part of the glob that their cultures evolved.

It is clear that the people who contributed the most to the technological advancement of the world are people from the temperate regions of the globe.

Just look at the glob, the developed areas and were we have humans with the best work ethics are in the temperate regions. Look at continents like Europe and compare it with a continent like Africa. Even in continents that spread across the equator and the temperate regions of the world, the part extending to the temperate regions are often more developed. Look at Africa, North Africa extends to the temperate part of the world, and North Africa is most developed in Africa. Look at the continents of North and South America; in the continent of North America, the most developed parts are USA and Canada, both of which belong to the temperate region of the globe. In the continent of South America, we see the same picture unfolding; the most developed parts are countries like Argentina which are in the temperate region of the globe.  Look at Asia too. There is a reason why the impoverished countries are clustered in between the temperate regions, around the equator where there is perpetual summer. Today most of the developments we have in such countries are borrowed or invented by cultures from the temperate regions. Please take good look at the map of the world in this link, temperate regions are the regions highlighted in purple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_temperate.svg

The bottom line is that changes in whether( winter, summer, fall, spring) forced the people who evolved in such areas to develop, use their brains or perish; as opposed to people in the equatorial areas where the weather is always warm and conducive for life, people in these areas can afford to be lazy.

Krayola:

I did some checking and the far East and middle east are historically the worst hit areas for natural disasters. . except diseases which are more evenly spread.  SO far I can find nothing to support your theory. This site has a very very comprehensive, detailed list of worldwide disasters from 1900-2008. It's a file you have to download and I've been going through it like say I no get life for a while but your theory is not supported at all. http://infochimps.com/datasets/disasters-wordwide-from-1900-2008

What you wrote above goes to prove my theory. Here, first of all let me remind you that the Middle East belongs to the temperate regions of the earth; and according to historians civilization started in the Middle East, in Mesopotamia.

Also the time frame that you checked does not suffice because we are dealing with human development, human evolution not the present era. We are dealing with how weather and affected the evolution of man; hence we are with how the time when cultures or races were still evolving. The present characters, looks and behavior of the races of the world are as a result of the period when they were still evolving these features and that the period that we are dealing with in this thread. 1900-2008 does not suffice because the work ethics or the culture of invention that Europeans have was not developed during 1900-2008.

You cannot use 1900-2008 because at this time the world has become a global village and this prevents people from directly being compelled by natural disasters. I will give an example: If it starts to snow in Nigeria today, you don’t expect this natural change to have, on Nigerian, the effect that it had on the early Europeans. Why? The inventions made by the Europeans are already available and easily accessible to Nigerians. So rather than racking their brains on inventing means to survive the snow, the Nigerians will simply employ or buy the means that the Europeans provided. The Nigerians wouldn’t have to invent the heater because it already invented and available. You see how the present era changes things; it was different in the past eras when people were isolated and had to deal with their problems themselves.

Also in the link that you gave all I see there are disasters that happened in Australia, not the entire world.

Krayola:

For example, the areas most frequently and severely hit by earthquakes are indicated on the maps. Besides Italy, nowhere in Eurpoe even shows up on the radar. California no even pop.  scroll halfway down this page to see the maps http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/01/15/earthquake-data/

Look at your link again and carefully please. California definitely popped up. The map deals with countries or nations; California is a state in the country of nation of USA. So the data that you see there corresponding to USA involves California. Read the link that you provided, it made mention of California temblor right in the first paragraph of the article.

You mentioning of Europe in regards to earthquakes does not make your point. The bottom line is that cultures that evolved in the areas of the world frequently hit by earthquakes were pushed to develop means to deal with earthquake. Or rather, countries where there are frequent earthquakes are forced to make technological advancements on how to survive, detect and predict earthquake. California alone has made tremendous advancements in this area.

Krayola:

And based on your theory Africa should have space age flood prediction/prevention technology because flood don dey show us pepper since nineteen gbogboro.

Flood in sub-Saharan Africa!! Really please show me data on how many floods that have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. I mean real floods that threaten to wipe out an entire population; floods like tsunami. The Ancient Egyptians were among the first mode made progress in flood control because the Nile always flooded and destroyed their farms.

Krayola:

If u can show me some kinda paper or report from anthropologists or any academics or sumn that shows a corelation between natural disasters and technological advancement I will really really appreciate it. I don't want to dismiss your theory until I'm sure it deserves to be dismissed. My own sense tells me it's not valid. . . but what do I know 

To be honest this theory of yours is so out there that I don't even know how to respond to it.

The same old Nigerian or sub-Saharan African mentality, “give it to me on a platter of Gold.” You don’t have to wait for anthropologists or any academics to do your thinking for you. You are an intelligent and educated person, you can do this research on yourself; perhaps you may be the first to develop a theory and that will rank us(Nigerians) higher in the eyes of the world.

But this is as clear as abc; just look at the world map.

But in this case it is not a question of developing a new theory; Science has confirmed that organism, including man, adapt to its environment. The weather, and natural catastrophes peculiar to a place are parts of the environment which the organism adapt to.  Haven’t they said it all; what else do you want academics to say. Fishes adapted to living in water by developing gills; Europeans adapted to the winter by using their brains and inventing heaters, or by developing a resourceful culture of invention; apart from developing narrow noses and etc. Culture is also a form of adaptation, not all adaptations are biological.

Science even went as far as telling us that weather and climate affects our moods and behavior. What else do you want them to say?

But here is chronological list of how the warfare against weather has impacted technological development:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1206.cfm (Disregard the religious tone of this article; at the end it gives a valid list of technology and weather)

Also check this out: http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/phased_array_radar/welcome.html

The existence of bodies like the NOAA is a sure evidence of how weather forces man to develop technologically. Here is NOAA website: http://www.noaa.gov/

Here is how the battle against tornadoes helps in the developments and advancement of the RADAR technology:  http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/phased_array_radar/welcome.html

Also here is a good article to read about how weather affected history; even in the science and technology of warfare. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_weather_history-1.html


Thank a lot.

justcool:

@Krayola,

Thanks for your response, I will treat the points you raised accordingly:

I don’t need to show any special date, just ask yourself "which race contributed the most to the technological advancement of mankind?" Then ask yourself which part of the glob that their cultures evolved.

It is clear that the people who contributed the most to the technological advancement of the world are people from the temperate regions of the globe.

Hi, correct guy. Hope u are having happy holidays.  Thanks for your response. Today na boxing day so na so so running up and down with family peoples but I promise to give a detailed response. I know most of my recent posts have been in haste and maybe I was not as clear as I could have been in expressing my concerns.

Just one quick point tho. or two, or three    I think what u are doing is what is called reductionist history. Suggesting phenomena like technological innovation can fit nicely into some straight forward "logical" explanation. Most historians or anthropologists will tell you that stuff like that do not fit into tidy little theories like that, but are as a result of a complex matrix of factors interacting with each other. What triggers a culture of innovation in culture a at location a, might have an opposite effect on culture b in location b.

Another point that you seem to be overlooking is that Europe arrived late on the scene as far as technological innovation. In fact for a while Europe was anti-innovation. There have been great civilizations with great technological innovations. . . several of them, long before Europe became a technological powerhouse. The renaissance ushered in this culture of innovation you speak of, and I can guarantee you that earthquakes and winter had little to do with it. If any natural disaster contributed greatly to it, it was the black plague. . .and even then there was a lot of other stuff going on in the background that influenced the way things turned out. In North America, a culture freedom of thought combined with capitalism and stuff like the railroads that turned that huge land mass into one big market gave new incentives for innovation. The promise of wealth . . can also inspire people to be very innovative. The Islamic empires that went thru a golden age of innovation, right beside, and during Europe's dark-ages, are another example that give me reason to doubt this your theory of "earthquake  and winter are coming let's get smart and invent stuff" theory.   

And I also don't understand how tha world was a global village in 1900, but I will deal with that when I respond  later.

Thanks 

Idehn:

@justcool
Hello justcool. I am doing fine now that I am on break. I started my graduate studies sometime ago so I have not even had time to even think about having fun. How have you been?

I’ve been very fine; thanks for asking. I wish you good luck on your graduate studies, I wish you success.

Idehn:

How so? When someone some dies does the Universe not continue on even though they had a mind and could perceive it? If so does that fact change when millions of people die as is the case now? If not, why would it be different if all minds ceased? The purpose and meaning ascribed by the millions if not billions of humans that have lived and died has not changed the nature of the Universe save the part of they interacted with. However, the "thing" we call purpose/meaning still remained apart of their mind(in the form of neurons).

The meaning we ascribe to the universe is as good as the way we see the universe. The universe that we see physically can also be argued to be in our mind(in the form of neurons). We see the universe the way we have evolved to see it, and we ascribe meaning to it the same way.

The Truth is that we can never see the universe the way it really is; the way we see it is different from the way lions see it, and the way lions see things is different from the dogs see things.

Everything is pure energy; it is only our minds or organs of perception that make things appear as solid, liquid, gasses and etc. It is also our mind or senses that make us perceived different wavelengths as different colors. In a spectrum where humans see only seven colors, a dog may only see five colors and another creature may see six colors and etc. What we humans see as green maybe what dogs see as yellow and etc.

The same is applicable with the meaning we give the universe; sometimes meaning serves as an excuse for us to live, it gives us the hope to live and etc. But just like our vision, this meaning doesn’t necessarily always correspond to the Truth.

However, the universe remains what it is, irrespective of the way we see it or the meaning we attach or not attach to it. And don’t ever think that these meanings that we attach to a thing are without effect. The Truth is that everything to real, to a certain extent. By attaching meanings to things we create our own reality; and hence the thing becomes what we expect or interpret it to be, at least to ourselves and to a very limited extent. I know this is hard to follow but I can elaborate. If you want to, you can open another thread and we can discuss this issue.

This brings us to the age old question: “Which is more important, the actuality of an event or our realization of the event?”

Idehn:

To say something is subjective and/or to say it exist in their mind is not say it is false. It is only to say that any truth values related to that "thing" must be applied on an individual basis. When some one says the purpose of a car is to go to work that maybe true for that individual. It may even be true for many individuals. But some people will have variations/additions of said purpose such as needing to by groceries or transport other people etc,

Correct, only to a certain extent. And the same is applicable to our perceptions, the way that we see things. Even the things we see and which we call reality is very subjective to our senses; one can equally say that they are no more definite than the purposes or meanings that we attach to the universe.

I will give an example: Light! Light enables us to see, to locate things; but the Truth is that this definition is peculiar to us; it only defines light as it applies to us. There are creatures, like bats, that do not need the light to locate things. And consequently their definition of light would be different from ours. While humans may define light as that which helps us to see things, to locate them, or to hunt; Bats may define light as that which makes it difficult for them to hunt. Now tell me which is right or wrong?

The Truth remains that the purposes or meanings that we attach to things spring greatly from our perception of the thing or the way we see that thing. And since physically we can never see things the way they truly are, therefore in-order to see the things the way they really are and find their real purpose or meaning we must go beyond the physical. If we limit our search for the Truth(the meaning of it all) to our physical perceptions then we well never arrive at the Truth.

Another food for thought: Some scientists say that humans see things upside down because only the inverted versions of the images we see reach the retina. If you buy a set of goggles or glasses that invert things; if you wear this glasses, the first few weeks you will see the world as upside down and if you keep wearing it without taking it off, soon it will become normal to you, the inverted images will appear as normal to you. And then when you take it off you will begin to see the world as upside down, at least for a few weeks till your brain gets used to it. The question is which perception is right?

And that which we claim to see, keep in mind that the rays emanating from it or reflected of it doesn’t really reach our brain; thus what we see, with our physical eyes or perceive with our physical senses is just a construction of our senses.

Here is an interesting video to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSWzPMLBek0&feature=player_detailpage 

However, the Truth or reality remains what it is, eternal and unchangable; for us to see the Truth, we must look from above the physical, from our spirits.

Idehn:

In order to ascribe truth values to statements of purpose/meaning we must evaluate them on a case by case basis.

As long as you remain in the physical and limit your organs of evaluation to the physical organs you will never arrive at the meaning or purpose; the solution doesn’t lie with how many times you evaluate cases but with that which you use for the evaluation. To find the purpose you deploy your non-physical faculties.

I will give an analogy, a fish in an ocean trying to figure out the size of the ocean. As long as it is limited to being a fish and confined to the ocean it can never arrive at the Truth about the size of the ocean, no matter how many times or cases it evaluates within the ocean. It can only arrive at the Truth when it stands outside and far above the ocean. Only a man in an airplane far above the ocean can overlook the entire ocean and arrive at the Truth about the size of the ocean.

Our physical bodies, along with our brains and our physical senses are like a fish in the ocean of the physical universe.

The Truth remains that our bodies, along with the brains our their intellect and all our physical organs of perceptions, being part of the physical world are hence limited to the physical world. Only that which stands aside the physical world, that which has more dimensions that the physical, can actually overlook the whole physical and the meaning behind it; therefore one should search for the meaning with his/spirit, which is above and beyond the physical. The brain will only lead you in circles within the confines of physical world, a confinement it can never rise above.

I don’t know if you have seen the movie “The Matrix” As long as you are in the matrix, no matter how much and how you evaluate a matter case by case, you can never arrive at the Truth, you can never see yourself or your environment the way it truly is. You have unplug from the matrix first, only then will you realize that what you thought was real life was only a dream.

To some people, only when they pass on, as in physical death, do they realize that they have been dreaming; they will then see the physical world the way it is and all the unnecessary values that they attached to physical possessions while they were on earth will then seem like foolishness to them.

Life or the meaning of should be examined from above, form ones spirit, and not with the brain which is limited to the physical realm.

Idehn:


I agree with you completely and I am glad that you said this. I think people mislabel Science as being objective when it is really more Inter-Subjective.  What I mean is that every one who practices science agrees to a set of norms(the inter part) and follows through with them. In science these norms are to some extent arbitrary(as is the case with BTU/inch/cup/lb) what is important is that they are agreed upon. This helps people make similar observations(the subjective part) of the same phenomenon as other observers. In this way we approach objectivity in lieu of the fact that we can never actually achieve it in practice. 

So saying something is subjective and/or in the mind does not attempt to disregard the mind but to recognize it as apart of human endeavor. That is why I ask that someone state/define their criterion that people are using to ascribe design for use/criticism. If we cannot even agree on a set of norms used to describe "design" their is no point in carrying the conversation further as the natural end would be confusion. For example, how could anyone practice science without first establishing norms for measuring distance, time, mass etc,  The end result would just be much confusion. We need an Inter-Subjective consensus before we can begin discussion.

When we say that the universe was designed, here is the definition of the design that we are talking about:

[I]•  To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
•  To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
•  To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.[/I]

(American Heritage Dictionary) http://www.answers.com/topic/design

I think that the existence universe fits into the above definition, hence the universe was designed.

justcool:

Everything is pure energy; it is only our minds or organs of perception that make things appear as solid, liquid, gasses and etc. It is also our mind or senses that make us perceived different wavelengths as different colors. In a spectrum where humans see only seven colors, a dog may only see five colors and another creature may see six colors and etc. What we humans see as green maybe what dogs see as yellow and etc.

The words solid,liquid, gasses are descriptors of our observation of objects. Perceiving an object is not the same as acting object. Perception does not cause an object to go from being energy to a state of matter(energy as defined in Physical Circles can have many forms including matter).

Colors as defined in the Sciences are categorized by the frequency/wavelength that they were observed at. If a dog sees a 570–580nm(yellow light) then the statement that it has seen yellow light as has been defined is true. However, if yellow were defined such that it was 520–570nm(what we consider green) but it saw light at 570–580nm the the previous statement would be false.

Regardless, we had to consider the truth value based on each case. However, because this definition is independent of the fact that our eyes(or any other sensory mechanism) can only perceive a small section of the spectrum. Therefore, we can determine the truth value of color for what a human and dog see and come to the same conclusions(that they saw the same color).

justcool:
However, the universe remains what it is, irrespective of the way we see it or the meaning we attach or not attach to it. And don’t ever think that these meanings that we attach to a thing are without effect. The Truth is that everything to real, to a certain extent. By attaching meanings to things we create our own reality; and hence the thing becomes what we expect or interpret it to be, at least to ourselves and to a very limited extent. I know this is hard to follow but I can elaborate. If you want to, you can open another thread and we can discuss this issue.

I do not think we are really in disagreement here. It sounds you are saying that meaning/purpose exist in our mind along with there affects. This not to different from what I was stating earlier.
Also does saying that we create our own reality and that it not an acknowledgement of the subjectivity of meaning/purpose. It kind sounds like you are talking about confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

justcool:
I will give an example: Light! Light enables us to see, to locate things; but the Truth is that this definition is peculiar to us; it only defines light as it applies to us. There are creatures, like bats, that do not need the light to locate things. And consequently their definition of light would be different from ours. While humans may define light as that which helps us to see things, to locate them, or to hunt; Bats may define light as that which makes it difficult for them to hunt. Now tell me which is right or wrong?

I do not see what is wrong with either definition. The two definition are not mutually exclusive so light can and does accommodate both. For example chocolate is perfectly safe to humans to consume but extremely harmful for canine consumption. The definition of chocolate can incorporate both definition insofar as both are valid. In the same way light can be helpful to humans and harmful to bats.
Nonetheless, we still had to evaluate the truth value of "what is light" on a case by case basis. Each subject specific definition was valid for their respective subject.

justcool:

The Truth remains that the purposes or meanings that we attach to things spring greatly from our perception of the thing or the way we see that thing. And since physically we can never see things the way they truly are, therefore in-order to see the things the way they really are and find their real purpose or meaning we must go beyond the physical. If we limit our search for the Truth(the meaning of it all) to our physical perceptions then we well never arrive at the Truth.

We do see things as they truly are(or were to be more precise). However, we use our memory of the object(which is distinct from the original) to interpret what we saw and naturally memories are subjective. Thus how we interpret is naturally going to be different at some level. That why we need an Inter-Subjective consensus so that we can come as close as possible to a single interpretation as is possible for multiple observers. What we perceive is not "false" persè. It is only that we use memory of an object and not the original for interpretation. We cannot use the original object in place of our individual memory, and thus we cannot overcome the subjectivity of meaning/purpose that arise because of this.

Another food for thought: Some scientists say that humans see things upside down because only the inverted versions of the images we see reach the retina. If you buy a set of goggles or glasses that invert things; if you wear this glasses, the first few weeks you will see the world as upside down and if you keep wearing it without taking it off, soon it will become normal to you, the inverted images will appear as normal to you. And then when you take it off you will begin to see the world as upside down, at least for a few weeks till your brain gets used to it. The question is which perception is right?

What exactly would the criterion be for right and wrong in this case?

As long as you remain in the physical and limit your organs of evaluation to the physical organs you will never arrive at the meaning or purpose; the solution doesn’t lie with how many times you evaluate cases but with that which you use for the evaluation. To find the purpose you deploy your non-physical faculties.

I see no reason to introduce new organs into the discussion as it will only accent the issue here. I am not saying that people do not determine meaning/purpose. I am saying that their meaning/purpose is subjective and exist only in their minds. Increasing the ways that they perceive the universe will not change that fact as it is the memory/interpretation that cause for subjectivity(as explained above). Subjectivity, I feel, cannot be avoided as it is the product of our individuality. Just by being in different in place at a different time does subjectivity come about.

•  To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
•  To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
•  To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

I do not see how the universe falls under this definition. Neither you nor I created the Universe so what ever purpose we ascribe to the Universe could not be used as the purpose needed in the definition. Furthermore, I do not see any evidence that the Universe was created. From evidence we have
cosmic background radiation(Big Bang)
Conservation of Energy/Matter
Conservation of Momentum

it would suggest that the Universe has always existed in some form.

Idehn:

Furthermore, I do see any evidence that the Universe was created. From evidence we have
cosmic background radiation(Big Bang)
Conservation of Energy/Matter
Conservation of Momentum

^^You are being disingenuous by leaving out the implications of The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the end of the Universe. Furthermore (to use your own words), you betray an ignorance of the Big Bang theory by claiming that the First Law of Thermodynamics and Newton's Laws of Motion support a universe that has always existed. These are just laws that arise because:

Wikipedia: The universe appears to behave in a manner that regularly follows a set of physical laws and physical constants.

The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). . .Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

^^If the universe's point of origin is located at a finite time in the past; it certainly suggests that the universe did not always exist. The question then arises: Before the universe existed; what did?

You need to understand that that the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. The term Big Bang actually misleads lay people(who think of it in terms of an explosion). Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is a residue of the Big Bang (which occurred at a finite time in the past) and actually undermines your position that:

Idehn:

. . .the Universe has always existed in some form.

^^

Wikipedia: During the first few days of the Universe, the Universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the Universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early Universe was opaque to light.

When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 379,000 years after the Big Bang. These photons make up the CMB that is observed today, and the observed pattern of fluctuations in the CMB is a direct picture of the Universe at this early epoch. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the Universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the Universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity.

Notice the words: During the first few days of the Universe.

Idehn:

it would suggest that the Universe has always existed in some form.

^^So you see, sir, that the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's origins suggest that the universe began at some finite time in the past from a singularity of infinite density and temperature: at this finite point in the past; space, time, energy and matter came into existence and began to expand from it's point of origin.

---

Idehn:

The words solid,liquid, gasses are descriptors of our observation of objects. Perceiving an object is not the same as acting object. Perception does not cause an object to go from being energy to a state of matter(energy as defined in Physical Circles can have many forms including matter).

The above is very correct! I never stated otherwise. I am very impressed with your view on matter as a form of energy. I have a lot of problems explaining that to people even in Nairaland. I can see you are a sound student of science.

Idehn:

Colors as defined in the Sciences are categorized by the frequency/wavelength that they were observed at. If a dog sees a 570–580nm(yellow light) then the statement that it has seen yellow light as has been defined is true. However, if yellow were defined such that it was 520–570nm(what we consider green) but it saw light at 570–580nm the the previous statement would be false.

This is correct too. But the point remains that even two people do not see the same color exactly the same way. Thus when it comes to perception, the individual always perceives according to his/her nature. Hence it can only take something entirely aside the system to tell it like it is.  This is where God comes in for those who believe in God. I said spiritual perception earlier because the spirit being higher than matter, stands a better position to observe the entire world of matter; as opposed to the intellect which is bound and confined to matter. But even this spiritual perception is subjective to the nature of the spirit. The only perception that is not subjective is the perception of a being entirely above creation. Only God sees everything exactly like it is; but this is only for those who believe in God.

Idehn:

Regardless, we had to consider the truth value based on each case. However, because this definition is independent of the fact that our eyes(or any other sensory mechanism) can only perceive a small section of the spectrum. Therefore, we can determine the truth value of color for what a human and dog see and come to the same conclusions(that they saw the same color).

Wonderful! The above is not only correct but it makes my point. Our eyes can only perceive a small section the spectrum; indeed with all our organs of perception we can not perceive the entire spectrum; this only goes to show how limited our perceiving is. Surveying the entire physical universe as a whole with our senses is completely out of the question, hence the purpose and meaning is also beyond the reach of our physical senses.

This is where spiritual perception is required; when we deal with meaning and purpose we have to investigate with our spiritual faculties. But this is not science, so you can either accept it or disregard it; don’t ask me for the scientific evidence of the spirit because science is confined to the physical while the spirit is way above the physical.

We can never be sure that the dog perceives the same wavelength exactly as we do; we can through experiments know which wavelengths dogs can perceive, but we can never be sure that the dog perceives it or sees it exactly as man does. Indeed two men do not see the same color exactly the same way.  

Idehn:

I do not think we are really in disagreement here. It sounds you are saying that meaning/purpose exist in our mind along with there affects. This not to different from what I was stating earlier.
Also does saying that we create our own reality and that it not an acknowledgement of the subjectivity of meaning/purpose. It kind sounds like you are talking about confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It is not confirmation bias. What I am trying to say is that meanings/purposes based on physical perception are very subjective since physical perceptions cannot survey the entire universe.

But this does not mean that the universe has no real and non-subjective meaning/ purpose. This real and non-subjective meaning/purpose can only be perceived with the spiritual faculties and not the limited physical faculties.

The meaning/purpose that exist in our minds are those driven based on our physical perceptions; not the actual meaning/purpose which is not subjective, not a figments of our minds, but stands completely in the will of the creator.

Idehn:

I do not see what is wrong with either definition. The two definition are not mutually exclusive so light can and does accommodate both. For example chocolate is perfectly safe to humans to consume but extremely harmful for canine consumption. The definition of chocolate can incorporate both definition insofar as both are valid. In the same way light can be helpful to humans and harmful to bats.
Nonetheless, we still had to evaluate the truth value of "what is light" on a case by case basis. Each subject specific definition was valid for their respective subject.

Actually both definitions are wrong and neither scratched the nature of “Light”. Both definitions, like all definitions driven from the intellect, only view the object from their own limited perspective. They only deal the object in how it relates to them, in what they use the object for or what it enables them to do. But the object remains what it is irrespective of what each creature does with it. But this analogy is just to show you how limited definitions (intellectual understanding) of things can be.

Idehn:

We do see things as they truly are(or were to be more precise). However, we use our memory of the object(which is distinct from the original) to interpret what we saw and naturally memories are subjective. Thus how we interpret is naturally going to be different at some level. That why we need an Inter-Subjective consensus so that we can come as close as possible to a single interpretation as is possible for multiple observers. What we perceive is not "false" persè. It is only that we use memory of an object and not the original for interpretation. We cannot use the original object in place of our individual memory, and thus we cannot overcome the subjectivity of meaning/purpose that arise because of this.

Here I disagree; in all our seeing, we see mostly ourselves. We perceive things according to our nature.

I already gave you an example about a fish in the river; as long as it remains in the river, it will not be able to size-up the entire river. It is bound to its environment in the river, just as our physical perception is bound to a definite section of the physical spectrum. In order to survey the entire we must stand aside it.

Idehn:

I see no reason to introduce new organs into the discussion as it will only accent the issue here. I am not saying that people do not determine meaning/purpose. I am saying that their meaning/purpose is subjective and exist only in their minds. Increasing the ways that they perceive the universe will not change that fact as it is the memory/interpretation that cause for subjectivity(as explained above). Subjectivity, I feel, cannot be avoided as it is the product of our individuality. Just by being in different in place at a different time does subjectivity come about.

Here you are correct. The point that I was trying to make is that in addition to subjectivity, the physical organs of perception a bound, confined and limited to the physical, the real meaning /purpose is not physical. The real purpose/meaning cannot be completely grasped or discovered by the physical senses(the intellect); this can only be grasped by the spiritual perception.

Hence one who does not employ his intuition(the voice of his spirit) in his investigation is bound to maintain that the universe has no purpose.

Idehn:

I do not see how the universe falls under this definition. Neither you nor I created the Universe so what ever purpose we ascribe to the Universe could not be used as the purpose needed in the definition. Furthermore, I do see any evidence that the Universe was created. From evidence we have
cosmic background radiation(Big Bang)
Conservation of Energy/Matter
Conservation of Momentum
it would suggest that the Universe has always existed in some form.

I think you should rewrite the bolded part above; I perceive that it negates what you wished to say.

Your premise above only show the limitation of the intellect which I have been trying to point out. Now you made a statement that not even the intellect can explain, and yet you base your conclusions on the intellect.

Now watch this statement of yours, “the Universe has always existed” You brain(intellect) is not satisfy with this statement because it negates the way the intellect functions. The intellect always looks for a beginning and an end. “Eternity” does not make sense intellectually because the intellect having a beginning and an end can only deal with things in terms of beginning and ending.

“Eternity” should not be in the dictionary of intellect because it just doesn’t make sense to the intellect. Be honest with yourself and tell me “can you easily reconcile eternity with your intellect?” The answer is no!

Eternity is a concept that can be grasped only in the spiritual; it lies only in the spiritual.  

The statement “the universe has always existed” is terribly unscientific!! Science deals with logic and evidence. Please can you give me one evidence of a physical thing being eternal? If you can ascribe that quality to any physical material then why ascribe it to the universe.

Which physical laws give rise to eternity? Or can you explain “eternity” in the light of the laws of physics? If not then the whole concept is unscientific!!!!!

Also eternity negates all the laws of physics. The laws of physics maintain that for every action there is a reaction. Everything we see, including the universe is a reaction of an action that preceded it. I can go on and on in this but I think it will be a waste of time since everybody knows it; denying it is just being dishonest.

Thanks

@justcool, its important to identify and define the external source of energy and why it is not subject to physical laws? Existence is labelled as physical and since we have not experienced otherwise; what makes you conclude there is an alternate world, have you experienced it? Physical laws governing the universe are often mistaken to be like computer programmings, but are more of its limitations. By defining it, one is able to capture its consistencies and inconsistencies. I do not find it a product of a super creator. We have not defined design and yet we make hasty analogies with man's creations. Is functionality only derivable from design? Is a cave for design? Is a river intended as a transport system? Or man just takes adv of it. To whom is the universe useful to other than itself? Funny enough, the so called creator is far more complex and sophisiticated than universe and he is perfectly self made! He is bound by time and time is itself linear! There is the past, present and future. It begins! Too. I think god is an invented solution, which is a bigger problem than the original problem. Like the ancients, invent a lightening god for lightening. 'I do not know at this moment' could be an appropriate answer sometimes rather than inventing tall tales!

^^You are being disingenuous by leaving out the implications of The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the end of the Universe.  Grin Furthermore (to use your own words), you betray an ignorance of the Big Bang theory by claiming that the First Law of Thermodynamics and Newton's Laws of Motion support a universe that has always existed. These are just laws that arise because:

I believe you are speaking of the Heat Death/Big Freeze of the Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Which is a hypothesis of the possible state of the Universe in a far distant future. Even with a cursory glance at the hypothesis you would not come away thinking that it suggested that the Universe ended. In fact the hypothesis requires that the Universe still exist in order for it to be valid. It is quite clear you did not even bother to understand what the hypothesis was suggesting.

The hypothesis suggest that the Universe(which still exist at the point in time) will reach a state of thermal equilibrium(at some minimum temperature) where all mechanical motion will cease(having been transformed into heat). Work in a thermal context is the result of temperature differences. Thus no thermal gradation will result in little to no new mechanical work. No where does this suggest the Universe stops existing.

Please do not just present hypothesis/laws/principles because they seem to support what you already believe. Instead try to understand them first and let them inform your beliefs.

You may be interested to know that there are many other hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the Universe. Our understanding of the Universe is increasing daily so it is only natural that there are many predictions to a distant event that has yet to occur. We just do not know exactly what the next state of Universe will be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_universe

^^If the universe's point of origin is located at a finite time in the past; it certainly suggests that the universe did not always exist. The question then arises: Before the universe existed; what did?

You need to understand that that the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. The term Big Bang actually misleads lay people(who think of it in terms of an explosion). Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is a residue of the Big Bang (which occurred at a finite time in the past) and actually undermines your position that:

The Big Bang is more appropriately described as an expansion of the Universe(not matter/energy into the Universe) from a singularity. All that is contained within the singularity IS the Universe. Singularity, just like the heat death hypothesis, is a description of the state of the Universe at a given time. The fact that at one point in time the Universe was contained in singularity does not suggest that there was nothing prior to that state. Just as the expansion of a gravitational singularity (death of a black hole) does not imply that nothing existed prior to that state. We know that there was something prior to a black hole state and that state is a star.

Similarly singularity is a precursor state to the current Universe. The reference to the "first days" are with respect to the current Universe.

It is also important for us not to forget the principals behind the Big Bang. Namely that it requires that the physical laws (specifically the conservation of Matter/Energy) hold. Since we are both fine with references to Wikipedia here it is as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Underlying_assumptions

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

Thus it is clear that the Big Bang does not imply that nothing existed prior to singularity because that would violate the very principals it is based upon.

^^So you see, sir, that the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's origins suggest that the universe began at some finite time in the past from a singularity of infinite density and temperature: at this finite point in the past; space, time, energy and matter came into existence and began to expand from it's point of origin.

Again the current state of Universe had a finite beginning, but that does not imply that the Universe itself had a beginning or first state much less a final state.

Idehn:

Please do not just present hypothesis/laws/principles because they seem to support what you already believe. Instead try to understand them first and let them inform your beliefs.

^^This is what you should have done before trying to tell us that:

From evidence we have
cosmic background radiation(Big Bang)
Conservation of Energy/Matter
Conservation of Momentum

supports your assertion that the universe has always existed.

Idehn:

Thus it is clear that the Big Bang does not imply that nothing existed prior to singularity because that would violate the very principals it is based upon.

Again the current state of Universe had a finite beginning, but that does not imply that the Universe itself had a beginning or first state much less a final state.

You are only trying to shift words around. The universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Something may have existed before the Big Bang but it wasn't the universe.