Then you must know the purpose of our lives. Enlighten me.

The purpose of a virus is to replicate.

The purpose of a bacteria is to replicate. They just do it the complicated way.

That goes up all the way to modern humans; on a ground level, life is about replicating your genetic information. What you do beyond that is on you.

what’s the purpose of an amoeba? or a mosquito? or a duck? or a chimpanzee?

Would you not say they each have more purpose than a virus?

Definitely not. Viruses perform key roles in ecosystems, particularly in ocean ecosystems. Their infection and subsequent killing of organisms provides a vital mechanism for cycling nutrients. They also help keep algal blooms in check. Viruses kill 20% of bacteria in the oceans everyday.

Viruses also provide a mechanism for horizontal gene transfer. A protein that is critical to the formation of the human placenta has a viral origin.

Viruses have a massive impact on life, but we're just now starting to realize it.

Granted, but to me those seem like side effects.

The virus has no intentionality in doing them. They're a consequence of replication.

In contrast, I think a much stronger case could be made for a chimpanzee, duck, mosquito, or even amoeba evaluating multiple options, choose one to the exclusion of others, and pursueing it.

You're begging the question here; you need to establish they have any purpose before you can ask if one has more than the other.

No. I'm pointing to the relativity of the term.

Anything can be said to have, or not have a purpose, depending on how broadly or narrowly you scope the definition.

For use in this conversation, I think it's self evident that the level of purpose exhibited by higher-complexity organisms is several orders of magnitude different than that of basic organisms.

Wasn't sure if original poster would agree / disagree.

See, I think this is exactly why you are begging the question.

The word purpose has lots of usages, but the one that seems to be discussed here is some intrinsic purpose that an object or creature has for existing.

I can perform an action with a purpose, which is different to my (personal) purpose for being alive, which is different again for some intrinsic purpose for why I am here in the first place.

It's this last purpose that daseiner1 was referring to when they asked "what’s the purpose of an amoeba? or a mosquito? or a duck? or a chimpanzee?"

They are questioning if that kind of purpose even exists.

Your argument is:

Some things have more purpose than others.

Therefore purpose exists.

In this next response you get closer to defining what purpose is - "level of purpose exhibited by higher-complexity organisms" - but we haven't really established what that purpose is or what it means to have more purpose. At best you seem to be equating complexity of behaviour to level of purpose, but I see no reason why complex behaviour should imbue some kind of purpose; all usages of the word purpose imply intent of some kind, and there are many complex processes that have no intent.

I will say that complex animals seem to be more purposeful than simple creatures, but that just means that they perform actions with more intent than simpler creatures, not that they have some intrinsic purpose themselves.

I agree there's no universal definition of purpose in this context.

I was using purpose in my sense. Daseiner1 may use the same definition, or they may be using another. As with you.

It's useless to debate anything else until we figure that out.

---

My definition is contained in my original statement "reproduction without purpose is not life." I do not consider reproduction a purposeful action, as I define it.

It's hard to be intentional about something that forms the minimum bar of existence (immortal organisms aside).

You seem to have defined (very narrowly) what life is not.

It’s also not clear if you are discussing “why I do something” (purpose of an action) or “why am I?” (purpose of me).

What's your definition?

I would argue that's a false dichotomy. In your terms, there can be no purpose of me without purpose of action. And purpose of action requires selection from multiple viable options.

Those two usages are not mutually exclusive, I just don't know which one you are using (or if it is some other usage).

I'm not sure that there is any intrinsic purpose to anything, only ever purpose imbued.

I understand the word gets used that way, to describe some intrinsic meaning to a life, but the word being used that way doesn't mean the thing it describes exists.

To try and be a bit clearer let me write out the three usages I am aware of and you can say which you are talking about.

1. I picked up the apple with the purpose of eating it.

2. My purpose in life is to enjoy it and leave the world a better place than when I found it.

3. The purpose of humans is to colonise the universe.

1 is purpose of an action (the action is done for a reason), 2 is purpose I give myself (I choose what gives me meaning), 3 is intrinsic purpose (regardless of what anyone wants or thinks).

It is 3 which I think we have no evidence for.