April 18th, 2013, 10:22 PM
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
Yes.Originally Posted by RAJ_K
What's your point?
Yes it seems meansingless
The thing is, yes it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but you can give personal meaning to life. It can mean something to you even if it means nothing to the universe in general. Even if there is no god, no heaven, no hell, no bottomless whiskey barrel, no land of fluffy pink horny horses. Your life can mean plenty to you and to those who you interact with and have an effect on. Jesus may well have never existed but just the idea of him effects a great many people and gives them meaning. Meaning is something that we create in our own minds. There is no harm in it. And it is usually quite useful in providing motivation to be productive in some way.
So meaning and determining what it may or may not be is personal and unique to each individual. You can meander through life with no direction no goals and no purpose and accomplish little and within a few years of your passing,no one will remember you existed and it won't matter to you, because you are dead, or anyone else because you simply didn't make yourself matter to anyone. Or... you can choose to declare for yourself a purpose and meaning to your existence, use that as a motivation to become better than what you are. Motivation to make your existence known and to matter to others so that when you die, if it is important enough to you, that you will be remembered and that your life will somehow have improved the lives of others you knew and those who come after you.
You nailed it.
But you are here. You feel and even if it's by no design or purpose- that allows you the freedom to choose your purpose. I hope you choose it well.
Life has meanings but some people just haven't found theirs yet. Everyone can find a purpose for themselves if they so desire but many are unwilling, uneducated, lazy or non committal to finding theirs.
short answer:
Yes, life is meaningless!
see
absurdism
existentialism
exestential nihilism
....................
or
we just don't know
You were created without meaning. That doesn't mean you cannot give your life meaning through your actions.
hi, simply...yes...when...we...have...knowledge
...and...no...wisdom...below...are...two...questio ns
...that...open...the...door...to...wisdom...and... meaning!
1. Whats it all about?
2. Why?
Answers
1. To Learn!
2. Coz...there...really...is...something...next!
peace&love...vern
My meaning to say was not related to live in optimistic or pacifistic manner.
Naturally life is beautiful and with our senses we can take physical utility, mental utility
and other happiness. We can take spiritual utility by other good works. We can enjoy life and make it purposeful for us.
My means was just from ultimate point of view that livings are not more important than non livings. Ultimately nature keeps no difference between them.
Both have equal important and converted from one to another.
Life is nothing more than a series of senseless and unplanned chemical reactions.
Please don't type like that. It makes my nose bleed.
He's been told that on each of twenty five posts and it has made no difference, yet.
But I think you are misguided in your reasoning for living things have the ability to do things that non living things do not and therefore they possess the ability to use the non living things whereas non living things cannot use living things.My means was just from ultimate point of view that livings are not more important than non livings.
Yes, we're just the random collocations of matter. What did you expect, magical unicorns had violent intercourse with each other, and the embryo inside the female unicorn "if they're not hermaphroditic" contains the entire universe, and they mated just to create the human species and watch us experience existence with unadulterated thought? No, coincidence brought us here, our experiencing of existence is the combination of biological systems, and our thoughts are likely determined 0 by past actions and genetics. Obviously you find some sort of meaning in life, as you certainly haven't blown your brains out yet, something is keeping you alive "likely survival instincts but whatever", and perhaps that is the subjective purpose of life, to simply experience consciousness? Or perhaps I'm wildly incorrect, the two cups of meaningless coffee I just ingested in a meaningless fashion haven't stimulated my meaningless mind to think in the slightly less deluded manner I experience when fully awake.
Last edited by shlunka; April 20th, 2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason: I'm freaking awesome.
Last edited by shlunka; April 20th, 2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason: I'm freaking awesome.
The deluded manner of thought can sometimes bring arrogance.Last edited by shlunka; April 20th, 2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason: I'm freaking awesome.
Life is an octopus. It has googols of tentacles disguised as life forms dispersed throughout the universe. Cutting one off hardly affects it as it has the capability of growing them back and more. So what does it mean you ask? I haven't a clue.
alternately
before animals roamed the earth
the plants were poisoning the atmosphere with their waste product---oxygen. Which led to raging wild fires almost exterminating those wicked vermin(the oxygen producers)
the poor plants really needed us
then the animals began to inhale the waste product, and exhale the life giving CO2, insects, then amphibians, then reptiles, (during the great age of the reptiles and birds, they couldn't keep up with the plants,O levels were still 20-30% higher than today, and wild fires still raged, then, finally mammals, and we began to proliferate consuming the waste product of the plants and offering them our precious CO2, still, not quite enough, so we evolved into the lords of fire, exponentially increasing our simbiosis with our atmospheric counterpart---------------and the plants love us for it, ever crying for more CO2-----------
If you really need meaning in this life
please
go exhale on a plant, then inhale it's simbiotic gift
share the joy
Yes, life is meaningless.
However, in the last 4000 + years of history he we have created a meaning to live: Civilization. We do not live for ourselves, we live for each other and the betterment of our societies. We live, we die, and society endures. She's always watching, always learning and always growing.
from the evidence of archaeological art, and recently gobleki tepe i'd bump that 4k out to atleast 29k, and likely 35k (so far)(maybe more)
maybe it resides in our hard wiring
But our society is made up of an animal species that will go extinct at some future date. So in the grand scheme of things what was accomplished? If we can get off this world an colonize other worlds or places not on Earth (putting our eggs in more baskets) we might be able to put off the inevitable extinction for quite awhile. But will even this give life any more meaning?
I prefer to take hedge trimmers to the defenseless plants, it gives me a sense of power.
In Arizona most people have rock yards and when the weeds grow in them the best way to do them in is with a propane flame thrower. (Much satisfaction)
For safety reason i said 4000+ . As a young child when my school books noted that civilization was formed around 5000 bce I thought them wrong. I always said that there is evidence of civilized tribes existing in Egypt and Libya from 20,000 bce + but was only told by my teacher's I was wrong. And, not to start a wildfire here at he forum I went with 4000 + . Yes, we have been civilized for much longer then what our books tell us.... well, most of us anyways.from the evidence of archaeological art, and recently gobleki tepe i'd bump that 4k out to atleast 29k, and likely 35k (so far)(maybe more)
maybe it resides in our hard wiring
At Rad Robot: Were you a fan of LOST by chance? And to go off what you said: Yes, this is what we are fighting for I believe. Somehow somewhere down the line of evolution we were hardwired to explore. It's as if we were meant to leave this planet. Now, this is a wild and fringe idea of mine, but I have always argued that we are a lot smaller then we think we are. Our solar system and galaxies for as far as we know are the nuclei of a cell of some much greater being. Perhaps humans are like the code that is born in the mitochondria of a cell. I don't remember what the scientific terminology was but before a cell passes data off to another it is formed in some deep recess of the cell. It must fill that 'sack' before it is sent off to the next cell. Perhaps our evolution is this process in the making. We must fill this planet before we can leave to the next. I know, this is wild and far fetched but it could very well be the case of our existence.... and I have not had my coffee yet.
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.
Are you more important than a stone outside your house for nature.
For nature you and stone are equal important.
Specially when Nature does not have conciseness and thinking power
Specially when life is just a material reactions process comes and goes due to the properties of matter.
Vice versa, surely.
Life is essentially meaningless unless you decide that it's not and find a meaning that works for you.
Like you said - Life is an end in and of itself.
Self-perpetuation isn't a meaning, it's a goal.
According to whom? Us or the rock?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.
"Worth" is a human perspective.
Am I more important than a rock? Of course I am! Why? Because I say so! Because if I wanted to I could go get that rock and smash it into tiny pieces, turn it into a fine powder, melt it down, maybe make something out of it, use it as landscaping, or throw it in the bottom of the sea and it can't say a damn thing about it!Are you more important than a stone outside your house for nature.
For nature you and stone are equal important.
Specially when Nature does not have conciseness and thinking power
Specially when life is just a material reactions process comes and goes due to the properties of matter.
Does nature think that I'm more important? Well, we are nature, I am nature, I say that I'm more important, and I have consciousness, so nature has consciousness, so the answer is yes, nature does think that, the rock can't speak for itself and contradict me, I guess you guys can if you want. There is often this human sense that we 'apart' from nature, but in reality we are as much a part of it as gravity or anything else.
Do we need some sort of external validation to make us important? Well we're the lords of nature is a sense. I mean we're making atom bombs and computers and space ships and submarines etc. etc. The level at which we can control, manipulate, and use nature to our own advantages and purposes is unprecedented in the cosmos! I say that gives us plenty of cosmic validation. Remember the 2-slit trick? We can even control how external subatomic particles behave just by thinking about them! How's that for clout? Of course we have our limitations in knowledge and capabilities and are sometimes humbled, but I for one would never trade this experience in for being a damn rock!
ok?
Personal opinion then.
Non-sequitur.Because if I wanted to I could go get that rock and smash it into tiny pieces, turn it into a fine powder, melt it down, maybe make something out of it, use it as landscaping, or throw it in the bottom of the sea and it can't say a damn thing about it!
Are you sure synecdoche works in this case?I have consciousness, so nature has consciousness
The vast majority of mammals are quaprupeds, does that mean the universe has four legs? Oh wait, mammals are outnumbered by insects. So the universe has six legs...
Nope, supposition, personal preference again.so the answer is yes, nature does think that
Yet you've just spent the entirety of this post elevating yourself above the rest of nature.There is often this human sense that we 'apart' from nature, but in reality we are as much a part of it as gravity or anything else.
So what you're saying is that we're fairly big fish (how'd we do against hurricanes? landslides? earthquakes?) in a f*cking HUUUGE pond.Well we're the lords of nature is a sense. I mean we're making atom bombs and computers and space ships and submarines etc. etc. The level at which we can control, manipulate, and use nature to our own advantages and purposes is unprecedented in the cosmos! I say that gives us plenty of cosmic validation.
What happens when (not if) the Sun goes blooey? What happens if something else way out there goes blooey and floods the entire Solar System with hard x-rays?
Oh yeah - unprecedented in the cosmos? Unsupported.
You're mistaking discovering how the universe behaves under specific conditions with control.Remember the 2-slit trick? We can even control how external subatomic particles behave just by thinking about them! How's that for clout?
And "thinking about them"? Nope, check again.
If we disappeared tomorrow the universe wouldn't even notice, much less care.
You do not know this.
You can not know this.
Not bad as conjectures go, but, conjecture none the less.
There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise.You do not know this.
You can not know this.
Not bad as conjectures go, but, conjecture none the less.
Hypotheses non fingo...
[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;415624]The point is that other forms of nature aren't necessarily capable of formulating such an opinion, but we are which is what gives it its credence.Personal opinion then.
Because if I wanted to I could go get that rock and smash it into tiny pieces, turn it into a fine powder, melt it down, maybe make something out of it, use it as landscaping, or throw it in the bottom of the sea and it can't say a damn thing about it!Have you heard of the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity? Or maybe you just like Latin words...Non-sequitur.
I have consciousness, so nature has consciousnessOooo I didn't say the universe, I said nature. And absolutely nature has 4 legs, like when it's a quadruped, unless that quadruped got maimed by an octopus, in which case maybe nature has 3 legs.Are you sure synecdoche works in this case?
The vast majority of mammals are quaprupeds, does that mean the universe has four legs? Oh wait, mammals are outnumbered by insects. So the universe has six legs...
so the answer is yes, nature does think thatSee above, by virtue of being able to formulate such an opinion innately lends it some cosmic validity. Now I am not saying that untested opinions automatically have cosmic validity, there is a distinct difference, it is the capacity of being able form opinions in first place.Nope, supposition, personal preference again.
There is often this human sense that we 'apart' from nature, but in reality we are as much a part of it as gravity or anything else.Life tends to do that in general, but consciousness especially.Yet you've just spent the entirety of this post elevating yourself above the rest of nature.
Well we're the lords of nature is a sense. I mean we're making atom bombs and computers and space ships and submarines etc. etc. The level at which we can control, manipulate, and use nature to our own advantages and purposes is unprecedented in the cosmos! I say that gives us plenty of cosmic validation.Hey, I'm not saying that it couldn't all be over in a second, I'm simply pointing out that we should be more positive about it and enjoy the ride.So what you're saying is that we're fairly big fish (how'd we do against hurricanes? landslides? earthquakes?) in a f*cking HUUUGE pond.
What happens when (not if) the Sun goes blooey? What happens if something else way out there goes blooey and floods the entire Solar System with hard x-rays?
Well, unprecedented in the known cosmos, but you're right, we don't know much about most of the cosmos.Oh yeah - unprecedented in the cosmos? Unsupported.
Remember the 2-slit trick? We can even control how external subatomic particles behave just by thinking about them! How's that for clout?OK so, recording data for usage in intellectual extrapolation with the data recording element of the interaction being irrelevant to the results of subatomic particle behavior. Happy?You're mistaking discovering how the universe behaves under specific conditions with control.
And "thinking about them"? Nope, check again.
Your unsupported personal opinion then.If we disappeared tomorrow the universe wouldn't even notice, much less care.
It's meaningless only for the lost atheists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUrfrcHaUNg
The only "credence" that has is what we claim it has.
Or maybe you've never come across such a common and useful phrase before. It's used a great deal on here.Have you heard of the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity? Or maybe you just like Latin words...
You're sat in front of a computer, with the entire internet accesible from it. Avail yourself of it, get an education.
Oh right. Because the universe isn't nature.Oooo I didn't say the universe, I said nature.
And absolutely nature has 4 legs, like when it's a quadruped, unless that quadruped got maimed by an octopus, in which case maybe nature has 3 legs.
Only to us.See above, by virtue of being able to formulate such an opinion innately lends it some cosmic validity.
So it's opinion. Again.Now I am not saying that untested opinions automatically have cosmic validity, there is a distinct difference, it is the capacity of being able form opinions in first place.
Really?Life tends to do that in general
And you got this conclusion from a sample of... one. Way to go.but consciousness especially.
Enjoying the ride has nothing to do with our (speculated) importance. And vice versa.Hey, I'm not saying that it couldn't all be over in a second, I'm simply pointing out that we should be more positive about it and enjoy the ride.
Also incorrect.Well, unprecedented in the known cosmos
Simply because we haven't found "them" doesn't necessarily mean they're not there.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.OK so, recording data for usage in intellectual extrapolation with the data recording element of the interaction being irrelevant to the results of subatomic particle behavior. Happy?
The interaction is what lets us detect what's happening - ergo it's hardly "irrelevant".
Oops, see my reply to Sculptor.Your unsupported personal opinion then.
Oh the crank is back.
Pity...
"particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise.You do not know this.
You can not know this.
Not bad as conjectures go, but, conjecture none the less.
Hypotheses non fingo...
Ok
you can call it phread, or phydeaux
objective statements about the state of the universe at any given moment are without the knowledge of our combines species
which I would call conjecture, not hypotheses, nor even null hypotheses
just simple philosophical conjecture
I do not sense any change in the universe when someone dissapears(of course, i have never actually seen anyone dissapear--so that too, remains in conjecture
ergo, i postulate that there is no change
ok
maybe I'm blind?
Perhaps, every thought, every deed, every displaced speck of dust has a profound effect on it's immediate surroundings, changing forever the energy ripples that wash away from the action or item in ways that we cannot imagine.
I once read that some polynesian sailors could find up current or upwind islands by watching for little counter ripples in the greater waves.
Is not all energy of the same stuff?
Just because you do not know how to measure it does not necessitate, nor indicate it's lack of existance.
.............
as humble as this may seem
you really do matter duck
live with it.
As an atheist I like the following 2 min video a lot.
Monty Python - The Meaning of Life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DA2MKuI6fs
Pfft, it was an observation.
Nah, you accept that there is no reason to suppose there is a change.I do not sense any change in the universe when someone dissapears(of course, i have never actually seen anyone dissapear--so that too, remains in conjecture
ergo, i postulate that there is no change
Hmm, "energy ripples" that "forever wash away from the action"?Perhaps, every thought, every deed, every displaced speck of dust has a profound effect on it's immediate surroundings, changing forever the energy ripples that wash away from the action or item in ways that we cannot imagine.
I once read that some polynesian sailors could find up current or upwind islands by watching for little counter ripples in the greater waves.
Is not all energy of the same stuff?
Just because you do not know how to measure it does not necessitate, nor indicate it's lack of existance.
Such as?
On a highly localised severely short-lived (relative to the scale of the universe) level, certainly.as humble as this may seem
you really do matter duck
My cats would starve to death were I not here. My sisters would have more disposable income. &c &c.
AgreedThe only "credence" that has is what we claim it has.
Have you heard of the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity? Or maybe you just like Latin words...Right, because I always know the etymology of words that I know nothing about.Or maybe you've never come acroos such a common and useful phrase before. It's used a great deal on here.
You're sat in front of a computer, with the entire internet accesible from it. Avail yourself of it, get an education.
Oooo I didn't say the universe, I said nature.I'm not assigning universal attributes because of one specific form of existence. All things are part of the universe and their existence is facilitated by the nature of the universe, but that relationship is mostly one of causality and not some sort of mirrored representation. So to say that a specific type of nature has 4 legs because of the universe is accurate, to say that the universe must have 4 legs because some sub-type of existence also does is ridiculous.Oh right. Because the universe isn't nature.
And absolutely nature has 4 legs, like when it's a quadruped, unless that quadruped got maimed by an octopus, in which case maybe nature has 3 legs.
See above, by virtue of being able to formulate such an opinion innately lends it some cosmic validity.Only to us.Now I am not saying that untested opinions automatically have cosmic validity, there is a distinct difference, it is the capacity of being able form opinions in first place.A conscious opinion yes, because most things in this universe aren't afforded that privilege.So it's opinion. Again.
Life tends to do that in generalAll life manipulates matter and energy to its own end - survival.Really?
but consciousness especially.How about the human race then? If some asteroid comes at us from outer space we may blow that sh*t up with an atom bomb saving all life on the planet! Any you don't think that we're a great species?And you got this conclusion from a sample of... one. Way to go.
Hey, I'm not saying that it couldn't all be over in a second, I'm simply pointing out that we should be more positive about it and enjoy the ride.It does have to do with quality of life though. This thread is not really about our importance in the universe but whether life has meaning. It is hard to find better meaning in life than enjoying it.Enjoying the ride has nothing to do with our (speculated) importance. And vice versa.
Well, unprecedented in the known cosmosIt also doesn't necessarily mean that they are there. It does necessarily mean that we don't know.Also incorrect.
Simply because we haven't found "them" doesn't necessarily mean they're not there.
OK so, recording data for usage in intellectual extrapolation with the data recording element of the interaction being irrelevant to the results of subatomic particle behavior. Happy?Because when they ran the recording device without looking at the results it acted as though there was no recording. The results only changed when conscious intelligence was interested in the results..I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
The interaction is what lets us detect what's happening - ergo it's hardly "irrelevant".
Your unsupported personal opinion then.Oops, see my reply to Sculptor.
You don't need toknow the etymology.
What you do is type those exact words into Google...
And, equally, to say that the universe is conscious because some sub-type of existence also does is ridiculous.I'm not assigning universal attributes because of one specific form of existence. All things are part of the universe and their existence is facilitated by the nature of the universe, but that relationship is mostly one of causality and not some sort of mirrored representation. So to say that a specific type of nature has 4 legs because of the universe is accurate, to say that the universe must have 4 legs because some sub-type of existence also does is ridiculous.
Which is not the same as "elevating itself above the rest of nature".All life manipulates matter and energy to its own end - survival.
You're not following the argument, are you?How about the human race then? If some asteroid comes at us from outer space we may blow that sh*t up with an atom bomb saving all life on the planet! Any you don't think that we're a great species?
Ah, okay. A change of tack.It does have to do with quality of life though. This thread is not really about our importance in the universe but whether life has meaning. It is hard to find better meaning in life than enjoying it
Agreed. In which case someone was wrong to state - unprecedented in the cosmos.It also doesn't necessarily mean that they are there. It does necessarily mean that we don't know.
Link/ source please. This contradicts everything I've seen on the subject.Because when they ran the recording device without looking at the results it acted as though there was no recording. The results only changed when conscious intelligence was interested in the results.
everything seems to be an energy emitter, or blocker
In the greater universe, we infer that which we cannot see by the way light bends around it.
Did you know that Bucky Fuller liked to think of himself as a trim tab;
with the philosophy that even small, low energy changes in a trim tab can turn a mighty ship.
Of course, some who think themselves trim tabs, are just barnacles attached to the hull.
and I do not know which is which.
Yes, we/ everything emits energy to some extent, but how far can it propagate before getting lost in the background noise?
For a lot of the radiation/ energy we emit I'd suggest our atmosphere does a pretty good job of insulating the rest of the universe from it.
[/quote]Which is not the same as "elevating itself above the rest of nature".[/quote]
You know, I feel like my personal form of existence is fundamentally better than that of a rock's. Perhaps you don't feel like you are better than a rock. So I'll tell you what, I'll have it my way and you can have it your way.You're not following the argument, are you?
Lecture 1 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford) - YouTubeLink/ source please. This contradicts everything I've seen on the subject.
Timestamp please.
I'm not sitting through nearly two hours of video to find something you may have misinterpreted.
1) Life is a random meaningless sidetrack of the universe
2) Life is the very purpose of the universe
I find number 2 to be more logical and reasonable.
But if number 1 turns out to be truth... the Monty Python song "Always look on the bright side of life" is darn good wisdom.
Last edited by markashley; April 21st, 2013 at 06:53 PM. Reason: nothing important
Ooh, "more logical"?
Please, lay out this logic for us.
"Reasonable"?
Because you like the idea?
Dywyddyr: I am about the most skeptical, atheistic, scientifically minded persons here. I cheer your arguments against the non-scientific religious believers. But, I am merely stating that, although I do not know the answer, my formal training in biology leads me to an appreciation of it's wonders and the very real possibility that life is the purpose (not of a specific man-made religion... but of a greater purpose that we are not aware of).Ooh, "more logical"?
Please, lay out this logic for us.
"Reasonable"?
Because you like the idea?
Last edited by markashley; April 21st, 2013 at 07:12 PM. Reason: minor typo
I agree with this.
Right up to the part where you say "and the very real possibility that life is the purpose..."
A feeling/ belief 1/ idea/ whatever is one thing, but you stated "I find number 2 to be more logical".
Could you run through the chain of logic that led you to this conclusion?
1 Given the proviso that "belief" doesn't necessarily imply "rigidly held faith".
Indeed, I don't like the word "belief". Everything has a degree of uncertainty and belief insinuates certainty.I agree with this.
Right up to the part where you say "and the very real possibility that life is the purpose..."
A feeling/ belief 1/ idea/ whatever is one thing, but you stated "I find number 2 to be more logical".
Could you run through the chain of logic that led you to this conclusion?
1 Given the proviso that "belief" doesn't necessarily imply "rigidly held faith".
I want to state that life may indeed be a random sidetrack and most people "believe" that life is planned because it is a warm and fuzzy notion. However, my point is that although life may have manifested randomly, I think there is a chance (perhaps more than 50%) that life is so wonderful, that the logic of Occam's razor points towards life as a purpose rather than an accident... something that 21st century science has yet to discover.
Occams Razor refers to the simplest of two explanations, not the more aesthetically pleasing.
Believing it has some unknown purpose implies an intelligence or a designer or both- none of which is the simplest explanation but are warm and fuzzy.
I disagree.Occams Razor refers to the simplest of two explanations, not the more aesthetically pleasing.
Believing it has some unknown purpose implies an intelligence or a designer or both- none of which is the simplest explanation but are warm and fuzzy.
Before I state my reasoning I should like to say that I think it is entirely possible that life is a random chance event.
However, the notion that conscious thought developed completely by chance seems to be, perhaps, the less simple choice if you consider the alternative that there is something going on unknown to current scientific understanding. What that answer may be - I will not begin to pretend to have an answer.
In other words, just as I criticize religious fundamentalists for being overly arrogant, I would suggest a humble attitude before concluding that random biochemical reactions are the only answer.
Are you disagreeing with what Occam's Razor states or are you disagreeing with what you perceive to be the simplest answer?I disagree.Occams Razor refers to the simplest of two explanations, not the more aesthetically pleasing.
Believing it has some unknown purpose implies an intelligence or a designer or both- none of which is the simplest explanation but are warm and fuzzy.
Before I state my reasoning I should like to say that I think it is entirely possible that life is a random chance event.
However, the notion that conscious thought developed completely by chance seems to be, perhaps, the less simple choice if you consider the alternative that there is something going on unknown to current scientific understanding. What that answer may be - I will not begin to pretend to have an answer.
In other words, just as I criticize religious fundamentalists for being overly arrogant, I would suggest a humble attitude before concluding that random biochemical reactions are the only answer.
My understanding of logic involved is that you should choose the simplest answer.
For example, if you see a UFO, the simpler answer is that it is an earth-based military test flight (not an alien air force from the other side of the universe).
Thus, my argument is that something as complicated as a human brain randomly existing is not simple.
Then you don't understand evolution and just how sloppy it actually is. Ever hear the expression, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even in complete and utter chaos sometimes things can actually work. So out of billions of mutations that take place over time, sometimes one is right.
Now consider this, if an intelligent designer, an ALL KNOWING GOD created us, what's up with all the trial and error?
By itself, maybe but you're ignoring/neglecting all the brains below it that led up to it. Frankly, I think you're being overly impressed by the human brain.
As an atheist (and someone who accepts biological evolution), I don't consider a God (at least in the popular understanding of the term) a feasible possibility. I am merely suggesting that 21st century science is incomplete. This notion should be agreeable with most clear thinking persons.
Again, I feel like I am playing devils advocate because I am nearly 50% convinced that life did originate completely randomly.
Considering the fact that I am one... perhaps some bias has been manifested. Although, I could use all the complicated mathematical laws of nature as an example of the complicated nature of the universe.
A lack of a scientific explanation does not provide support for the extreme explanation.
Exactly, which you could use to say, "The watch implies a watchmaker." The thing is; complexity as a result of emergence does not imply a maker. It implies emergence. Emergence is observed and verified as well as verifiable- your ideas are not. That means that emergence is simpler.
Period.
Now, if you choose to believe- that is fine. But your belief is not in what is simpler. Do not claim that it is anything else than what it is.
Belief insinuates certainty?
I believe you're wrong on that, but I'm open to correction,
So, not only no actual logic, but also a more-than-somewhat-nebulous appeal to "something yet to be discovered".I want to state that life may indeed be a random sidetrack and most people "believe" that life is planned because it is a warm and fuzzy notion. However, my point is that although life may have manifested randomly, I think there is a chance (perhaps more than 50%) that life is so wonderful, that the logic of Occam's razor points towards life as a purpose rather than an accident... something that 21st century science has yet to discover.
And you're wrong in bringing Occam onto on your side: your "explanation" requires ADDING something.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 22nd, 2013 at 11:07 PM.
"Matter has capacity to develop conciseness and awareness in itself if it gets certain physical and environmental conditions "
Both may be viewd much common and same from another point of view.
Same Matter that has different forms , under different conditions
I think that life's meaning can be found in the most important characteristics of life itself.
1. It is finite.
2. It is able to reproduce.
3. It is able to...some kind of metabolism.
So...life is very old and probably very rare and it had to fight hard fight against countless things (like meteors, clima changes, volcanos, and aggressive lifeforms like humans or viruses) that could have caused it extinction.
If you'll ask our DNA...they could tell the hell of a story and it probably would suggest that the meaning of life is to struggle on.
So...based on the characteristics....
1. Teach us that we should enjoy life...and make the best in the given time. Every life is absolutely unique...this atoms and circumstances will never come together...so (thats how I see it) you have to prove that this gathering was worth existing.
2. I think we should do something that is beneficial for our kind and helps our set of genes to survive.
May it be to raise children or to improve the world...(may it be by art, technic or social interactions). This also includes being a part of a society...and keep it running. And even if you don't work...you somehow influence other people...may it be by caring for them or just cheering them up or whatever. So...I guess it is hard to decide what is beneficial for mankind and the rest of life and whats not (in the most cases). I think it's always a mixture of beneficial and harmful things we do (may it be unintentionally or not) but I think you succeded if the beneficial things prevail.
3. We are able to eat, breathe, look at things etc. So...if this is the case...why don't eat good, breathe clear air, look at nice things.
So...I think, if we asked a Lion what is the purpose in life...beside defending his kids (in the case of female lions) or fuck a lot of woman (males) it would probably to have good food. Every bacterium looks for the most comfortable place to live in. So...increasing or wellbeing, and this of others is as well a reason to live. Or in easier words...to be happy and make others happy.
This is also given by nature...because natures (our brains) award is happiness. So...it makes absolute sense to get that award (as long as it doesn't contradicts with the survival of life idea)
I do realize that all of my three points sound alike...but that is my point...every characteristic of life...points in the same direction.
And...just to offer a more poetic view on things...may our special purpose in life as humans is to witness how great the universe is.
Plus I think we as a race can be very proud if we don't end up destroying ourselves and the rest of the planet.
How do you think life is more than just a characteristic of matter that can take form if certain physical conditions meet
Neverfly & Dywyddyr:
Question: Is your position there is a 100% chance that life is random?
Before answering, consider the vast amount of scientific knowledge yet undiscovered. Future generations will look at our science as we look at 17th century science. Also consider the discipline of science is, by nature, humble. Scientists question and check each others work (as opposed to the clergy, which is woefully arogant).
I accept your arguments pertaining to emergence. My hypothesis is not that some God created life a few thousand years ago. My hypothesis is that the very laws of organic chemistry and physics at the start of the big bang may have had something in it yet undiscovered that prefers life.
Regarding the logic involved: When people say "Jesus walked on water"... I say, the simpler explanation is that it is a legend or folk tale. The idea that the conditions at the instant of the big bang were created randomly and and in such a way that they would randomly derive life seems (as I've said before) very reasonable. But is it so unreasonable to suggest there may be something going on as yet undiscovered?
Try mine if you think it's not...
Oh.
Not sure what you mean by "prefer". That life is an inevitable consequence from the start or that life was "designed in"?I accept your arguments pertaining to emergence. My hypothesis is not that some God created life a few thousand years ago. My hypothesis is that the very laws of organic chemistry and physics at the start of the big bang may have had something in it yet undiscovered that prefers life.
The first, sure, the second, not so much.
But does that (the first one) mean there's a purpose?
Apologies, but I didn't understand the top answer.Try mine if you think it's not...
Oh.
Not sure what you mean by "prefer". That life is an inevitable consequence from the start or that life was "designed in"?I accept your arguments pertaining to emergence. My hypothesis is not that some God created life a few thousand years ago. My hypothesis is that the very laws of organic chemistry and physics at the start of the big bang may have had something in it yet undiscovered that prefers life.
The first, sure, the second, not so much.
But does that (the first one) mean there's a purpose?
I am satisfied that you said "not so much" which implies you accept the possibility. I suppose I am suggesting the possibility (not saying with any confidence mind you) that life was more or less part of a broader purpose.
I hesitate to use the word purpose because it may lump me in with the "intelligent design" crowd. I am merely suggesting a very opaque, unknown, cause of the universe. (Not anything approaching a God)
The thrust of my argument is that this is such a profound question, we should remain humble and aware that our present scientific knowledge may not be yet advanced enough to make any conclusions.
Your question does not make sense. If you are asking me if I think that it's entirely plausible that life originated without intelligent interference, I would say "yes."
If you ask which I believe is likelier, I would say that it is more likely that the origin was not intelligently implemented.
I do not know.
Unless evidence comes forward to convince me that intelligence brought forth life on Earth, I have no reason to consider it at this time.
Broad claim. We do not know the future. I also do not care how they look at us- it has no bearing on your I.D. beliefs.
All the way back to the Big Bang, eh? There were some properties that made a slight preference of matter over anti-matter, too. Now, the Universe is primarily matter.
Your argument should have the Universe absolutely teeming with life.
Maybe it is. But until I see evidence of it, I won't claim it is.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You may maintain your faith in an intelligent designer, waiting for that designer to be discovered, if you choose.
But citing the Big Bang? That was almost 8,000,000,000 years before the Earth even Existed.
Neverfly:
As much as I love science, dare I say you seem a bit arrogant in your confidence.
The great Carl Sagan's claim can be turned:
Random life is an extraordinary claim.
My personal belief is that where ever life can exist it will sooner or later. Someday they may know enough to have a law of life. But for now I'm just looking forward to proof that life once lived on Mars, and that may come sooner than any of us think. I am getting excited by the latest NASA reports on that subject.
Rover: Conditions Once Suited for Life on Mars - NASA Science
Is this your profession? Arrogance, I mean. You know arrogance because you are an avid practitioner of it maybe? An arrogant person wouldn't say they don't know something, as Neverfly and others have. And it takes arrogance to pretend like you aren't pushing ID by simply using different words that mean the same thing. To say that something before the BB "preferred" life, implies an intelligence behind the BB, as well as a design put in place by that intelligence. Do you want to act as if you don't mean a creator, and hope that we are too stupid to know what you are doing? Or are you suggesting that we are an alien lab experiment? An equally baseless belief, btw.
You can dare to, but you are the arrogant one thinking you have insight into things not yet discovered, much less supported by a shred of evidence.
You are the arrogant one claiming that all the biologists and scientists cannot figure out basic origin biology and chemistry, along with emergence.
You are the arrogant one claiming that a watch implies a watch-maker and implying that anyone that disagrees with you is suffereing bias, mental blocks or otherwise incapable of seeing what you see.
You best back up off of me, son. You call me arrogant for your folly? I don't think so.
Let me spell it out for you:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that contradicts it and makes that belief quite absurd. Is it arrogant to not place faith in the absurd?
It is according to you.
When I said "not so much" I meant it in the same way as I would if someone asked me "Is your cat smart? Smarter than Einstein?" and I'd reply "Sure, and not so much".
Now here you have me confused. You use the word "purpose" and then say you hesitate to use it.I suppose I am suggesting the possibility (not saying with any confidence mind you) that life was more or less part of a broader purpose.
I hesitate to use the word purpose because it may lump me in with the "intelligent design" crowd. I am merely suggesting a very opaque, unknown, cause of the universe. (Not anything approaching a God)
The thrust of my argument is that this is such a profound question, we should remain humble and aware that our present scientific knowledge may not be yet advanced enough to make any conclusions.
So what do you mean?
Even IF the rise of life was inevitable, and even IF the universe is discovered to be teaming with it, that still doesn't necessarily mean there's a purpose to life.
Your appalling ignorance about chemistry and emergence does not magically validate this claim.
You're vastly outnumbered by educated people, kid. Get over it.
much like the word "GOD"
now the phrase "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"
also has unasailable individual precognitions, fantasies, and fairy tales
trash the silly words and phrases and get to the meat of the matter
smash the bones and suck out the life giving marrow
recognize that your preconcepts are blinders
hellmanidon't mean to lecture but every once in awhile it seems the only apropos response
add in a coupla whiskeys and I'm lucky to find the right keys
I have degrees in chemistry and biology.Your appalling ignorance about chemistry and emergence does not magically validate this claim.
You're vastly outnumbered by educated people, kid. Get over it.
I started out this argument stating I was an atheist acting as a devil's advocate because I am 50% in agreement with your position.
You guys need to seriously chill out.
This demonstrates exatly why "Appeal to Authority" is a fallacy.
Your indecisiveness is not anyone elses issue. You were promoting that the watch implies a watchmaker.
Period.
Backpeddling and declaring that everyone else is hyper-reactive is nonsense. If you don't like having your Bad Science debunked- don't promote it.
much like the word "GOD"
now the phrase INTELLIGENT DESIGN
also has unasailable individual precognitions
trash the silly words and phrases and get to the meat of the matter
smash the bones and suck out the life giving marrow
...............................
it's 9 pm (2100 hrs) here duck
when do you sleep?
You guys make me want to side with the intelligent design people.
Post script: which I will not do
curious
what, exactly, does that phrase (intelligent design) mean to you?
According to your posts, you seem to have already done so. You claim to hold degrees in Biology and Chemistry, yet you didn't know what Emergence is? Yet, you claim that emergence is an extraordinary claim compared to I.D.? You claimed the watch implies a maker?
You hesitated to say that life has a purpose, but that hesitation did not stop you. Then, you called others arrogant for saying that seems less likely than the simpler properties of emergence.
Yeah, we're done here.
You already have. Denial doesn't stop that from being true.
It's only 3:13 AM here.
Sleep is over-rated: your brain stops working rationally when you sleep.
sleep is needed for sanity
really'really'really
pleasant dreams dadio
...................................
i had a friend in the army who didn't like to sleep, saying it was much like death--------but when i told everyone to take a break, he would almost instantly nod off---lost track of him somewhere in the central highlands and never heard from him again---------------RIP dan munter(?)
I'd wake up in the middle of the night and see him sitting in his rack smoking marlboro 100s. Helped me sleep knowing that he didn't.
I claimed I accepted emergence.According to your posts, you seem to have already done so. You claim to hold degrees in Biology and Chemistry, yet you didn't know what Emergence is? Yet, you claim that emergence is an extraordinary claim compared to I.D.? You claimed the watch implies a maker?
You hesitated to say that life has a purpose, but that hesitation did not stop you. Then, you called others arrogant for saying that seems less likely than the simpler properties of emergence.
Yeah, we're done here.
I claimed I am undecided regarding life being completely 100% chance. (For the love of god, I give it just as much weight as not being by chance for crying out loud).
I do have said degrees (B.A. chemistry and B.S. biology from University of South Florida). The great thing that science taught me was that everything has a degree of uncertainty and that a humble attitude is usually wise.
Regarding my claim that you are arrogant... I realized immediately after posting that it was too antagonizing and farther than I would have wished given more thought. Thus, I edited it to say it was "a bit" arrogant.
Markashley,
Consider this. Is it possible that you, a human being, have committed murder? I am not asking you if you have but is it possible? I mean, humans have been known to do that from time to time and you are human.
Is it possible, that you have a huge hairy wart on your head. Be sure to consider this from the perspective of those who are not you. Those of us on this forum. We cannot see you. We cannot measure you. We can ask you questions, but you can lie in your answers or refuse to respond. We have very limited resources for testing any of your responses. And we cannot go into the past and watch your every move. So would you not agree that the possibility that you have at least once committed murder and have a hairy wart on your forehead, is an actual possibility?
The same could be true for me, or anyone else on this forum. But does that possibility justify the belief that it is true? Does that possibility justify starting a grand investigation to find evidence to support the possibility and increase the probability of it?
How would you feel, if the police showed up at your door and took you in for questioning and you were held on suspicion of murder for months while the police looked for evidence of a murder that you committed? Without even a body to suggest that a murder even occurred? They only have a dead body that shows no signs of foul play. And appears to have died of natural causes (old age). There is no evidence that the deceased ever even crossed paths with you in their life, but because someone suggested to the police that it is possible that you did it, they lock you up and doggedly hunt for a way to credit you with the murder, as well as a hairy wart on your head.
This is what you are doing when you imagine any scenario you can to support the possibility of something that is merely possible but highly unlikely. Scientists do not say there is absolutely without a doubt, NO GOD. They say there absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the existence of a god, or intelligent designer, or a BB preference towards life, whatever you want to call it in order to pretend you are not a believer of ID.
Aren't you glad our criminal justice system doesn't do science the way you do?
Dear lord, I have stated multiple times that I am little more than 50% in agreement with such a notion.You already have. Denial doesn't stop that from being true.
Bold Mine:
"Ok, I see your point and your argument, so I accept it, but I'll go ahead and keep telling you how arrogantly wrong you are anyway."
Right. Got it. My mistake.
I'd say it appears 70/30... Claiming that emergence is extraordinary when it's just basic chemistry... Claiming that our existence implies a design... Claiming that our origins go all the way back to the Big Bang Event... You went far above and beyond.
Now, I do not disbelieve you when you say you're undecided. I do disbelieve you when you say it's 50/50.
You have a degree of uncertainty. Got it.
Thank you. It made a huge difference.
Very well then, let it not offend you if I am little more than 50% in agreement with the notion that you have committed murder in your lifetime and have a huge hairy wart on your head.Dear lord, I have stated multiple times that I am little more than 50% in agreement with such a notion.You already have. Denial doesn't stop that from being true.
I am virtually positive there is no god or god-like being.
I understand your argument, but I am suggesting (indeed, not even stating it is true) that there is an answer between the two extremes (an all-seeing god...and complete randomness).
I am a little more than 50% sure that I am a walrus. Or is that a human? Something like that. Either way, I'm pretty sure that I'm not uncertainly certain about it. I'm decidedly positioned right in the middle.
All I can say is, my gut says it's a definite maybe.
After-all, you cannot prove that I am not a walrus.
You keep using this word, "random." I do not think it means what you think it means.
I am a strong enough person to not hide and say I am 50% sure when I am really 70%. I think you guys need to go to a christian forum and argue with people who really believe in intelligent design and not someone who is merely suggesting we don't yet, in this century, have all the answers.
As well as claiming that emergence is extraordinary, that it's simpler to think that life was designed in some fashion than that life developed through basic chemistry... As well as claiming the "Random Factor." As well as claiming the watch implies a watchmaker argument.
Silly me. When you said all of that stuff, I had no idea that you were merely suggesting that a lack of future discoveries that might maybe change our minds about the current evidence makes any of that other stuff you said make sense.
why should we go there, when they come here and tell us science, which is backed up be evidence rather than just feel good fairy tales, is wrong. And how is it that you keep ignoring that none of us have said we have all the answers? We have only said there is no evidence for ID. which is still creation, it is not somewhere in between. Either we were created or we weren't. And at this time there is no evidence suggesting that we were created by anything intelligent at the very least. Trial and error suggests, random guesses at best. I have not come across any reputable scientist that claims to have any idea what happened before the BB or what caused it. Only believers have the nerve to even suggest any possibilities. There is no humanly way of knowing and we have been stating that all this time. Why you pretend that we are stating anything other than that is a mystery to me.
Just for the Record... The Lambda CDM model has Nothing To Do with the origin and evolution of life on Earth. (Yes, there is a connection considering that life developed in the Universe that was spawned from the BBE- but it is simply irrelevant for this discussion.)
Your question does not make sense. If you are asking me if I think that it's entirely plausible that life originated without intelligent interference, I would say "yes."
If you ask which I believe is likelier, I would say that it is more likely that the origin was not intelligently implemented.
I do not know.
Unless evidence comes forward to convince me that intelligence brought forth life on Earth, I have no reason to consider it at this time.
Broad claim. We do not know the future. I also do not care how they look at us- it has no bearing on your I.D. beliefs.
All the way back to the Big Bang, eh? There were some properties that made a slight preference of matter over anti-matter, too. Now, the Universe is primarily matter.
Your argument should have the Universe absolutely teeming with life.
Maybe it is. But until I see evidence of it, I won't claim it is.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You may maintain your faith in an intelligent designer, waiting for that designer to be discovered, if you choose.
But citing the Big Bang? That was almost 8,000,000,000 years before the Earth even Existed.
Here's the quick answer; hold your hand in the fire. You will quickly realize that life is important and so is your hands. About 25 generations ago people were afraid to sail on the oceans because they would fall off of the edge of the world. They were limited by the world wide concept that the earth was flat. There is a similar limiting concept in the world today; that there does not exist a mental or spiritual universe only a physical universe. The concepts of love, courage, ethics were devised by the cells to pretend that someone "existed" within the being. Of course within each cell something had to pretend that the cells had entities that could develop concepts like love and such. If you go down the structure of the cell and its parts this theory becomes impossibly complicated. Just like the origination of life the Theory of Evolution falls apart with the complication.
And then take the other side of the argument. Why do you care? If you are just a chemical reaction with no reality within, you don't exist. You have never existed. Might as well keep your hand in the fire. But you know that you are a being. You do have reality within. If you really want to know read my book, pdf for free "Little Book Open - Securing a Narrow Clear Passage to the Future" use Google to search.
Huh?
Wrong. We've known the Earth was "spherical" for >2,000 years.About 25 generations ago people were afraid to sail on the oceans because they would fall off of the edge of the world. They were limited by the world wide concept that the earth was flat.
Really?There is a similar limiting concept in the world today; that there does not exist a mental or spiritual universe only a physical universe.
What do you mean by "mental universe"?
What evidence do you have for a "spiritual universe"?
Wild speculation.The concepts of love, courage, ethics were devised by the cells to pretend that someone "existed" within the being. Of course within each cell something had to pretend that the cells had entities that could develop concepts like love and such.
Nonsense.the Theory of Evolution falls apart with the complication.
Complete rubbish.If you are just a chemical reaction with no reality within, you don't exist. You have never existed.
I think you've become somewhat confused here. Reading your book isn't going to help anyone know anything.If you really want to know read my book, pdf for free "Little Book Open - Securing a Narrow Clear Passage to the Future" use Google to search.
Except, perhaps, that reading certain books is a waste of time.
Dywyddyr: don't read it. My answer is for RAJ_K who asked a real question that many people are wondering about. If you think life is meaningless then you give up on life. You become a critical spirit that pokes holes in everything and everyone's ideas.
You appear to have misunderstood my comment.
I especially poke holes in nonsensical, specious, unprovable, unsupported wild ideas and misinformation. Such as presented in your book.My answer is for RAJ_K who asked a real question that many people are wondering about. If you think life is meaningless then you give up on life. You become a critical spirit that pokes holes in everything and everyone's ideas.
But my life isn't meaningless.
Plus, like I said, whatever you think is in that book, there certainly isn't the answer to the question posed.
I also note that you've failed to answer my questions.
I also have some these type of feelings.
Overall Life is just a "characteristic of matter to develop conciseness and thinking power if it get certain physical conditions"
It is a characteristic of dead matter
If matter gets certain physical conditions , it has ability to create life in itself.
We can not give other hypothesis as it is true as per present knowledge.
We can not give the name of God or intellectual object as it would be just an illogical imagination
Yes it is just my personal view that life is very strange,surprising and creates many doubt
personally for me as it is difficult to believable how awareness is possible in space
He isn't poking holes, he is just pointing out the ones that are there. Would you prefer he allow leaky ships to go out to sea, or would you prefer to know there are leaks so you can fix them?
| « Using Occam's razor to shave Schrödinger's cat while poking fun at creationism? | Identity and linguistic acrobatics » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
63Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
