General Zod : The military wanker’s wet dream

[Samuel]

But there is much more to contributing than just providing children.

Not if you are only counting genes. In that case nothing else is relevant.

You don't seriously think the purpose of soldiers is to get killed?

The purpose of a soldier is to fight. However, running away increases the odds of living so after a battle (well in the past) a larger proportion of the army will be made of people who ran away.

You cannot discern purpose from the surviving members of a group.

The purpose for the existence of any species is to grow, expand and continue existing. But than again, unless me and you can get a private chat with some sort of flying spaghetti monster or something this is just my word against yours.

Species do not aim to grow, expand and continue existing. Species don't make decisions. Individual organisms do. Individual organisms don't benefit from their species continuing to survive or expanding- in fact the only gene selection they have is their own offspring.

[Purple]

But there is much more to contributing than just providing children.

Not if you are only counting genes. In that case nothing else is relevant.

I am not only counting genes thou. Those are your words, not mine.

The purpose of a soldier is to fight. However, running away increases the odds of living so after a battle (well in the past) a larger proportion of the army will be made of people who ran away.

Why do you think we have artillery and machine guns? To let the guys kill the enemy before he comes close enough to scare them so they run away.

You cannot discern purpose from the surviving members of a group.

On the other hand, you can not deny that any group can have a purpose. And that the only ones that contribute to that purpose are the ones that live long enough to do so.

Species do not aim to grow, expand and continue existing. Species don't make decisions. Individual organisms do. Individual organisms don't benefit from their species continuing to survive or expanding- in fact the only gene selection they have is their own offspring.

You do not have to make decisions to have a purpose. You don't even have to poses a mind to do so.

A screw driver has the purpose of driving screws in and out of wood. And the fact that it has no mind does not make that purpose any less valid.

[Junghalli]

I mean, what exactly would one have to do? I am not that good with genetics other than that I know that lack of genetic diversity can make a mess in a population in the long run.

Species with low genetic diversity are more vulnerable to disease because they present a very homogenous variety of hosts for diseases; the same infection strategies will work well on all of them. IIRC, the immune system is especially important for this. You could fix this by splicing in immunity factors from other humans, I think probably without changing most of the genome.

There are other problems with extremely genetically homogenous populations but the biggest ones are non-issues as long as you aren't reproducing sexually.

All the clones are female and there is no reproduction through natural means. Instead, the clones are bread by the computer to ensure a constant population.

If reproduction is artificial it is counterproductive to make them female if you are male. You want to transmit your Y chromosome into the future too.

Do you think that could work?

With sufficient technology, probably.

An alternative is the Snark approach. I didn't suggest it initially because it would probably require large genetic changes, but maybe you could preserve genes that must be changed as junk DNA in the Snarkoids.

[Samuel]

You do not have to make decisions to have a purpose. You don't even have to poses a mind to do so.

A screw driver has the purpose of driving screws in and out of wood. And the fact that it has no mind does not make that purpose any less valid.

Except that is a made item. You have to have a mind to create a purpose for things.

[Purple]

Dam, I just now noticed that my post was badly formated.

And Samuel, you seem to be arguing that all existence is pointless. I agree up to a point.
But you see, the primary purpose engraved in the subconscious mind of every living creature is to reproduce. I think what I am trying to say does not translate well.

But my point is that since every living creature strives to reproduce (and this is documented behavior common to all life), that alone is evidence enough to conclude that it is the purpose of living creatures to do so. After all, why else would it be common to all life?

[Simon_Jester]

But my point is that since every living creature strives to reproduce (and this is documented behavior common to all life), that alone is evidence enough to conclude that it is the purpose of living creatures to do so. After all, why else would it be common to all life?

Being made out of carbon is common to all life- much more so than striving to reproduce, since there are organisms that exist but do not have a reproductive impulse. Not a lot, but they exist.

In any case, all organisms are made out of carbon. Does that mean it is the purpose of organisms to be made out of carbon?

All organisms exist in three dimensions. Is it the purpose of organisms to exist in three dimensions?

All organisms we know of live on the planet Earth, except for a handful we've shot into space. Is it the purpose of organisms to live on Earth?

If this sounds silly, stop and think about why. The reason the question is silly is that we cannot deduce the purpose of a thing from what we see it doing. We can deduce what it is good at, but we cannot deduce what it is for. We can deduce that all (known?) living things are carbon-based; we cannot deduce that this means that in some philosophical sense they should be carbon-based, that carbon-based life would be objectively superior and more 'purposeful' than some hypothetical life that didn't use carbon.

Likewise, of course all organisms have at least a tendency to strive to reproduce, though the tendency isn't always expressed. That's because of evolution, and evolution is not a process that can confer purpose on things any more than gravity is. "We evolve to want to reproduce" is so obvious it's practically a tautology... but "we evolved to do X" is no more significant philosophically than the fact that rocks fall.

Rocks fall when dropped; that doesn't mean the universe is made a better place every time someone drops a rock. Creatures evolve to do certain things; that doesn't mean the universe is made better by them doing more of it.

[Purple]

Being made out of carbon is common to all life- much more so than striving to reproduce, since there are organisms that exist but do not have a reproductive impulse. Not a lot, but they exist.

Really?
Wow, i did not know that. BTW, why did they not die out by now? I am just curious as this is the first time I hear about it.

In any case, all organisms are made out of carbon. Does that mean it is the purpose of organisms to be made out of carbon?

That would be the case if being made of carbon was something they actually have to put effort into achieving.
A state of existence is not the same as a goal you are attempting to achieve. Hence, I don't really see your analogy as being valid.

If this sounds silly, stop and think about why. The reason the question is silly is that we cannot deduce the purpose of a thing from what we see it doing.

And here I thought the whole conversation was silly because I was intentionally trying to be silly. Live and learn I guess.

We can deduce what it is good at, but we cannot deduce what it is for. We can deduce that all (known?) living things are carbon-based; we cannot deduce that this means that in some philosophical sense they should be carbon-based, that carbon-based life would be objectively superior and more 'purposeful' than some hypothetical life that didn't use carbon.

But we can deduce that we are carbon based and that as such when ever possible our actions should be guided to benefit carbon- based life over non carbon-based life.

Will we deduce so, and if we do will we act upon it is another question all together.

Likewise, of course all organisms have at least a tendency to strive to reproduce, though the tendency isn't always expressed. That's because of evolution, and evolution is not a process that can confer purpose on things any more than gravity is. "We evolve to want to reproduce" is so obvious it's practically a tautology... but "we evolved to do X" is no more significant philosophically than the fact that rocks fall.

And how does philosophy matter?

I mean, I am not talking about some divine all reaching purpose here. I am talking about the fact that since reproductive drive is good for a species we have hence evolved it. And that since we have evolved a strong reproductive drive, than for all intents and purposes it is supposed to tell us that we might as well feel obliged to act upon it.

In other words the only purpose in existence for a single life form is to complete it's life cycle in the way it has naturally evolved. In other words, be born, mate and die. There is nothing philosophical about it. Just biology.

Rocks fall when dropped; that doesn't mean the universe is made a better place every time someone drops a rock. Creatures evolve to do certain things; that doesn't mean the universe is made better by them doing more of it.

Who gives a dam about the universe. As long as it does no harm to my gene pool.

[Junghalli]

But you see, the primary purpose engraved in the subconscious mind of every living creature is to reproduce.

That's quite questionable. Evolution simply isn't that good at programming. Humans and animals are fitness proxy maximizers, not direct fitness maximizers. We naturally desire stuff that loosely correlates with evolutionary fitness, but there's no little voice at the back of your head going "do this to propogate the genes". Our desires are actually quite alien to the imperatives of evolution.

I recommend reading Eliezer Yudkowsky's essays Thou Art Godshatter and An Alien God, as it explains it much better than I could.

[Simon_Jester]

Really?
Wow, i did not know that. BTW, why did they not die out by now? I am just curious as this is the first time I hear about it.

Single-celled organisms have no brain and therefore no desires of any kind. They do reproduce, but they don't care if they do or not; they've nothing to care with.

There are human beings who have no particular urge to reproduce. You can find them. Just go looking: "childfree" or "asexual." There are human beings who have strong urges to do things that are strongly counterproductive when it comes to reproduction- like being a shut-in, and who are utterly unwilling to change that behavior when told it will improve their chances of reproduction.

These things suggest that no, reproduction is not the sole dominant drive in human nature.

If this sounds silly, stop and think about why. The reason the question is silly is that we cannot deduce the purpose of a thing from what we see it doing.

And here I thought the whole conversation was silly because I was intentionally trying to be silly. Live and learn I guess.

You ought to wear a sign if you're going to do that. Something like:

"WARNING: I neither know nor care if what I am saying is true, coherent, or rational."

Fewer people will talk to you under those conditions since it's a damned waste of time, but at least the ones you do talk to will know what they're getting into.

We can deduce what it is good at, but we cannot deduce what it is for. We can deduce that all (known?) living things are carbon-based; we cannot deduce that this means that in some philosophical sense they should be carbon-based, that carbon-based life would be objectively superior and more 'purposeful' than some hypothetical life that didn't use carbon.

But we can deduce that we are carbon based and that as such when ever possible our actions should be guided to benefit carbon- based life over non carbon-based life.

How is that rational?

Likewise, of course all organisms have at least a tendency to strive to reproduce, though the tendency isn't always expressed. That's because of evolution, and evolution is not a process that can confer purpose on things any more than gravity is. "We evolve to want to reproduce" is so obvious it's practically a tautology... but "we evolved to do X" is no more significant philosophically than the fact that rocks fall.

And how does philosophy matter?

I mean, I am not talking about some divine all reaching purpose here. I am talking about the fact that since reproductive drive is good for a species we have hence evolved it. And that since we have evolved a strong reproductive drive, than for all intents and purposes it is supposed to tell us that we might as well feel obliged to act upon it.

In other words the only purpose in existence for a single life form is to complete it's life cycle in the way it has naturally evolved. In other words, be born, mate and die. There is nothing philosophical about it. Just biology.

Define for me the words "supposed" and "purpose." Those words imply conscious intent, and yet you are not invoking a conscious designer.

Using words like "supposed" is dangerous in biology, because legs are not "supposed" to walk in the same sense that a sewing needle is "supposed" to sew. Sewing needles are artifacts; someone is doing the supposing consciously.

It's very tricky ground in philosophy to assume that someone is doing the supposing in biology. But without an active source of "suppose," arguments about what we ought to do collapse, just as we cannot deduce from the fact that things fall that we ought to make more things fall.

[Purple]

That's quite questionable. Evolution simply isn't that good at programming. Humans and animals are fitness proxy maximizers, not direct fitness maximizers. We naturally desire stuff that loosely correlates with evolutionary fitness, but there's no little voice at the back of your head going "do this to propogate the genes". Our desires are actually quite alien to the imperatives of evolution.

I recommend reading Eliezer Yudkowsky's essays Thou Art Godshatter and An Alien God, as it explains it much better than I could.

Will look it up, thanks.

Single-celled organisms have no brain and therefore no desires of any kind. They do reproduce, but they don't care if they do or not; they've nothing to care with.

Well in that regard yes. But that hardly counts since they reproduce asexually and thus just pop into two on their own without thinking about it. If there is no choice to be had, than no urge is required to force your hand in making said choice.

In many ways, these are the ideal organisms.

There are human beings who have no particular urge to reproduce. You can find them. Just go looking: "childfree" or "asexual." There are human beings who have strong urges to do things that are strongly counterproductive when it comes to reproduction- like being a shut-in, and who are utterly unwilling to change that behavior when told it will improve their chances of reproduction.

But since this kind of people do not leave genes behind such behavior will eventually evolve out existence.
And no, I do not accept conscious choice to oppose biology as a smart or even sane move.

You ought to wear a sign if you're going to do that. Something like:

"WARNING: I neither know nor care if what I am saying is true, coherent, or rational."

1. This is the user fiction section. If I wanted a sane debate I would have posted in SLAM.
2. It seems that everyone caught on to it on their own so I did not want to bother.
3. Read my signature man, and read my location, and look at my avatar. Do I seem sane to you? Even a bit?

How is that rational?

And why not? I mean, you can come to absolutely any conclusion as long as your logic is sound. And the logic of: "Do what ever I can to benefit my self and those like me even if it crushes those different than me is ok as long as those others are so different that they are beyond comprehension or otherwise too alien." is completely sound or has at least been used as sound during our past.

Define for me the words "supposed" and "purpose." Those words imply conscious intent, and yet you are not invoking a conscious designer.

As said, I think I can't translate well what I am trying to say.
In essence the way I think is as fallows:

Members of a species with a certain property leave more genes behind than those without it => That property should be considered is good for said species => We should strive toward having or at least act like we have the property as well to enhance our chances of reproduction => Members of a species with a certain property leave more genes behind than those without it

Using words like "supposed" is dangerous in biology, because legs are not "supposed" to walk in the same sense that a sewing needle is "supposed" to sew. Sewing needles are artifacts; someone is doing the supposing consciously.

Someone in the past made a tool for sewing and called it a sewing needle.
But now a days, I don't make a needle for my self. And when I want to sew I don't look for the best tool for the job.

No I take the tool that is officially designated as the tool designed for sewing. In other words, if it is in your design, don't question it, even thou there is no reason for it to be there.

It's very tricky ground in philosophy to assume that someone is doing the supposing in biology. But without an active source of "suppose," arguments about what we ought to do collapse, just as we cannot deduce from the fact that things fall that we ought to make more things fall.

*tips something over*

I don't see why you need a conscious creator to give us purpose. Think of it this way.
Animals eat because they need food. if they do not eat, they break down and die. Hence, the biology of animals defines them as creatures that are supposed to eat.

PS. I am sorry if anyone considers this pointless and a waste of their time. But I for one like taking up a position that is slightly off the edge and than fallowing that logic to it's conclusion. It's fun.

[Lerryn]

You ought to wear a sign if you're going to do that. Something like:

"WARNING: I neither know nor care if what I am saying is true, coherent, or rational."

1. This is the user fiction section. If I wanted a sane debate I would have posted in SLAM.
2. It seems that everyone caught on to it on their own so I did not want to bother.
3. Read my signature man, and read my location, and look at my avatar. Do I seem sane to you? Even a bit?

You appeared initially to be in debate mode. If not, you're trolling, and should shut up. If you are, find some coherency, if sanity is out of the question.

How is that rational?

And why not? I mean, you can come to absolutely any conclusion as long as your logic is sound. And the logic of: "Do what ever I can to benefit my self and those like me even if it crushes those different than me is ok as long as those others are so different that they are beyond comprehension or otherwise too alien." is completely sound or has at least been used as sound during our past.

"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Or, put another way, your conclusions are only as good as your premises, and those are very questionable (at least, those I can decipher).

I normally wouldn't be as abrasive, but I get fed up with those who seem to be arguing under false pretenses.

[Purple]

You appeared initially to be in debate mode. If not, you're trolling, and should shut up. If you are, find some coherency, if sanity is out of the question.

First thing first. That list was a clear over exaggeration to promote my point and not a point unto it self.

And second, if you want coherence how about starting with my first post. To refresh your memory, that is the one where I started a conversation on how "Humans are always right because we are humans" by congratulating the writer on a work well done in showing humans getting genocided.

I was rather sure that had made it clear really. If not, I apologize.

"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Or, put another way, your conclusions are only as good as your premises, and those are very questionable (at least, those I can decipher).

You hate to admit that it makes sense thou. The logic is that if something is good for me and those I care about is worth acquiring no matter the cost to someone I don't care about. For example if I can get an extra lump of sugar in my tea and all I have to do is have some unknown alien creature suffer. Why should I deprave my self the pleasure just for the sake of something that is well not me or those I care about?

I guess you might call that sociopathic thou.
But there is logic in that. A form of heartless utilitarian logic, but logic newer the less.

I normally wouldn't be as abrasive, but I get fed up with those who seem to be arguing under false pretenses.

Sorry, geez. I will leave if that is your problem.

[Junghalli]

But since this kind of people do not leave genes behind such behavior will eventually evolve out existence.

Only if you assume that such behavior is entirely genetic. It probably isn't.

Also, there are successful evolutionary strategies that do not include reproduction. Witness the non-breeder castes of the social insects.

[LT.Hit-Man303]

*Reads the entire thread*
" This is like mental masturbation on LSD "
But fun none the less.