Thread: Is life meaningless ?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IntCel

Sorry, once you have learned to talk to people with respect, whether strangers or not

Ah right.
You don't think respect should be earned, it should just be given. Okay.
Good luck with that.

You start with a patently fake claim, and then go on to indirectly make another - in your very first post.
Could you tell me why you should be afforded respect?

PS, do you have any intention of addressing my questions?

Yes, everyone and everything alive deserve respect by default. But people go around accusing and insulting people to brighten up the days of their own miserable life.
You don't have to be a psychologist to realize that, but you can consult one of you doubt validity.
Something people like to ignore is the effect their own attitude has on themselves. The way we treat others reflects back onto ourselves, just like we are individuals in a community, so are the cells within our bodies, and the moment we change our attitude our emotions and perception will change as well.

It is more a matter of practicing a certain attitude than being able to make sense of it, and although it should seem logical to many people, it falls into the realm of utopia, because we get taught all our life "that's just not the way life works", which is just a lazy excuse for being a jacka**.

To make it short what I write in my notes, our society and technology mostly originate from war, our actions and thoughts are careless and hostile, we are like little kids wreaking havoc in their rooms and if we ever meet extraterrestrial intelligence they would probably not be able to tell us apart from vermin in terms of attitude.
Instead we could do what seems most logical and fruitful, which you will notice once you try that attitude for yourself for a while. Base our society, our technology, thoughts and efforts on the protection and preservation of life. It is a 180degree turn, but not impossible as long as people start to get rid of the hostile, harmful thoughts and actions and replace them with nothing but respect for life.

Originally Posted by IntCel

Yes, everyone and everything alive deserve respect by default

Why?
Plus, of course, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I have already pointed that you have shown that, IF respect were assigned to you initially, your very first post (disregarding the stupid subsequent comment) pretty much wrecked your chances of that continuing.

But people go around accusing and insulting people to brighten up the days of their own miserable life.

Examples please.
You're obviously not referring to me, since my "accusations and insults" were factual observations. Unless you consider the truth to be insulting, of course...

You don't have to be a psychologist to realize that, but you can consult one of you doubt validity.

Ho ho.
(Your qualifications to make this judgement would be... what?)

To make it short what I write in my notes, our society and technology mostly originate from war, our actions and thoughts are careless and hostile, we are like little kids wreaking havoc in their rooms and if we ever meet extraterrestrial intelligence they would probably not be able to tell us apart from vermin in terms of attitude.

Yet it doesn't stop it being unsupported and irrelevant to this topic.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

We and all other livings live life. What is purpose of life ? Just utility ?
It seems there is no purpose of life and a life without purpose meaningless ?
Consciousness & feelings are just biochemical reactions
Life arose from organic compounds which themselves have origin from in organic matter

Does all this not make life purpose less
and life just a result of matter reactions

I think I find the reason of why you had that opinion in my thread.you see the life is a substance,I see the life is a process.if you see the life is a substance so you will be hard to feel the meaning of your life.because our substance is identical.and these not belong to you like you have said.just a organic matter.
if you see the life is a process,you will find the meaning easily.because everyone's process is unique.even twins.and this story(process) was made by you.and you can control and continue the process.so do you understand why I always said memory,memory.because memory carried our past process and we will use it to continue our process forward.this is the life's meaning for me---feel and make my own process(your own story).

Originally Posted by puzzler

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

We and all other livings live life. What is purpose of life ? Just utility ?
It seems there is no purpose of life and a life without purpose meaningless ?
Consciousness & feelings are just biochemical reactions
Life arose from organic compounds which themselves have origin from in organic matter

Does all this not make life purpose less
and life just a result of matter reactions

I think I find the reason of why you had that opinion in my thread.you see the life is a substance,I see the life is a process.if you see the life is a substance so you will be hard to feel the meaning of your life.because our substance is identical.and these not belong to you like you have said.just a organic matter.
if you see the life is a process,you will find the meaning easily.because everyone's process is unique.even twins.and this story(process) was made by you.and you can control and continue the process.so do you understand why I always said memory,memory.because memory carried our past process and we will use it to continue our process forward.this is the life's meaning for me---feel and make my own process(your own story).

In what way do we "control and continue the process"? Thus supposes that we can actually choose how to live our lives, as if genetics/environment don't interfere, that we have a conscious will that we can manipulate independently from our physical/environmental characteristics. Yes, we make our own stories, but perhaps we aren't the author.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by puzzler

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

We and all other livings live life. What is purpose of life ? Just utility ?
It seems there is no purpose of life and a life without purpose meaningless ?
Consciousness & feelings are just biochemical reactions
Life arose from organic compounds which themselves have origin from in organic matter

Does all this not make life purpose less
and life just a result of matter reactions

I think I find the reason of why you had that opinion in my thread.you see the life is a substance,I see the life is a process.if you see the life is a substance so you will be hard to feel the meaning of your life.because our substance is identical.and these not belong to you like you have said.just a organic matter.
if you see the life is a process,you will find the meaning easily.because everyone's process is unique.even twins.and this story(process) was made by you.and you can control and continue the process.so do you understand why I always said memory,memory.because memory carried our past process and we will use it to continue our process forward.this is the life's meaning for me---feel and make my own process(your own story).

In what way do we "control and continue the process"? Thus supposes that we can actually choose how to live our lives, as if genetics/environment don't interfere, that we have a conscious will that we can manipulate independently from our physical/environmental characteristics. Yes, we make our own stories, but perhaps we aren't the author.

you may look at my thread"the key"

Originally Posted by puzzler

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

We and all other livings live life. What is purpose of life ? Just utility ?
It seems there is no purpose of life and a life without purpose meaningless ?
Consciousness & feelings are just biochemical reactions
Life arose from organic compounds which themselves have origin from in organic matter

Does all this not make life purpose less
and life just a result of matter reactions

I think I find the reason of why you had that opinion in my thread.you see the life is a substance,I see the life is a process.if you see the life is a substance so you will be hard to feel the meaning of your life.because our substance is identical.and these not belong to you like you have said.just a organic matter.
if you see the life is a process,you will find the meaning easily.because everyone's process is unique.even twins.and this story(process) was made by you.and you can control and continue the process.so do you understand why I always said memory,memory.because memory carried our past process and we will use it to continue our process forward.this is the life's meaning for me---feel and make my own process(your own story).

Yes life is a result of process
It is not stable

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Originally Posted by puzzler

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

We and all other livings live life. What is purpose of life ? Just utility ?
It seems there is no purpose of life and a life without purpose meaningless ?
Consciousness & feelings are just biochemical reactions
Life arose from organic compounds which themselves have origin from in organic matter

Does all this not make life purpose less
and life just a result of matter reactions

I think I find the reason of why you had that opinion in my thread.you see the life is a substance,I see the life is a process.if you see the life is a substance so you will be hard to feel the meaning of your life.because our substance is identical.and these not belong to you like you have said.just a organic matter.
if you see the life is a process,you will find the meaning easily.because everyone's process is unique.even twins.and this story(process) was made by you.and you can control and continue the process.so do you understand why I always said memory,memory.because memory carried our past process and we will use it to continue our process forward.this is the life's meaning for me---feel and make my own process(your own story).

Yes life is a result of process
It is not stable

yes,just like us always change.when I was a boy I was a timid and introversive and I didn't like stranger.then at teenage I was a bold and impolite young man.and then now I was......so I accept the process and this is me whatever how it's changed.if it is stable I think my life will be so boring.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Yes life is a result of process
It is not stable

I hope you aren't conflating those two sentences.

Originally Posted by s1(mpl)-e

life is an end in and of itself. Of all of the different manifestations of existence throughout the universe, life seems more interesting than most. Would you rather be a single carbon atom or some hydrogen gas? Something void of all feeling and consciousness?

On top of that, of all forms of life (that we know of) we humans have the highest level of intellectual comprehensibility and depth of emotion. Being matter and energy comprised in such a way that we are able to think and feel, experience, observe, etc. Etc... Such a rare thing, even for a brief moment, is worth more than eons of existing as all of the inanimate objects in the universe combined.

Is life pointless? Only if you think that it is.

very well said!!!

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If we disappeared tomorrow the universe wouldn't even notice, much less care.

I'm going back to an April 21st post as I did not read this thread at the time.
Probably I have missed something, but are you really suggesting the "Universe" might be capable of noticing or caring?

Originally Posted by Halliday

I'm going back to an April 21st post as I did not read this thread at the time.
Probably I have missed something, but are you really suggesting the "Universe" might be capable of noticing or caring?

The converse actually.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Halliday

are you really suggesting the "Universe" might be capable of noticing or caring?

The converse actually.

So, the Converse, instead of the Universe, is capable of noticing or caring. Got it.

Good job I didn't mention inverse, obverse or reverse.
I think you're being perverse here.

Whenever someone asks
Is life meaningless?
I am always tempted to answer:
Well, yours certainly seems to be.
But my momma raised me to be polite, so I never say that.

I would tend to say, "If you have to ask the question......you might try some reflection!"

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Halliday

I'm going back to an April 21st post as I did not read this thread at the time.
Probably I have missed something, but are you really suggesting the "Universe" might be capable of noticing or caring?

The converse actually.

I think it was S1(mpl)-E who said that Nature possessed consciousness.
Could one not argue that Nature (the Universe) does possess consciousness because living entities, within the Universe, have developed consciousness. In other words to state that the Universe possesses consciousness does not necessarily imply that all objects, making up the Universe, such as stars, planets, clouds of gas and dust, must also possess consciousness.
Consciousness has come about, within the Universe, so, in a sense, the Universe has consciousness.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Could one not argue that Nature (the Universe) does possess consciousness because living entities, within the Universe, have developed consciousness. In other words to state that the Universe possesses consciousness does not necessarily imply that all objects, making up the Universe, such as stars, planets, clouds of gas and dust, must also possess consciousness.
Consciousness has come about, within the Universe, so, in a sense, the Universe has consciousness.

You could argue that and people often do. And then take it the next step by saying the universe is conscious. This is where I think the problem lies. It seems to be a deliberate or implicit conflation of different meanings of the word "has".

The universe "has" consciousness in that it contains consciousness. But it doesn't "have" consciousness in the sense of being conscious.

As an analogy, the solar system has (contains) volcanoes but it is not a volcano. (And it would even be misleading to say "the solar system is volcanic".)

Thanks for clarifying that distinction for me.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Consciousness has come about, within the Universe, so, in a sense, the Universe has consciousness.

Strange nailed it.
But I'll add - "the universe has consciousness" is misleading. It tends to be read in the same way that "I have cancer" is read - in that it's a significant and possibly over-riding (overwhelming) feature.
The universe "has" consciousness in the same way that I have yellow jaundice - it's somewhere in there, but it'd take specialised tests to find it.
It smacks of new age woo and/ or mysticism.

Originally Posted by Strange

You could argue that and people often do. And then take it the next step by saying the universe is conscious. This is where I think the problem lies. It seems to be a deliberate or implicit conflation of different meanings of the word "has".

The universe "has" consciousness in that it contains consciousness. But it doesn't "have" consciousness in the sense of being conscious.

As an analogy, the solar system has (contains) volcanoes but it is not a volcano. (And it would even be misleading to say "the solar system is volcanic".)

If we following through with this train of thought, can we go a step further in saying that "Life has meaning" in that it similarly contains meaning without being meaningful? Or did I stray from the path or skipped a few steps for that one?

Originally Posted by Strange

You could argue that and people often do. And then take it the next step by saying the universe is conscious. This is where I think the problem lies. It seems to be a deliberate or implicit conflation of different meanings of the word "has".

The universe "has" consciousness in that it contains consciousness. But it doesn't "have" consciousness in the sense of being conscious.

As an analogy, the solar system has (contains) volcanoes but it is not a volcano. (And it would even be misleading to say "the solar system is volcanic".)

Thanks for clarifying that distinction for me.

I agree with your second paragraph.
I am certainly not a fan of "new age woo and/or mysticism" and I do not believe that the Universe, as a whole, is conscious.
However we are a part of the Universe and our development, within the Universe, has created a situation where a product, of the Universe, is both aware of, and able to contemplate, the Universe itself.
I do believe that is on a different level to your analogy of volcanoes within the Solar System.

Originally Posted by Halliday

However we are a part of the Universe and our development, within the Universe, has created a situation where a product, of the Universe, is both aware of, and able to contemplate, the Universe itself.
I do believe that is on a different level to your analogy of volcanoes within the Solar System.

But it is exactly the same as saying we are conscious and the universe, as a whole, isn't.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Halliday

However we are a part of the Universe and our development, within the Universe, has created a situation where a product, of the Universe, is both aware of, and able to contemplate, the Universe itself.
I do believe that is on a different level to your analogy of volcanoes within the Solar System.

But it is exactly the same as saying we are conscious and the universe, as a whole, isn't.

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the universe isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the inverse isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Well according to professor Brian Cox's explanation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle every fermion in the entire universe always has to exist at a different energy state from every other fermion. Meaning that every part of the universe has to always be in constant instantaneous communication with every other part. But it should also be noted that this particular explanation has been the subject of some controversy.

NB - That of course is based entirely on the notion of accepting the entire universe as a single system.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the inverse isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Well according to professor Brian Cox's explanation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle every fermion in the entire universe always has to exist at a different energy state from every other fermion. Meaning that every part of the universe has to always be in constant instantaneous communication with every other part. But it should also be noted that this particular explanation has been the subject of some controversy.

NB - That of course is based entirely on the notion of accepting the entire universe as a single system.

How does this have any pertinence to philosophically inquiries pertaining to life's meaning?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the inverse isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Does it?

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the inverse isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Well according to professor Brian Cox's explanation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle every fermion in the entire universe always has to exist at a different energy state from every other fermion. Meaning that every part of the universe has to always be in constant instantaneous communication with every other part. But it should also be noted that this particular explanation has been the subject of some controversy.

NB - That of course is based entirely on the notion of accepting the entire universe as a single system.

How does this have any pertinence to philosophically inquiries pertaining to life's meaning?

I guess it's easy to go off in many different directions sometimes while philosophising, there doesn't always seem to be a nice logical progression of understanding to follow so it can lead to an expression of many different ideas cropping up, it just isn't about wrong or right, instead more about looking for reasons that could give rise to possibility. Sometimes this can seem strange, often quite far fetched even, but I guess that's kind of the point to stretch the imagination to see where it will take us if in the search for an answer.
In this particular instance I was trying give some substance to the possibility that we as human beings have a consciousness that is important as part of the universe, and that it is the relevance of our consciousness that may mean our universe experiences and exercises consciousness through us, in this endeavour I was looking for possible sciencetic explanations that we can understand and may prove to help find a link between the actions expressed through our conscious will and the possible effects it may have on the rest of our universe.
I find this idea appealing, as it is at least suggestive that our importance as a part of our universe may be greater than we are consciously aware of, and that our search for a meaning to our lives may also be contiguous with that of our universe as a whole.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the inverse isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Does it?

Most probably not.
I should perhaps have written "How, for example, would our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe IF we are the consciousness of the universe?".
But that's rather more long-winded and doesn't actually alter the point.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that also like saying our brains may be conscious but our bodies not, so on balance we are not. Surely if a part of us is conscious then on the whole must be conscious and by extension the same for the universe. We are a part of it and we are conscious thus the universe must also be conscious. But just like a body it doesn't need every part of the universe to be conscious, just some of it, and we are indeed that "just some of it".

Um, WE are a a contiguous whole - the inverse isn't. (Unless there are connections that we're not aware of).
How, for example, does our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe?

Does it?

Most probably not.
I should perhaps have written "How, for example, would our consciousness (or even body) connect and communicate with a galaxy on the far side of the universe IF we are the consciousness of the universe?".
But that's rather more long-winded and doesn't actually alter the point.

Ahh......he has admitted to windy conditions!! *chuckle*.... I don't know....do psychic's really connect with another consciousness of the universe, Sir Duck?

Originally Posted by babe

do psychic's really connect with another consciousness of the universe, Sir Duck?

The only thing psychics connect with is gullible people.
They have little connection to reality.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

do psychic's really connect with another consciousness of the universe, Sir Duck?

The only thing psychics connect with is gullible people.
They have little connection to reality.

Have you ever had a psychic moment? I mean ONE.....not like a lifetime of them but ONE in your life? Where you knew something w/o the factual knowledge in front of you? I have. Weirdest thing ever. Do I believe in psychic's....not really, but I do believe sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science. We aren't that special, to know everything Mr. Duck.......in my humble OPINION

Originally Posted by babe

Have you ever had a psychic moment? I mean ONE.....not like a lifetime of them but ONE in your life? Where you knew something w/o the factual knowledge in front of you? I have. Weirdest thing ever. Do I believe in psychic's....not really, but I do believe sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science. We aren't that special, to know everything Mr. Duck.......in my humble OPINION

Depends what you mean by "psychic".
I've "met" a ghost, seen a UFO and had (remarkably reliable) premonitions.
This does not mean that those phenomena were the result of ESP, aliens or life after death - merely that sometimes the brain glitches.
You're correct in that "sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science" - but that's not the same as being "beyond" fact, knowledge or science, simply that we don't have all the required information as yet ¹.

Science (what we currently know, and has been verified (proven)) absolutely rules out many of the claims of so-called psychics.

1 Which is why I have never made a claim to be psychic, or a medium, or a "contactee" - I just mentally filed those instances under "weird but interesting shit requiring further investigation as and when it becomes possible".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

Have you ever had a psychic moment? I mean ONE.....not like a lifetime of them but ONE in your life? Where you knew something w/o the factual knowledge in front of you? I have. Weirdest thing ever. Do I believe in psychic's....not really, but I do believe sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science. We aren't that special, to know everything Mr. Duck.......in my humble OPINION

Depends what you mean by "psychic".
I've "met" a ghost, seen a UFO and had (remarkably reliable) premonitions.
This does not mean that those phenomena were the result of ESP, aliens or life after death - merely that sometimes the brain glitches.
You're correct in that "sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science" - but that's not the same as being "beyond" fact, knowledge or science, simply that we don't have all the required information as yet ¹.

Science (what we currently know, and has been verified (proven)) absolutely rules out many of the claims of so-called psychics.

1 Which is why I have never made a claim to be psychic, or a medium, or a "contactee" - I just mentally filed those instances under "weird but interesting shit requiring further investigation as and when it becomes possible".

SO Mr. FEATHERS!! We agree....and you won't become "duck soup" THIS time, sir! I totally agree as I have had all the above including the knowledge of people dying ...can't explain it....not psychic just kind of knew...UFO also...and a visit from beyond one time.....someone very close to me....it was an energy force not a visual....but strangely very very real. I think something we can't explain things that happen. Doesn't make us extra-terrrestial (sp) DUCKS and such but.......

Originally Posted by babe

Doesn't make us extra-terrrestial (sp) DUCKS and such but.......

Aahhh... Dywyddyr's dreams may be dashed..



LOL

I'm sorry I couldn't help myself D

OK Sorry Mr. Duck, but that IS funny! NO offense intended.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

do psychic's really connect with another consciousness of the universe, Sir Duck?

The only thing psychics connect with is gullible people.
They have little connection to reality.

Have you ever had a psychic moment? I mean ONE.....not like a lifetime of them but ONE in your life? Where you knew something w/o the factual knowledge in front of you? I have. Weirdest thing ever. Do I believe in psychic's....not really, but I do believe sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science. We aren't that special, to know everything Mr. Duck.......in my humble OPINION

We do not know everything No doubt
But scientific information is most near to truth as it is best way to observe truth for us
Science is the best way at present to understand reality
Unscientific information is fictitious, unreliable, inaccurate as other Non Scientific Methods methods are unable to judge facts and reality

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

do psychic's really connect with another consciousness of the universe, Sir Duck?

The only thing psychics connect with is gullible people.
They have little connection to reality.

Have you ever had a psychic moment? I mean ONE.....not like a lifetime of them but ONE in your life? Where you knew something w/o the factual knowledge in front of you? I have. Weirdest thing ever. Do I believe in psychic's....not really, but I do believe sometimes things happen that are not explainable by fact, knowledge or science. We aren't that special, to know everything Mr. Duck.......in my humble OPINION

We do not know everything No doubt
But scientific information is most near to truth as it is best way to observe truth for us
Science is the best way at present to understand reality
Unscientific information is fictitious, unreliable, inaccurate as other Non Scientific Methods methods are unable to judge facts and reality

thatis probably true in 95% of everything but there are things that CANNOT be defined by science....and if you ever experience one...it is pretty weird....not explainable...no rational explanation ..and definitely nothing scientific about the experience.....I am NOT discounting Science, but I do totally believe that some times in life things happen that DEFY science. Maybe rarely, but in your life I definitely believe you will have an experience that belies a scientific foundation.

Originally Posted by babe

thatis probably true in 95% of everything but there are things that CANNOT be defined by science....and if you ever experience one...it is pretty weird....not explainable...no rational explanation ..and definitely nothing scientific about the experience.....I am NOT discounting Science, but I do totally believe that some times in life things happen that DEFY science. Maybe rarely, but in your life I definitely believe you will have an experience that belies a scientific foundation.

It does, however, beg the question since brains can be very easily fooled- How valid is the experience?

A lack of an "explanation" that you know of does not automatically mean, "Defiant of Scientific Scrutiny."

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by babe

thatis probably true in 95% of everything but there are things that CANNOT be defined by science....and if you ever experience one...it is pretty weird....not explainable...no rational explanation ..and definitely nothing scientific about the experience.....I am NOT discounting Science, but I do totally believe that some times in life things happen that DEFY science. Maybe rarely, but in your life I definitely believe you will have an experience that belies a scientific foundation.

It does, however, beg the question since brains can be very easily fooled- How valid is the experience?

A lack of an "explanation" that you know of does not automatically mean, "Defiant of Scientific Scrutiny."

VERY VALID....not emotions, not expected, not anything.....there are things that are not scientific, that we don't always understand...do they occur daily, yearly, or in a decade, nope, but they do happen. Been there done that, can't explain it, but it happens.....and not a brain trick or imagination. ......

You seem like a smart intellectual guy. I encourage you to study on the Kalam Argument derived from Aristotle's Cosmological. In this, you will find an unquestionable reason for all things, mainly, cause and effect. You writing this email entails I responding. What is interesting in cause and effect, and what you find by studying this interesting theological argument, I will let you discover on your own. You may find a path your heart needs and desires on this road of study. Just sayin. Reply if this was at all helpful! Take it easy my man, and just so you know, I do not know you at all, I actually truly feel your pain and suffering and understand completely your inquisitive state, just know man, your direction in life, it's out there. However, you will find nothing if you do not look for it.

Originally Posted by redalertjc

You seem like a smart intellectual guy. I encourage you to study on the Kalam Argument derived from Aristotle's Cosmological. In this, you will find an unquestionable reason for all things, mainly, cause and effect. You writing this email entails I responding. What is interesting in cause and effect, and what you find by studying this interesting theological argument, I will let you discover on your own.

The only problem is that the validity of the Kalam Argument is highly questionable.

the reason there is any life at all in my opinion is just to keep on existing as a species. people and animals (people are animals in my opinion haha) reproduce to keep reproducing. its not really a matter of who is on top or bottom. i don't have to much time to get into it but that is what i feel. also every creature is destructive with knowledge. many people don't think about it but knowledge really is power and it can destroy things much faster than create things and can lead to the end of an entire species if not used correctly and carefully.

maybe rock is also alive. but that may be diffrent form of life and we are unable to understand.
is silicon based life a real thing?

Objectively: Yes. Subjectively: No.

Originally Posted by prometheus 2

maybe rock is also alive. but that may be diffrent form of life and we are unable to understand.
is silicon based life a real thing?

If it is....I heard it screaming outside my bedroom window starting at 7:00 a.m. for over a year...that is how lava is made into dirt

Yes life is meaningless. Everything about life is vanity

i do believe that it technically is meaningless but i have a feeling like now that we acknowledge our existence that we can make a meaning. I also have a feeling that life is here to keep a sort of equilibrium to everything. Kind of to take and give.

If life is so meaningless, why do you bother to do it.

Life is meaningful to me.

Originally Posted by babe

If life is so meaningless, why do you bother to do it.

Life is meaningful to me.

To each of us personally 'YES' life in meaningful. But what about the big picture? From the POV of the universe is life meaningless or does it have a purpose?

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

If life is so meaningless, why do you bother to do it.

Life is meaningful to me.

To each of us personally 'YES' life in meaningful. But what about the big picture? From the POV of the universe is life meaningless or does it have a purpose?

It has a purpose to someone....or even something.....be it your choice of career, and your imprint on it, your family, your friends. OF COURSE it has a purpose! Whether or not you PURSUE that purpose to make it meaningful is up to you.

I don't know why we each live, but I think in the big picure there is a purpose and we each contribute to that PURPOSE in our own little way.

However, when mine is over, I wish no grave....because....my purpose is over.

" I don’t regret the things I’ve done, I regret the things I didn’t do when I had the chance.”


“Challenges are what make life interesting and overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.” - [B]Joshua J. Marine


"Dont be afraid to stand for what you believe in, even if that means standing alone"


“Life is short, live it. Love is rare, grab it. Anger is bad, dump it. Fear is awful, face it. Memories are sweet, cherish it.”


“Walk away from anything or anyone who takes away from your joy. Life is too short to put up with fools.” – Unknown

Why is the notion that you can choose your own meaning in life so scary? Isn't the lack of expectations kind of nice?

Its your experiences that form your opinion about Life.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

If life is so meaningless, why do you bother to do it.

Life is meaningful to me.

To each of us personally 'YES' life in meaningful. But what about the big picture? From the POV of the universe is life meaningless or does it have a purpose?

I do not think that one can answer that question, but I have not seen proof that the universe cares about life or is even capable of caring.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

If life is so meaningless, why do you bother to do it.

Life is meaningful to me.

To each of us personally 'YES' life in meaningful. But what about the big picture? From the POV of the universe is life meaningless or does it have a purpose?

I do not think that one can answer that question, but I have not seen proof that the universe cares about life or is even capable of caring.

I would have to agree that the Universe probably doesn't give a Rhett Butler about life.
I would hope that other humans, however would.

I would have to agree that the Universe probably doesn't give a Rhett Butler about life.
I would hope that other humans, however would.

I always will.

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I would have to agree that the Universe probably doesn't give a Rhett Butler about life.
I would hope that other humans, however would.

I always will.

Same here, My dear Sir!

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Expound, si vous plait!

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

How do you define "complete freedom"?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

How do you define "complete freedom"?

Short version: If life isnt restricted by purpose you can do whatever you want without restraints.

If life had a set objective meaning or purpose, you would have to work towards that purpose. That would come at the expense of what a person subjectively could/would want.

Like: If there was a god and he said: "This is your purpose in life". Or you follow a religion and the cult master would say "This is the purpose with life", you would have to build your life around achieveing that purpose. So if you wanted to find your own purpose in life - there would be a hinderance from what society, God or OTHER entities would enforce on you as purposeful.

Only with no purpose enforced on you, will you have the complete freedom to choose your own purpose.

This is why Im puzzled over why some people would want someone or something else to give THEIR OWN life purpose.
If you cant find a purpose yourself or if you NEED a purpose told by something other than yourself to give your life meaning, then you are not living your own life - or you are void of personality and integrity.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Expound, si vous plait!

わかりません

I know si vous plait means please/kudasai... Expound sound like expand. So Im guessing you are asking me "Elaborate please"?

Originally Posted by Raziell

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

How do you define "complete freedom"?

Short version: If life isnt restricted by purpose you can do whatever you want without restraints.

If life had a set objective meaning or purpose, you would have to work towards that purpose. That would come at the expense of what a person subjectively could/would want.

Like: If there was a god and he said: "This is your purpose in life". Or you follow a religion and the cult master would say "This is the purpose with life", you would have to build your life around achieveing that purpose. So if you wanted to find your own purpose in life - there would be a hinderance from what society, God or OTHER entities would enforce on you as purposeful.

Only with no purpose enforced on you, will you have the complete freedom to choose your own purpose.

This is why Im puzzled over why some people would want someone or something else to give THEIR OWN life purpose.
If you cant find a purpose yourself or if you NEED a purpose told by something other than yourself to give your life meaning, then you are not living your own life - or you are void of personality and integrity.

That is a very interesting reasoning.
However, I do think that one cannot do whatever one wants to do. There are certain moral restrictions, in my opinion.

For example:
If I want to conquer Canada and I want to enslave its citizens in order to have free workers, then I can do that. However, should I do that?

As such, I do think that the term "complete freedom" is not as desirable as it sounds.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Expound, si vous plait!

わかりません

I know si vous plait means please/kudasai... Expound sound like expand. So Im guessing you are asking me "Elaborate please"?

Complete freedom my ass. If you are a living creature, you have to eat and in between eating you have compulsions to breed and take care of your kids. If you want to call that freedom be my guest.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Expound, si vous plait!

わかりません

I know si vous plait means please/kudasai... Expound sound like expand. So Im guessing you are asking me "Elaborate please"?

ex·pound
ikˈspound/
verb
verb: expound; 3rd person present: expounds; past tense: expounded; past participle: expounded; gerund or present participle: expounding

• 1.
  present and explain (a theory or idea) systematically and in detail.
  
  "he was expounding a powerful argument"
  
  
  
  

Alternatively: now 97p.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Raziell

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Expound, si vous plait!

わかりません

I know si vous plait means please/kudasai... Expound sound like expand. So Im guessing you are asking me "Elaborate please"?

ex·pound
ikˈspound/
verb
verb: expound; 3rd person present: expounds; past tense: expounded; past participle: expounded; gerund or present participle: expounding

• 1.
  present and explain (a theory or idea) systematically and in detail.
  
  "he was expounding a powerful argument"

Yay! I learnt two new words today. Loquacity being the other one.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Raziell

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Raziell

People who need a meaning with life to give it purpose are empty shells not deserving life Trololol.

On abit more serious note:

No meaning with life means complete freedom.
If life had a meaning, it would be at the expense of freedom.

Expound, si vous plait!

わかりません

I know si vous plait means please/kudasai... Expound sound like expand. So Im guessing you are asking me "Elaborate please"?

Complete freedom my ass. If you are a living creature, you have to eat and in between eating you have compulsions to breed and take care of your kids. If you want to call that freedom be my guest.

Complete freedom was abit extreme. Fulfilling base instincts is pretty mandatory, do what society or your priest tells you to do with your life is not.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

For example:
If I want to conquer Canada and I want to enslave its citizens in order to have free workers, then I can do that. However, should I do that?

As such, I do think that the term "complete freedom" is not as desirable as it sounds.

It is your own choice to follow a moral code isnt it? Morals restricts alot of wanted actions, unfortunately morals and laws are much needed for survival. And there is no freedom more impaired than being a dead man. You could try to take a 3rd world country with a private mercenary army instead. I doubt the rest of the world cares too much to intervene in most 3rd world countries.

Originally Posted by Raziell

It is your own choice to follow a moral code isnt it?

Is it?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

It is your own choice to follow a moral code isnt it?

Is it?

Hard to say. Id ask "Are you a determinist" but regardless of the answer, you would never truly know if that answer was predestined or the result of free will.

In our own daily life, we have to make up for ourselves what meaning we give to our lives i think.

But i do believe (it's a belief in the Philosophy Corner, so please don't ask me for proof) that humans have a functional role towards the future.

I'm thinking intelligent networks. I believe that everything around us is part of an intelligent network, or is forming itself to become an intelligent network,from the smallest imaginable scale (least intelligent) to the largest yet undiscovered scale (most intelligent).

Hence my idea : The 'brain' is part of a Universe, and a Universe is part of a 'brain'.

Why this belief ?

The most compelling analogy is the that our brain resembles a structure and functionality that seems to be formed as we speak on a larger scale : the Global Brain. (The idea of a Global Brain has been existing for a long time)
Google for instance was in the beginning merely a search site for info, like an electronic version of a large dictionary or encyclopedia, but is becoming increasingly more intelligent, and is even making suggestions to us of all sorts now. Google is developing, besides our own input, eyes and ears everywhere as inputs to this brain, and this interlinking is increasing all the time.

This domain is what interests me most of the last few years, because we are all 'elements' of this Brain to become, we make it work, we are it's cells, and we build a network that becomes more and more complex and communicative every day.


So this functional role that we have towards the future is not something that we personnally consider our goal or meaning of our life, it is more something of an instinct-driven succession of events, Darwinian evolution 2.0 if you will.


And further :

The idea that we will 'export' this global brain sometime in the future to other planets or built stations, is interesting i think, because then you can start linking up these global brains towards a 'Stellar Brain'

And who's to say such actions are not also taking place in some form , on the other side of the Universe.



Does that mean that it was intelligently planned by someone, by a God, by something, by aliens ?
Personally i don't believe that, i think it simply is self-driven.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

But i do believe (it's a belief in the Philosophy Corner, so please don't ask me for proof) that humans have a functional role towards the future.

If you can't support it then you shouldn't be posting it in the philosophy section.
"Philosophy" is not shorthand for unsupported speculation.

I'm thinking intelligent networks. I believe that everything around us is part of an intelligent network, or is forming itself to become an intelligent network,from the smallest imaginable scale (least intelligent) to the largest yet undiscovered scale (most intelligent).

Hence my idea : The 'brain' is part of a Universe, and a Universe is part of a 'brain'.

Why this belief ?

The most compelling analogy is the that our brain resembles a structure and functionality that seems to be formed as we speak on a larger scale : the Global Brain. (The idea of a Global Brain has been existing for a long time)
Google for instance was in the beginning merely a search site for info, but is becoming increasingly more intelligent, and is even making suggestions to us of all sorts now.

This domain is what interests me most of the last few years, because we are all 'elements' of this Brain to become, we make it work, we are it's cells, and we build a network that becomes more and more complex and communicative every day.


So this functional role that we have towards the future is not something that we personnally consider our goal or meaning of our life, it is more something of an instinct-driven succession of events.


And further :

The idea that we will 'export' this global brain sometime in the future to other planets, is interesting i think, because then you can start linking up these global brains towards a 'Stellar Brain'

And who's to say such actions are not also taking place in some form , on the other side of the Universe.



Does that mean that it was intelligently planned by someone, by a God, by something, by aliens ?
Personally i don't believe that, i think it simply is self-driven.

Yeah, not much thinking here.

Some literature as part of my sources, for you to take a look at perhaps, from some of the most respected ( correction THE most respected) SCIENTISTS in the field :

F. Heylighen and J. Bollen

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html

http://informatics.indiana.edu/jbollen/



P.S. Is it really necessary to follow me in any thread and harass me like some K9-Yorkshire Terrier biting at my leg with meaningless comments ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

correction THE most respected) SCIENTISTS in the field

Citation needed.

F. Heylighen and J. Bollen

Francis Heylighen: home pageJohan Bollen, Associate Professor, Indiana University

Yep, nothing that suggests your claims are anything more than ongoing research and speculation.
And nothing that justifies your extension of that research.

PS Is it really necessary to follow me in any thread and harass me like some K9-Yorkshire Terrier biting at my leg with meaningless comments ?

Is it really necessary for you to continue posting crap?
ETA: follow you? You vastly overestimate how much you feature in my life.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

correction THE most respected) SCIENTISTS in the field

Citation needed.

F. Heylighen and J. Bollen

Francis Heylighen: home pageJohan Bollen, Associate Professor, Indiana University

Yep, nothing that suggests your claims are anything more than ongoing research and speculation.
And nothing that justifies your extension of that research.

PS Is it really necessary to follow me in any thread and harass me like some K9-Yorkshire Terrier biting at my leg with meaningless comments ?

Is it really necessary for you to continue posting crap?

Here is some really gentle papers for you Sir Duckness of Skunthorpe! *bowing* happy to be of help...ain't gonna say service....that takes this to a new level! *chuckle*

@Genius Duck

In post 1 of this thread , a man has asked our opinion on the meaning of life, in the Phylosophy corner,
and you start babbling with demands for scientific backup and research...

As for as Heylighen and Bollen , they are quoted as a source all over the scientific world in papers in this field by other scientists.
So it would be fair to say that the are the most respected scientists in the field, a well as pioneering scientists of the concept of a global brain and it's growing intelligence. It is the most state of the art item in computer science today, see also 'crowd surfing'.

Me having ideas that build on that shouldn't be so upsetting, one can simply disagree on them in a decent manor,
but that seems to be your problem all together.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

@Genius Duck

In post 1 of this thread , a man has asked our opinion on the meaning of life, in the Phylosophy corner,
and you start babbling with demands for scientific backup and research...

As for as Heylighen and Bollen , they are quoted as a source all over the scientific world in papers building on their work in this field by other scientists.
So it would be fair to say that the are the most respected scientists in the field, a well as pioneering scientists of the concept of a global brain and it's growing intelligence. It is the most state of the art item in computer science today, see also 'crowd surfing'.

Me having ideas that build on that shouldn't be so upsetting, one can simply disagree on them in a decent manor,
but that seems to be your problem all together.

nothing wrong with asking an opinion...Sir Ducky is a good little Mallard.

He's actually usually fair.

However, I agree, when you ask for an opinion, you are asking for an opinion, and back up data information is a plus.

But, Sir Duckness really is just great foie gras! *chuckle* he's gonn kill me for that!

Originally Posted by Raziell

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Raziell

It is your own choice to follow a moral code isnt it?

Is it?

Hard to say. Id ask "Are you a determinist" but regardless of the answer, you would never truly know if that answer was predestined or the result of free will.

Yes, but there is another issue that you have brought up.
If one cannot determine with certainty that one's actions are a result of free will or predestination, then can one truly choose a purpose in life?
There is, if I understand your point correctly, a chance that it was predestined that you chose that purpose or that you chose that something or someone else gave you a purpose.

This is evidently very abstract and metaphysical in so far as even if we did have some clear notion as to our meaning it would be unable to be verified by a scientific hypothesis. I take the view of the existentialists; particularly that of Jean-Paul Sartre who writes: 'existence precedes and rules essence'. Human beings being forced into the world are left to define it themselves, any meaning we give to life is an abstract quality of the self devoid of any concrete notion.

Originally Posted by Trivium

This is evidently very abstract and metaphysical in so far as even if we did have some clear notion as to our meaning it would be unable to be verified by a scientific hypothesis. I take the view of the existentialists; particularly that of Jean-Paul Sartre who writes: 'existence preceeds and rules essence'. Human beings being forced into the world are left to define it themselves, any meaning we give to life is an abstract quality of the self devoid of any concrete notion.

Welcome Trivium, it never fails to amaze me the topic that someone will choose as a reason to join the forum and make their first post. But other than that I like what you said and hope you will take some time and get to know the regulars on this forum. And by all means have some fun.

Originally Posted by Trivium

This is evidently very abstract and metaphysical in so far as even if we did have some clear notion as to our meaning it would be unable to be verified by a scientific hypothesis. I take the view of the existentialists; particularly that of Jean-Paul Sartre who writes: 'existence preceeds and rules essence'. Human beings being forced into the world are left to define it themselves, any meaning we give to life is an abstract quality of the self devoid of any concrete notion.

Oh, I don't know. Concrete is mighty hard stuff.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

it never fails to amaze me the topic that someone will choose as a reason to join the forum and make their first post.

Especially when it's the penis size thread.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Originally Posted by Strange

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

I'd once had a conversation with my mentor regarding this very aspect of the human condition, and she mentioned something along the lines of it being an innate inferiority complex that comes with reaching a certain level of self-awareness; in wanting motivation. However, she did also mentioned that a small percentage of the population doesn't seem afflicted with disappointment after being aware of their reduced significance. I've always wondered why that is even when I'm part of that small percentage.

An impaired evolutionary instinct perhaps?

Your meaning in life is ultimately what you have conjured up as a purpose, there is no inherent meaning to why anyone has to live. Now granted, purposes can be augmented by cultural and societal reasons, i may not be able to fulfill what i think my life should be about because our cultural structure deems it out of bounds with the framework it wants to upkeep. So i have to care about money in order for me to live what i consider to be a proper life, this augments my purpose so now i am pursuing money instead of what i might actually want to occupy my time with. I see that the goals in our lives are ultimately hedonistic, we are continuously in the pursuit of happiness which gives meaning and purpose.

Originally Posted by CDdude55

Your meaning in life is ultimately what you have conjured up as a purpose, there is no inherent meaning to why anyone has to live. Now granted, purposes can be augmented by cultural and societal reasons, i may not be able to fulfill what i think my life should be about because our cultural structure deems it out of bounds with the framework it wants to upkeep. So i have to care about money in order for me to live what i consider to be a proper life, this augments my purpose so now i am pursuing money instead of what i might actually want to occupy my time with. I see that the goals in our lives are ultimately hedonistic, we are continuously in the pursuit of happiness which gives meaning and purpose.

The only purpose to life is to continue for as long as possible for both the individual and the species as a whole. Also once life has got it's start it will continuously try and fill every possible niche that will support it. But what that has to do with the meaning of life is over my head.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by CDdude55

Your meaning in life is ultimately what you have conjured up as a purpose, there is no inherent meaning to why anyone has to live. Now granted, purposes can be augmented by cultural and societal reasons, i may not be able to fulfill what i think my life should be about because our cultural structure deems it out of bounds with the framework it wants to upkeep. So i have to care about money in order for me to live what i consider to be a proper life, this augments my purpose so now i am pursuing money instead of what i might actually want to occupy my time with. I see that the goals in our lives are ultimately hedonistic, we are continuously in the pursuit of happiness which gives meaning and purpose.

The only purpose to life is to continue for as long as possible for both the individual and the species as a whole. Also once life has got it's start it will continuously try and fill every possible niche that will support it. But what that has to do with the meaning of life is over my head.

Which one?

It's sad when every topic has to be drawn back to pervy sex comments with some people.

'Ten days on and you all seem to have had enough.. Not so I.'
To answer this question with a absolute is made a little complicated by the understanding of the question and the salad of words available. What is the intended meaning of the words used.. words like life. The implication of a higher meaning to life than that life itself. No, I do not see any proof of that.. That life has a seemingly driven reproductive intention. That's life., but it is never without meaning for me.. I love it. It's so far removed from any alternative that I can not equate 'meaninglessness..'
That it's a whole 'lo ta' fun can hardly be meaningless. I do need to lay claim, no higher agenda is detected.
Can I argue the DNA molecule has a want to prevail. It finds ways to reproduce and develop it's self into more greatly defined organisms so as to improve it's survival rate.. Is it that the DNA is the driving force of nature here ?
Should I adopt a view, because it can. It does seem a little shallow if there is no higher purpose than to exist than 'the want to'.
I word it as this; On the surface of Planet Earth have a race of beings flourished and spread as to have evolved to a sentient race of aware of them selves beings. With a want to understand all that they perceive..and some they don't. That a equally large portion of the same set of people not give it a single thought. Purpose is not required. There may never have or been a reason. It is because it can be. Change any of the parameters and life will if it can adapt.. So it wants to, it can.. and that as much as we do not like it.. This could be a temporary condition.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

If life is so meaningless, why do you bother to do it.

Life is meaningful to me.

To each of us personally 'YES' life in meaningful.

Yup. In the larger view life is probably meaningless, but even knowing this we'll go on laughing, crying, and waxing philosophical about life. We can not stop ourselves.

I find no life meaningless, with the exception of those that don't bother to try to achieve something in their lives, be it big or small.