Why Why?

[The Grand Nudger]

In what way?

[Neo-Scholastic]

If anything, it's the antithesis of "why"

Yeah, the old joke of the one word philosophy class test, "Why?" And the student who passed by answering simply "Why not?". But I don't believe in brute facts which seems like a tacit assumption of even the self beclowning "we just lack belief" atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

....or ...we can wait until he elaborates...which he wont and can't, because it was a throwaway comment, like many of your own on all the same subjects.

[Foxaèr]

Considering his admitted aversion to thinking, his comments are naturally absent of intellectual thought.

[Ferrocyanide]

I concerned more with 'how'.

I’m not really seeing a difference between how and why?

For example,
How is the hardness of aluminium X?
Why is the hardness of aluminium X?

In both cases, you would have to explain the attractive forces between aluminium atoms, the crystal structure, if the material is a single crystal or polycrystalline.


Another example:
Why did you put a nail there?
Answer: to hold that piece and that piece together.

How did you put a nail there?
Answer: I used a nail gun to drive the nail into the wood.

^^^^^This one leads to different answers.
If a brain decides to put a nail somewhere, then it has its own reasons. Maybe it is optimal. It consumes less material, less energy.
That is something that nature is not going to do.

There are other cases where nature does an optimization.
Example:
All stars and planets are almost spherical. This is because a sphere is the ideal shape to achieve the lowest gravitational potential energy.

^^^^^This is a case of the properties of matter leading to a decision by nature (a brainless thing).
The case of the aluminium hardness is also nature (a brainless thing) making a decision.

Planets, stars, aluminium crystals, a fox, a tree..... all these things are designs by nature, following certain rules due to the properties of matter. And the system is also chaotic (End result depends on initial condition).

But if human brains come from nature. Why would a human come up with different answers to
1. Why did you put a nail there?
2. How did you put a nail there?

[brewer]

I’m not really seeing a difference between how and why?

For example,
How is the hardness of aluminium X?
Why is the hardness of aluminium X?

In both cases, you would have to explain the attractive forces between aluminium atoms, the crystal structure, if the material is a single crystal or polycrystalline.


Another example:
Why did you put a nail there?
Answer: to hold that piece and that piece together.

How did you put a nail there?
Answer: I used a nail gun to drive the nail into the wood.

^^^^^This one leads to different answers.
If a brain decides to put a nail somewhere, then it has its own reasons. Maybe it is optimal. It consumes less material, less energy.
That is something that nature is not going to do.

There are other cases where nature does an optimization.
Example:
All stars and planets are almost spherical. This is because a sphere is the ideal shape to achieve the lowest gravitational potential energy.

^^^^^This is a case of the properties of matter leading to a decision by nature (a brainless thing).
The case of the aluminium hardness is also nature (a brainless thing) making a decision.

Planets, stars, aluminium crystals, a fox, a tree..... all these things are designs by nature, following certain rules due to the properties of matter. And the system is also chaotic (End result depends on initial condition).

But if human brains come from nature. Why would a human come up with different answers to
1. Why did you put a nail there?
2. How did you put a nail there?

“How” answers questions like “by what method?” “to what degree?” “in what condition?” and many more. Whereas, “why” answers questions like “for what purpose or reason?”: http://www.differencebetween.net/languag...w-and-why/

Did this help? If yes, please tell us how and why.

[The Grand Nudger]

Narration and execution..but, hilariously, we're mostly in the dark on either front with respect to our own brains operation..so we seek external clues and explanations for our inner content.

You don't actually know how you move your hand to swing a hammer, for example...so that gets ommitted....though you wouldn't notice the omission unless it was explicitly pointed out. The answer to why you like one flavor of icecream over another never gets answered by your brain no matter how many attempts it makes at it. It just doesn't know.

It's funny to realize that our thinking organ is dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to it's own operation. That's actually one of those indelible stamps darwin was talking about. We put a whole hell of alot more self monitering in data processing machines. They know more and can communicate more about their own operation than we do.

[Alan V]

Whereas, “why” answers questions like “for what purpose or reason?”

People do things for purposes and reasons because they have the mental wherewithal to do so. The universe itself has no such ability.

[brewer]

Whereas, “why” answers questions like “for what purpose or reason?”

People do things for purposes and reasons because they have the mental wherewithal to do so.  The universe itself has no such ability.

Then people shouldn't be asking 'why' from the universe or to explain existence. That's for philosophy and then there is rarely (if ever) 'this is the absolute answer'. Just positions and opinions which address some angst.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In the mine field which is human relationships, a friend once told me it's the 'what' which matters, not the 'why'

I've thought a lot about that in the 20 odd year since. I've come to the conclusion that claim is right more often than it is wrong.

Always insisting on knowing the why of things can delay acceptance and extend emotional pain. As I've aged I've been shocked at the number of what's and why's about which I can do nothing. (that's assuming my understanding is even correct)