Help Me Help Myself: Going from 'is' to 'ought' in removing all purpose from life

[brian0918]

Alright now, here's my dilemma:

The way I see it, the only meaning or purpose in the universe is that which we create for ourselves. Our species cannot possibly survive forever (even if we outlast our planet, we'll still face the universal demise: either being Crunched in a Big manner, expanded away to nothing, or ending up in a blackhole somewhere). Now, a few of our main goals as a species:

1. Survive through offspring
2. Increase Longevity / Heal others
3. Build up knowledge

They're all sort of intertwined, I guess. One of the goals of building up our understanding is to cure sickness, increase longevity, and help ensure survival of the species. There may be other goals, but, as the title suggests, this isn't complete.

Now, since our species cannot possibly survive forever (goal 1), our buildup of knowledge, no matter how vast, is destined to be lost (goal 3). Without a species, well, that pretty much takes care of goal 2. So, 3 of our main goals as a species are doomed.

(I've tried to keep my wording fallacy-free.)

Now, you can argue my above statements if you want, but that's not the point of this post. :D

My problem is: If I take some or all of the above statements as fact (specifically that our species can't survive forever) and try to draw conclusions from them (at least, the conclusions that I desire to extract from them: conclusions that support my presupposed opinions), I run into fallacious reasoning. Specifically, if I try to say that, "because we're all dead in the end and our buildup of knowledge is destined to be lost, our survival is meaningless; it is useless to go on as a species," I get caught in the blasted is-ought problem (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/I-O). (of course, a fallacy doesn't mean my conclusions are incorrect, just that the reasoning that leads to these conclusions is flawed)

So, any help out there? My current attempt involves, as is partly shown above, determining all of our goals as a species and showing that they will fail, although I'm not sure if this is the way to go. Or, do you believe it is pointless to try and remove all point from life? :D



[NOTE: If I don't get many replies on this board, I may try another one, such as Religion/Philosophy. I only posted here hoping for some moderation, which I couldn't find in other forums out there]

[chance]

It appears then, that the universe is our ultimate enemy (assuming current knowledge), and therefore should be the target (eventually) of scientific endeavour. There may be ways of avoiding the ultimate fate of the universe, only if we stop looking will our destiny be sealed.

[brian0918]

The only problem is that, over time, the entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_entropy) of the Universe is increasing, and we can't reverse that process. So, eventually, it will be out of our control.

[Dancing David]

I think that you have set admirable goals as an individual, why do you make the jump to the lifetime of the species?
Isn't that an overgenralization?

[Z]

This reminds me of the old Asimov story (I forget the title... was it 'The Final Question?') where, every so often, people ask the Ultimate Computer how the process of entropy might be reversed, and the Computer kept replying that there was insufficient information to form a reply.

Eventually, when the Computer encompasses all and Mankind is gone and forgotten, the Computer realizes the answer and speaks...

"Let there be Light"...

Of course, it's a funny story, if you really think about it, but might not the ultimate goal of Mankind, from a religious perspective, to become God? To start the Universe anew and set it all in motion all over again?

Just a theory...

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by brian0918
Or, do you believe it is pointless to try and remove all point from life? :D


What is YOUR purpose in "going from 'is' to 'ought' in removing all purpose from life"?

Is it to develop a solution to the "Is-Ought" problem? Or what is it?

The (Is-Ought) article you linked to provided an answer with some interestingly hidden factors; I'd call it a utilization of unconscious processes, or something.

[sorgoth]

Since when do species have goals?

Why should they?

[JimTheBrit]

I'll echo chance's remarks - why assume that what limits us now will limit us in the future?
Originally posted by brian0918 The only problem is that, over time, the entropy of the Universe is increasing, and we can't reverse that process. Or avoid it.


Yet.

[Batman Jr.]

So, is the point of this to try and show that moral objectivity is dumb? I don't worry about purpose in my life. I don't crave it as many others do, which is all the better because I know I'll never have to fear considering in the slightest turning to religion for solace.

I love "The Final Question." Did you know that it was Asimov's favorite story out of his entire corpus? It's pretty funny that the names, as we as observers to the events in the story fast-forward ahead in time, get progressively weirder and weirder. That's not a criticism, mind you; I realize that names will change, but I just cracked up at what he came up with.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that you have set admirable goals as an individual, why do you make the jump to the lifetime of the species?
Isn't that an overgenralization?

I don't believe the goals make sense unless they apply to the lifetime of the species. If the goal is survival of the species, then the only possibility that makes the goal a success is that the species never dies. Besides, this whole "goal" thing was just an idea of mine of how to go about it. I doubt it is the actual way, if there is one.

As I said, you can argue this if you want, but it isn't the point of my post.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Of course, it's a funny story, if you really think about it, but might not the ultimate goal of Mankind, from a religious perspective, to become God? To start the Universe anew and set it all in motion all over again?

That's all nice and happy-sounding (no really, it is), but how do we go about doing that? Until we find a way to reverse an irreversible process and increase the overall entropy of the universe (which is impossible), we are doomed.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
What is YOUR purpose in "going from 'is' to 'ought' in removing all purpose from life"?

Because I believe it to be so. I believe that it is pointless for our species to go on surviving........... :D

[brian0918]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Since when do species have goals?

Why should they?

Until one is able to show that it is all pointless (we ought not go on surviving), then there must be goals. I don't believe they are actual attainable goals, though. Again, you can argue this if you want, but, as I have said, it is not the point of my post.

[Keneke]

Existence is not and does not have to be purposeful. Saying so presupposes intent. We, as animals and humans, exist. We didn't will ourselves into existence for some purpose.

The fact that existence is completely independent of purpose may be a fallacy in your reasoning.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
I'll echo chance's remarks - why assume that what limits us now will limit us in the future?
Or avoid it.


Yet.

You can imagine anything, it doesn't make it possible. The laws of thermodynamics (I believe) are the most unchanged set of laws considering how long they have been around. They are the most basic (in some senses) and are inescapable. You can't simply assume that we will be able to break these laws in the future (which is impossible) in order to make our goals attainable.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Keneke
Existence is not and does not have to be purposeful. Saying so presupposes intent. We, as animals and humans, exist. We didn't will ourselves into existence for some purpose.

The fact that existence is completely independent of purpose may be a fallacy in your reasoning.

I believe you are completely misunderstanding me. I agree with everything you have said, and have tried to reflect that in my post. I'm not saying that the goals I list are innate. We create them and sustain them. They cannot exist without us. I think the very fact that I am trying to show from facts that there is no purpose should be all the evidence you need as to my beliefs.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by brian0918


I believe you are completely misunderstanding me. I agree with everything you have said, and have tried to reflect that in my post. I'm not saying that the goals I list are innate. We create them and sustain them. They cannot exist without us. I think the very fact that I am trying to show from facts that there is no purpose should be all the evidence you need as to my beliefs.

Perhaps the answer then, is that the "ought" should be that we "ought" to have a different set (or type) of goals as a species?

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Perhaps the answer then, is that the "ought" should be that we "ought" to have a different set (or type) of goals as a species?

These goals I have stated are not the purpose of my post. Nor are they possibly the main goals or the only main goals of the species. They were just the remnants of my attempt to figure out how to go from "everyone is dead in the end" to "therefore, we ought not bother to go on surviving."

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by brian0918


These goals I have stated are not the purpose of my post. Nor are they possibly the main goals or the only main goals of the species. They were just the remnants of my attempt to figure out how to go from "everyone is dead in the end" to "therefore, we ought not bother to go on surviving."

I can see that. What I'm suggesting is that the goals (the one's you have listed) are all directed toward the idea of "everyone is dead in the end"; rather than some other direction. Change the direction.

The error in "everyone dies, as will the species" therefore "we ought not bother living now"; is that you equate now with then. You may as well be arguing for suicide or murder, since the person will be dead "then" anyway, so why should anyone care about "now".

[Humphreys]

Why can't the purpose just be to have fun while we are here?

Understanding as much as we can about the Universe is part of that 'fun', so continuing the survival of the species means making more 'fun' for more people - and this is a good thing.

The same goes for using science to improve the lives of everyone around you, which also equals more 'fun'.

Well...?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by brian0918
These goals I have stated are not the purpose of my post. Nor are they possibly the main goals or the only main goals of the species. They were just the remnants of my attempt to figure out how to go from "everyone is dead in the end" to "therefore, we ought not bother to go on surviving."

So you're asking us to help you out with the reasoning of your position, but pointing out fallacies in your position is not the point?

Tell us again what is the point of your post?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Since when do species have goals?

Why should they?

I agree, species don't have goals, individuals do.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by brian0918


I don't believe the goals make sense unless they apply to the lifetime of the species. If the goal is survival of the species, then the only possibility that makes the goal a success is that the species never dies. Besides, this whole "goal" thing was just an idea of mine of how to go about it. I doubt it is the actual way, if there is one.

As I said, you can argue this if you want, but it isn't the point of my post.

Well , if you clarify your goals then that would make it easier to understand them.

If the goal is survival of the species, then the only possibility that makes the goal a success is that the species never dies.


And that my firend is the question with no answer! There is no such thing as the species that never dies! All species die, they are never immutable. Ants that we have now are most certainly different from ants at the dawn of time. Even the celocanth has most likely undergone genetic variation, for all it being a 'prehistoric species'.

We are all 'transitional species', a species is a set of individuals cabaple of breeding at a given moment, that set of individuals changes over time, the genetics of the individuals change over time, when a set of those individuals in no longer capable of breeding with other individuals in the set a new species is born.

The concept of a species is just a convinient idea. We are not the same species that left Africa, went to Asia and returned to Asia three million years ago, nor are we the same species that settled northern africa 100,000 years ago. A million years from now, if there are still humans, they will most likely be somewhat different from us. They may be the 'same species' and they may not.

But a species does not exist excvept as a semantic short hand for a set of individuals cabaple of breeding with each other.

And while 'species' may be a useful phrase, why should a species have a goal beyond the goals of the individuals?

The heat death or crunch of the universe is so far offas to be a fantasy to us. Global warming is much more of a possible concern.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Dancing David
If the goal is survival of the species, then the only possibility that makes the goal a success is that the species never dies.


And that my firend is the question with no answer! There is no such thing as the species that never dies! All species die, they are never immutable.

Well, then say bloodline, or something. The mutability of the species doesn't exempt you from the fact that we are assuming that the last thing living in the universe comes from your loins.

Nasty visual there.

[Dancing David]

I just assume that the goals of the individual preclude the goals of the species, unless you are a colony or a social insect. If the genetic descendent of humans exist a million years from now I am thinking they might be a different set of species.

[Just thinking]

After reading through this thread of posts I noticed that no one has specifically mentioned what I'm about to type (although it has been touched upon a bit).

We are a unique species here on Earth. No other animal, as far as I know, has the mental capcity of abstract thought as do humans. But, being evolved animals, we also have the insticnts which all animals have for survival. This can cause a dichotomy of sorts, especially when one begins to examine the fate of humans against the fate of the universe. We have only known about the 'fate(s)' of the universe for a very brief amount of our time here on Earth. (And when you get down to it, how many people really have an understanding of cosmology?) We have been battling for survival for over 4 million years, or so. In this battle we have come to realize that striving for certain goals helps us not only survive, but makes it easier for future generations to continue the struggle. This 'goal oriented' behavior over time has evolved not only to learning the basics (how to hunt, fight, stay warm, etc.) but how to think abstactly (how to best behave, how to solve problems, how to predict future events, like weather). It eventualy lead to specific diciplines like math, science, history, etc. Then, the realization came that the universe isn't going to be around forever. But old habbits die hard. And given that the universe will likely be around for a lot longer than the Earth, most people aren't going to consider the ultimate fate of being any consequence, especially since it's a very long time off. So the basic instincts which eventually lead to the modern day fields of study and human endevor are pretty much bread into us. Trying to reason why we should no longer do what we as humans have done for millions of years isn't going to work very well. At least, not among the masses, and that includes the intellectuals. I think that only if one can see that the end is ultimate, and right in front of you, things will pretty much contunue as they have done in the past.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Keneke
Existence is not and does not have to be purposeful. Saying so presupposes intent. We, as animals and humans, exist. We didn't will ourselves into existence for some purpose.

The fact that existence is completely independent of purpose may be a fallacy in your reasoning.

I couldn't agree more.

We do not have a goal, we just exist in a fraction of time. The Universe did not create us to reproduce and survive. We are just a tiny meaningless creation among billion other things in the Universe. It just happens that we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we must be special and above everything else.

[Just thinking]

Here are some other thoughts (questions?) that I have come up with after better reading through the attached link ...

Originally posted by brian0918
Now, since our species cannot possibly survive forever (goal 1), our buildup of knowledge, no matter how vast, is destined to be lost (goal 3). Without a species, well, that pretty much takes care of goal 2. So, 3 of our main goals as a species are doomed.

My problem is: If I take some or all of the above statements as fact (specifically that our species can't survive forever) and try to draw conclusions from them (at least, the conclusions that I desire to extract from them: conclusions that support my presupposed opinions), I run into fallacious reasoning. Specifically, if I try to say that, "because we're all dead in the end and our buildup of knowledge is destined to be lost, our survival is meaningless; it is useless to go on as a species," ...

Let's examine this on a more focused timeline ... we are all at some time going to die. Does this mean we should all stop striving to make our lives (and the lives of others) better? If you're like me and do not belive there is any existence beyond the grave, then why not make the best of things while you can? It's quite possible that in this galaxy we are the only beings of our kind of advanced thinking that our knowledge and and knowledge of our existance will die out long before the end of the universe. But does this possiblility (even if true) make all we do moot? (BTW, Stephen Hawking has postulated that if the universe does go through a stage of collapse, all life as we know it will not exist during the 2nd phase ... so we do not have to wait around for the big-crunch anyway.) I would agrue (based on comments from my first post) that what we do and what we do to survive are not moot, even if in the end all is lost.

Here's why ... several years ago I came across an article (I believe it was in Scientific American) that explained moral development in humans as a result of experiencing and exploiting a behavior in nature described as Tit-for-Tat. Without going too much into the article, it merely states that it is in an organism's best interest to leave well enough alone, unless it becomes necessary to intrude upon another. Animals do not kill other animals unless they need food or have some other motive for their actions (protecting their young). To do so indescriminately would place them at risk for no net gain. This also applies to humans. Through much evolution and the addition of abstract thought, this process pretty much was shown to become the "Golden Rule". Now, how does all the above tie in to your post? Moral judgements in effect have become a variant of this "Golden Rule", and we have seen what happens to those that stray off this path. I do not believe we need "Direct Reason" to explain why we think certain behavior is inherenlty wrong; the Tit-for-Tat argument can explain the origins and benefits of this reasoning. (I guess, though, that one can make the case that 'Direct Reason' comes from Tit-for-Tat as does the "Golden Rule".) But regardless, it does not appear to come from anything special, or special to us as humans.

Since survival is bred into us, and it does make our lives better, (while we are still here) there is a strong case to keep striving to do better, learn more and help others. We may not be able to avoid the end of our species, but that in iteslf should not give us the excuse to just abandon our struggle to do the best we can. Just because some day you will die does not stop one from living in the present.

[Elind]

Originally posted by brian0918
Alright now, here's my dilemma:

My problem is: If I take some or all of the above statements as fact (specifically that our species can't survive forever) and try to draw conclusions from them (at least, the conclusions that I desire to extract from them: conclusions that support my presupposed opinions), I run into fallacious reasoning.

Forever is a long time, but how do you know that is a fact, whether it sounds reasonable or not? And, if you insist on drawing conclusions that you desire, then you can, in the end, come to any that make you happy. Have you considered taking up religion?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Just thinking
Since survival is bred into us, and it does make our lives better, (while we are still here) there is a strong case to keep striving to do better, learn more and help others. We may not be able to avoid the end of our species, but that in iteslf should not give us the excuse to just abandon our struggle to do the best we can. Just because some day you will die does not stop one from living in the present.

There is a strong need in people to believe in some form of "immortality". For some, this becomes belief in life after death; for others, it's a belief that the species will carry on and that we've contributed to this in some small (or large) way. Without this belief, there is only annihilation left to consider as an "ultimate" end to one's efforts. And that's very scary for many people.