Quote:
Originally Posted by ziplock
A point is relative. For instance, I can say the point of cells is to pass on their genes, or to integrate to form organs. Or it could be to integrate to form complex organisms such as humans. Or I could say the point is to progress towards universal order to this great unification of consciousness and physical material. The point is relative, the goal of stuff is relative, as a prerequisite for a goal or point is reason. That attribution of reason to empirical data is a purely human act of fancy.
This all is to point out a flaw in modern thinking, that is to say that our methods of describing the universe also determine the "point" of things. "The body functions in this and this way, you're just a big ball of biomass and there is no point to life," is a common statement that stems from this that is inherently flawed. There is a whole shit load of stuff along these lines that all falls back on this popular flaw and misperception. There is no validity in it. Saying that the sole goal of all organisms is to pass on genetic information IS NOT fact, it's opinion. Saying that all organisms can and for the most part do pass on genetic information IS fact. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.
Make sense?
|
no shit sherlock
you wouldn't do very good on a science test trying to argue that a "point is relative". as i said before, it is the context in which the statement is said in the context of evolution the driving force of animal behavior and natural selection is reproduction, and animal behavior is driven by their sole purpose to pass on their genetic information. this is the foundation of genetics and evolution.
as i have said before , this little argument was and still is pointless.