Suppose I find a piece of strange-looking code on my computer and ask, “Does this code have a purpose?” The following seem to be reasonable possible answers:
Yes, it was written to serve some useful function.
No, it’s a functionally null piece of code that the programmer forgot to remove.
No, it seems to be the result of some kind of copying error.
Yes, it’s a backdoor deliberately inserted by a previous intruder.
No, it’s a security vulnerability that the original programmer accidentally created.
The following do not seem to be reasonable answers:
a) Yes, it’s an accidental vulnerability whose purpose for an attacker is to use it to hack my machine.
b) Yes, its purpose is for me to show off my testing/debugging skills to my boss.
It seems that at least in some cases when I ask “Does this thing have a purpose?” the kind of answer I’m looking for includes “someone deliberately created it” but excludes “it’s valuable for someone”. If “Does life have a purpose?” is like this, whether or not other people value my life wouldn’t to be relevant to answering it.
There’s a stick lying on the ground in the woods. It previously was unknown by any agent, so it was purposeless.
I pick it up and start using it to steady myself as I hike. Now, it’s a walking stick. Its purpose to me is to help me walk. I didn’t create it. But I started using it, thereby creating a new entity—though the stick itself is physically unchanged.
In the computer example, the vulnerability gains purpose the moment that an intruder becomes aware of it. Previously, it merely had potential purpose.
What you’re calling the act of “creation” can be as simple as the creation of an “intent to use” connection in the mind of an agent.
It seems that at least in some cases when I ask “Does this thing have a purpose?” the kind of answer I’m looking for includes “someone deliberately created it” …
… for a purpose? Was, but is no more, valuable for someone? Was a byproduct of something valuable? Honestly, this comment confuses me. If there’s some insight to be had from it, as many people seem to think, I’d be happy if someone explained it to me, because apparently I’m too simple to get it.
If “Does life have a purpose?” is like this, whether or not other people value my life wouldn’t to be relevant to answering it.
What would satisfy the question if life was created for a purpose but has later become obsolete for its creator?
It seems that at least in some cases when I ask “Does this thing have a purpose?” the kind of answer I’m looking for includes “someone deliberately created it” but excludes “it’s valuable for someone”.
Can you give a more concrete example of what you’re looking for in those cases?
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I feel “somebody deliberately created it”* is at least as weird a usage for “purpose” as the mistake pointed out in the op. Anything delibrately created or not can serve a purpose, original or not, on the condition there’s an agent deciding so. Something created for a purpose can also become obsolete over time.
*yeah this isn’t exactly what you said, but still...
The following do not seem to be reasonable answers:
They seem like reasonable purposes to me.
It seems that at least in some cases when I ask “Does this thing have a purpose?” the kind of answer I’m looking for includes “someone deliberately created it” but excludes “it’s valuable for someone”.
To me, the purposes of a thing are all purposes that purposeful agent have for the thing. What purpose does X have for Y? Among those questions, you can always ask “What purpose does the creator of Y have for Y?”
If “Does life have a purpose?” is like this, whether or not other people value my life wouldn’t to be relevant to answering it.
It’s irrelevant because you have a purpose for your life (presumably), so any additional purposes for your life are superfluous to the question—we’ve already concluded that your life has a purpose by noting your purpose for it.
Well, it’s extremely unlikely for a piece of code (or things like that) to be there by accident and still be useful to its user. (This is more or less why [HPMOR spoiler] Uneel fcrphyngrq gung zntvp jnf vagryyvtragyl qrfvtarq ol Ngynagrnaf.) This doesn’t seem to generalize. (Think of “the purpose of X” as “the reason not to get rid of X”. In realistic situations, a given piece of code either has been placed there deliberately by someone or there’s no good reason to keep it. This doesn’t obviously apply to most other things, including life.)
Suppose I find a piece of strange-looking code on my computer and ask, “Does this code have a purpose?” The following seem to be reasonable possible answers:
Yes, it was written to serve some useful function.
No, it’s a functionally null piece of code that the programmer forgot to remove.
No, it seems to be the result of some kind of copying error.
Yes, it’s a backdoor deliberately inserted by a previous intruder.
No, it’s a security vulnerability that the original programmer accidentally created.
The following do not seem to be reasonable answers:
a) Yes, it’s an accidental vulnerability whose purpose for an attacker is to use it to hack my machine.
b) Yes, its purpose is for me to show off my testing/debugging skills to my boss.
It seems that at least in some cases when I ask “Does this thing have a purpose?” the kind of answer I’m looking for includes “someone deliberately created it” but excludes “it’s valuable for someone”. If “Does life have a purpose?” is like this, whether or not other people value my life wouldn’t to be relevant to answering it.
There’s a stick lying on the ground in the woods. It previously was unknown by any agent, so it was purposeless.
I pick it up and start using it to steady myself as I hike. Now, it’s a walking stick. Its purpose to me is to help me walk. I didn’t create it. But I started using it, thereby creating a new entity—though the stick itself is physically unchanged.
In the computer example, the vulnerability gains purpose the moment that an intruder becomes aware of it. Previously, it merely had potential purpose.
What you’re calling the act of “creation” can be as simple as the creation of an “intent to use” connection in the mind of an agent.
… for a purpose? Was, but is no more, valuable for someone? Was a byproduct of something valuable? Honestly, this comment confuses me. If there’s some insight to be had from it, as many people seem to think, I’d be happy if someone explained it to me, because apparently I’m too simple to get it.
What would satisfy the question if life was created for a purpose but has later become obsolete for its creator?
Can you give a more concrete example of what you’re looking for in those cases?
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I feel “somebody deliberately created it”* is at least as weird a usage for “purpose” as the mistake pointed out in the op. Anything delibrately created or not can serve a purpose, original or not, on the condition there’s an agent deciding so. Something created for a purpose can also become obsolete over time.
*yeah this isn’t exactly what you said, but still...
They seem like reasonable purposes to me.
To me, the purposes of a thing are all purposes that purposeful agent have for the thing. What purpose does X have for Y? Among those questions, you can always ask “What purpose does the creator of Y have for Y?”
It’s irrelevant because you have a purpose for your life (presumably), so any additional purposes for your life are superfluous to the question—we’ve already concluded that your life has a purpose by noting your purpose for it.
Well, it’s extremely unlikely for a piece of code (or things like that) to be there by accident and still be useful to its user. (This is more or less why [HPMOR spoiler] Uneel fcrphyngrq gung zntvp jnf vagryyvtragyl qrfvtarq ol Ngynagrnaf.) This doesn’t seem to generalize. (Think of “the purpose of X” as “the reason not to get rid of X”. In realistic situations, a given piece of code either has been placed there deliberately by someone or there’s no good reason to keep it. This doesn’t obviously apply to most other things, including life.)