This is the purpose of human life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
You are welcome to any purpose you can conceive - for yourself.

Our only purpose is machines to replicate genes. We - and all other life on earth - are gene survival machines.
We are constructed by genes that are good at making gene survival machines.

Any purpose other than that, we make for ourselves.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-08-2013, 03:52 AM
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
(01-08-2013 05:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-08-2013 04:40 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is the purpose of human life?
As for the purpose of life, do not assume that we already assumed this purpose.

The sentence is meaningless.
Obviously English is not your strong suit. What does "assumed this purpose" even mean ? That string of words is devoid of meaning, in the English language.
No, it's a wordplay. I couldn't resist.
Meaning, we shouldn't make an assumption, that the purpose of humanity is already a manifested reality for us there to see. We must count with the possibility, that we are in an awkward phase between leaving the mindless self-propagating purpose of nature and starting to function as mindful, purposeful beings with contraception and genetic engineering.

(01-08-2013 05:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This is an atheist site. Before you ask that, you have to demonstrate what a "soul" is. There is no such entity. What does that string of words/letters even mean ?
A wordplay and a private joke. Late night rush. I look at things from multiple perspectives and some of these consider the soul as a transcendental yet immanent "superconscious" presence, that provides talents like genius, inspiration and personal influence. Which would mean that the purpose of life is mainly to get in closer cooperation with one's own "soul".
I meditate a lot, I have encountered phenomena like that, so did other people I know, so it is always a possibility for me, that I have to take very seriously. Maybe this creativity and purpose thing really requires some groundwork of meditation and contemplation. It's not just a verbal hobby!

(01-08-2013 05:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Drivel. You have not demonstrated, (as I said before), that just because humans can imagine a geometric form, (which if actually existed as a physical object, I can PROVE to you, is never actually "perfect" secondary to Quantum Uncertainty). Every imagined form, is just that. A mental representation of an object, which in EVERY actual physical manifestation, is IMPERFECT, thus there is in the minds of Quantum scientists NO "perfect forms", only probabilities. All a range of possible positions. You may imagine a perfect form, but it's only because you are ignorant of Quantum Mechanics, which is a sum of probabilities. What YOU, (and YOU alone), image as your fictitious-beautiful world, is in fact a complete fantasy world. It does not exist, except as an idealized fiction. Thus your premise is INVALID.
Similarly, there is no "perfect state" of justice. Judicial systems attempt, the best they can, to return the universe to a state of "justice". They NEVER EVER succeed. It was not in one BEFORE a crime was committed, and certainly is never in one after. Thus, it is not even possible to *imagine* a perfect state of justice, without endowing humans with supernatural powers. It is impossible to accomplish. Can they bring a murdered persons back to life ? Do humans agree on what are appropriate punishments ? No. Never. So your two lame examples are destroyed, and utterly false. You built your "idealism" on fallacious assumptions. There is no "ideal" anything. Humans NEVER agree on what a "perfect" anything is, and it shifts and changes from culture to culture, and person to person. What is "being in touch with the perfect" to you, is 100% relative . Artists do not "steal" from Platonic (perfect) forms. You obviously NEVER went to an abstract art exhibit, where any "perfect" form is an anathema, and "perfection" is "ugly". You are seeking to IMPOSE your values: cultural, artistic, philosophical and most of all , WESTERN, onto everyone, and then the ULTIMATELY arrogant notion, saying YOUR values are THE values which give meaning to OTHER'S lives.
Chill down, dude. Looks like I'm not the only one here who's into zealotry. You're creating this big, ugly straw man from what is a very simple, general idea. What was my premise, exactly? Can you repeat it back to me?

Of course manifestation of all ideas is imperfect, I know that. But there are ideas that serve as building blocks of these manifestations. If you want for example to create a system of justice, a court, you have to know what you're doing. A court is not just a brick building, it is a certain philosophic framework, that the lawmakers have to put on paper (where imperfections arise) and which the judges are trying to follow. (more imperfections) But it is easier to copy the legal framework on paper, than to clone the judges and copy the court building brick by brick, when we need a new court.
The best of human creativity is done according to abstract ideas, equations, towards models, plans and finally physical manifestation. Philosophy should be the beginning. However, philosophic ideas are very general, very interconnected, very abstract and they seem to form a "world" of their own, such is the contemplative experience of some people. As I said, it's not just a verbal hobby.

As for the modern art, there is nothing wrong if the art reflects the idea, even if that idea is the contemporary cultural phase with all its chaos, ugliness and meaninglessness. This art will of course have only a fleeting value, when the culture changes.

(01-08-2013 05:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thank you for admitting, everyone seeks and discovers what "feels right". Where you got it wring, is assuming the only way to "write" is in YOUR alphabet.
The "alphabet" is simply a knowledge, any knowledge that we share. Creativity is not all new, it means taking old things and arranging them in a new way. But what is that new way?

Yeah, "feels right" is not a good way to put it, not for someone who desperately seeks to make me a deluded, drugged fanatic. But as I say, it's not just a verbal hobby. As creative people we have to rely on our intuition a lot and often the feeling of intuition points us to the right idea faster than we can realize that it is logical and correct in verbal English terms. Good luck getting these from an artist, for example. Of course, intuition is just another skill that has to be trained. Daniel Dennett just published the book Intuition Pumps and other tools for thinking, that might be useful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:01 AM
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
(01-08-2013 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are welcome to any purpose you can conceive - for yourself.

Our only purpose is machines to replicate genes. We - and all other life on earth - are gene survival machines.
We are constructed by genes that are good at making gene survival machines.

Any purpose other than that, we make for ourselves.
OK, care to elaborate how exactly do we do that?
Also, why some of the greatest purposes are made for us, in a way that makes us a part of a greater whole? Why do we seek transcendental purposes, that we do not make for ourselves? Serving our nation, family, or the whole humanity...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:30 AM
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
purpose is about per pose, so what for

the question is then about seeking evil, like if i pretend accepting life and all what do i get

the question is evil bc it assume that all is created for sure hundredpercent, so opposed to true existence

positive truth is the superiority constant sense when it is the only way for smthg move

and true existence is about positive objective constant reality still as a fact existing sure

which is a reason to wonder individually is it right or not good or bad is it positive from knowing it or on the contrary conscious about make the conscious smthg else without having to b then

true philosophy is about all the questions related to truth and not to life

evil is the pleasure in living without giving any while getting to b by using anything and anyone else existence

so by definition evil is a willing lie constant invention, then it is the pleasure of nothing which is the answer in the question, no purpose bc nothing

instead of accepting nothing and die for instance, some would prefer to invent being the nothing and live

while in truth it is still nothing

in positive truth, per poses are for individual needs of existence, when existence is true any purpose is to invent a parallel dimension of conscious existence that would b positive too, so objective facts would stay positive alone

unfortunately when existence is true then conscious is a fact too so staying wether for a time being living or always as nothing but awareness existence, conscious is an issue then to solve

bc u seek evil answers, u cant see in truth

in truth the answer to smthg positive like an outcome must b subjectively a negative thing

bc for any to b true it must b alone, only what is not positive would become positive if it is true, as finding the right way of issues in positive existence ends
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 05:15 AM
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
I think the word "function" has better defined boundaries than "purpose" Wink




Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
02-08-2013, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2013 06:23 AM by Luminon.)
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, interaction is existence. I mean that quite literally; if an object interacts with nothing, it affects nothing, and its 'existence' is indistinguishable from nothing.
I also disagree quite literally. "indistinguishable from" is not the same as "the same as". In philosophic, rational world there is a complete identity of ideas, in empirical world it would be just a problem of measuring instruments too weak to detect the difference.
Anyway, empirical science has about four very complex definitions of "nothing". I think Aron Ra mentioned that in his recent discussion with Kirk Cameron or someone like that. You could check if any of these nothings is a non-interaction. Might be, but I doubt so.

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I wouldn't identify as a positivist, but you could well accuse me of being one, insofar as the mind is 'merely' (as such a characterization is disingenuous) an emergent chaotic system subject to the same physical interaction as everything else.
Well then, you have to know that "emergent chaotic system" is just a mental label given to something we don't really understand. We can not create emergent systems at will without understanding them first.
My view is similar, yet very different in one aspect. The mind is subject to the same physical interaction as everything else, but it is also an open system. It does not have any "emergent properties" whatever they are, it might be open to other sources of stimuli than we know of. That is a very real possibility and happens in science all the time. If you can't isolate it, you can't analyze it, you can't link the effects to causes.
As I said, I don't believe the mind is just a verbal hobby, my experience points at a greater source of inspiration beyond the mind, that can be accessed through meditation. You actually have to do the work to get to that source.

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-08-2013 03:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, but it is a justified one. If you presume anything else, you will never learn anything. The trick is to use the presupposition NOT AS A GOAL, but as a METHOD, as a hypothesis to test. As I said, some choices lead to reality, some don't.
So, presuppose it exists because one cannot look for it if it doesn't. Shades of theism...

But no, "maybe there's nothing to find" doesn't mean stop looking; that's hardly what I meant, at least.
No, do not presuppose anything! Use it as a METHOD, as a hypothesis to test! That's is legitimate and that is the point of noetic proof.
Theists presuppose, they make a GOAL of their beliefs. Believing for believing is satisfying for them. Or living to live, does that remind you of anything? Wink
But scientists use their "beliefs" as hypotheses to test.

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The correct form of the word is 'synergistic', not 'synergic' as you use here. I'm not trying to be snarky by pointing that out, but if I recall correctly English is not your first language and if it were me I'd certainly like to be corrected.
Thanks. This browser shows me incorrect spelling, but doesn't tell me the correct spelling.

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah - so then, your view is that we can somehow be more or less integrated within other (?) 'systems'. I'm afraid you'll have to explore this further. How does one define and quantify synergy or integration, in order that there be either more or less? What constitutes a system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
Systems have some properties, such as circulation and homeostasis... Understanding systems is the key to understanding the world. However, most people do not understand the systems, they understand only the world of arbitrary interpersonal relationships, because this ability is by far the most useful to them. So they remain blind and helpless to all kinds of political or economic systems and isms, desperate for simple solutions, manipulable by social stimuli, starved for a change towards the better, yet scared of it, knowing that they know not how to judge the tree by its fruits.
The memes and isms are self-preserving mechanisms. They make people feel threatened by a true change. An illusion of change brings an illusion of safety and illusion of understanding. Illusion does not require you to learn anything new. Real change and real safety needs real understanding, which can only be achieved through true learning, actual study.
(therefore people who outright reject The Venus Project without reading the books and listening to the lectures are bullshitters of isms and meme-zombies)

As for synergy and integration, that can be quantified empirically. For example our world has a great disparity between the wealthy and the poor and that is demonstrably a very low degree of integration. The world also spends a lot of resources, but not for the benefit of most of humanity, much of the resources is spent to do harm with weapons, so this is against all notions of synergy. The meaning of synergy lies in the game theory, where cooperation of all yields the greatest overall net benefit. Should any one competitor win exclusively, the overall net benefit will be much lower. So we should always aim for the greatest overall net benefit for all humanity. Keep our eyes on the prize and the prize is humanity.

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Our ancestors were no more parasitic (!) than, y'know, any other form of life that has ever existed (and actually, rather less than some...). They were not symbiotic in the conventional biological sense either.
Yeah. This is nature and nature is driven more by competition than cooperation. We are seemingly free to do whatever we want, but we get eaten and killed all the time. Our capabilities are limited at every step. What sort of meaning is that? This is why we need this philosophy, we need to discover a real meaning of human life in a completely new relationship to nature, a relationship for the new conditions of not being killed by tigers or lions or black plague all the time.

I have yet much to say on that topic, more than the simple, meaningless statements like "meaning is what you make of it" and "you make your own meaning". I'd say that is bullshit. A tautology. If you told that to your boss at work, you'd get fired for incompetence. So that's my problem with the rational, scientifically-minded people. They are incompetent in finding the meaning of life, so they deny it, instead of admitting their incompetence. They focus on the means, the instruments of science, not the ends, the goals, the humanity. Nothing bad about it, only they should know that they go at it the wrong way. They need to understand the duality of means and ends, of instruments and purpose. Purpose is not the same as the instrument and identifying one with the other leads to a disaster.

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not woo until you introduce woo. I said in my own post that I thought it was interesting, the expanding scope of consideration we impart our actions. That on its own is not woo. If what you're getting at is something similar, then I agree.
I'm glad to see you understand so much. Bucky Ball doesn't share that awareness.
I tend to drive people crazy because I do what you say - when I encounter a problem, I do not confront it on its own level, I expand the scope of consideration. People want easy answers, people want isms and memes. People are walking robots, controlled not by their genes, but by their isms.

I believe we are not truly thinking human beings, until we gain a control of ourselves, until we start ruling over the content of our minds, until we critically go over what our parentage and culture taught us and judge that against an objective standard and do not allow the surroundings to manipulate us. Until we do that, until we learn the antivirus and firewall of critical thinking and retrospectively analyze everything that we took for granted, we'll be just pre-programmed followers of completely arbitrary ideas.

You have to install your own worldview, because only then you can change it if it doesn't work. Of course our culture is based on not having this kind of autonomy, it is based on sharing the control mechanisms. This is why our culture is corrupt and this is why I admire Jacque Fresco for pointing that out and designing a solution. In the current culture, the autonomy of mind leads to isolation, loneliness, depression and sometimes a suicide. Unless we have the internet Wink

(01-08-2013 06:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. But mass-energy is conserved. All energy is possessed of mass. All mass is possessed of energy. E=mc^2 and all that! Information is configuration, and it must be stored somehow.
Yes, configuration, that's the word. Now, what is configuration? To what degree is it temporary and arbitrary? Is our world a temporary configuration of matter/energy, is it an illusion? Can we lift this illusion and look beyond? That is an empirical question.

For years I try to answer that question through meditative exercises - by slowing down the thinking and imagination, purging the sensory deprivation hallucinations, increasing the awareness, exposing the pure existence and letting whatever empirical reality might lie beyond to manifest itself in my quiet mind, to play its own music on the calmed strings of neurons. This is what I do to expand the scope of consideration, of awareness. This is a fringe area of experience where just a verbal hobby, a mind talking to itself will not do. Expand the scope of consideration beyond your mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 07:53 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2013 07:58 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
By skeptical inference, as it has already been widely established that there is no objective purpose to life other than collective biological reproduction, there is no divinity present until the necessary empirical evidence is provided (which it hasn't). On an individual level, we define ourselves and our purpose.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
02-08-2013, 08:15 AM
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
(02-08-2013 04:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-08-2013 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are welcome to any purpose you can conceive - for yourself.

Our only purpose is machines to replicate genes. We - and all other life on earth - are gene survival machines.
We are constructed by genes that are good at making gene survival machines.

Any purpose other than that, we make for ourselves.
OK, care to elaborate how exactly do we do that?
Also, why some of the greatest purposes are made for us, in a way that makes us a part of a greater whole? Why do we seek transcendental purposes, that we do not make for ourselves? Serving our nation, family, or the whole humanity...

Each of us needs to figure it out for ourselves, with a little help from our friends.

We evolved a brain that seeks intentionality, because assigning intentionality to other beings, and even to nature, works. It works by making us better at surviving to reproduce.

We evolved a brain that seeks to find cause and effect, because seeking to find cause and effect in other beings and in nature, works. It works by making us better at surviving to reproduce.

And so on. Once we firmly grasp the fact of the evolution of brains/minds, the behavior starts to become explicable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2013 09:00 AM by Luminon.)
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
(02-08-2013 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  Each of us needs to figure it out for ourselves, with a little help from our friends.
Does it mean that each of us has to use a different method? What kinds of methods do people use? Can they be generalized into a unified theory of searching for the meaning of life?

(02-08-2013 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  We evolved a brain that seeks intentionality, because assigning intentionality to other beings, and even to nature, works. It works by making us better at surviving to reproduce.

We evolved a brain that seeks to find cause and effect, because seeking to find cause and effect in other beings and in nature, works. It works by making us better at surviving to reproduce.

And so on. Once we firmly grasp the fact of the evolution of brains/minds, the behavior starts to become explicable.
Yes, that is a fact. Now, let's say we became so good at surviving and reproduction, that it occupies only a fraction of our time and attention. We still have the brain seeking intentionality, cause and effect, but it can not serve its original purpose anymore. And we're stuck with a planet full of people asking for a meaning of life, glad for anyone who can give to them, thus relinquishing their minds to mass mind control. That is s a problem.
We can not stop people asking these questions, this seems to be human neurology, human nature. So what we do now? What do we use such a brain for and how do we go at it? I'd say the social sciences already made some advances, but I wonder why don't you seem interested in them.

Sex, taste, hearing, voice, movement, all these essential instruments of our survival have a new function now. We have making love, music, singing, dance and so on. We found them a new meaning, a new function and thus preserved them for the future. We have to figure out how to do that more systematically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 09:13 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2013 09:17 AM by Chas.)
RE: This is the purpose of human life.
(02-08-2013 08:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  Each of us needs to figure it out for ourselves, with a little help from our friends.
Does it mean that each of us has to use a different method? What kinds of methods do people use? Can they be generalized into a unified theory of searching for the meaning of life?

(02-08-2013 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  We evolved a brain that seeks intentionality, because assigning intentionality to other beings, and even to nature, works. It works by making us better at surviving to reproduce.

We evolved a brain that seeks to find cause and effect, because seeking to find cause and effect in other beings and in nature, works. It works by making us better at surviving to reproduce.

And so on. Once we firmly grasp the fact of the evolution of brains/minds, the behavior starts to become explicable.
Yes, that is a fact. Now, let's say we became so good at surviving and reproduction, that it occupies only a fraction of our time and attention. We still have the brain seeking intentionality, cause and effect, but it can not serve its original purpose anymore. And we're stuck with a planet full of people asking for a meaning of life, glad for anyone who can give to them, thus relinquishing their minds to mass mind control. That is s a problem.
We can not stop people asking these questions, this seems to be human neurology, human nature. So what we do now? What do we use such a brain for and how do we go at it? I'd say the social sciences already made some advances, but I wonder why don't you seem interested in them.

Sex, taste, hearing, voice, movement, all these essential instruments of our survival have a new function now. We have making love, music, singing, dance and so on. We found them a new meaning, a new function and thus preserved them for the future. We have to figure out how to do that more systematically.

What makes you think I have no interest in the social sciences?

I am merely stating that there is no objective purpose in life, that we each have to find it for ourselves.
The fact of evolution essentially denies that life has an inherent purpose.

I was not addressing the means.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: