|
Rage wrote: Due to conservation instinct that seems to be embedded in our genes, and that drives a good majority of people to think about their own wellness before the one of the group
I'd argue the problem is larger than human nature. We are billions of loosely networked agents in a Complex Adaptive System.
Such systems always have a collection of chaotic agents, and will reproduce them. These agents are destructive the way a volcano is destructive - violent renewal. They chip away at the system but that keeps it adaptive.
Such systems go through bifurcation cycles where the orderly agents are more actively in conflict with the chaotic agents and vice versa.
Dual-phase evolution in complex adaptive systems | Journal of The Royal Society Interface[^]
We're in a heavy conflict part of the cycle in societies in various parts of the world.
Every single thing that acts as an agent becomes part of a complex adaptive system once those networked agents achieve critical mass. Such a system "takes on a life of its own" whether it's governments, economies, societies or ecosystems.
To summarize my point we can't escape conflict, not because of who we are, but basically ... because of math.
Conflict is both inevitable and necessary in our case.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
The point is ! there is no point 
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The point is ! there is no point
That tends towards how I think:
Why are we here? There is no reason. We just are.
So what are we going to do while we are here?
1) We can do things for ourselves.
2) We can do things for others (human & non-human) for whom we've developed empathy.
3) A mix of 1 & 2.
I fall into group 3 with a much stronger emphasis on others compared with myself.
Best wishes from Minnesota,
modified 4-Nov-22 12:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We are just doing our job. We are just the next step. Hopefully up and forward. As the cavemen who invented the speech made a huge leap forward. I have no idea where this pat is leading, bit we need to pay our evolutional debts.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Man is defined by their projects.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm. Where to begin. First look at human history (the good and bad). It's about what our minds can accomplish to make life easier and better. That's simple and not always successful, but the nature of our species. The long term goal is to conquer space. Find and visit other planets so that life might continue. Earth has a finite lifetime.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind being dead. It's the dying part that worries me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: As a species, what are we really trying to accomplish, other than base continuation?
This anthropomorphizes the species. Only its individuals try to accomplish anything. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) would say that we, like all species, evolved as survival machines for our genes. But declining birth rates in developed economies suggest that we can subvert our genes' impetus for procreation.
If there's a why for us being here, it's beyond me. I think that dying leading to taking off your virtual reality glasses is as good a guess as any. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to anthropomorphize us as a singular cohesive entity, although I may be too hopeful in hoping we can rally around some common goal, absent an external existential threat.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I am glad someone mentioned Selfish Gene!
What is the reason for the existence of a human or a retro virus? pro-create.
My favorite thought from that book is the overwhelming realization that every living organism today has had ancestors that successfully reproduced since the primordial ooze.
|
|
|
|
|
Agent Smith told it to Morpheus pretty clear...
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: What I mean by that is what is core drive, aside from survival?
I don't know. However, I enjoy programming.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Why are we here, and I mean absent some sort of artifice we create to rationalize our existence?
Well, the answer to that has to be individual. Why are you here? Why am I here? We'll get two different answers. And I don't mean philosophical answers.
For example, "I'm here" (in the sense of being present and accounted for) because I want to make a contribution in some way. Code Project articles. A book I'm writing with a friend. Simply a really good conversation with a friend, or a stranger, that makes a difference, however small, in each of our lives.
honey the codewitch wrote: As a species, what are we really trying to accomplish, other than base continuation?
Even that is leads to an individual answer. I have certain spiritual convictions that tell me why. Others have equally valid answers, or no answer at all other than "well, I was born." That's valid too, IMO.
The problem with philosophical discussion is that it pretty much stays in the realm of the abstract. As Steiner said: "All genuine philosophers have truly been artists in concepts." I'm not really interested in the artistry of philosophical concepts, rather I'm interested in each of our individual reasons.
So, why are you here? 
|
|
|
|
|
That one's easy. What drives me is to create. I build things. I'd do it whether I was getting paid or not. Been doing it one form or another since I was 6. I could have easily been a fabricator, in a parallel life. That's not just vocation you understand. It's what moves me. It's what gets me out of bed, a lot of times.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps foremost: to experience life. When you become bored with just that, I believe we are here to learn how to be better creators. Political systems, religions, mechanical devices, etc. I think we are at an inflection point where more people realize that our old creations in these fields could be improved quite a bit. At least I hope so, but depression arises from all the negativity I've seen over the past few years. So there's that experience to temper my hopes.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: philosophical...i don't want to get hung up on that: Is it really any different than your personal death? We are so attached to the idea of projecting ourselves into the future vicariously through The Child
Do you have any children?
It certainly becomes much less philosophical when one does for most people.
honey the codewitch wrote: Why are we here, and I mean absent some sort of artifice we create to rationalize our existence?
Hmmm...if only there was a field of study with a more than 2000 year history that existed mostly and fundamentally with the goal of answering that...
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Do you have any children?
It certainly becomes much less philosophical when one does for most people.
That's why I mention "The Child" which is symbolic of the future generations of us upon which we pin our hopes.
jschell wrote: Hmmm...if only there was a field of study with a more than 2000 year history that existed mostly and fundamentally with the goal of answering that..
Well, if I catch your drift, it hasn't really borne fruit in terms of uniting us around a common greater goal or anything. If anything, it has divided us.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: That's why I mention "The Child" which is symbolic of the future generations of us upon which we pin our hopes.
No that is philosophical. I am talking about actual real children. Then the future is about them and not philosophy.
honey the codewitch wrote: Well, if I catch your drift, it hasn't really borne fruit in terms of uniting us around a common greater goal or anything. If anything, it has divided us
You mean religion?
No I was talking about the study of philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
I've fostered, but not had any of my own and before you talk about how it was different, I myself am adopted. And I think you're missing my point. Your attachment to your children is what "The Child" is ultimately about.
jschell wrote: Then the future is about them and not philosophy.
As long as humans are capable of metacognition, there will always be philosophy. Furthermore, why code? Why not just have kids? That's how this reads to me.
jschell wrote: No I was talking about the study of philosophy.
Yeah I misunderstood you.
If you'll forgive me you read as though you've got some hang ups around philosophy. You seem awfully averse to even talking about it, which kinda makes me wonder about you participating in the first place, no offense.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Your attachment to your children is what "The Child" is ultimately about.
I doubt it.
It is easy to wax rhetorically in a college classroom about when one is young without children. But the experience of actually having them is quite a bit different. Both in a positive way and a negative way.
The discussion that one might have with society and the responsibility of society to children is far different when one actually has specific children on which there is an impact.
honey the codewitch wrote: why code? Why not just have kids? That's how this reads to me.
No I didn't say that.
honey the codewitch wrote: hang ups around philosophy. You seem awfully averse to even talking about it, which kinda makes me wonder about you participating in the first place, no offense.
Or it could be that I realize that there is a vast amount of literature that already exists that discusses the very broad issue that you attempted to bring up here. And that for me or anyone to attempt to address it in a single simple post would be perhaps futile, arrogant and definitely ignorant.
But if you do want to know more about the subject then start buying books, quite a few of them, which do attempt to capture parts of the same discussion that has been going on for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Deleted my prior message because upon further reflection, you're not the kind of person I want to argue with.
About pretty much anything.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Deleted my prior message because upon further reflection, you're not the kind of person I want to argue with.
That sort of statement is going to be generally counterproductive in learning anything in the vast philosophy educational space.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Hmmm...if only there was a field of study with a more than 2000 year history that existed mostly and fundamentally with the goal of answering that...
Yeah, I do recommend the study of science.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO The Purpose of Existence is to Evolve. Personally and as a Species and hopefully have some fun along the way i.e. e.g. pascalina pizza , stale potato chips , stale Cheetos , a Magnum Dynalab / Harbeth system , Star Wars spin-offs to wit "The Mandalorian as Clint Eastwood" , write Great Code , learn Advanced Mathematics / Physics , learn to play Chopin Preludes , learn to draw like DaVinci - Cheers
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
