[cynical_sheet]

You are only saying that certain bio-chemical structures reshuffle atoms in a different way, which in most cases suits their survival. You're judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Also, you make it seem that there is an objective scale which measures 'levels' [of greatness, I assume]. But, there is no evidence that such a scale exists. You pick these arbitrary shuffling of molecules, like building skyscrapers or going to another rock[Mars], as great or progressive. That is the result of having an unjustified bias towards your own species. Many animals can do things humans can't do and vice versa. But, that is just a difference, not an objective superiority or inferiority.

[thescriptkiddie]

Why do these discussions always end up turning into pseudo-philosophical nihilist pity parties?

We can define greatness however the fuck we want, because as far as we can tell we're the only self-replicating assemblage of molecules that knows or cares what greatness even means. So if, during whatever time we're not spending making more copies of ourselves, we decide we enjoy shuffling molecules into a particular arbitrary pattern, who the fuck is going to tell us that isn't greatness? When you ask why we should bother making copies of ourselves on a different pile of dirt than the one we're currently on, you might as well be asking why we should go on making copies of ourselves at all. There is no endgame. There is only doing interesting shit, doing boring shit, and death. I choose interesting shit.

[cynical_sheet]

I don't even know why people then write papers, do research or discuss things when they could call someone dummy or label what they are talking about as 'pseudo-X'. What is 'pseudo-philosophical' about the questions asked? It is your reply that is a diatribe devoid of any substance.

  'We can define greatness however the fuck we want, because as far as we can tell we're the only self-replicating assemblage of molecules that knows or cares what greatness even means.'

Hmm, this is not cool. I sense emotional rage from the beginning. 'Greatness' or 'great' is actually well-defined. What you're writing is that many humans can use language. That's obvious. Fish can swim, birds can fly, some fungi inhabit radioactive space. It's all shuffling of particles.

  'So if, during whatever time we're not spending making more copies of ourselves, we decide we enjoy shuffling molecules into a particular arbitrary pattern, who the fuck is going to tell us that isn't greatness?'

It's not greatness, because greatness cannot apply to almost everything. Imagine that every email you ever get is labeled as 'important'. Well, if every is important, then labeling it as such become useless and just clutters you subject line. Same with the word 'special'. If everyone is special, the no one is. These words, like greatness apply to minority of things or otherwise they become useless. So, since shuffling atoms is done all the time everywhere, labeling that as greatness makes no sense.

  'When you ask why we should bother making copies of ourselves on a different pile of dirt than the one we're currently on, you might as well be asking why we should go on making copies of ourselves at all.'

Yes... and?

  'There is no endgame. There is only doing interesting shit, doing boring shit, and death. I choose interesting shit.'

These 3 activities and events are also shuffling of particles. So, fundamentally, there is no distinction between them in the end. Since death requires the least amount of effort, it would be the best choice for creatures looking for an easy way out.

[thescriptkiddie]

Sorry about that aggressive comment, it was intended to be humourous.