ShakyJake

Although this applies somewhat to Evolution/Creationism, I felt this was more a philosophical question than anything.

I recall seeing a reply to another's post regarding how nature isn't trying to do anything when we are considering the process of evolution. However, I do not believe this is the case. The one thing that nature IS trying to do is simple: survive. Through all of Earth's past catestrophies, life has always been able to adapt and continue on.

If we then consider that the most important objective of nature is to survive, then what is the ultimate goal? Obviously, life on a planet can last only as long as it's parent star continues to burn. So is nature's objective to, hopefully, spawn a space-faring species that can spread it's genes across the universe?

What of the universe? There is a finite supply of fuel for all the stars in all of the galaxies. One day these too will burn out. The universe will grow dark and cold and life, as we know it, will not be able to exist.

But is there a step that nature can bring life to surpass - evolve - pass our current understanding of what is life? Is the ultimate goal of nature to survive not through just planetary and solar annihilation -- but through universal destruction as well?

Something to think about!

-ShakyJake

DRFseven

All you've done is to describe what organisms do; this never implies a purpose. All animals also die; does this mean "life" is trying to end itself? The process of living has no ability to try or desire.

ShakyJake

Yes, animals die, but you're looking at a single individual and not the whole. The entire purpose of life is to pass on their genes.

-RRH-

The purpose of life is to follow all physical laws.

All life has done so, whether in living or in dying, so it is the obvious choice for the goal of nature.

John Page

Unless its a hedonist and doesn't enjoy having progeny?

I agree with RRH, slightly different wording, "The purpose of life is not to be not".

jpbrooks

It would probably help if you clarify your stance. Are you assuming that nature can have (subjective) goals and purposes of its (or her?) own, or are you seeking an "objective" purpose (assuming such a purpose is possible) that is independent from any subjective opinion of what that purpose may be?

(I have to go, but I'll be back later.)

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

DRFseven

No, I'm not; they all die.

How do you propose that nature desires something, such as the continuance of life?. Does nature think?

Bill

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html" target="_blank">THIS ARTICLE</a> from the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">TalkOrigins archive</a> discusses the ideas of "Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution? Are there goals?"

Let me quote a couple of snippets: Actually, the stockbroker analogy doesn't quite work because if the stockbrokers were "short sellers," they may well indeed wish for a great market crash, calculating that their gains on their short sales will vastly outweigh their losses due to a lack of paying customers.

But even then, can you call that sort of cabal of stockbrokers the "First Cause" of the market crash? I frankly doubt it, as the conditions had to be exactly right for even a cabal of stockbrokers to be able to push the market in one direction or another for their own private gain.

=====

But the real point of <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html" target="_blank">THIS ARTICLE</a> is that while nature does occasionally operate in accordance with internal teleology (a thing seeks some goal in order to survive), there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any overarching goal or purpose to nature. Instead, there just appears to be "random chance" running the dice table in the casino of "design space" (as defined by Dennett), and thus some areas of potential "design space" will never be explored since their number quite simply never came up.

=====

The sum total of Nature is really an adapted system. The things that exist now exist because they survived; random chance threw them a winning opportunity, and those that did survive took that opportunity and made the most of it. They adapted.

It is wrong to insist that the fact we have a complex result as the consequences of a plethora of low-probability chances taken in sequence somehow implies that there is some sort of overarching purpose operating behind the scenes in order to achieve what exists today, or what will exist at some point in the future. There is clearly no overarching purpose. Instead, we have adapted systems, the survivors in the lottery of the game of Life.

== Bill

Zar

I don't understand this tact of reasoning. Clearly death is as common as life, and lifelessness is vastly more common in our known universe. You could just as well argue that life is an accident and the real purpose of the nature is to snuff it out. It just hasn't been successful at it yet -- like when you pull weeds from your garden, trying to eliminate them all, but they keep popping up.

Wyrdsmyth

<strong>What is nature trying to do?</strong>

It's trying to shake its groove thing.

That's about it.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>