Text 120, 93 rader
Skriven 2004-09-21 16:55:00 av Paul (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: the why question
============================


br.hessels@planet.nl (A.C.H.) wrote in message
news:<ciaksl$314e$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> paulw@mmail.ath.cx (Paul) wrote in message
news:<chpsl7$n80$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> > Hi
> > 
> > How far are we from being able to answer the why question?
> 
> Humans ask why-questions. Presumed answers to why questions, involving
> some meaning/purpose/value in the future (relative to the question
> under consideration) are subjective; purposes/meanings/values don't
> hang out there in the real world, they only exists in sofar they are
> projected into the world by brains, particularly human brains.
> 
> Therefore physical/chemical/biological phenomena, which are supposed
> to exist apart from human subjectivity, should not be explained with
> teleological causes.
> 
> On the other hand, if why-questions can be shown to be
> relevant/unavoidable, science would have a problem.
> 
> The answers to the questions you're posing should and can be answered
> with usual causal relations, working from the past, not from the
> future.
> 
> 
> 
> > We know inanimate salts tends to form crystals in order to minimize
> > energy from our physics course. 
> 
> A ball reduces energy by rolling downhill. Does it roll downhill with
> some purpose of preserving energy. i think not.
> The proper causal relation explaining crystal formation would be
> something like:
> a particular flow of energy causes crystal formation. 
> 
> > But this is very far from being able to
> > explain why viruses, bacteria, trees, animals tend to reproduing
> > themselves-- 
> 
> Reproduction is a (or the) basic condition for life. Without
> reproduction there would be no life to begin with.
> The real causal relationships would be:
> physical/chemical conditions caused reproduction which (via natural
> selection) caused life. It happened, it has no purpose.
> 
> and not to mention why the necessity of evolving
> > themselves? What is the physical compelling reason to do that for?
> 
> Differential survival of variating, replicating entities causes
> evolution.
> There is no reason, for that, it just happens.
> 
> > Where to start looking for the why?
> 
> In your own mind.
> 
> 
> (Evolutionary biology is of course rife with why-questions and answers
> ("What good are eyes?"/"Eyes are for seeing."), but only in relation
> to natural selection/adaptation.
> 
> All adaptive, apparently teleological, explanations can be
> unproblematically translated as follows:
> 
> An eye is for seeing
> 
> means: 
> 
> Eyes caused those variations which had them to survive & reproduce.)


What I am a little dissatified about evolution theory, is that, all it
basically says is that we are simply what's left on earth, a product
of whatever process that was occurring. And yet we do think and
wonder-- which greatly bother the hell out of me. The thoery gives no
reason why should things not as simple crystals and no more. What's so
great about survival of fittest when you find no purpose of being? Why
do virus and bacteria reproduce themselves? There is simply so
physical compelling reasons for that. When you find no nececity for
some process to occur, there might be something missing in our
understanding. I wish biologists could find out why sooner-- or at
least find out the physical compelling reasons for the reproduction.
This alone bothers the hell out of me when I think about it.
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/21/04 4:55:45 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)