(December 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Ascribing purpose to plants and things is a typical human thing. Even as a nonbeliever you seem eager to do so. This is not obvious at all. The human brain seems to be wired for this. The purpose you ascribe to plants shows the use of an actor-object model of the world in which everything in the world is perceived in terms of usefullness to the actor, a rather utilitarian view on the world. From an evolutionary standpoint this model has proven usefull (to survive and adapt to new situations) to us. But its characteristic assesment of all objects in the world as contributing parts to some higher purpose is the result of the combination of a pattern seeking ability inate to man and the misconception that the whole of being can be personified as some agent with needs of his/her own. This is why an answer on the purpose of being is often not satisfactory to the questioner. Somewhere in the background the cosmic agent, notwithstanding its artificial state, lingers in the mind.
Imo the actor-object model is a false model when applied to the whole of being. I think we are very lucky to be able to define our own purpose in life.
I'm in agreement with you here. Bare in mind I'm only testing her claims of purpose with the presupposition of her "god model" being real. Personally I believe my life holds no purpose unless I impose it myself.
Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say. It seemed that you were telling me why attributing purposes to things is a dumb idea (albeit natural)? If so, I agree on all points.
