Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: dkv on 16/09/2007 14:06:20
-
Mind exists to create strategies for greater Happiness.
There is absolutely no other purpose.
-
dkv... can you please provide some kind of reference or... reasoning behind your thinking?
-
Evolution has no purpose . And the local opportunistic advantage doesnt stand guaranteed in favour of species.Therefore life and evolution has no purpose or meaning on the whole. So we the mind turns out to be spandrel in the evolutionary check mate. In other words mind doesnt serve any purpose ... a small genetic defect can spoil all the hard work.
(What if mental disease hits the bottomline ... and creates a brain specific genetic defect)
So from evolutionary point of view of replication.. MIND DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. At best it gives a false sense of security or survivability.
As against this we have a purpose of Towards Sustainable Pleasure.
When we say sustaianable it means strategy. Strategy to increase the expereince of pleasure.
AND THEREFORE MIND EXISTS TO CREATE SUPERIOR STRATEGIES for TSP(towards sustainable pleasure)
This suggests that all other functions are derived to perform or exceute TSP.
Which theory is better?
-
in another thread you just said that the purpose of life is this tsp thing. so which is it? because here you just said life has no purpose...
-
Life has no purpose leads to some conclusions about physiology. This theory is being spread by some Devils. They cossed the line of sensibility.And they attacked a religion which doesnt react to such charges. But in the process they hurted not only religion but also science. A believer today cant think
science without denying religion(religion becomes a virus) and similarly a scientist cant live with religion without declaring science as false.
Such an attack was unnecessary.
I am arguing on the basis of my theory . TSP.
tsp says that all physical systems which can be called life move towards sustainable pleasures.
It explains relgions as strategy towards collective Happiness(for all belonging to Group).
-
A believer today cant think science without denying religion(religion becomes a virus) and similarly a scientist cant live with religion without declaring science as false.
I have to disagree with that. There are plenty of scientists who practice some form of religion.
What you asserted would be true if the Bible were taken literally (I know there are plenty who do); but these days there is a growing tendency among theologists to regard the Bible as allegorical. After all, any interpretation of the Bible must have been made by a human being and we, as we know, are not perfect.
I, for 1, tend to take a scientific view of the world; but every so often I am awestruck by the beauty, majesty and intricacies of nature - the wonderful way everything fits together - and start to wondering if, just maybe, there is/was a guiding hand. In fact, the more I learn about QM, the more often I have those thoughts.
Who was it who said that religion fills the gaps between scientific knowledge (or words to that effect)? Was it Dawkins? It's very true, whoever said it. But will science ever be able to fill in all of the gaps?
There is no doubt that religion needs paradigm shifts every once in a while, but that does not mean the 2 are incompatible.
-
As a true Scientist who believes in Biology you will recognize that there are cultural or informational unit called meme.
These meme's are described as Virus if they belong to religion.
So either you are cheating science or the religion.
Apparently the options are digital. Because one of them denies the other completely.
If not anything else it was a big strategical mistake. I explain religion as a consequnce of TSP evolution.
-
Some of the great scientists of past and present believe in God and that has not stopped them developing scientific theories.
Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Fancis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking to name some!
Bee
-
You are not understanding.
The meme theory denies religion any place under the sun.
It is a virus of which we should get rid of.
It says throw away your religious sentiments.(this statement can not be diluted)
Such is the madness.
-
You are not understanding.
The meme theory denies religion any place under the sun.
It is a virus of which we should get rid of.
It says throw away your religious sentiments.(this statement can not be diluted)
Such is the madness.
The underlying concept of what a meme is says nothing about religion.
Nor does meme theory have any notion of viruses as such, so it cannot regard anything, not religion nor anything else, as a virus.
As for having to get rid of viruses - again, this is simplistic. There are bacteriophages that are useful viruses. Viruses may well have other therapeutic uses. They are used to deliver genes in some of the experiments in gene theory.
Thus it is simplistic simply to say that viruses must all be got rid of. Many viruses are known disease causing agents, and they should be got rid of, but that is not all viruses.
-
I click on the posts but they are not opening.
Why is this happening?
Are you afraid to debate with me?
Its an open challenge .. come debate with me.
I promise to beat the hell out you.
-
Old Hindu Proverb from my teacher:
Those who think they KNOW, don't.
Those who think they don't know, might.
-
"Who was it who said that religion fills the gaps between scientific knowledge (or words to that effect)? Was it Dawkins? It's very true, whoever said it. But will science ever be able to fill in all of the gaps?"
No gaps in our knowledge could ever be filled by religion. Why would we turn to a failed Bronze Age attempt to answer questions about our world with 'God did it', when science hasn't yet discovered the real answers? To fill the gaps with religion is a logical fallacy. As Richard Dawkins has written,
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."
And he has also written this,
"The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear. It is an immensely exciting experience to be born in the world, born in the universe, and look around you and realize that before you die you have the opportunity of understanding an immense amount about that world and about that universe and about life and about why we're here. We have the opportunity of understanding far, far more than any of our predecessors ever. That is such an exciting possibility, it would be such a shame to blow it and end your life not having understood what there is to understand."
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
_________________________________________________________________
DKV, your 'theory' will never replace Darwin's theory of evolution, nor Selfish Gene theory. In fact evolution can explain why organisms have evolved the ability to experience pleasure. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as "TSP", which appears to be replacing "GOD" in your ideology. The fact that you are disputing Darwinian evolution by presenting this "theory" shows that you either don't understand any of the mechanisms involved, or are intentionally ignoring the facts.
It's incredibly difficult to discern meaning from the gibberish you keep posting, but it seems as if you think evolution is wrong because it implies there is no 'purpose' to life and the universe. Why should there be?
Further, your contentions are contradictory and inconsistent.
While I'm here, would you please define pleasure?
-
Behind all the humble words there is hidden rationality.
And that rationality insists that Religion spreads from parents to offsprings. Religion is a collection of irrational statements.
Therefore it is a Virus because most societies do not have a choice.
I will share a defintion of pleasure from two point of views:
1.The known expereince :When we are involved doing Sex then the experiences is called pleasure.
2.Common standard for all Life: It is a biological state found during Sex. Just as finding food is biological activity. Similarly finding or illuminating
points of pleasure is a biological activity.
The direction of evolution is towards sustainable pleasure... means the life enetity tries to bring pleasure(just like food)closest to its reach.
Pleasure
-
Behind all the humble words there is hidden rationality.
And that rationality insists that Religion spreads from parents to offsprings. Religion is a collection of irrational statements.
Therefore it is a Virus because most societies do not have a choice.
I will share a defintion of pleasure from two point of views:
1.The known expereince :When we are involved doing Sex then the experiences is called pleasure.
2.Common standard for all Life: It is a biological state found during Sex. Just as finding food is biological activity. Similarly finding or illuminating
points of pleasure is a biological activity.
The direction of evolution is towards sustainable pleasure... means the life enetity tries to bring pleasure(just like food)closest to its reach.
Pleasure
What I am thinking is that you are confusing means and ends.
Nature does use pleasure as a motivating force for animals, but that is not to say that pleasure itself is a driving force for nature.
One simple example I could give. Endorphins are natures opiate, and they induce pleasure; but one can achieve the same end by using artificial opiates (such as heroin), but using artificial opiates can be self destructive, because you achieve the pleasure without undertaking the tasks that nature intended as a prerequisite for achieving that pleasure (e.g. gaining pleasure through sex is a way that nature persuades people to have sex, but gaining pleasure without the need to have sex will mean people don't have sex, and the species fails to thrive).
-
Good reasoning:
What I am thinking is that you are confusing means and ends.
REP:Analogous to Hunger , we understand food as end and means are manifesting due to food.
Similarly Pleasure is universal goal and means are manifesting because of experience associated with Sex.
The evolution of life is towards sustainable pleasure.
Greater the sustainability more advance the species.
=================================
Nature does use pleasure as a motivating force for animals, but that is not to say that pleasure itself is a driving force for nature.
One simple example I could give. Endorphins are natures opiate, and they induce pleasure; but one can achieve the same end by using artificial opiates (such as heroin), but using artificial opiates can be self destructive, because you achieve the pleasure without undertaking the tasks that nature intended as a prerequisite for achieving that pleasure (e.g. gaining pleasure through sex is a way that nature persuades people to have sex, but gaining pleasure without the need to have sex will mean people don't have sex, and the species fails to thrive).
REP: Exactly drugs are non-sustainable. The biological system sooner or later becomes immune to the drugs or rejects it. It is not the drugs which brings the pleasure it is the balance of certain neurlogical chemicals which produces pleasure in a sustainable way. If the system gets disbalanced then the same drugs will not produce the same old effect.
It can lead to pain... sometimes too much pain.
================================
Moreover , the evolutionary behaviour has been such that the sources of pleasure should recreatable. Independent of seasons or geography...
-
REP:Analogous to Hunger , we understand food as end and means are manifesting due to food.
Sorry, I do not understand this. Food is not normally considered an end, but rather a means, a necisity for survival, but it is survival that is the end, and food merely the means.
Similarly Pleasure is universal goal and means are manifesting because of experience associated with Sex.
The evolution of life is towards sustainable pleasure.
Greater the sustainability more advance the species.
Most biologists would these days not like to use concepts such “more advanced species”. Each species has its own niche, and if it succeeds in its own niche, then it is no more or less advanced than any other species that is equally adept at its own niche.
Pleasure is not, from the biological perspective a goal, it is a positive feedback mechanism used to reinforce certain behaviour (e.g. seeking food or seeking sex).
REP: Exactly drugs are non-sustainable. The biological system sooner or later becomes immune to the drugs or rejects it. It is not the drugs which brings the pleasure it is the balance of certain neurlogical chemicals which produces pleasure in a sustainable way.
The drugs mimic the neurological chemicals – that is how they work.
If the system gets disbalanced then the same drugs will not produce the same old effect.
But the moment you talk about balance, then it follows that you are veering away from the extreme (i.e. then you are talking about a balance between pleasure and pain, rather than simply looking at ever increasing pleasure).
Moreover , the evolutionary behaviour has been such that the sources of pleasure should recreatable. Independent of seasons or geography...
The please explain SAD (seasonally affective disorder) – which is a depressive disorder that affects many people due to the lack of sunshine in the winter months at higher latitudes.
-
Relative to Hunger there is food.
Relative Life there is Pleaure.(sexual or asexual)
There are different levels of pleasure.
Pleasure is the climax of what can be achieved.
there are so many types of food available but there is
variety of food which not only satisfies hunger but makes you its regular consumer.
But the moment you talk about balance, then it follows that you are veering away from the extreme (i.e. then you are talking about a balance between pleasure and pain, rather than simply looking at ever increasing pleasure).
I am talking about a process,strategy and goal.
The please explain SAD (seasonally affective disorder) ? which is a depressive disorder that affects many people due to the lack of sunshine in the winter months at higher latitudes.
REP: All types of disorder results due to inappropriate approach to pleasure. If sunshine is Winter brings the necessary frame of mind to think positively then its absence will cause this kind of disorder. Or the person has moved from a sunny place to cold place then he or she will find it hard to adjust. I do not call such behaviours as disorders but
a general consequences of wrong choices which can be overcome by taking right decision.