What is the purpose of life? [moved]

[timothyu]

What if I suggest they should close for the dual reasons that they exploit the workers and the customers?

Then you have an opinion as do others who may oppose you. Do you suggest getting rid of their opinions also?

 

[timothyu]

I guess I'm not human, since I don't understand what you mean.

I wouldn't have taken you for a bot. But compare yourself to a cat or dog. What makes you different? Why do they follow their natural instincts while we reach beyond? As an example do they constantly redefine the definition of good and evil to justify their actions like us, or do they just do?

 

[pitabread]

Yes became self conscious, embarrassed, self determining, self justifying, self centred and wearing off the rack leaves.

Is that how that works?

(I think we're operating under different definitions of what "self awareness" means.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Recognising themselves in a mirror is not self awareness. It is merely recognition. They may see who they are but do not realise who they are. Even you must understand that difference when you look in a mirror if indeed you are human.

This is why I said there are various forms of self-awareness. Recognising that it is you reflected in a mirror is one rudimentary form of self-awareness. Some creatures have it, some don't.

What about those with a mental self-image and those with metacognition?

Perhaps you'd like to define more precisely what you mean by self-awareness and how we can detect whether or not other animals have it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't have taken you for a bot. But compare yourself to a cat or dog. What makes you different? Why do they follow their natural instincts while we reach beyond? As an example do they constantly redefine the definition of good and evil to justify their actions like us, or do they just do?

How do you tell?

 

[pitabread]

Recognising themselves in a mirror is not self awareness.

It is one of the tests for self-awareness. Though it appears you are using a different definition of "self awareness" than the rest of us.

As FrumiousBandersnatch said, if you restrict to the definition to a category of self-awareness than only includes humans by definition, then only humans have human self-awareness.

But that doesn't seem to be a particularly useful measure thereof.

 

[timothyu]

How do you tell?

After millennia of consistent behaviour, I am sure you would noticed a difference.

 

[timothyu]

Is that how that works?

For humans it does.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

After millennia of consistent behaviour, I am sure you would noticed a difference.

E.T.A. I've not been around for millennia; you made the claim - how do you tell? IOW what is your evidence?

 

[Ophiolite]

Then you have an opinion as do others who may oppose you. Do you suggest getting rid of their opinions also?

Do you understand the difference between "suggest" and "demand"? Apparently not. You seem committed to disagreement and aggression. (Be aware that there is a difference between "are" and "seem".)

But compare yourself to a cat or dog. What makes you different? Why do they follow their natural instincts while we reach beyond? As an example do they constantly redefine the definition of good and evil to justify their actions like us, or do they just do?

Good point. Cats and dogs are obviously much more moral than us.

 

[timothyu]

how do you tell? IOW what is your evidence?

I have none because it hasn't happened. But in forwarding opinion like you, I might say for a start they start wearing pants or stop licking their privates in front of company. But then I'm not sure all humans have made that switch either.

 

[timothyu]

You seem committed to disagreement and aggression.

Aggression no, disagreement yes, as that is the right of all mankind.

Good point. Cats and dogs are obviously much more moral than us.

God thought so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have none because it hasn't happened. But in forwarding opinion like you, I might say for a start they start wearing pants or stop licking their privates in front of company. But then I'm not sure all humans have made that switch either.

You missed my point. You said, "do they constantly redefine the definition of good and evil to justify their actions like us, or do they just do?"

I asked how do you tell? i.e. how can you tell they're not redefining their concepts of good and evil to justify their actions?

Wearing pants and not licking their privates is no indication of redefined definitions of good and evil.

JFYI, many animals do show an understanding of what is fair and unfair, and what is and is not socially acceptable (right & wrong); some even show altruistic behaviours.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that how that works?

(I think we're operating under different definitions of what "self awareness" means.)

I suspect he's thinking of the story of Adam & Eve (suddenly realising their nakedness), not hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. But it's hard to be sure, his posts are rather opaque.

 

[TedT]

Would you consider marriage to somebody whose proposal was "marry me or I'll torture you for eternity" to be a genuine act of free will?

This NOT the choice we were given but is the interpretation of the choice now given by those enraged by sin.

ImCo:
A choice free from coercion must be based upon a full understanding of the consequences of both options or it is a guess, not a choice.

YHWH claimed that our being, our character and mind set, would be changed by choosing to reject HIM as GOD and the Son as our saviour as an inevitable consequence of choosing to sin. To choose to reject HIM and HIS proposal to marry us because we thought He was lying and therefore a false god would immediately
1. enslave them to the sinful pov by changing them to be sinful and separating them from all Holiness.
2. As sinners they could NOT ever change their minds and overcome this addiction to sin by themselves.
3. Because rejecting HIM would fully separated themselves from the only power in the universe that could help them repent and return to HIM, this choice would render them to be eternally unfit to be HIS bride, fit only to be sequestered outside of the realm of HIS love and attention with all like minded individuals.

He also promised that if anyone wanted the kind of life HE promised so they put their faith, (an unproven hope), in HIM to be telling us the truth and who put their faith in the Son that, if they should ever fall into sin, they would be saved by His work for them. This promise was called their being chosen, elected, to salvation from the consequences of their choosing to be evil in HIS sight so they could enter the heavenly marriage with HIM.

All this we heard declared from HIM before we chose. By choosing we were declaring which reality we most wanted to live in: HIS paradise married to HIM or in a reality without HIM in which we are essentially our own God. These decisions were made freely without coercion to believe HIM or not or to accept HIM or not. That is, they were uncoerced free will decisions. The warnings of the bad consequences of rejecting HIM were not coercive as it was unproven that HE had any power of life or death and, in fact, many were NOT forced to accept HIM by these warnings as we know by the Satanic fall.

When all decisions were made, it ended up that there were three basic decisions made. 1. Some accepted HIM unreservedly and never went against HIM, becoming elect. 2. Others went against HIM unreservedly, believing HIM to be a manipulative liar and as the first liar in creation, the most evil in creation thus becoming evil themselves and as condemned, passed over for election. 3. And the third group chose to accept YHWH as their GOD and the Son as their saviour, becoming elect, but they rebelled against HIS call for all the elect to come out from among their friends who had rejected HIM, thus becoming evil though able to be brought to repentance but forcing the postponement of the judgement against those condemned so these now sinful elect would not be banished with their evil friends.

 

[TedT]

why a supposedly perfect entity would have wants, needs, or desires - i.e. is it perfect except that it needs the extra satisfaction of sharing its love for itself?

I deny HE wanted any extra satisfaction for HIMself but accept it was a perfectly altruistic desire to share what the Trinity already had and which could not be improved upon, with others.

 

[Charmy]

I deny HE wanted any extra satisfaction for HIMself but accept it was a perfectly altruistic desire to share what the Trinity already had and which could not be improved upon, with others.

Was the ultimate reason for us to be created, to serve God alone.

 

[pitabread]

For humans it does.

If your definition of self awareness is limited to specific emotional aspects, then you might as well just refer to those aspects. There isn't much need to wrap those in a broader definition.

Instead of asking whether animals are self aware, you might as well just ask if they become embarrassed or self-conscious.

 

[TedT]

Was the ultimate reason for us to be created, to serve God alone.

Spouses share, they don't serve...except as an expression of love.

 

[pitabread]

I suspect he's thinking of the story of Adam & Eve (suddenly realising their nakedness), not hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. But it's hard to be sure, his posts are rather opaque.

Regardless, it's definitely a too-limited definition if all he's really worried about is people being embarrassed at being nekkid.

I wonder what he'd think of cultures where nudity isn't considered taboo.