/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11309908
>>>/his/

>>11309908
That's what the whole trojan war was about. The face that launched a thousand ships. Probably is also why a condom company picked the name Trojan.

How do we purge all cat fags?

and for food, and for land, and for gold, and for insults. The state of man in nature is nasty brutish and short, thavnat's how it is bruvna

>>11309908
nothing robo wives can't fix

>>11309908
Yeah, why not just have sex with the same girls and with eachother? I love double-teaming my wife

yeah humans are fucking cringe sometimes. WHY WERE WE PLACED IN FLESH

>>11309913
You are a fucking retard if you think that was the real cause of the war. Oh wait, I am on the board full of idiots who think le humanities is worthless but then say stupid trash like yourself.

>>11309919
this is a cat image board

>>11309947
>tfw no qt3.14 gelatine lifeform gf

>>11309956
I hate them too.

>>11309908
The ultimate purpose of the human species is to reproduce itself. If you cannot reproduce you are literally polluting the gene pool.

>>11309993
They can’t pollute it because they’re not even in it.

>>11309993
there is no ultimate purpose of the human species

>>11310011
Prove it, bitch.
>no u!

We don't know at our scale. The best we could do is deploy a massive sensor network, collate, and correlate all the data with an AI. Nonetheless you likely couldn't tell if there was a reason for our nature and all we do over a single human lifespan.

But let's be real, you haven't thought that far or to any real depth on "purpose" and what purpose even is. You're just another traumatized reactionary groupie who is pissed off about some nebulous concept of "God", probably based around Bliblical omni x4 guy and that's it. Yep, good going kiddo, you cracked it. Checkmate, religion, my religion of Atheism just btfo'd you 0wn3d.

>>11310024
>But let's be real, you haven't thought that far or to any real depth on "purpose" and what purpose even is.

A purpose is a function, behavior, or role intended for something by its creator or operator. Humans have no purpose, because we evolved. A doorknob has a purpose. Grow up.

>>11310034
>because we evolved.
Why. Take that assumption, and based on this assertion, ask yourself, why.

Every answer you come up with, ask why again. And again. And again. Until you reach something irreducible, or circular.

Look at your own body. Does the mesenchymal cell, in embryonic development, "choose", does it have a random fate? No. It is created, among other thing,s to be trafficked to the skeletal matrix and incorporated therein. It can think and see whatever it wants along the way, so long as it exists within the broader system of the body, this is its purpose from its birth.
And so too it is for man, and complex systems at every level of organization.
Purpose is unavoidable.

You are a religious zealot and a fool. Stated bluntly for your benefit.

>>11310064
>Why.

Because of the selection pressures that a lineage of apes were exposed to.

> Every answer you come up with, ask why again. And again. And again. Until you reach something irreducible, or circular.

Doesn’t get us to a “purpose”.

> Does the mesenchymal cell, in embryonic development, "choose", does it have a random fate? No. It is created, among other thing,s to be trafficked to the skeletal matrix and incorporated therein. It can think and see whatever it wants along the way, so long as it exists within the broader system of the body, this is its purpose from its birth.

Wrong. There is no teleology in biology. Something doing something does not mean that’s it’s purpose.

> Purpose is unavoidable.

Purpose is nonexistent except for things created with a specific behavior, role, or function intended for them by their creator. Evolution has no intent, so no cell, anatomical feature, behavior, gene, or organism has a purpose. Simple as that.

You are a religious zealot and a fool. Stated bluntly for your benefit.

:)

>>11310075
>Because of the selection pressures that a lineage of apes were exposed to.
The classical evolutionary mechanisms are severely incomplete, the implications of the proposed mechanisms are poorly understood by many, and don't explain the origin of species, particularly modern man. More on this later.

>Doesn’t get us to a “purpose”.
How would you know? Prove it. Burden of proof falls on you.

>There is no teleology in biology.
Ah yes, the old "chemical soup".

>Purpose is nonexistent except for things created with a specific behavior, role, or function intended for them by their creator.
So if you design a machine to build another machine, that final machine is now apart from the chain of "purpose", because the machine which made it had no such conceptions.

>Evolution has no intent
Prove it.

This is the core of the matter. Now think for a moment, you have two organisms. One is blind and just incurs "random mutation" and selection and all the rest. The other is subject to these things, but it has embedded, low level logic, tuned over millennia, to determine how it should bias future changes. What sort of problem needs to be solved in the present environment, and which strategies maximize the probability it will have the means to adapt and reach this end state. It would seem to me the latter, with this additional layer of logic, has a massive advantage.

Modern day of course we know mutations aren't random. DNA has characteristics of a fractal antenna. The composition of a sequence of DNA makes some portions more vulnerable to damage and various errors than others. The placement of histones and the coiling behavior, temporally and spatially, influences mutation probability. The logic used during formation of the zygote plays a role.

You have no basis to reject an embedded plan or purpose, on any level, and from any source. Whether it's more on our scale, or something embedded in the logic that drives the physics of our universe.

>>11310119
Many years ago I dubbed this "autoevolution", which is any mechanism whereby an organism can exert control its genetic change over time. At the time I couldn't find anyone who gave a shit about it, and some were hostile simply because it sounded too much like "God".

You have other modes of influence, including bacteria and fungus. Our tissues are full of bacteria, L-forms in particular. Man has a microbiome in the brain. What line of influence over our behavior, our organization, and our ultimate fate over time? For all you know we're slaves of bacteria.

The list goes on. There are too many avenues to discuss in this short span.

Brainlet /sci/entists lost in logic.

>>11309908
>>11310011
>>11310024
>>11310034
>>11310064
>>11310075
>>11310119
>>11310131
Our purpose is spreading our genes. From the OED:
>purpose
>the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists
As you can see, a creator is not necessary, because a purpose can simply be a "reason... for which something exists". Synonyms are given as these:
>motive, motivation, grounds, cause, impetus, occasion, reason, point, basis, justification
>intention, aim, object, objective, goal, end, plan, scheme, target
And in the sense I'm using purpose here, I think the best synonyms would be "aim", "objective", and "goal". Slightly behind them would be "motivation" and "intention".

The REASON why procreation is our purpose / goal / objective is simply because evolution has made it that way. It's not because some external standard, like some god, has given us this purpose. No, there's no evidence for that. Instead, the reason procreation is our purpose is simply because it's a descriptively true statement of human behaviour that the life goal of any healthy human is to propagate their genes with the highest quality mate(s) possible. And this description is true of all organisms too (of course some organisms reproduce asexually but, nevertheless, we observe all organisms, sexual or asexual, doing everything they can to propagate their genes - they will sacrifice everything in order to fulfil this goal, including their own lives if it means saving their offspring).

And the reason the descriptive statement is true is because of natural selection. Nature selected for organisms that prized reproduction. The ones that thought reproduction was important were the ones that continued the survival of their species. You have evolved to become a procreation machine, it's what everything in your body is geared towards. Nature honed you into an organism with that mental purpose, and the physical tools to fulfil it.

>>11310119
Oh shit it’s a creationist. Bye bye.

>>11309993
>>11310011
>>11310024
>>11310034
>>11310064
>>11310075
>>11310119
>>11310131
>>11310173
The purpose of humanity is to glorify the Creator.

>>11310119
>>11310205
Something doesn't need a creator or designer in order to have a purpose. It can have a purpose simply because natural selection resulted in organisms that displayed the behavioural purpose of procreation - that is, their behaviour seems to be completely focused upon a single goal and purpose, which is procreation.

Same with any other purpose. If a person decides that their life's purpose is to visit every Starbucks in the world (there is a guy doing this, I saw a video about it), then that basically becomes their purpose because they made it so. People can create their own purposes.

Of course I would still say that procreation is the ultimate purpose because not only are the instincts for procreation existent in essentially every human being (sometimes latent, but they're still there), but also it is the function that your entire body is geared towards. Visiting every Starbucks is NOT the function that your entire body has evolved to accomplish. But procreation IS that function. Necessarily so, since natural selection, by its very nature, selects for traits that enhance an organism's procreation functionality.

>>11310205
I'm not an ist, because I know what I do and do not know, and I seek out possibility. I collect and harvest from all of the systems man has ever created. I look for the total spectrum and structure of logic. I'm not without judgement and my particular dispositions, but I don't need (that is, demand) it to be a certain way either.

Ah, it's no use. You might as well be another species, For the hell of it though, what color are your eyes? If you don't respond I'm going to assume you secretly believe in voodoo or something and are scared.

>>11310234
What creator? The Big Bang? Why on Earth would somebody glorify a cosmic event like that? That would be like glorifying a supernova. Random physical events aren't something that should be glorified. Instead, moral values should be glorified within a healthy society. But the Big Bang has precisely nothing to do with morality.

>>11310234
>The purpose of humanity is to glorify the Creator.

So we should glorify our parents? I guess so....

>>11310237
>People can create their own purposes.
Does the muscle "choose" to extend the limb? No. It is signaled, it responds in accordance with its nature and ability (current state). Does the heart choose to beat? No. It is commanded, it responds in accordance with its nature and its ability. Does the digestive system choose to digest? No. Food passes through multiple stages which act upon it, and the entire system acts upon it in accordance with its nature, that is, its composition and organization. It is signaled by the vagus nerve, it interacts with immune system, hormone levels, blood flow, antigen presentation but the microbiome. Its activity is determine by its nature and external factors acting upon it.

Simply put, your overarching purpose cannot be chosen. You can see and be and value whatever you want along the way, the ultimate effect of your existence however is both out of your grasp and based upon your own behavioral biases. For example you don't see man out swinging from trees, for very long. We just don't. It's outside the spectrum of behavior, despite that we can, we don't. Because we don't want to. We can want to want to, and perhaps condition it in to an extent, but we don't really want to.

That's how the pieces in the whole system work. Put most simply, you look at your blood under a microscope and see all these little animals swimming around. Then you go and swim in the river... an animal among all the other animals and inorganic material. What is the difference. Do you know any more than one cell in your muscle tissue?

>>11310242
I'm not the guy you're replying to but you're conjecturing about some "embedded logic" without providing any evidence that would indicate such a thing exists.

Remember Occam's Razor:
>Entities should not be multiplied without necessity
That is, the explanation with the fewest assumptions is the one we should use. That is, don't assume that things exist without having any solid evidence to indicate that they exist.

>>11310260
To be fair to him, you should definitely assist your parents, as long as they are good to you and provide for you (and most parents are and do), but yeah, "glorify" is probably a bit much.

>>11310260
You should honor your father and your mother. You should glorify the Creator.
>>11310256
>What creator? The Big Bang?
The Big Bang is a stage in our universe's history, not the Creator.

>>11310264
I gave several examples of such logic. It can come from within, or without. As far as I'm concerned, if there's any organized force consistently acting upon us and coercing evolution, or having acted upon us strongly at one time in our history, this strongly contributes to the odds of purpose.

>>11310263
>Does the muscle "choose" to extend the limb?
The brain does. The person does. Their brain is what has the thought and sends the right nervous signals to the arm.

>your overarching purpose cannot be chosen
My example there wasn't intended to show whether a purpose can be chosen (although I still think a person can choose a purpose for themselves, absolutely). It was meant to just show that you don't need a creator or external authority assigning a purpose to something, in order for that thing to have a purpose.

A person can't choose the purpose that their body has evolved to fulfil, but they can still choose a purpose for their life. That's a perfectly acceptable use of the word "purpose". But like I say this isn't really the main point I was making, I was just saying purposes don't have to be externally determined by some external sentient authority. And BECAUSE purposes don't have to be determined by an external authority, that's why I think it is linguistically / grammatically fine to say that the purpose of a human body, created by evolution / natural selection, is to procreate. Natural selection necessarily results in organisms that display the behavioural purpose of spreading their genes.

>>11310270
>the Creator
Do you mean like the Architect in The Matrix? Is that who you think created our reality?

Or, of course, you're just a religious dolt aren't you. Pushing your god shit.

In either case, whether you think the "Creator" was the grey-haired dude from The Matrix who kept saying "vis a vis", "concordantly", "ergo", etc., or whether you think it's a supernatural sky wizard that you call a "god" - in either case you'd need to provide some evidence to substantiate your claim.

Otherwise you may as well claim that Donald Trump is secretly a lizard person. If I've seen no evidence to indicate this then I have no reason to believe it, do I?

>>11309908

>millions of your fellow men are forced to fight and die just to satisfy the whims of a religious/ political figure that knows he's full of shit

>>11310282
>Do you mean like the Architect in The Matrix? Is that who you think created our reality?
No.
>Or, of course, you're just a religious dolt aren't you. Pushing your god shit.
Your vulgarity is a sign of deep-set issues. Why do you lash out at others like so?

>>11310263
>Do you know any more than one cell in your muscle tissue?
Yes. A lot more. I know how to read, how to write, how speak, how to do basic arithmetic. I know the names of every state and capital city in my country. Cells in my muscle tissue do not know any of those things, nor could they ever learn them. Your question is stupid.

>>11310282
>the grey-haired dude from The Matrix
>a supernatural sky wizard
Neither. But I can see you feel at home debating strawmen of your own invention. Thinking is too hard, isn't it?

>>11310277
>The brain does. The person does.
What makes the brain send the signal? What is "person".

>in order for that thing to have a purpose.
This is what I meant by a chain of purpose, with the machine that made another machine, above. You also don't need a creator (as a direct engineer) at all in terms of environmental factors which can shape an organism's ultimate behavior, as a form of conditioning.

Creation and evolution aren't even incompatible.

>>11310282
your post reeks of reddit you estrogenated narcissistic faggot

>>11310304
Your interpretation is stupid, that's not even the question. Why are you? Why do you? What will you? When will you? Do you actually have any greater, more absolute knowledge, about the ultimate source and effect of your actions?

>>11310282
>y-you're just a religious dolt aren't you
>Yes I am, how did you know?

>>11310282
>you're just a religious dolt!
>Of course I am, what gave it away?

>>11310282
>you're just a religious dolt aren't you
>Guilty as charged!

>>11309919

>>11310282
>provide some evidence to substantiate your claim
This is religious language based around ritualistic, religious constructs. It's like saying heretic and that you need to have faith, and repent, and so forth.

I just want to point out that language easily leads to programming, deception, and self delusion. To bypass this I will never use the word "evidence", as it invokes a certain religious quality and draws in all these other religious institutions. Instead I will say "indication", and then the other person can proceed to reason on their own, correctly, without the coercive influence of their conditioning.

On the flip side, I will rarely say "how", I will say, "the means by which", "the mechanism of". How invokes domestic, everyday parlance, which is highly wrapped up with the cultural narrative and other social factors. The means by which however is still common language, but absolute, low level, systematic. The question "how will it do that" is very different from "by what means will it do that". The means is a matter of potential. You can't go through a process to gain the hows, but you can go through a process which results in gaining the means.

The interesting thing is I don't know when I started doing this, but it began a long time ago, and it seems to be automatic. These are the times we're in. When I see someone using "debate logic" and using magic phrases like "evidence [...] your claims", I know odds are I'm dealing with a specific kind of indoctrination. If I am to engage, I do so accordingly, because you can't argue with religion, and you can't convince a man that his pastor may be lying to him. It is easier to fool someone than to convince him he has been fooled. Sometimes you can break people out of these binds and get them acting human again.

>>11310282
>Or, of course, you're just a religious dolt aren't you. Pushing your god shit.

>>11310296
>>11310309
>>11310315
>>11310324
>>11310325
>>11310330
>>11310354
I said this on /his/ before and it looks like it's just as true on /sci/ - religious cucks on 4chan ALWAYS seem to resort to ad hominem when they're backed into a corner and have no arguments left.

It usually happens when you ask them for evidence. They have to flake out because they don't have any.

>>11310351
No, evidence is the complete opposite of religion, and this is why science-based atheism is rising in the West, while religion is declining.

Science has evidence to support its claims. Religion doesn't, which is why they ask you to make a leap of faith instead.

>>11310318
Wow. You fell for the materialism meme so you encountered all of the inevitable existential questions that entails that worldview. I am impressed.

Part of the illusion is thinking that these existential questions are somehow profound or insightful. Your interpretation of the universe is stupid, and your questions are stupid.

>>11309908
Kek

>>11310392
Refer to:
>>11310242

Alright, so you reject materialism. Offer something else, ideally that I haven't already traced out. The closest I am to any ism is a solipsist.

>>11309919