Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: My Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything

  1. #1 My Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    This is an essay I wrote not too long ago about what I believe to be the core of Human behaviour, and other important stuff. Still, because I believe all sciences are inevitably linked, and filosophy is the ultimate sicence, I decided to post it here. I await your replies and hope for a fiery discussion .

    //The Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything

    What is a human body? Allow me to answer that. It is a gigantic hub of individual cells, acting together in order to survive. They have been brought together under the force of self-preservation.
    The very cells, however, are also consistent in this purpose. In the beginning, cells were not as complex as we see them today. Through the merger of cells, they have gotten more complex functions, which allowed them to adapt into the various lifeforms that walk, fly and swim on this earth.

    That is what we hold in common with the animals. We are all composed out of cells. And, along with many other animals, our cells have specialised. They have lost their independence in order to preserve a larger being.
    You see, when we are talking about self-preservation, we humans are bad. In a loop of seven years we refresh all cells, which means that after about seven years you are a completely new being.
    But are we that bad? A single cell out there would die just as easily, and would probably not live 7 years. Because we are so impressive in our development of society, we have offered out cells the opportunity to live a nice and happy live, where they can enjoy the comfort of the various molecules found in caviar and champaign.
    Thus, our bodies are succesful in their task. Each and every thing we do is in preservation of all of those cells. Rather amusing if you consider that you can't make out an individual cell when you look at your hand, but perhaps this is only for the best. This way, we do not loose sight of the whole, and do not become fixated on the one.

    In essence, our body, as a working part is the perfect example of a utopian government. It is born out of neccesity. Without a body, the cells would not live as healthy and long as they would with it, but yet they have no individuality. No cell will ever rise up on your hand and demand to be a cell in your eyesocket because he is tired of masturbating. Nay, they are all happy with what they do and with the resources they gain in return to survive. The cell needs the government and the government needs all of the cells to operate.

    The brain is believed by many to be where the body is 'controlled'. It it of course the central nervous system, which includes the spine and the brain that that controls the entire body. The spinal cord can not function without the brain, and the brain can not function without the spinal cord. Or at least, not properly. We can still function without a leg, but our survival rating (would we still be living in cruel nature) would rapidly decrease.
    If the brain (meaning the whole CNS) is indeed the government that beholding it is wonderful. First of all, there is no government with that many members. So, one would expect it to be a mess. Instead however, the brain functions enormously well. You see, in the brain, there is no one minister, or no one prime minister. A whole lot of cells deal with a few functions at a time, and because of this, a group is responsible, not just one cell.
    This also means that if one cell should get a nasty idea, that it is easy to replace him. Just send the guys in white (read white bloodcells) and they will remove it, hopefully.

    The body viewed as a whole, however, is a totally different aspect. Suddenly, we are part of a society, and our views are completely changed. Instead of feeding to survive, we are tought that we need to work to survive, because without work, no money, and thus no food.
    Now, I may be wrong, but cells do not use money. This has a clear and simple reason. Cells act from the basic understanding that all are equal. Even if a cell has survived three cancer growths, various viral attacks and a super-sized big Mac, that cell is just as important or insignificant as the next.

    If one views communism as an ideal state, one will see an immediate difference. Here, there is a sense of equality, but it does not work. Why does it not work? There is a single person, a single cell calling the shots. Only if the government itself is acting commune, if there is no way for individual gain, than and only than can and will a utopia be created. If you see the body as a utopia. Remember however that each cell is taken care of, that each and every child cell will grow up with a purpose in it's life and that no single cell can get dependant on drugs.

    Nevertheless, we have come quite close to the governmental system in our bodies. Why? Why have we, while we have only begun to understand the various functions of bodyparts in the last 300 years, have created a government similar to it before those inventions. Was it not Plato in his republic who shed light on a 'Utopia', which basically had the same principal as I presented above, a commune government, no individualism?

    In essence, as we see it from plato as well, there is nothing wrong with heirarchy. There is no fundamental wrong behind individuality. The problem lies in responsibility. The problem lies in the corruption of power.

    This is a much touched subject and has changed into a popular one-liner, but what does it mean? Well, it's meaning is simple and well understandable. People with power tend to use this power to increase their own state of being. They use their power for personal gain. The cause of this personal gain? Indeed, individualism.

    As said before, our body is much like the society we live in. We are part of it as a fairly insignificant being, acting in benefit of that society with the intent of surviving, with the idea in our back mind that we could no longer survive without the whole.

    Before specialising, there is a stem cell. Basically, this cell is capable of becoming whatever the body wants it to become. Perhaps you feel that this is not the case in society, but are we not too forced into finding a job. You are forced to go to school with the ideal of the Freedom of Education. In many ways, school is the specialisation of a stem cell. Before this specialisation, the stem cell is capable of acting on it's own. If put alone (with food and stuff), it will develop into a new entity. The cell from an eyesocket can no longer do this.
    So, before a cell is forced into life as a 'cell', he still holds the capability of starting his own society, of surviving on his own. Basically that stem cell still has the capability to adapting to a life without a society.

    Imagine that you have been working as a desk clerk for 20 years. Do you believe you could be ripped from society and be put in some alien place, and supply yourself with food and shelter, and eventually begin a society of your own? No. You have become so dependant of the society you lived in that it is (almost) impossible to adapt your life to other circumstances of life. I agree that it much depends on what kind of society you live in, but without a doubt, you will have to change your life, and you function within that society to change.
    Basically, you will have to revert to a state of stem-cell, and relearn your life in order to survive.

    Now for an unexpected jump in the way of thinking. Back to the beginning. How do we differ from animals. Some people will mention a soul. If I may use the most basic mention of soul, it basically means there is something non-material, that influences our body, and controls our body.

    Intermission: A man once dreamt that he was a butterfly, when he woke up he wondered whether he was a butterfly dreaming it was a man.
    How can the man know he is a man, not a butterfly. How can the man know the world around him is real, and not a matrix?

    I am sitting in a chair. Can I prove the chair is real, can I prove that it is no part of a matrix, or that I am dreaming that I am in a chair? No. I can not prove it to be real.
    Can I prove than, that I am real? Can I prove that my own body is real? No. I could be a butterfly dreaming to be a man, or this could just be my residual self image, for you matrix freaks.

    What I know for certain? I am thinking, and thus something is thinking, something is. Thus, we have proven that something exists, and that this something is thinking for us. Normally, I would put this in caps, but I'll save you that, yet this is crucially important. Thus, Descartes believes, this entity that thinks is outside of this material world.
    However, this is untrue, there is no real reason why the entity that thinks could not exist in this world, even if we can not prove the existence of that body. Although there is a possibility that our entity exist in some non-material plane, there is no evidence to support it.

    Thus, what we do know is that we can not prove the existence of ourselves, but that if we are ever to do anything we will have to take it for granted. In any case, saying that our conscience resides somewhere on a material plane remains unproven, factual, and logical. This disproves christianity, judaism, the islam, buddhism, and hinduism. Why does it disprove it? To me, if there is no proof to support it, and it can not be deducted from what we are certain or what we consider to be logically acceptable, it simply does not exist.

    Previously I discussed how our society is much like a human body. If conscience is not something magical, not something extraplanar, it has to reside in the body, and thus in the CNS. Thus, it is controlled by individual cells.

    All well, considered, if we follow this logic, our entire society is, in essence, self-conscience. Before you click the quick reply button for a nasty flame, hold up. Imagine a society of about a 100 beautiful specimen of the opposite sex. Imagine that you are of a higher hierarchy and that you are in charge of this society. In this society, you are aware of the society, and you are part of this society. Thus, as part of this society, and as aware of this society, this society has become self-aware.

    What does this mean? Well, this forms the fundament of a society. It forms a new universal moral: responsibility. You, as a leader of these 100 others, and part of this group of 101, are responsible for the survival of the whole group.

    What does this mean? Are we part of this planet? Before saying no, remember that (according to popular believe) we have originated here, and that each and every resource in our body comes from this planet. I presume you said yes. Are we aware of the existence of planet earth? Yes we are. With this knowledge, we gain responsibility of this earth, and with this earth, essentially the whole universe. We are all, as sentient beings, responsible for this earth and for the universe.

    If we are looking for a meaning of life, let it be that. Let us live our lives with responsibility towards fellow members of society. This is the ultimate, universal moral derived from science itself.

    Now for another subject I have left relatively untouched. I said earlier that there is no soul, I made an attempt to prove that by disproving the logic Descartes used when he thought he was thinking of the theory on which most of the 'ghost/soul' ideas are based on. This does raise an interesting question, however. How do we differ from 'mere' animals?

    Housing? Are we able to build houses and protect ourselves? Ants build advanced buildings. Beavers build them. And trust me, our housing is also quite unprotected if build in the territory of a grizzly bear.

    Tools? Are we able to use tools to help ourselves in day to day task. Well, this requires a bit of logical thinking and a bit of knowledge from ancient languages. Before there were Homo Sapiens Sapiens (as we like to call ourselves), there were Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. Now, Homo Habilis is able to use tools and craft weapons and such out of them. If it were craftmanship that got us to the top in the foodchain, the Homo Habilis could and would have been the dominant species.

    Without a doubt, however, our brain is more advanced than that of the Homo Habilis. But what does this brain capacity give us? Does it allow us to build better homes or better tools? No. It allows us to communicate in an extremely powerful way: Speech. You see, an ant queen can not tell her servants that they should get blue flowers instead of yellow flowers because they are more comfortable.
    We however, can. We can tell other people how we think things are done best. Along with an impressive memory that has made us what we are. From generation through generation, the way we build houses has improved and the way we craft has been improved, simply because we could relay that information to the next.

    What is the implication? Well, first of all, we are animals, just like dogs, just like ants and just like beavers. We are however, smarter, better adapted creatures.

    I bet you agreed to that, without even noticing the trap I laid. We are animals. We are aware of it, and we are animals. We have an obligation towards the entire group to ensure their survival for we are very much part of it, and we are the only group with the ability to see the answers to the questions they can not ask. We have to ensure that they survive. Laissez-faire can not and may not be put to use in a matter so vital to the survival of the 'animal kingdom'.

    Now, I'm not saying we should revert to a state of hunters and gatherers. Hell no. What I am saying is that we should get a realistic view on nature today, and what we can do about it. Now, not environmentalist on this whole world does this. No putrifying company on this world does this. Nay, instead they tell you to deposit 5 dollars each month and they will take care of it.
    Are they taking away our responsibility? NO! They are taking away our feeling of responsibility.

    Does this help us. Sure, because if our children ask us, "Mom, are we going to die because of the oson layer?", we can say, "No, honey, because mommy gives 5 dollars a month to some people who buy forests in south-america."

    Now, the child will probably stop asking at this point, since he believes he doesn't understand it, we are in fact ignorant to the facts. It is our responsibility to find out what is going on in the world, and I'm not saying you should travel to south-America with a camera to see what is going on, but try going to the site from WWF, and try finding what they actually do, or try emailing the main director and ask what his salary is.

    No. Instead of doing the minimal to ease our hearts and that we can tell our children in honesty what we are doing with our responsibility we rather shove it to someone else so they can see what to do with it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    2112
    Guest
    I think what you're talking about is the specialization of cells. There can exist specialization in evolutionary and biology terms too. There are species that are overspecialized to be and to do one thing. Within the context of humans and government, we have our specializations, but they are not as instinctual as intellectual. As a whole species, I don't know what our purpose or specialization is. Is it to destroy the planet? I don't know.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Actually the universe could be the product of one thought from one being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Eon
    Eon is offline
    Forum Freshman Eon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19
    That depends on how you look at it (In), by saying that you are saying there is a God or higher being which is the source of the Universe, I for one am athiest and find the idea that something so vast as the Universe could be from the mind of one being incredulous, even if it is from a mind so complex as a deity's.

    It was actually as I was walking to school that my mind grasped this idea HU, after rereading this document printed out for a third time which allowed me to take it in a little more. I took what you were saying as the cells of the body being similar to us as humans, creating the body or earth depending on which analogy you're using at the time. Yes the body is a remarkable thing, it works incredibly well considering it is just a composition of many smaller particles that on their own are basically useless. However I don't think society could ever be a utopian society as our body's seem to be, cells don't have the complex thoughts we do, and as such society has too many factors (all 7 odd billion of them) that make the idea so impossible, like you said "the corruption of power".

    Yes, let us have responsibility of everyone else in society, the world and even the universe, but some people won't want that idea and they will be the ones that destabalise the whole idea.

    As a whole though, very well thought out piece mate, I can see why you're proud of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore DEChengst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NLA0:
    Posts
    121
    You're wrong. The anwser is 42. Any true geek could have told you that.
    PDP, VAX and Alpha fanatic ; HP-Compaq is the Satan! ; Let us pray daily while facing Maynard! ; Life starts at 150 km/h ;
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Eon
    That depends on how you look at it (In), by saying that you are saying there is a God or higher being which is the source of the Universe, I for one am athiest and find the idea that something so vast as the Universe could be from the mind of one being incredulous, even if it is from a mind so complex as a deity's.

    It was actually as I was walking to school that my mind grasped this idea HU, after rereading this document printed out for a third time which allowed me to take it in a little more. I took what you were saying as the cells of the body being similar to us as humans, creating the body or earth depending on which analogy you're using at the time. Yes the body is a remarkable thing, it works incredibly well considering it is just a composition of many smaller particles that on their own are basically useless. However I don't think society could ever be a utopian society as our body's seem to be, cells don't have the complex thoughts we do, and as such society has too many factors (all 7 odd billion of them) that make the idea so impossible, like you said "the corruption of power".

    Yes, let us have responsibility of everyone else in society, the world and even the universe, but some people won't want that idea and they will be the ones that destabalise the whole idea.

    As a whole though, very well thought out piece mate, I can see why you're proud of it.
    I would not think of God as a single individual, I myself find that concept hard to grasp. Take this into consideration, if we were to write a computer program that simulated how matter and energy work (even the parts we don't yet understand) and let that run forever..what would happen? This assumes we have the space to store all the data. It also assumes the universe would be "rendered" frame by frame.

    The first argument would be, well how could a computer render the universe in real time? I would have to then ask, what is time? If the computer took 20 billion years to render one single second of our existence, we would not have a clue. To us time would be moving along at that same fast rate it always has. We could be put on pause for billions of years, taken off pause later on, we would never have a clue. God (Gigabytes Of Data).

    My point is that we base everything on what we can see, hear, smell, touch, etc. We look out at the universe and go WOW, it's massive. Is it really ? How do we really know this for a fact? We do our tests and measurements that tell us it is, is that enough really? How do we know beyond a doubt what we see and measure is really what it appears? For that matter how do we know anything is real?

    In the end it may end up that each individual is in fact their own god, that your mind created this response to satisfy your desire to conceive the universe in some way you desire. The good times, the bad times, life in it's entirety may be a creation of your own self. Not a new concept.

    Reality may actually be created around you as you move, your friends, family, the universe only existing to the extent needed to keep the illusion real. The stars being nothing more then a painting until you send a space ship toward one of them, the universe around that ship being created as needed. You assume the universe still exists when you go to sleep at night, perhaps it doesn't . Asking your friends won't help you, setting up a camera won't help you, science would not help you. It could all vanish the second you fall asleep, and reappear when needed. Nobody could prove or disprove this. I may not exist

    We assume that because we talk to others and confirm our findings with others that it has to be true, it's funny people can have multiple personailities, why not God? Perhaps we are just talking to ourself.

    I don't really go for the singular god either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    You combing multiple philosophical ideals here, which I find rather interesting. The 'mpd'-thang is basically hinduism, with their maya. Basically, God is formed by all of us, and we are reincarnated. Very interesting religion, worth the read.

    I find the theory on 'matter being created around you' interesting. Discordian, almost. What sound does a star make when no one is listening? I remember lying in my bed one day looking at the door and wondering what was behind it. Wondering whether there was really a room behind it, or whether it would suddenly appear when I opened the door.

    An interesting line of though, of which one, without a doubt, could create an excellent horror movie .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I find the theory on 'matter being created around you' interesting. Discordian, almost. What sound does a star make when no one is listening? I remember lying in my bed one day looking at the door and wondering what was behind it. Wondering whether there was really a room behind it, or whether it would suddenly appear when I opened the door.
    Yes, this is an interesting one in that we really can't find the truth. No matter how much we study or debate the concept the possibility of the illusion just being that good will always exist. Somehow the idea of it being true is more comforting to me then everything always existing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 My Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8
    To say that every individual's PERCEPTION is fraught with illusion is in itself logical. But the illusion, or lack of it neither constitutes not denies some basis for an overall reality.

    My Grandfather had his own perceptions, but his death did not end MY existence as some perception in HIS mind. Whe I die, my children and grandchildren will surely go on as I have before them. My perception of them does NOT constitute who they are or even their very existence. Merely, well, my PERCEPTION of them in MY own mind. But they persist regardless of MY perception OF them.

    If the Universe exists as the Perception of a greater mind, it still cannot explain how the Universe could exist without this mind in the first place. Nor the vice-versa.

    And the existence of this "greater mind" is still a moot argument within the confines of OUR perception.

    We still have a long way to go before WE can even adequately contemplate the processes of wheter this "greater mind" is even PROVABLE or not.

    Evolution is nothing more than an experiment in adaptive ability. We may yet prove to be a FAILED experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    if our brains were simplified so we could dunderstrand them ... we wouldn't under stand it... so wew would have to simplifiy it furhter...but we would keep running into the same problem!

    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •