The Purpose of Purpose: Richard Dawkins (Lercture)

DaltheJigsaw

zenff

Thank you very much.

genkaku

Leon -- Did he ever get around to "the purpose of purpose?" I apologize, but I simply ran out of steam listening to his well-honed intellect. If you tell me that he did, eventually, get to the topic, I would be happy to know it and willing to go back and try again. Alternatively, perhaps you could sum up his argument in a couple of sentences?

Sorry to be such a lazy bones.

zenff

He gets to the point after making some fun about creationists for something like twenty minutes.

In my words:
There is a functional purpose to living things having the ability to have intentional purpose.
(the wings of a bird have functional purpose, the mind of a hunting wolf has intentional purpose). There is some functional purpose to this intentional purpose: flexibility.
This flexibility makes it possible to take the ability to have intentional purpose and use it for something else; for something without functional purpose. That’s us - humans - playing football and making war.

Watch the video.

genkaku

Thanks @zenff.

DaltheJigsaw

Thank you very much.

Welcome!

DaltheJigsaw

He gets to the point after making some fun about creationists for something like twenty minutes.

In my words:
There is a functional purpose to living things having the ability to have intentional purpose.
(the wings of a bird have functional purpose, the mind of a hunting wolf has intentional purpose). There is some functional purpose to this intentional purpose: flexibility.
This flexibility makes it possible to take the ability to have intentional purpose and use it for something else; for something without functional purpose. That’s us - humans - playing football and making war.

Watch the video.

Thank You!

zenff

Welcome!

ownerof1000oddsocks

My first impression was that nature has perpetuated itself by way of blind selective pressures. A being or thing functions to preserve it's genetic structure. 'Intelligent design' undermines 'blind' purpose and adds direction to it- but not just the way we rationalize our behaviour, in terms of the way we treat other species- what we choose to do with all things natural, the future goals we set ourselves, what we choose to preserve about ourselves and other sentient life... hopefully something a little more harmonious and less competitive.

Self and other, for example, is definitely fitness enhancing. This is good from an anthropological standpoint: not good for all sentient life only to members of the same group, and sometimes highly prejudiced to the rest. Of course this isn't an excuse- 'it's ok because it's biological'- it highlights the fact beings are partial and discriminatory- through not fault of their own- suffice to say the care factor lacks objectivity, but it serves a purpose.

zombiegirl

He gets to the point after making some fun about creationists for something like twenty minutes.

although incredibly intelligent, richard dawkins is so condescending, lol. i would like him a whole lot more if he could tone it down a little.

genkaku

He gets to the point after making some fun about creationists for something like twenty minutes.

although incredibly intelligent, richard dawkins is so condescending, lol. i would like him a whole lot more if he could tone it down a little.

The intelligence began to bore me since it did not seem to address the proposed "purpose of purpose" thesis. And if it did address the topic (and I was simply too stupid to get it), I felt myself getting irritated since I have long felt that if someone cannot say what they have to say in under five minutes, it seems a good bet they are not entirely sure of their subject matter.