Teleology 101

[Omen]

For example:

Purpose is a human construct.

Are beaver dams, beehives, and anthills not purposeful? If not, what makes them ontologically different from our dams, buildings, and cities?

Notice that, without any useful meaning or definition for 'purpose' you can always plead it in a question where you presume it still exists.  You can always use it like a tautology, because you give it no adequate explanatory meaning.

Hence, the purpose you claim is some 'magical' attribute that exists as both part of and above 'existence'.   Yet, when you claim it you do so in a means so arbitrary that the only reasonable conclusion is that you 'know' something 'specific' that we do not, that you never quite share beyond only responding in a way based on premises that no one here actually accepts.

So where did the 'purpose' begin in the beaver that built the dam?
1. A single quark in the tail of the beaver?
2. An atom in the tail of the beaver?
3. The molecule in the tail of the beaver?
4. The protein in the tail of the beaver?
5. The cell in the tail of the beaver?
6. A patch of skin in the tail of the beaver?
7. The tail of the beaver?
8. and on and on and on, both fowards and backwards.

Where does this 'magical' state begin for you? ( Note I say 'magical' because it is claimed in such a way to be inseparable from well.. magic, the supernatural, superstition, bullshit, nonsense, etc. )

How do you know it?

Where is it?

Why is it?

Why do you respond to other people by presuming that this 'magical' state of purpose exist at all without explanation?

[Immediacracy]

There is a lot we don't know now and maybe can't know ever, but my point is that we do have evidence that this part of the cosmos in here has managed to project something beyond unfeeling, unconscious randomness.

You're a better magician then me obviously, retreat into ignorance and plead about evidence without evidence using emotive subjective descriptions which amount to no description of anything at all.

Why would a description amount to nothing just because it's emotive and subjective?
What about the commonsense fact that we subjectively experience feeling and conscious purpose seems emotional to you?

See, I can have a discussion about purpose and teleology, but I draw the line at using absurd rhetorical language just to reach a personal woo filled conclusion you've wanted to make from the very beginning.

Where is your evidence?
What's a 'personal woo filled conclusion'?

It makes all the discussion surrounding purpose and teleology utterly meaningless, since we never actively discuss it at all in terms that anyone here accepts.  Just like many people here have to vote 'other' rather then being confined into the descriptions you want to project upon others with your choices above.

 
Eight people checked off the other box. That's why I put it there, because I figured that I could only put down the options I've considered myself and those I remember others bringing up. I'm not sure but it sounds like you are saying that my topic is unfair because it doesn't have some unspecified option in the list. Fine. What are some options that are missing?

For you, purpose is magic, and you use it just like that.

I use purpose like magic? Tell me the origin and purpose of purpose, and how it differs from what you imagine is 'magic'.

You have a biased supernatural claim you want to make, without any reason to do so

Let's look at that biased supernatural claim right there. How is it possible for someone to make a claim without any reason to do so? What would be the point of arguing against such a hypothetical claim. It's like your glee in attacking me personally actually gets in your own way of doing it. You trip over your own epithets. Am I an idiot or am I a wily charlatan? How can I make it up as I go along and at the same time telegraph my conclusions? How can my ideas be meaningless and illogical yet worthy of continuous effort to discredit?

That is rather then just admit you make it up as you go along, since none of the logic actually follows into the conclusion you want to make.

This sounds like exactly what you are doing now. Your conclusion, I know, in all future discussions with me is as follows: You're an idiot, you're full of subjective woo, everything you say is both meaningless and wrong, you don't admit this is the case so therefore you are even doubly guilty and wrong.

You are looking in a funhouse mirror, man. I'm not the one pleading to be accepted. I don't care if anyone here believes me at all. I'm just telling it like it seems to be for me, and that's all you're doing too, except that you literally believe that your intellect is constructed of immaculately objective and dispassionate logic, even in the face of your obvious tendency toward sadistic tantrums.

I just say this to give you some insight into how one-sided and biased your criticisms of me are. I'm not trying to target you personally - I don't know you, and I don't care to. If you can talk about issues in a civilized way, then I'm usually interested in doing that, but if you insist on trying to discredit me personally, then I take that to mean that you want me to share my opinions of you as well.

[Immediacracy]

Notice that, without any useful meaning or definition for 'purpose' you can always plead it in a question where you presume it still exists.  You can always use it like a tautology, because you give it no adequate explanatory meaning.

Then let's use your definition of purpose. Which is?

you never quite share beyond only responding in a way based on premises that no one here actually accepts.

You never quite share beyond only making emotional accusations based on premises that are only applicable in a formally structured debate. Which this is not.

So where did the 'purpose' begin in the beaver that built the dam?
1. A single quark in the tail of the beaver?
2. An atom in the tail of the beaver?
3. The molecule in the tail of the beaver?
4. The protein in the tail of the beaver?
5. The cell in the tail of the beaver?
6. A patch of skin in the tail of the beaver?
7. The tail of the beaver?
8. and on and on and on, both fowards and backwards.

1. Within the beaver itself. It's conscious-instinctual intent.
2. Within the beaver's apprehension of it's needs and available materials.
3. From the beavers memories, and social conditioning - imitation of other beavers.
4. From the beaver's response to the changing seasons, the light and movement of the sun and moon.
5. The history of rodents adaptations to their environment, burrowing, etc.
6. The history of animal life, the manifestations of purpose as animal families on Earth
7. Biological life, the teleos of cellular growth and survival
8. Chemical dynamics, the teleos of molecular synergy and emergent properties.

Where does this 'magical' state begin for you? ( Note I say 'magical' because it is claimed in such a way to be inseparable from well.. magic, the supernatural, superstition, bullshit, nonsense, etc. )

How do you know it?

Where is it?

Why is it?

Why do you respond to other people by presuming that this 'magical' state of purpose exist at all without explanation?

I don't believe that you do not know what purpose is. What is your evidence that you believe that?

[Omen]

Why would a description amount to nothing just because it's emotive and subjective?

It is inseparable from make believe and conveys no information to be understood.  More importantly, there is no effort on your part to convey that it means anything where the logic follows into the conclusions being made.  It is essentially a tangled mess of rhetoric, just like your description of 'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness' has absolutely nothing to do with the implied dichotomy you're trying to make.

In fact, even the description you make is one from nothing more then your own personal incredulity. ( argument from ignorance )  You seem to think that somehow describing something as what are 'pejoratives' in your mind, somehow makes a valid logical statement against that position.. that is when we ignore that what you're arguing against is largely a strawman of your own creation.  Even if given the benefit of the doubt, your reasoning is still fundamentally flawed.

See, I can have a discussion about purpose and teleology, but I draw the line at using absurd rhetorical language just to reach a personal woo filled conclusion you've wanted to make from the very beginning.

Where is your evidence?
What's a 'personal woo filled conclusion'?

I've already cited an example, as I've pointed out examples in the past.  Where you fall back on subjectively pleaded terms and strawmen that are never adequately explained, not to mention a complete avoidance of questions that would require you to at least be more informative about the things you do claim.  Not to mention that when challenged on your nonsense, you then begin to obfuscate in turn constantly providing more red herrings and further reducing the subject into a type of sophistry.

As I've pointed out before and I'm pointing out again, this is all about the ability to 'know'.

Make believe VS What can I know

What you claim represents make believe, ie you claim it in such a fashion that it cannot be separated from fantasy, imagination, make believe, and is completely asserted without any reasonable cause.

I, don't need to assume or hold on presumptive in my position any premise to point it out, I simply have to ask how do you know.  Which will and already has lead to the inevitable collapse of the any information that leads us to knowing.  Your responses become dismissive.

"Woo" is a popular term used to describe, well nonsense.

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

You make a series of assertions that extend as fallacies and often without evidence, not to mention offer to defend such absurdities with equally more obscure behavior.

Examples include deepak chopra, yuri geller, flat-earthers, creationist etc.

For you, purpose is magic, and you use it just like that.

I use purpose like magic? Tell me the origin and purpose of purpose, and how it differs from what you imagine is 'magic'.

Purpose is a subjective construct, it does not originate from or represent anything at all.  It is a word.

You, use it as if it were an attribute of existence, without meaning or explanation.  Falling back on this in the form of a tautology, just like when you ask this stupid question above.

You have a biased supernatural claim you want to make, without any reason to do so

Let's look at that biased supernatural claim right there. How is it possible for someone to make a claim without any reason to do so?

The bias is the cause, without reason means without any rational or logical reason.  You're right I should have clarified, but I assumed that pointing out your bias would obviously follow into a dichotomy between what your bias is and lacking any reason beyond your bias.

What would be the point of arguing against such a hypothetical claim.

Nonsense.  The same way I argue against racism, pseudoscience, or other kinds of bullshit.  They can cause relevant harm to society, not to mention that you do not have the right to have your ideas/claims unmolested.  Not to mention that you disparage the 'imagined' opposite position, as you argue for your fantasy bullshit.

Are you admitting that what you claim is essentially make believe, asserted without any rational reason except your own wishful thinking?

It's like your glee in attacking me personally actually gets in your own way of doing it. You trip over your own epithets. Am I an idiot or am I a wily charlatan? How can I make it up as I go along and at the same time telegraph my conclusions? How can my ideas be meaningless and illogical yet worthy of continuous effort to discredit?

Its fun, but you purposefully interpret arguing against your position as a direct attack on your persons.  That's not my fault and has more to do with your own emotional bias, just like you have to use pejoratives to describe individuals like Randi ( myself ) or skepticism in general.   The fact that someone doesn't believe your claim is as offensive as arguing against your claim.  Hence the double speak and rhetoric, identifying my counter claim as a personal.

That is rather then just admit you make it up as you go along, since none of the logic actually follows into the conclusion you want to make.

This sounds like exactly what you are doing now. Your conclusion, I know, in all future discussions with me is as follows: You're an idiot,

I've never started an argument off with, you're an idiot.

you're full of subjective woo,

True, there is no difference between you and some random person babbling about how smurfs are real.  The only exception is that you want to be taken seriously, as you babble about nonsense and offer to disparage those who do not believe your claim.

everything you say is both meaningless and wrong,

Havn't done that either, without explaining how you're wrong and asking you questions.  I never declare myself the winner or you wrong by default, without adequate explanation.

you don't admit this is the case so therefore you are even doubly guilty and wrong.

Never done that either.

You are looking in a funhouse mirror, man. I'm not the one pleading to be accepted. I don't care if anyone here believes me at all. I'm just telling it like it seems to be for me, and that's all you're doing too, except that you literally believe that your intellect is constructed of immaculately objective and dispassionate logic, even in the face of your obvious tendency toward sadistic tantrums.

Ad hominem.

See, you've interpreted a counter claim against your claim as a personal attack.  Albeit, I do examine the reasons you do make claims, such as personal emotive bias.  That in itself doesn't mean you have to interpret it as hostile and the fact that you do tells us more about the reasons you do anything at all.  Just like constructing the strawman about,"you literally believe that your intellec" has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've asserted in any thread thus far.  I do not need to claim to be smarter or more logical, I simply point out the problems, ask the questions, and watch the show.

I just say this to give you some insight into how one-sided and biased your criticisms of me are.

So exaggerate about my own statements, completely ignore all the problems with your own claims, make an appeal that essentially admits that you want the freedom to make up whatever you want ( without admission that that is what you want ), and generally insist that arguing against you is tantamount to a personal attack.

Gotya.

So what bias?

[Immediacracy]

Why would a description amount to nothing just because it's emotive and subjective?

It is inseparable from make believe and conveys no information to be understood. [/quote]
Saying that we feel things and are conscious conveys no information? Is inseparable from make believe?
Prove that you believe that. I think it's a make believe opinion.

More importantly, there is no effort on your part to convey that it means anything where the logic follows into the conclusions being made.

^^ Pretends to know the extent of my subjective effort.

It is essentially a tangled mess of rhetoric,

ad hominem

just like your description of 'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness' has absolutely nothing to do with the implied dichotomy you're trying to make.

you're accusing me of something but you don't even mention what your talking about. What dichotomy am I trying to make? Why do you think that my description has nothing to do with it? It seems like your accusations are complete strawman - there's not even a man there, it's just the smell of straw you announce is evidence of a scarecrow factory.

that is when we ignore that what you're arguing against is largely a strawman of your own creation.  Even if given the benefit of the doubt, your reasoning is still fundamentally flawed.

That statement proves nothing. It's your opinion of my opinion pretending to speak from authority.

Where is your evidence?

Where you fall back on subjectively pleaded terms and strawmen that are never adequately explained,

which is where?

not to mention a complete avoidance of questions that would require you to at least be more informative about the things you do claim.

claiming that evidence exists is in no way evidence. Show me.

Not to mention that when challenged on your nonsense, you then begin to obfuscate in turn constantly providing more red herrings and further reducing the subject into a type of sophistry.

Then it should be easy to come up with at least one specific example, no?

As I've pointed out before and I'm pointing out again, this is all about the ability to 'know'.
Make believe VS What can I know

To me, everything that you know is make believe. That's how subjectivity works.

What you claim represents make believe, ie you claim it in such a fashion that it cannot be separated from fantasy, imagination, make believe, and is completely asserted without any reasonable cause.

I can separate it fine. What specifically of what I've said here can you not separate from fantasy?

I simply have to ask how do you know.  Which will and already has lead to the inevitable collapse of the any information that leads us to knowing.  Your responses become dismissive.

How do you know?

You make a series of assertions that extend as fallacies and often without evidence, not to mention offer to defend such absurdities with equally more obscure behavior.

Produce one of these series if you want to discuss it. Happy to do so.

Purpose is a subjective construct, it does not originate from or represent anything at all.  It is a word.

Does the word have any meaning? Or when people ask if you did something 'on purpose', do you think that they could have just as well asked if you did it 'on woogick'.
Again - made up opinion. I don't believe it for a second, and you have no evidence to back it up.

You, use it as if it were an attribute of existence, without meaning or explanation.

I almost see the glimmer of a legitimate point in there somewhere. Pretty hazy though.

The bias is the cause, without reason means without any rational or logical reason.

What's a rational or logical reason? Is that like a purpose?

Nonsense.  The same way I argue against racism, pseudoscience, or other kinds of bullshit.  They can cause relevant harm to society, not to mention that you do not have the right to have your ideas/claims unmolested.  Not to mention that you disparage the 'imagined' opposite position, as you argue for your fantasy bullshit.

But those things are all meaningful. You accuse me of a meaningless point of view. You say that my logic doesn't match my conclusions - that what I say is incomprehensible.

Are you admitting that what you claim is essentially make believe, asserted without any rational reason except your own wishful thinking?

What do you claim that I claim? You never really mention anything that I have actually said, you mainly comment about my failure to say or mean something else.

The fact that someone doesn't believe your claim is as offensive as arguing against your claim.  Hence the double speak and rhetoric, identifying my counter claim as a personal.

Not at all. I don't make a claim, and I don't believe anything if I can help it. I certainly don't mind if others don't believe me, but just say 'I don't believe you', not 'you're an idiot liar and your views are meaningless.

There is no way to be called an idiot and a jerk off without interpreting it as offensive. To suggest otherwise is the oldest bullying tactic in the world. Break into someone's house and take a dump on their dinner table and then, when they attack you with a butcher knife, 'he overreacted. He's overly sensitive'.

That is rather then just admit you make it up as you go along, since none of the logic actually follows into the conclusion you want to make.

Are you saying you aren't making this up as you go along? Do you have this planned out in advance?

I've never started an argument off with, you're an idiot.

So if you don't start off an argument by saying that, it means you can say it and it doesn't count?

I never declare myself the winner or you wrong by default, without adequate explanation.

Haha, 'adequate explanation', meaning whatever you judge to be adequate for you to feel like the other person is wrong - which is pretty much anything.

See, you've interpreted a counter claim against your claim as a personal attack.

I'm not trying to have any claim. Your claim seems to be that whatever I say can only be wrong, meaningless, and deliberately disguised. My pointing out that your pseudoskepticism is nothing but your personal opinion is not a counter claim, it's a witness testimony. I don't see any kind of intellectual issue being presented for discussion, just repeating the accusations. Immediacracy on trial for being Immediacracy round XIII.

I simply point out the problems, ask the questions, and watch the show.

Just because you configure your accusations with a question mark doesn't mean they are questions.

generally insist that arguing against you is tantamount to a personal attack.

Arguing against someone is a form of personal attack. There was just that excellent video posted here last week where he mentions that having your credibility questioned is indistinguishable in the brain from a physical attack on the body.

Instead, people can discuss, disagree, resolve conflicts, come to mutual understandings, without resorting to the taking-a-dump-on-the-kitchen-table-and-accusing-the-table-of-being-dirty method.

[Omen]

Imm, you're obfuscating and constantly using red herrings that only further the sophistry game you're trying to play.  I will not be part of your idiotic stonewalling.

For example:

Saying that we feel things and are conscious conveys no information?

Is responding to my statement out of the context of the original discussion.  In fact, you even go out of your way to omit the original discussion point, breaking it up to avoid the explanations.  Trying to disconnect the fact that I point out that your claims do not convey meaning or understanding, when asserted upon subjective pleading.  You instead respond to 'do not convey meaning or understanding' and completely pass over the explanation.

In fact, there is no need to ask the question because my explanation already answers it.

More importantly, there is no effort on your part to convey that it means anything where the logic follows into the conclusions being made.  It is essentially a tangled mess of rhetoric, just like your description of 'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness' has absolutely nothing to do with the implied dichotomy you're trying to make.

In fact, even the description you make is one from nothing more then your own personal incredulity. ( argument from ignorance )  You seem to think that somehow describing something as what are 'pejoratives' in your mind, somehow makes a valid logical statement against that position.. that is when we ignore that what you're arguing against is largely a strawman of your own creation.  Even if given the benefit of the doubt, your reasoning is still fundamentally flawed.

I've obviously addressing a context of different assertions you make and at no point do I ever say that emotions/subjective appeals do not convey information.  It is pointed out that it doesn't do so in conveying information as it relates to the claims YOU made.

You actually fill much of your posts with the same kind of rhetoric, that is just a language of obfuscating material that doesn't convey an informative basis for which to work from.  Just like there is no effort to convey reasonably what purpose is when you responded to plethora when he points at 'purpose' is just a human construct.  Its a word in a context of a definition, that can be applied to many different situations.  Yet, your question obfuscates:

Are beaver dams, beehives, and anthills not purposeful? If not, what makes them ontologically different from our dams, buildings, and cities?

Plethora didn't say purpose was nothing, or limited to a just humans.  Only that it was a construct, as in a word used to describe something in a context.  Its still a human construct when assigned to beavers, because it is a subjective word with a definition that can apply in many context.  Yet again, your response is one that presumes that 'purpose' is something beyond just a subjective word to describe something.  No reason, no explanation, no evidence, nothing.. just a question to obfuscate and side step.

Just like you attempt to side step me pointing it out:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323298#msg323298

Notice that, without any useful meaning or definition for 'purpose' you can always plead it in a question where you presume it still exists.  You can always use it like a tautology, because you give it no adequate explanatory meaning.

Then let's use your definition of purpose. Which is?

See, you omit the first part of the discussion regarding your response to plethora.  Not to mention that your question in response is used in the manner of a fallacy ( a tautology ).  You're not even concerned that you did so, only that you provide a response as quick as possible to obfuscate deeper into nonsense.

My definition is not even required, I'm just pointing out the problem with your assertion and response.  You treated 'purpose' in a certain manner that begs the question, you responded to others as if they needed to treat 'purpose' like the 'magical construct' you imply it to be.  They don't, I don't, none of us do.. until you properly argue that we should.  ( btw, once I noticed you ignoring the points being made, I promptly ignored your definition request )

I completely agree with plethora.

It is essentially a tangled mess of rhetoric,

ad hominem

That's not the definition of an ad hominem ( which this is the second time this has to be pointed out to you ).  Describing it as 'rhetoric' means that the language you use is purposefully made in a way not to convey any useful understanding.  Notice that I had to ask questions of the very basic components of the claims you make in the following posts:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323205#msg323205

Which you didn't answer a single god damn question.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323298#msg323298

Which leads me to reasonably conclude that you are knowingly obfuscating, presenting red herrings, and actively working to do nothing more then troll the forum.  Not to mention that it further backs up my description of the type of language you use, in that its a type of rhetoric not meant to convey any useful content.

[Omen]

just like your description of 'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness' has absolutely nothing to do with the implied dichotomy you're trying to make.

you're accusing me of something but you don't even mention what your talking about.

I quoted you:

"your description"

That's you.

'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness'

That's something YOU said in a context of COMPARISONS, that you rejected out of personal incredulity.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

What dichotomy am I trying to make?

The only one implied by your very words.

'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness' in comparison to what?

OH WAIT! A DICHOTOMY!

Do you not know what a dichotomy is?

Why do you think that my description has nothing to do with it? It seems like your accusations are complete strawman - there's not even a man there, it's just the smell of straw you announce is evidence of a scarecrow factory.

Your straw man is the 'unfeeling, unconsciousness, randomness' etc.  Its your defacto straw man description of your OMM bullshit.  In this case its a descriptive pejorative that you reject out of your own personal incredulity, in order to claim a completely unsupported assertion in the next breath.

You don't remember the OMM discussion?

You don't remember dismissing and pleading responses away with,"Oh thats just OMM.."?

[Omen]

that is when we ignore that what you're arguing against is largely a strawman of your own creation.  Even if given the benefit of the doubt, your reasoning is still fundamentally flawed.

That statement proves nothing. It's your opinion of my opinion pretending to speak from authority.

It accurately describes your behavior.

Fact: You ignore questions.
Fact: You perceive antagonism in simple rebuttals.
Fact: You dismiss perceived opponents with pejoratives, pleading.
Fact: You've constructed false positions of your opponents.

What all that amounts too is well.. rhetoric, a game of bullshit.  You have bullshit you really want to believe, for some unknown reason you really want to tell everyone, and then you don't want to be accountable.  You want an audience of silence and even seem to find it contemptible that I respond to you at all.

[Omen]

Not to mention that when challenged on your nonsense, you then begin to obfuscate in turn constantly providing more red herrings and further reducing the subject into a type of sophistry.

Then it should be easy to come up with at least one specific example, no?

This is another example.

I've already provided examples, over multiple threads now.  

Are you pretending as if previous discussions had never taken place?

Are you pretending as if in this very thread you did not just ignore half a dozen questions?

Are you pretending as if in this very thread you did not begin breaking posts apart and respond out of the context they are presented in?

Notice the questions pertain to examples we all already have.

[Omen]

As I've pointed out before and I'm pointing out again, this is all about the ability to 'know'.
Make believe VS What can I know

To me, everything that you know is make believe. That's how subjectivity works.

Then your appeal is purely to sophistry in such terms that makes knowledge meaningless.  There is no point having a discussion with you whatsoever, just as there is no point in you making assertions at all because nothing you claim is known or can be called 'knowledge'.   We might as well not even acknowledge these words we are typing mean anything at all in a shared context of understanding.

That is.. unless.. you have no choice but to be in a shared existence to some degree where the words on this forum do mean something in a language you do understand in a context that is shared despite our subjective experiences?

Oh wow.. look at that. 

See, I'm honest and responsible enough to admit what I can know and what I can't know.  That is, I am only limited to the information I receive through my senses.  Now, that doesn't mean that anything in that 'information' exists at all, but it is the ONLY information to draw from, to work from, and to make conclusions from.  I don't have to retreat into ignorance or sophistry, to pretend as if all things are unknowable because no matter what I do.. I only have the information that comes through my senses.  At no point do I randomly begin making assertions up, nor do I claim to have information that others are not privy too.  I don't have to obfuscate into the unknown, in order to qualify making shit up.

[Omen]

I simply point out the problems, ask the questions, and watch the show.

Just because you configure your accusations with a question mark doesn't mean they are questions.

lol.

Almost all the questions I ask are because you 'beg the question'.

Here, let me help you out:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition  to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The word beg, when used in this phrase, does not mean "asking for something", instead it means to dodge or avoid.[1]  Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for "circle in proving") or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[2]  The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle  around 350 BCE, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Now let me spell it out to you.

YOU ASSUME THAT "PURPOSE" MEANS SOMETHING ABOVE AND BEYOND JUST A WORD WITH CONTEXTUAL DEFINITION.  THIS BEGS THE QUESTION.

YOU RESPOND TO SOMEONE ELSE IN A WAY THAT ASSUMES THAT "PURPOSE" HAS SOME MEANING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CONTEXT THEY JUST PROVIDED.  THIS BEGS THE QUESTION

Just like your claims and the manner you make them beg all the questions asked in this thread:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323205#msg323205

Which I made it quite clear:

Where does this 'magical' state begin for you? ( Note I say 'magical' because it is claimed in such a way to be inseparable from well.. magic, the supernatural, superstition, bullshit, nonsense, etc. )

How do you know it?

Where is it?

Why is it?

Why do you respond to other people by presuming that this 'magical' state of purpose exist at all without explanation?

Which you completely ignored, per the typical Imm response.

[Omen]

The fact that someone doesn't believe your claim is as offensive as arguing against your claim.  Hence the double speak and rhetoric, identifying my counter claim as a personal.

Not at all. I don't make a claim.

Claim:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg322607#msg322607

Claims:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg322674#msg322674

Claim:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg322677#msg322677

Claim:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg322680#msg322680

Claims:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg322709#msg322709

Claims:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg322750#msg322750

Claims:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323099#msg323099

More claims:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323190#msg323190

Claim:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323196#msg323196

And on and on and on and on.

Clearly, Imm.. you make claims.  There is no way to avoid making claims, just like when you claim:

There is a lot we don't know now and maybe can't know ever, but my point is that we do have evidence that this part of the cosmos in here has managed to project something beyond unfeeling, unconscious randomness.

You do so in a way based on fallacies, in this case an argument from ignorance and of course the argument from your own personal incredulity.

[Graybeard]

First it must be admitted that we are just another life-form on the planet along with plants, microbes, insects and sponges. We are not a particularly special animal. We share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

There is only one purpose to life. It is the only thing that all life forms have in common at the basest level. The search for water, food, shelter, protection from danger, etc., is only there so that we may stay alive and be fit enough to reproduce.

Some say it is driven by a desire to have your genes vicariously provide immortality. That’s as may be.

Searches for a deeper, mystical meanings to life are all airy-fairy nonsense that involve navel-gazing.

[Immediacracy]

Imm, you're obfuscating and constantly using red herrings that only further the sophistry game you're trying to play. 

Honestly, I'm not playing any games, using red herrings, or deliberately engaging in any kind of sophistry or obfuscation at all. It's easy for me to go on and on precisely because I don't have to go through any kind of logical contortions, I just ask myself what the truth is and then say it as accurately as I can. I don't expect you to believe that but since I know that I'm being sincere and you sound as if you too believe that you are being truthful, then I'd say that we have innately divergent characters. There are probably a lot of ways which we differ in our personalities, values, and life experiences. You see me as one type of person, I see you as another type of person.

Just like there is no effort to convey reasonably what purpose is when you responded to plethora when he points at 'purpose' is just a human construct.  Its a word in a context of a definition, that can be applied to many different situations.  Yet, your question obfuscates:

Are beaver dams, beehives, and anthills not purposeful? If not, what makes them ontologically different from our dams, buildings, and cities?

Plethora didn't say purpose was nothing, or limited to a just humans.

 
I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here - to see it from your POV, but how is saying that 'purpose is a human construct' not saying purpose isn't limited to humans?

I asked him about other animals to try to find out just that, did he really mean that purpose itself is only something which is constructed psychologically by human beings - not by animals, not a human discovery of something which is common to other phenomena...

Then he answers: "I didn't mean purpose only in the sense of utility. Of course a beaver's dam has a purpose.

However, a beaver is not asking itself why it exists in the first place and what the point is of spending his life meaninglessly building and maintaining dams to ultimately end up dead. Hence it doesn't need to assign purpose to anything it does."

He's not accusing me of obfuscating at all. He even starts off with "My bad for not defining "purpose" or asking for it to be defined.". It was actually a productive interchange. We both got a little closer to each other's meaning. No attempt to wriggle out of answering a question, just trying to clarify what we're discussing.

Only that it was a construct, as in a word used to describe something in a context.

 
We're not talking about the word purpose as a word, we're talking about what the word means - the concept(s) of purpose. I'm saying purpose isn't a construct at all, but an underlying elemental property of some aspects of the Cosmos - whether it's called purpose, teleology, desire, instinct, will, voluntary movement, or volition,  it can all be seen as part of the same phenomenal principle which drives or motivates living beings (and potentially inorganic processes).

Its still a human construct when assigned to beavers, because it is a subjective word with a definition that can apply in many context.

So would you say that anything exists which is not a human construct? Is matter a human construct? Is iron? Is a specific piece of iron which actually exists in front of you? Aren't all words subjective?

Yet again, your response is one that presumes that 'purpose' is something beyond just a subjective word to describe something.  No reason, no explanation, no evidence, nothing.. just a question to obfuscate and side step.

Or, yet again your response to my response reflects your own confirmation bias, with you reading into it a lot of prejudice, paranoia and hostility. It could be that too.

Just like you attempt to side step me pointing it out:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323298#msg323298

Notice that, without any useful meaning or definition for 'purpose' you can always plead it in a question where you presume it still exists.  You can always use it like a tautology, because you give it no adequate explanatory meaning.

Then let's use your definition of purpose. Which is?

See, you omit the first part of the discussion regarding your response to plethora.

No, the first part you accuse me of not having a definition for purpose so I'm inviting you to provide one. Which you ignore.

Not to mention that your question in response is used in the manner of a fallacy ( a tautology ).  You're not even concerned that you did so, only that you provide a response as quick as possible to obfuscate deeper into nonsense.

The only tautology or obfuscation present is what you are projecting into it as far as I'm concerned. People ask me questions, I try to answer them truthfully. I ask people questions, they sometimes answer them but usually they get mad or go away.

My definition is not even required,

Ohhh, of course not. Only my definition is required. Not hypocritical at all. This is the very definition of pseudoskepticism.

I'm just pointing out the problem with your assertion and response.  You treated 'purpose' in a certain manner that begs the question, you responded to others as if they needed to treat 'purpose' like the 'magical construct' you imply it to be.  They don't, I don't, none of us do.. until you properly argue that we should.  ( btw, once I noticed you ignoring the points being made, I promptly ignored your definition request )

There is no assertion. There is no argument on my end. I don't demand that others see purpose as I do at all, I'm just presenting that 'here is a way to understand purpose that I think might help resolve some important cosmological problems.' If you see a particular reason why that doesn't work, then by all means, share that, but if you only see reasons why my ideas don't fit into a parliamentary model of debate someone may imagine to be relevant, I say 'who cares?'

It is essentially a tangled mess of rhetoric,

ad hominem

That's not the definition of an ad hominem ( which this is the second time this has to be pointed out to you ).  Describing it as 'rhetoric' means that the language you use is purposefully made in a way not to convey any useful understanding.

'A tangled mess' is unquestionably ad hominem - language you use purposefully to insult your opponent rather than convey any useful understanding. wiki - Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. Your use of rhetoric is the opposite of the literal definition Wiki - "Rhetoric: the art of using language to communicate effectively", but I don't obsess on literal definitions or insult people when they use words in colloquial or vernacular ways. This is why I don't argue definitions. They detract from conversation and make it into ideas about words instead of words about ideas.

Notice that I had to ask questions of the very basic components of the claims you make in the following posts:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14575.msg323205#msg323205

Which you didn't answer a single god damn question.

I didn't answer them because they are rhetorical questions. You are trying to make the point that your view of my use of purpose is impossible - hence all of the god damn 'questions' are loaded questions begging a category error. You know perfectly well that purpose of a Beaver's dam doesn't begin in a quark, atom, molecule, protein, cell, skin, or tail and I've never claimed that purpose is a physical substance at all - quite the contrary.

Your other god damned questions are also loaded questions begging a category error - ascribing ad hominem qualities of "magic, the supernatural, superstition, bullshit, nonsense" to my straightforward use of purpose (for short: a phenomenal principle which drives or motivates living beings, and potentially inorganic processes)

Notice how your questions: "How do you know it?, Where is it?, Why is it?" are predicated upon a straw man caricature of my use of purpose.

How do you know truth? Where is it? Why is it?
How do you know sleep? Where is it? Why is it?
How do you know green? Where is it? Why is it?
How do you know yourself? Where is it? Why is it?

It's doesn't matter if I answer any of your questions, because you have already determined in your mind that if you try to drown me and I float, I'm a witch and must be burned at the stake, and only if I die at the bottom of the lake can I be innocent.

Which leads me to reasonably conclude that you are knowingly obfuscating, presenting red herrings, and actively working to do nothing more then troll the forum.  Not to mention that it further backs up my description of the type of language you use, in that its a type of rhetoric not meant to convey any useful content.

Haha, what a shocker. So reasonable, and not at all clouded by hostility.

I notice that you avoided my question:
"I don't believe that you do not know what purpose is. What is your evidence that you believe that?"

[Immediacracy]

There is no way to avoid making claims,

Now THAT is a claim. Totally without a shred of evidence.

Claim is just a word, and a word about the use of words no less. Highly subjective, conceptual, an invitation to argumentation in the Analytic or Continental schools of Western philosophy. Not at all what I'm interested in. I'm looking at both Western and Eastern thought.

You can say that everything anyone says is a claim, but so what? You say claim, I say idea. Who cares? You don't like my ideas, great, let's hear some of yours. The fact that you don't like my ideas doesn't count as an idea. I get it, I'm super dumb and bad and am guilty of the same things that you and every other person who has ever used language are guilty of, only totally different because I'm the bad person so I do everything int the bad way. Whatever.

[Immediacracy]

First it must be admitted that we are just another life-form on the planet along with plants, microbes, insects and sponges. We are not a particularly special animal. We share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

There is only one purpose to life. It is the only thing that all life forms have in common at the basest level. The search for water, food, shelter, protection from danger, etc., is only there so that we may stay alive and be fit enough to reproduce.

I don't see it as cut and dried as that. Blue-green algae is the oldest and possibly most prolific form of life and it doesn't search for anything - it just soaks up the sun and nutrients, and makes more of itself. If we're looking for a universal 'stem cell' of life, cyanobacteria would have to be it.

It might be fair to say that there is only one biological purpose to life, but living organisms devote time and effort to lots of different kinds of purposes other than strictly biological ones. I think it's misleading to try to reduce all psychological purposes to some distant evolutionary mechanism, because it collapses all of the layers of emergent properties in between. If it were true that survival issues were all that life is about, then the most sought after fashions in the world would be those that have beef jerky sewn into the lining.

Searches for a deeper, mystical meanings to life are all airy-fairy nonsense that involve navel-gazing.

Even if that were true, they are anthropologically universal and deserve a legitimate explanation.

[Agga]

There is no way to avoid making claims,

Now THAT is a claim. Totally without a shred of evidence.

What?  There are several, very clear examples (evidence) of you making claims in this thread.

How can you claim that there isn't any evidence?

[Immediacracy]

There is no way to avoid making claims,

Now THAT is a claim. Totally without a shred of evidence.

What?  There are several, very clear examples (evidence) of you making claims in this thread.

How can you claim that there isn't any evidence?

I'm saying that he's not providing evidence for the claim that "There is no way to avoid making claims".

I don't know whether or not I make claims, but I try not to. Whatever I present, I intend to present as an opinion, an idea, or an expression of my own reasoning. I'm not doing a formal thesis here. I'm not making conclusions, I'm stating a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is a claim, then fine, I make claims...and so does everyone else. So what?

[Agga]

I'm saying that he's not providing evidence for the claim that "There is no way to avoid making claims".

Gotcha.

However, if you express an idea, at the least you've made a claim to that idea; you've claimed that you have an idea; you've claimed that it is your idea.

I don't know whether or not I make claims, but I try not to.

^^Yet below you say:

It seems to me that every mobile organism at least exhibits some behaviors consistent with having an instinct to survive, to move toward food/life supporting conditions and away from pain/life threatening conditions which it can recognize. Even plants bend and grow toward the sun. The survival instinct doesn't evolve at all, it is the subjective definition of life.

^^That's an assertion (claim).  Plain and simple.

•an assertion of a right (as to money or property); "his claim asked for damages"
•assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar"
•an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
•demand as being one's due or property; assert one's right or title to; "He claimed his suitcases at the airline counter"; "Mr. Smith claims special tax exemptions because he is a foreign resident"
•demand for something as rightful or due; "they struck in support of their claim for a shorter work day"
•ask for legally or make a legal claim to, as of debts, for example; "They claimed on the maximum allowable amount"
•an informal right to something; "his claim on her attentions"; "his title to fame"
•lay claim to; as of an idea; "She took credit for the whole idea"

Source

The linked posts certainly qualify as claims.  Or, are you saying that your ideas are all wrong?  Can't have it both ways.

Whatever I present, I intend to present as an opinion, an idea, or an expression of my own reasoning. I'm not doing a formal thesis here. I'm not making conclusions, I'm stating a hypothesis.

Which is a claim that "X" may be possible.  If you present opinions, your claims are that your opinions are valid, otherwise you wouldn't be presenting them.  Either that or you're in the habit of stating opinions that you believe are wrong.

If a hypothesis is a claim, then fine, I make claims...and so does everyone else. So what?

So start being honest about it and acknowledge that you're making claims.

Anyone can make claims and then deny that they've made them by redefining the meaning of words.  It's called being slippery.

[Immediacracy]

However, if you express an idea, at the least you've made a claim to that idea; you've claimed that you have an idea; you've claimed that it is your idea.

This is why I don't like to get into semantics and definition rattling. What's the difference whether we call an idea an idea or call it a claim? Why is it important that we define all ideas in possessive terms, especially when it detracts from the idea itself?

Even plants bend and grow toward the sun. The survival instinct doesn't evolve at all, it is the subjective definition of life.

^^That's an assertion (claim).  Plain and simple.

It can be interpreted as an assertion, sure, but again, it's semantic. Assertion not a neutral term. It's a term which attaches an unbidden presumption of argumentative formalism. I would categorize a statement like that in a lot of other ways before assertion: an observation, a description, a thought, an analysis, an understanding, etc.

•an assertion of a right (as to money or property); "his claim asked for damages"
•assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar"
•an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
•demand as being one's due or property; assert one's right or title to; "He claimed his suitcases at the airline counter"; "Mr. Smith claims special tax exemptions because he is a foreign resident"
•demand for something as rightful or due; "they struck in support of their claim for a shorter work day"
•ask for legally or make a legal claim to, as of debts, for example; "They claimed on the maximum allowable amount"
•an informal right to something; "his claim on her attentions"; "his title to fame"
•lay claim to; as of an idea; "She took credit for the whole idea"

Source

I've bolded the above pronouns to point out that the term 'claim' expressly emphasizes not merely possession but assertion of possession. To characterize someone's ideas, expressions, or logic as 'claims' is to focus the discussion on their right to communicate those thoughts in the first place and away from the thoughts themselves. It's a way to frame the conversation so as to question the authority of an opponent, and introduce doubt indirectly and personally rather than to address ideas from a neutral, unbiased point of view. It's a semantic trick, and I completely see through it.

The linked posts certainly qualify as claims.  Or, are you saying that your ideas are all wrong?  Can't have it both ways.

This is, of course, the classic loaded question fallacy. Either I agree with you that I'm wrong or I disagree with myself that I'm right. I don't want it either way. Call them claims if you like. Or understand what I'm saying and be illuminated instead. You can have it both ways, or neither if you like.

Which is a claim that "X" may be possible.  If you present opinions, your claims are that your opinions are valid, otherwise you wouldn't be presenting them.

The superfluous attachment of the term 'claim', as I've explained above, adds nothing to the understanding about the validity of opinions. It just projects a defensive stigma on an opponent. Opinions are opinions. You can call them claims if you want, but again, so what? How does it change what I'm saying/thinking/communicating?

Either that or you're in the habit of stating opinions that you believe are wrong.

What does it matter what I believe about my own opinions? What business is it of anyone else's?

So start being honest about it and acknowledge that you're making claims.

If I translate claim into German, one of the translations is "Anforderung", meaning "claim, lawsuit; plea; requisition, demand, requirement; command, order; written order for goods or supplies; act of demanding, act of requiring". By that translation, I would say that no, I make no commands or orders, no pleas, demands, or requirements. I ask nothing. I just express what's on my mind - anything you want to read into that reflects what's on your mind, not mine.

Anyone can make claims and then deny that they've made them by redefining the meaning of words.  It's called being slippery.

It could also be called being clear and effective.

[Graybeard]

[...]Blue-green algae is the oldest and possibly most prolific form of life and it doesn't search for anything - it just soaks up the sun and nutrients, and makes more of itself.

Yes, that's right, it's looking for food (sun and nutrients) and reproduces.

I think it's misleading to try to reduce all psychological purposes to some distant evolutionary mechanism, because it collapses all of the layers of emergent properties in between.

Nothing misleading about it at all. If we are looking for a purpose, reproduction (and the creation of an environment for reproduction) seems to be the answer

If it were true that survival issues were all that life is about, then the most sought after fashions in the world would be those that have beef jerky sewn into the lining.

humorous but vacuous.

Searches for a deeper, mystical meanings to life are all airy-fairy nonsense that involve navel-gazing.

Even if that were true, they are anthropologically universal and deserve a legitimate explanation.

No, no they do not. You asked a question, I gave an answer that you cannot refute. They are not universal, some people do it. Some people navel-gaze. We humans have too much time on our hands, so we go off and "find ourselves."

[Azdgari]

Anyone can make claims and then deny that they've made them by redefining the meaning of words.  It's called being slippery.

It could also be called being clear and effective.

Are you trying to be ironic here?[1]

1.	As in, redefining "clear" and "effective" in your post so that you're not lying?

[Immediacracy]

Yes, that's right, it's looking for food (sun and nutrients) and reproduces.

Since the organism can't voluntarily move, I have a hard time imagining that they can look for anything. Sun, nutrients, and algae bump into each other but I don't think there's any looking going on.

Nothing misleading about it at all. If we are looking for a purpose, reproduction (and the creation of an environment for reproduction) seems to be the answer.

It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Not the psychological purpose. Biological, sure.

humorous but vacuous.

Vacuous how? I'm making the point that our survival needs aren't the only motivation we have for living. Some kind of a hierarchy makes more sense:

Our minds are filled with purposes, not all of them are best understood by relating them to survival. To me it's tortured reasoning.

No, no they do not. You asked a question, I gave an answer that you cannot refute. They are not universal, some people do it. Some people navel-gaze."

By anthropological universal I mean that there has never been a culture discovered which did not have a concept of spirituality or religion. Individual people may not be drawn to it or reject it, but no group of people are unfamiliar with it.

We humans have too much time on our hands, so we go off and "find ourselves.

I think that other species have just as much, if not more time on their hands than modern humans. It doesn't follow logically to me that more free time would give rise to a nonsensical urge in every society on the planet. A robot wouldn't turn free time into spirituality.

[Immediacracy]

Are you trying to be ironic here?[1]

1.	As in, redefining "clear" and "effective" in your post so that you're not lying?

No, I'm saying that I'm being clear when I say that I'm not making any claims, and that it's effective rather than slippery to make that clarification.

To claim is to deliberately take ownership. I try not to do that. Much of my understanding comes from many different sources over the years so I couldn't claim them personally even if I wanted to. I try to offer these ideas here so that people can examine and consider them, correct them or contribute, but I don't have any interest in forcing them on anyone or defending my right to express them freely without being put on trial.

[Azdgari]

To claim is to deliberately take ownership.

That is one usage of the word "claim".  It is not the kind that is being used on this forum when people say that you are making claims.  When others here use the term, in the context of your words, they are referring to a claim in sense of an assertion of truth, rather than an assertion of ownership.

Have you been operating under the opposite impression for the duration of your time on this forum?

[Graybeard]

[...]I have a hard time imagining that they can look for anything.

I do not wish to be flippant, but in a post elsewhere, you were imagining the entire universe. As it is

Sun, nutrients, and algae bump into each other but I don't think there's any looking going on.

May I ask if you are being deliberately obtuse? The algae survives and does so by creating (or inhabiting) an environment suitable for reproduction. Where is the problem.

Graybeard:Nothing misleading about it at all. If we are looking for a purpose, reproduction (and the creation of an environment for reproduction) seems to be the answer.

It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Not the psychological purpose. Biological, sure.

"psychological purpose"? Could you explain that?

Vacuous how? I'm making the point that our survival needs aren't the only motivation we have for living. Some kind of a hierarchy makes more sense:

All you seem to have done is explain some of the conditions required for successful reproduction.

Our minds are filled with purposes, not all of them are best understood by relating them to survival.

You suggest a species could be exceptionally successful if it gave no regard to its survival? I hear the Dodo virtually gave itself up to be eaten. What else does life want to do other than to survive to breed?

To me it's tortured reasoning.

I'm sorry about that, perhaps you should consider it a little deeper. If we wish to know how a skyscraper manages to stand upright, we should first look at the foundations. We can bother about the color schemes on the 4th floor later, when we have time.

By anthropological universal I mean that there has never been a culture discovered which did not have a concept of spirituality or religion.

That statement is not true. I suggest you read "Don't Sleep there are snakes" by Daniel Everett http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/dont-sleep-there-are-snakes-by-daniel-everett-1017101.html

Individual people may not be drawn to it or reject it, but no group of people are unfamiliar with it.

You are quite simply wrong.

I frankly confess that I do not have the faintest idea what you might consider "The Meaning of Life." I cannot make out if you mean to imply that goldfish should have "a meaning" or believe in gods.

The world is a wonderful and complex place, but we are merely animals - we have no greater "meaning" at all. Why should we?

[Immediacracy]

Have you been operating under the opposite impression for the duration of your time on this forum?

No, I understand that on this forum it's intended as a neutral term of scholarly examination, but I also observe that there is a subtext of submission that the term carries. I think that the prevailing worldview on the forum (as this poll indicates) is weighted toward the objectifying end of the spectrum I describe and therefore concepts related to subjectivity are treated with prejudice. Since I see nothing 'claimlike' whatsoever in what I write, calling it that reminds me of "Mind if we call you Bruce to avoid any confusion?".

If the forum had a formal academic structure, where people presented a thesis for evaluation, then I would only present something if I had thoroughly researched the subject. That would be a claim. I feel like this forum is casual enough that people feel comfortable expressing their ridicule openly, so I don't think that this discourse requires that kind of preparation.

[Immediacracy]

I do not wish to be flippant, but in a post elsewhere, you were imagining the entire universe. As it is

Exactly, that's why it's surprising to me. I can't imagine square circles either.

Sun, nutrients, and algae bump into each other but I don't think there's any looking going on.

May I ask if you are being deliberately obtuse? The algae survives and does so by creating (or inhabiting) an environment suitable for reproduction. Where is the problem.

No, not trying to be obtuse. I just think that the idea of subjectively looking for food probably corresponds to an ability to voluntarily move toward it. What would be the point of looking for something if you can't do anything about getting closer to it?

"psychological purpose"? Could you explain that?

Just as a biological purpose relates to the processes of a living organism - metabolism, reproduction, a psychological purpose relates to the processes of a conscious mind or Self - feeling, thinking, communicating.

All you seem to have done is explain some of the conditions required for successful reproduction.

How is self-actualization required for successful reproduction?

You suggest a species could be exceptionally successful if it gave no regard to its survival? I hear the Dodo virtually gave itself up to be eaten. What else does life want to do other than to survive to breed?

I agree that survival is a defining characteristic of only the outside of what we are - the body. What we are on the inside is rooted in life, rooted in survival, but it has emergent properties of awareness. We don't want only what life wants, we want what the psyche wants. The archetypes of anima, animus, and shadow - ego, the unconscious, collective unconscious.

These are descriptions of our inner phenomena. Drama, stories, characters. They are as real as the body is, only very different. It's a mistake to turn them into brain exhaust. It's inverted. In my opinion anyways. It's perfectly fine to see it the other way around, I just don't relate to it personally. Plenty of room on the spectrum for people to specialize in whatever part of it makes sense to them.

We can bother about the color schemes on the 4th floor later, when we have time.

There is no later. Let the builders worry about the foundation and let the decorators design the interiors.

You are quite simply wrong.

It's not me, I'm just quoting Wiki Answers. "Yes. Religion is a universal concept in human history, convexing race, geography, and time. In every culture studied, religion expression has been documented." I'm sure there are people who would argue that, but the fact that it's even debatable makes a good case for the notion that it's at least a nearly universal feature of human cultural development. If you're saying that we don't need religion anymore, that's something else. That I would agree with.

I frankly confess that I do not have the faintest idea what you might consider "The Meaning of Life." I cannot make out if you mean to imply that goldfish should have "a meaning" or believe in gods.

There's all kinds of meanings. Why just one?

The world is a wonderful and complex place, but we are merely animals - we have no greater "meaning" at all. Why should we?

What's wrong with being an animal. We control our bodies and use it to voluntarily manipulate our environment. We experience and create beauty that exists nowhere else. Pretty impressive compared to everything else we've ever observed. If anything has meaning in the cosmos, our experience as domesticated primates seems valid enough.

[One Above All]

Successful reproduction explained as simply as possible:
Guy has sex with girl