What gives your life meaning?

Started by dtq123, March 11, 2015, 09:40:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Qchan

Quote from: Aletheia on March 17, 2015, 07:41:13 PM
Regardless how disagreeable a concept might be to our vanities, the facts still remain. Empirical evidence infers that we are more like biochemical robots in which autonomy could be real or just an illusion, when taking into account the effects of genetics, epigenetics, and environment. We care about people and things because we evolved these emotions and strategies that benefited our species. Our self-interest is very important, since truly self-less people neglect themselves and produce few if any viable offspring. Because of this self-interest coupled with emotions, we prefer to see ourselves as being important in some meaningful way. We search for a meaning or purpose to our life. Not much fun caring about yourself if you ultimately do not matter. However, the more we learn about the universe, as well as our evolution, anatomy, and physiology... it is becoming increasingly clear that we do not have the lofty purpose we feel we should.

People can commit suicide over this realization because they feel cheated of their "ultimate meaning" and feel their life was a wasted investment. Others are able to accept the facts as they become available and remain content having existed at all with a rational side to understand things around them and an emotional side to enjoy curiosity and learning new things. As we become more knowledgeable of our existence and increase in intellect, it seems nature is ever present in culling those who cannot handle such harsh realities from those who can.

This was the most articulated reply I've received from here. Thank you for this response, because it puts everything in perspective... However... How could a biochemical robot look for meaning in itself? After all, humans only perform actions based on the signals processed in their head, and therefore, do not have the freedom to choose in a sense that any one of us have control over the life we live. Logically, it wouldn't make any sense from that angle. Yet, people feel as though they control their lives and that they control who they are. This isn't how a biochemical robot operates - and yet this is how everyone classifies themselves.

Icarus

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 08:54:25 AM
This was the most articulated reply I've received from here. Thank you for this response, because it puts everything in perspective... However... How could a biochemical robot look for meaning in itself? After all, humans only perform actions based on the signals processed in their head, and therefore, do not have the freedom to choose in a sense that any one of us have control over the life we live. Logically, it wouldn't make any sense from that angle. Yet, people feel as though they control their lives and that they control who they are. This isn't how a biochemical robot operates - and yet this is how everyone classifies themselves.


Are humans only capable of responding to stimuli? Are we incapable of planning and dealing with complex situations? Do we operate 'logically'?

missingnocchi

Life is meaningless. Eat dessert first.
What's a "Leppo?"

Qchan

Quote from: Icarus on March 18, 2015, 09:22:03 AM
Are humans only capable of responding to stimuli? Are we incapable of planning and dealing with complex situations? Do we operate 'logically'?

Do we operate logically? No, we do not. Animals such as lions, birds and etc. operate logically. They do not do things that we do not expect of them to do. However, humans do all the time.

A gazelle will abandon its young at the first sign of danger. This is a logical action since the death of the young doesn't hinder the gazelle in producing more offspring. Also, the young would make it much easier for the adult gazelle to run to safety. However, humans do not abide by this rule. Many humans will risk their lives for their children. Some might say, "Oh, there are animals that would fight to protect their young". This is only true up to the point where the animal feels its approaching a losing battle. No animal has ever been recorded to ever purposefully sacrifice itself for its young.

Icarus

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 10:05:27 AM
Do we operate logically? No, we do not. Animals such as lions, birds and etc. operate logically. They do not do things that we do not expect of them to do. However, humans do all the time.

A gazelle will abandon its young at the first sign of danger. This is a logical action since the death of the young doesn't hinder the gazelle in producing more offspring. Also, the young would make it much easier for the adult gazelle to run to safety. However, humans do not abide by this rule. Many humans will risk their lives for their children. Some might say, "Oh, there are animals that would fight to protect their young". This is only true up to the point where the animal feels its approaching a losing battle. No animal has ever been recorded to ever purposefully sacrifice itself for its young.

Don't they? I'm guessing you didn't see unusual animal friendships by national geographic. I'm also guessing you missed national geographic's article on animals who mate themselves to death (sacrificing themselves to make more young). You have a lot of reading to catch up on.

Qchan

Quote from: Icarus on March 18, 2015, 10:10:21 AM
Don't they? I'm guessing you didn't see unusual animal friendships by national geographic. I'm also guessing you missed national geographic's article on animals who mate themselves to death (sacrificing themselves to make more young). You have a lot of reading to catch up on.

I like how you make these wild assertions but provide no proof. I'll tell you what. I'll provide you proof:

Quote
The evolutionary theories described above, in particular kin selection, go a long way towards reconciling the existence of altruism in nature with Darwinian principles. However, some people have felt these theories in a way devalue altruism, and that the behaviours they explain are not ‘really’ altruistic. The grounds for this view are easy to see. Ordinarily we think of altruistic actions as disinterested, done with the interests of the recipient, rather than our own interests, in mind. But kin selection theory explains altruistic behaviour as a clever strategy devised by selfish genes as a way of increasing their representation in the gene-pool, at the expense of other genes. Surely this means that the behaviours in question are only ‘apparently’ altruistic, for they are ultimately the result of genic self-interest? Reciprocal altruism theory also seems to ‘take the altruism out of altruism’. Behaving nicely to someone in order to procure return benefits from them in the future seems in a way the antithesis of ‘real’ altruismâ€"it is just delayed self-interest.
Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Icarus

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 10:19:02 AM
I like how you make these wild assertions but provide no proof. I'll tell you what. I'll provide you proof:
Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/


Oh dear, that's from a secondary philosophy based source. It's about as far from proof as you can get when talking about scientific sources. Here's a primary scientific source supporting my claim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020937/

Don't try to read it all at once, you might hurt your brain.

Qchan

Quote from: Icarus on March 18, 2015, 10:26:26 AM
Oh dear, that's from a secondary philosophy based source. It's about as far from proof as you can get when talking about scientific sources. Here's a primary scientific source supporting my claim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020937/

Don't try to read it all at once, you might hurt your brain.

The link appears to be broken.

Solitary

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Icarus

Quote from: Qchan on March 18, 2015, 10:37:01 AM
The link appears to be broken.

It's not, you're a bad liar (copy+paste also works).

dtq123

Since you're all having fun with this, I found a "Scientific" idea.

The "purpose" of life is to create more of itself. Life creates DNA, DNA is uses to make more life. Blah Blah Blah. Just want to know what you think about it.
A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

Shiranu

Quote from: Qchan on March 17, 2015, 12:20:40 PM
What you're saying sounds nice. However, it's simply not logical to many people. Not everyone has a legacy to leave behind that would benefit the world. That's just the truth behind it all.

According to evolution, it was by luck that our kind are even here. Now, we have people trying to find the purpose for being when there's no logical purpose for humans. Everyone knows that if humans did not exist, the planet would probably be better off. Our air would be cleaner and the Earth would be more bountiful. We have nothing to offer this planet while other creatures do. Dare I say, other animals are far more useful to this planet than we are. So, tell me. What is the purpose of human existence? What do we contribute to this planet that makes logical sense to you?

How many animals have created art like Da Vinci, Homer, Virgil, Van Gogh, Monet, Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? How many animals have composed songs like Mozart, Prokofiev, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorvak, Tchaikovsky?

How many animals have come up with such beautiful philosophies and life views as the Buddha? Been as instrumental to peace as Ghandi? Have helped the poor like Bill Gates?

You view use in one way, I view use in another; to me, beauty is the ultimate of life. Animals are beautiful in their natural ways, but man is able to turn the elements around him to make beauty that no other creature on Earth can. Therefor, there is much use in humanity for me.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur