Useful

I found this response from a Steven Simon (Associate Professor of Political Science, and Coordinator of Program in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law at University of Richmond) to the question:

What is the purpose of our existence from the scientific point of view?


I found it interesting on this topic as I am unaware of any science that is taking on this direct question.  Reactions from the community?

I have already posted a link to the study of emotions, as Affective Science.  I don't think it "takes on" any ideas or position, but is in the business of observing, documenting and analyzing intent and emotional responses.

I have a reductionistic worldview.  To me there are laws of physics and materials science.  Chemistry is observations of physical interactions and therefore - chemistry reduces to physics.  The author names biological "laws".  They are not like the math-modeled laws of physics.

The other set of real fundamental laws are in information science.  Here is where intent, purpose and target states are modeled scientifically, in terms of entropy, in terms of the communication of genetic information and in terms of the logical evolution of dissapative systems that use mental capabilities to change their probabilities for survival (evolution).

So, the physical aspects of bodies of living things are correctly seen as purposeless forces and molecules.  But science doesn't stop there.  Since thermodynamics, coding of biological communication and logical behavior in adaptation are all Information Science areas of study - biology reduces to a (1) a material level of physics and (2) an informational level of information processing.

Biology certainly is a scientific discipline, as the specialized work of gathering data on living things is required.  The hard working scientists in biology deserve tremendous credit for the data they generate.

But when you talk about science laws - all this includes are forces, materials, information and meaningful environments.

(I am highly aware that this my be hard to take if you are in a science field that has physics envy, or you are seeking a magical mystery tour.)  ESP will get defined by science soon enough, as being possible through natural information processes, in my humble opinion.

Who says there's nothing to show for their efforts?  For many, it seems, "everything" has been shown via their efforts.  I have met a lot of people in my lifetime who have a self professed and strong grasp of "purpose" and find it the most useful thing in their life.  (Again, I'm coming at this discussion through the definition of useful and not useful that Linda put forth.)


"People like me"?  lol.  Ok.

You are conflating your subjective usefulness with Linda's practical usefulness. Subjective usefulness confines itself to an individual as Linda and me are using it useful applies to everyone.

(I am highly aware that this my be hard to take if you are in a science field that has physics envy, or you are seeking a magical mystery tour.)  ESP will get defined by science soon enough, as being possible through natural information processes, in my humble opinion.

Information is transmitted via a medium (examples: sound waves in air, light pulses in fibre-optic cable). Which medium or media do you envisage in the case of ESP?

(I am highly aware that this my be hard to take if you are in a science field that has physics envy, or you are seeking a magical mystery tour.)  ESP will get defined by science soon enough, as being possible through natural information processes, in my humble opinion.

I think this is quite an important question, as it obviously has potential bearing on people's ideas about the role of consciousness, personal survival and so on.

Just out of interest, would you say the same about PK, as well as ESP?

Information is transmitted via a medium (examples: sound waves in air, light pulses in fibre-optic cable). Which medium or media do you envisage in the case of ESP?

That is a question where I don't have a clean or clear answer and thank you for asking it.  I offer an ancient intuition about how it behaves.  I also offer the concept of holographic information as a modern science view.

Physical causation is a two-step process: cause --> effect.   Informational communication is a three-step process: origination source --> channel (medium) --> receiver.  What happens that is causal; is that there is mutual information at both source and receiving locations, after communication.

The corresponding environment for a physical channel, is the informational environment where probabilities evolve to become physical or not.  So, the best way I can describe the medium for informational relations to change is universal linking.  This is observable via bringing past information probabilities to present circumstances or bringing future states into the present.  All real-world meanings are connected by interference patterns and this is holographic nature of information.

Here is an intuitive version from Buddhist tradition: Indra Net. 

The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that: 

• at each juncture there lies a jewel;
  
• each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.
  
• Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.
  
• Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;
  
• thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.
  

This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel"
The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.

 http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2...indra.html

The informational environment - in my reckoning - has as internal structure; an inner integrity whereby information is not in a one-to-one correspondence with physical locations or time.  An idea can have a "time who has come" and evolve to fit a future circumstance.  Physical objects can be entangled across distance.  There is evidence that this is real, in our observation of probabilities in QM and in the properties of holograms.  In each case; mutual information seems to occur without physical signals.

IMHO, the gateway to ESP is the function of mental activity by the state of  understanding.  What does it mean to understand something physically?  Understanding can be described as gaining mutual information by relating a physically sensed stimulus, to the internal database of informational objects experienced by a living thing.  ESP is simply an "understanding" that has created perception without a direct physical stimulus.

I think this is quite an important question, as it obviously has potential bearing on people's ideas about the role of consciousness, personal survival and so on.

Just out of interest, would you say the same about PK, as well as ESP?

I have no reason to doubt ESP as a phenomenal reality.  As for PK, I am personally agnostic and have never seen it occur.

Once understanding is modeled as a process, not a physical process, but an informational process - I believe we will have a better context to grapple with survival.

I’ve been thinking for a while about what is meant by “useful”. This is what I’ve come up with so far. I’d be interested in any additions or revisions.

There is a science term that means useful.  If you are talking in a scientific context - affordance is a concept that is emerging, and looking to measurement and quantification in information science.

 Technology affordance and constraint theory (TACT) is an emerging perspective in the Information Systems (IS) literature to understand technology use and consequences. A technology affordance (or constraint) is defined as a relational construct that depends on the interaction between technology features and individual goals (e.g.,Leonardi 2013; Majchrzak and Markus 2012; Strong et al. 2014; Volkoff and Strong 2013). Most of the existing TACT research is either qualitative or conceptual. Researchers argue that to establish the status of TACT as a lens to understand technology use and consequence, it is necessary to apply TACT to a specific context, generate some testable propositions and empirically test these developed propositions (Majchrzak and Markus 2012). Measuring technology affordances represents a challenge to researchers.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/22b8/d6...9de5ed.pdf

. 

 Though additional meanings have developed, the original definition in psychology includes all transactions that are possible between an individual and their environment

The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment.
— Gibson (1979, p. 127)[3]

 

I'll restate the question I asked in the post to which you replied:

What does science have to say about human purpose?

I see from your reply to a post of Steve's that you are referring to a sense of purpose. If you go to Google Scholar and put "sense of purpose" (with quotes) into the search box, it will give you an example of some things science has to say about human purpose.

Linda

There is a science term that means useful.  If you are talking in a scientific context - affordance is a concept that is emerging, and looking to measurement and quantification in information science.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/22b8/d6...9de5ed.pdf

Interesting, Shephen.

I read the wiki article on "affordance", as well. I can see some potential applications to the ideas I raised in the article you linked.

Linda

I see from your reply to a post of Steve's that you are referring to a sense of purpose. If you go to Google Scholar and put "sense of purpose" (with quotes) into the search box, it will give you an example of some things science has to say about human purpose.

Linda

You've altered my question Linda and I'm not sure why.  I asked what science has to say about human purpose not a 'sense of purpose'.  I see what you did there which I find pretty entertaining (nice materialistic reduction there).

Nonetheless, while I hate these types of homework assignments when the discussion is at such high levels (I find it dismissive and often an indicator that the responder doesn't have much to say on the topic directly), I did as you advised.  The top hits:

• Link to a paper "Sense of Purpose" published in "Nursing Standard" that is behind a firewall
  

• Link to a book on higher universities role in society or its institutional "sense of purpose"
  

• Link to a paper in the Journal of Management Development on the sense of purpose in a business setting
  

• Link to "Therapeutic alliance in couple and family therapy: an empirically formed guide to practice"
  

I stopped wasting my time after the first four links.

I was hopeful someone here could provide a summary of what science has to say on the question.  A direct link to something relevant would be welcome as well.