Why?

[LiamOS]

This'll probably seem quite incoherent, but it could inspire some rather interesting discussion.

-What is the nature of the question 'why?' in this universe?
-Given its link to causality, must there be a first 'meaningful' cause for 'why?' to applicable in this universe?
-If causality is invalid, is to ask 'why?' objectively meaningless?

[Ragna]

How can you assert there are things you are not capable of understanding if, by definition, you cannot understand them?

Given that there are a whole lot of things in nature that have lower intelligence capacity than humans, I'm willing to bet that the human intelligence capacity is also finite.

This involves the duck analogy. A duck uses water to float. The duck cannot conceive of dividing the water up in its mind, into tiny little particles... or assigning pressure gradients all 'round, or any of the other stuff involved in fluid statics. It doesn't have the capacity to figure this out. A duck's brain simply is not highly evolved enough to do math. However, a duck does know that if it gets in the water, it will float. Trial and error wins out, and the duck can look just as smart as a human if the contest is as simple as making stuff float. However, a duck could never manage to make a raft (ok... even if it had opposable thumbs it still couldn't). Cause it doesn't have the mental capacity to apply specific observances to other situations. A duck can't generalize, but humans can. That's what science does... observe, wonder, hypothesize, test... etc... then eventually generalize, and use knowledge for a whole heap of applications. (Aside comment: knowledge is not knowledge until it is used. Before that, it's something to argue about till we're all blue in the face.)

My logic is this: extrapolate the following. Duck:Fluid-science as Human:Science. What if Human:Science as Hypothetical-Smarter-Thing:Super-science.

The nervous systems are within a continuum. But there's clearly a distinction between understanding and non-understanding. Animals lack the capacity to make predicting models of reality, we have it. This is the difference.

Science has proven its validity as real by predicting. Its understanding is not complete, but its methodical capacity is the method, and it's the superior of all forms of understanding, because it works in the real world. Observation and testing has proven scientific methods are valid, unlike myths and a duck's mental states.

And knowledge is knowledge regardless of use. I have knowledge of all the parts of a flower, and its reproduction and development (I studied it), although I don't have a real use for it. You are thinking in a pragmatic use for science, which is the most useful one obviously, but has nothing to do with the method and knowledge that science allows. As I said in one of my previous comments, you get the order wrong. For something to be used in a scientific way, it has to be understood. This is why we have so many cool things today like computers, phones... etc. The knowledge to create one precedes its utility.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Science... it's the superior of all forms of understanding, because it works in the real world

but duck science works in the real world too, just in a more limited sense.

what I'm saying is that human science works in a limited sense too. Sure, it's superior to all forms of human understanding. But when we're talking ancient pre-human history, the formation of biology as we know it, life, the universe, and everything... we may just be going outside the bounds of human understanding.

Don't get me wrong... I agree that it's entirely plausible that humans evolved from inanimate matter (though the definition of inanimate is an entirely different conversation), that all things originated from the big bang, etc. But I'm not willing to say that I "know" these things to be true. That's a word I reserve for things that I have seen to be useful.

[Ragna]

Science... it's the superior of all forms of understanding, because it works in the real world

but duck science works in the real world too, just in a more limited sense.

Duck science... ducks don't explain . A duck knows when he's in water and when he's not, but he doesn't understand that a wave is a perturbation in the atoms of H₂0 or that his intestines are absorbing nutrients. So in a more limited but different sense.

what I'm saying is that human science works in a limited sense too. Sure, it's superior to all forms of human understanding. But when we're talking ancient pre-human history, the formation of biology as we know it, life, the universe, and everything... we may just be going outside the bounds of human understanding.

Why? If the real world is real, and evidence is evidence, how does it matter what process we are trying to describe? Take a specific example, rock formation. We say we understand that a rock has been in the depths for millions of years to take that shape, composition, form and color. We develop methods to know the exact age. If this is supported by evidence, why shouldn't we consider it true? It seems to me that you go into idealism and skepticism when talking like that. Why is a description of the processes of life beyond our understanding?

Certainly a lot of things are hard to understand, but not everything. And many of the disciplines you have listed can have a good scientific approach. (Anthropology, biology, cosmology...)

Don't get me wrong... I agree that it's entirely plausible that humans evolved from inanimate matter (though the definition of inanimate is an entirely different conversation), that all things originated from the big bang, etc. But I'm not willing to say that I "know" these things to be true. That's a word I reserve for things that I have seen to be useful.

I might understand that "use" as a testing, like empirical evidence that a hypothesis works. If it is that, I totally agree. It's part of the scientific method. And there are disciplines that can be used for very concrete things without a full understanding (like QM). But in general, not everything that you don't use in real human tasks is not knowledge. I mean I've studied a lot of descriptions of the real world like rock formation, star formation, descriptive botany, descriptive zoology... that have little use in my daily life.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Ok before we get lost in semantics (defining knowledge, etc.), lets figure out what we actually disagree on.

Here's my thought process:
Somewhere in life, I started with the assumption that every effect must have a cause. I ask a lot of "why"s. If you ask enough "why"s, you eventually run out of the capability to ask any more. The reason 5-year-old why-streams are so annoying, is because (I think) we all realize that somewhere in our heads there must be basic assumptions. You run into some serious problems if you try to use logic without basic assumptions. You'll end up doubting your own existence (you can't prove you exist without first assuming you exist) and your own rationality (you can't use logic without first assuming that the rules of logic are correct).

Here's my point:
Why are we okay with making some assumptions, but not others? What standard do we use to make assumptions? Some say "evidence". But the very existence of the notion of "evidence" is built on a lot of assumptions. The most basic assumptions are in fact unevidenced (you can't say, "I know I exist because I can see myself... existence is a prerequisite for sight).

So the standard is practicality. I can say I exist because it is practical to do so. I can assume my perception of the world is objectively accurate because it is practical to do so. I might be living in a dream world... but if I am, there's nothing I can do about it. Is that not the standard upon which all logic is based?

[Ragna]

Ok before we get lost in semantics (defining knowledge, etc.), lets figure out what we actually disagree on.

Here's my thought process:
Somewhere in life, I started with the assumption that every effect must have a cause. I ask a lot of "why"s. If you ask enough "why"s, you eventually run out of the capability to ask any more. The reason 5-year-old why-streams are so annoying, is because (I think) we all realize that somewhere in our heads there must be basic assumptions. You run into some serious problems if you try to use logic without basic assumptions. You'll end up doubting your own existence (you can't prove you exist without first assuming you exist) and your own rationality (you can't use logic without first assuming that the rules of logic are correct).

Here's my point:
Why are we okay with making some assumptions, but not others? What standard do we use to make assumptions? Some say "evidence". But the very existence of the notion of "evidence" is built on a lot of assumptions. The most basic assumptions are in fact unevidenced (you can't say, "I know I exist because I can see myself... existence is a prerequisite for sight).

So the standard is practicality. I can say I exist because it is practical to do so. I can assume my perception of the world is objectively accurate because it is practical to do so. I might be living in a dream world... but if I am, there's nothing I can do about it. Is that not the standard upon which all logic is based?

Sure I agree on the basic assumptions, but I wasn't arguing against that. I don't really know about existence and logic. I can agree we accept them because they are useful axioms, obviously there's no reason for logic. Existence will depend on the definition, and I feel that it's very often misinterpreted.

But what you can't do is jumping from this to saying that all knowledge depends on posterior human utility. Once this principles are accepted, the main utility derived is that knowledge can be understood. From this point, we might apply pragmatic human use, which is what I was arguing against, since I interpreted your reversal on a higher scale that you let me see in this post.

[unnamedhero]

the philosophic anwser to why? is unfourenately why not? i personal believe that the why? individually is a general arragenment between you (the essence of you) and the rest of us and of coarse everything inbetween collectively making God as a whole.the answer could be as simple as walking by someone causing them to create a thought which eventually leads to the cure for cancer. to sum up it really isnt about why its about you to make the best of it is all that we can hope for

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Solomon posted this in Ecclesiastes some years ago, and I think it relates:

[God] has made everything suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into [everyone's] minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live; moreover, it is God's gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil. I know that whatever God does endures forever... That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already is....

It's a loose interpretation on my part, but look at it this way: it would be silly for us to have a sense of past and future, if the purpose of such a sense was to discover things long past or very far ahead (i.e. what God has done from the beginning to end). These things don't really matter to us... or at least there's nothing we can do about it. Instead, we should focus on what we know about... "all our toil". There's a time and a place for our sense of "the past"... millions of years ago is not that time. No sense losing sleep over stuff we can't control. Thus I prefer to answer the OP in terms of "my own thought process" rather than "the evolution of the human mind".