does humanity have a goal?

Dee

I agree there is, or ever  was a goal for humanity. Nature/evolution is blind as far as future goals are concerned.

excon

maxx said:

I do not believe humanity, as a whole, has a goal.

Hello max:

I concur.  The term "goal" is loaded with human emotion..  Humanity, as a whole, has no emotion.  It does, however, have a purpose, and that purpose is to perpetuate itself.  And, for the time being, we do.

excon

maxx

well, that is almost like you are saying that evolution has a purpose; but i got what you mean. @excon

excon

maxx said:

well, that is almost like you are saying that evolution has a purpose; but i got what you mean. @excon

Hello again, maxx:

Almost???  Lemme break it down further..  The PURPOSE for a mouse trap is NOT to feed a mouse, but to entice it.   The PURPOSE for sex is NOT to feel good, but to entice us.  Are we no more evolved than a mouse??

Apparently so.

excon

maxx

evolution has no purpose.  @excon

Blastcat

Argument Topic: Categorical error

excon wrote:

I concur.  The term "goal" is loaded with human emotion..  Humanity, as a whole, has no emotion.  It does, however, have a purpose, and that purpose is to perpetuate itself.  And, for the time being, we do.

maxx replied:

evolution has no purpose.

1. I agree with maxx that natural processes do not possess minds. Evolution is a natural process like digestion is.
2.  Whereas individuals and groups of people have goals and purposes, humanity as a whole does not have a mind of it's own. Humanity is composed of single individuals and groups of people who have goals, aspirations, dreams, visions, values and purposes. My purpose today is to take care of my sick wife. This is not humanity's goal.

3. Therefore, humanity does not have a mind of it's own that can dream up goals and purposes. It is a categorical error to confuse humans and groups of humans who can share goals with all of humanity that is composed of individual humans and groups of humans.  Humanity is not an individual with a brain. Humanity is just another word for "every human being".  Excon makes a category error due to using sloppy language. It is very silly to think that every human being shares a common mind.

This kind of logical failure is very common.

maxx

i believe what excon was tryint to say is that it is the instincts of humans that gives our brains the idea that propagation is an actual goal instead of an instictive urge to continue on with the species.. instictive behaviors however are not a goal. @Blastcat

MayCaesar

I do not think this is how it works. When people have a shared goal, they unite for the sake of pursuing this goal - but people who just represent some random group and are not united around a similar goal cannot have such goal. Even if it happens that there are certain goals that are universally shared across all human beings, humanity as a whole does not have those goals in any meaningful sense, as it is not working towards them as a single entity.

I also think that goals necessitate voluntary interaction. Amazon shareholders may have goals, and some of them might be shared by Amazon workers, other investors and so on. But, say, the US cannot have any goals, as nobody (except for certain immigrants such as me) voluntarily "joined" the country; some people were just born here and never left, and they do not necessarily have to share any possible goals one could attribute to the nation. The Founding Fathers had goals; but Americans as a whole have never had and possibly cannot.

Blastcat

maxx said:

i believe what excon was tryint to say is that it is the instincts of humans that gives our brains the idea that propagation is an actual goal instead of an instictive urge to continue on with the species.. instictive behaviors however are not a goal. @Blastcat

1. DNA doesn't have a mind of it's own. We are "designed" by natural forces, such as natural selection, which is basically just physics. Things that can't live in a particular environment don't procreate as much. So, species have come and gone, depending on the environment.
2. Nature and DNA does not have goals, nature itself is not intentional, nature and DNA cannot make decisions or have purposes.

3. Therefore, when Excon says that humanity's PURPOSE is to procreate, he is implying that humanity as a group has a mind of it's own. There is just one "humanity", which is the set of all humans,  and there are billions of humans who actually do have minds, can have intentions, goals, and purposes. Excon makes a category error if he thinks that humanity as a set has a mind of it's own. It does not. It is composed of HUMANS who DO have purposes.. group purposes, like having a fair election and individual purposes like inciting people to insurrections. Excon is confusing the category of humanity with the category of individual humans who actually have purposes and the groups that they form  to achieve some purpose.

This mistake is a very common language difficulty, as English can be quite messy and confusing.

maxx

people have the wrong concept on racism.  first, we are all one race, the human race. There are no sub races. Waht we call raicim is discrimination and hatered of what is different. This includes, nationality, skin color, ideas, morals and values, ethenic and social issues, location,and so on.  It is about what is different. as well, there are many psychologists who believe that racism is inherant. @Blastcat

piloteer

@excon

Evolution is an effect, not an affect (an affect causes something, and an effect is the result of something, or a thing having something done to it). The only way evolution can be explained is to personify it in a sense, but it is not actually driving an agenda like perpetuating the existence of any beings. Evolution is not a causer of things, it is the result of things. 

It is believed by geneticists that there was a genetic mutation that caused a bears fur to be white instead of brown. It was the result of a genetic "mistake" that caused that change. That bear had cubs, and some of those cubs also had the genetic "mistake" of white fur. Eventually, there were many bears with white fur. The bears who had the white fur and lived in the tundra and artic circle happened to have an evolutionary advantage because they blended in with the permanent snow pack that defined the region they lived in, while bears with the traditional brown or black colors lacked that camouflage and therefore they lacked the evolutionary advantage in snowy terrains. The whole of this was perpetuated simply by luck. It just happened to be a genetic mistake that caused the white fur, and it just happened to be lucky that some of those bears with the mutation lived in an environment dominated by white. Luck is not indicative of an agenda.

Polar bears were not made by evolution to be white. Evolution did not have an understanding of the environment of a certain species and how to best adapt that species to its environment. Evolution is the term used to describe a phenomenon that is the result of events that are caused by pure luck. Evolution drives nothing, instead, it is prior circumstances that drive evolution. But the only way to effectively describe evolution is to make it seem like evolution has a mind or an agenda that it does not actually have.