We cannot be certain whether the goal is changing/have changed or what we term as change is simply nature's predetermined means to an end.SimpleGuy wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 12:41 pmFirst of all, after statistical physics this aim cannot be constant in time unless it's simply beeing exterminate. So the "goal" of life itself, has either to change or it's path dependent on the set of stochastic processes. The more interesting question is not the goal as a single state, but the existence of some kind of utility function, that contains for humans more than simple evolution. The philosophy then of the reason of life are the consequencesPages wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 11:41 am First of all,
If nobody knows the actual aim of life's existence, why do we uphold the views of other philosophers?
Yes, some people are too lazy to think but, those people are not philosophers and I'd like to think most of the people in this forum are, more or less.
My point: As far as I'm concerned and as wide as I've read, no philosopher has solved any philosophical problem. Most either point out common sense or settle on a theory at best.
Most things I see in philosophical forums are reiterations, repetitions and quotations. Don't we have philosophers anymore?
of such a utility function , which could include moral and would then have implications on ethics. This has to be seen in correspondence of the evolution of our scientific picture of this world.
I don't know why I'm finding it difficult to believe that humans or any other creature on earth are nothing more than just weeds on a farm - just happen to be here and that's it. Maybe that is why we would never find any logical meaning to our existence. Because there is none
If there is any utility function that we are part of then, we would be parasites or viruses to whatever that is. Unless that utility function needs these type of cancer to accomplish it's natural evolutionary or developmental goal, we're useless and unnecessary.