whats your answer to "whats the meaning of life?"

[danny elfboy]

Let me guess, are you a creationist?

I think I have already replied this by saying I'm not a christian or religious, hence I'm not a creationist. But it's pretty pathetic to defend such a theory by claiming that only creationists could disagree with it. In truth what you're talking about (which is a pseudo-scientific ideology with a specific name "sociobiology") is considered a militant waste of neurons as any militant and fanatic religious fundamentalism. Not only nothing of these just-so stories can be proven in any way possible, but the belief of its fanatical followers that they could stop the thinking and exploring process by pretending that the "key" to everything has been found and it is simple and black and white as only mediocre and dogmatic people can be is just dangerous for knowledge . If you had read something about the very ideology you promote you would know why I have mentioned sexism, racism, antisemitism and misanthropy.

[ada]

I think I have already replied this by saying I'm not a christian or religious, hence I'm not a creationist. But it's pretty pathetic to defend such a theory by claiming that only creationists could disagree with it. In truth what you're talking about (which is a pseudo-scientific ideology with a specific name "sociobiology") is considered a militant waste of neurons as any militant and fanatic religious fundamentalism. Not only nothing of these just-so stories can be proven in any way possible, but the belief of its fanatical followers that they could stop the thinking and exploring process by pretending that the "key" to everything has been found and it is simple and black and white as only mediocre and dogmatic people can be is just dangerous for knowledge .

Firstly, I apologise for jumping to the conclusion that you are a creationist, I know it is a terrible assault on anyone's intelligence to call them one.

Secondly, with respect, you are grossly over-reacting to very simple and self-evident statement.

DNA is what makes life. DNA is passed on by replication. Without DNA there is no life, and without life there is no meaning to life.

This isn't a fanatical theory or dogma but fact.  What is so scary and offensive about that?

If you had read something about the very ideology you promote you would know why I have mentioned sexism, racism, antisemitism and misanthropy.

I'm not advocating eugenics, you dope, if that is what you're suggesting.

 If you really think the suggestion that life is about the survival of DNA amounts to sexism, racism, antisemitism or misanthropy then please explain why.

[danny elfboy]

sorry>> its yet another philosophy oriented question>>

Well in my opinion if we think of the meaning of our life as people then, considering that we can just be in our mind and our body and can't feel what's like to be on other people mind and body, the destruction of egocentrism by having the chance to form human contacts of any kind that dissolve this "me and my body" perception and make us feel as more people are forming a whole new organism by being together seems like a good purpose. The pleasure of others, of seeing, of listening, of touching them and feel like we're neural cycles of a feedback rather than a one-way road.

If you mean a general meaning that transcends people and their life then don't hold your breath because even if all of this had a meaning you would never know it. We just can't be objective when trying to analyze and answer such question. The problem is that even beginning to understand the tip of the iceberg of such concept would require you to see the world in an unbiased way and you would need to step out of your perception to do this, which is a big contradiction because no one (not even scientists or researchers) can be critical about perception and therefore transcends it by means of perception.
Max Borne was a physicist who wrote proficently about this parodox, admitting indeed that unbiased researches of any kind are just a chimera and impossible by the very nature of human analysis and research (which can't transcend perception) everything and every little premise depends on our filtering them through our sense a process that destroys their purity.

[danny elfboy]

If you really think the suggestion that life is about the survival of DNA amounts to sexism, racism, antisemitism or misanthropy then please explain why.

Suggesting that life is ALSO about the survival of DNA because such process is required for life is not what I'm talking about. Suggesting that whatever there's to know and understand about life and human and their feelings and interactions can be tracked back to the necessity of DNA to duplicate (as if it was a conscious entity piloting our bodies to survive) and hence that every choice we make is the product of the instinct telling us to find a way to spread our DNA is the problematic ideology which eventually has lead almost any writer of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology to promote (subtly I admit) sexism, racism, violence, dictatorships, slavery, rape and what not by claiming whatever power struggle, violence and discrimination can be tracked back to our need to be lifeless and semi-conscious cars to drive DNA around.

I don't have problems with ideas and it's a correct idea to state that DNA is important for life to exist, but I have problems when ideas become absolutist black and white dogma that don't admit any kind of propension to openess to counterevidence, new ideas and doubts. I see the DNA spreading (so to speak) as a consequence of life.
We live to eat or eat to live. And we live to spread DNA or spread DNA to live?
In the second case life would be a gift (even if it was random or a mistake) and our ability to procreate a tool of our free-will. We have experienced the marvelous feeling of being alive and interacting with other beings and we possess the means by allowing other people (our children) to experience this. When life seems like not worth living anymore (like for animals in captivity or people who ponder about the sad aspects of our society) we living beings lose any interests in procreating and providing other people with this gift. This suggests to me that giving life is a free-will choice which is a consequence of being alive but not the reason why each of us exists.

[ada]

Suggesting that whatever there's to know and understand about life and human and their feelings and interactions can be tracked back to the necessity of DNA to duplicate (as if it was a conscious entity piloting our bodies to survive) and hence that every choice we make is the product of the instinct telling us to find a way to spread our DNA is the problematic ideology which eventually has lead almost any writer of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology to promote (subtly I admit) sexism, racism, violence, dictatorships, slavery, rape and what not by claiming whatever power struggle, violence and discrimination can be tracked back to our need to be lifeless and semi-conscious cars to drive DNA around.

This is a very long sentence.

I think you are saying that the belief that human action is driven by genetic impluses leads to the promotion of sexism, racism, violence, dictatorships, slavery and rape. I still don't get the link.

If you mean that theories of genetic superiority and "survival of the fittest" lead to the above, fine, I'm with you on that. But that's not what I am talking about.

I don't have problems with ideas and it's a correct idea to state that DNA is important for life to exist, but I have problems when ideas become absolutist black and white dogma that don't admit any kind of propension to openess to counterevidence, new ideas and doubts. I see the DNA spreading (so to speak) as a consequence of life.
We live to eat or eat to live. And we live to spread DNA or spread DNA to live?
In the second case life would be a gift (even if it was random or a mistake) and our ability to procreate a tool of our free-will. We have experienced the marvelous feeling of being alive and interacting with other beings and we possess the means by allowing other people (our children) to experience this. When life seems like not worth living anymore (like for animals in captivity or people who ponder about the sad aspects of our society) we living beings lose any interests in procreating and providing other people with this gift. This suggests to me that giving life is a free-will choice which is a consequence of being alive but not the reason why each of us exists.

Well it's the chicken or the egg, isn't it? It makes sense to me that we are genetically programed to stay alive, procreate and make sure our young survive purely so our DNA can continue to replicate.

I really do think our bodies and brains are there to keep our DNA safe so it can survive to replicate another day. This applies as much to trees, slime mould and viruses (which will probably inherity the earth) as it does to humans; I wouldn't go big-noting ourselves too much.

And I don't think that undervalues life or purpose at all. While we're ensuring immortality for our DNA we may as well do as much good, create as much beauty and have as good a time as we can while we're at it.

IMHO 

[term]

Why do we have brains, then?  Should we not contemplate our existence if we can?

You can, no problem. Just know that it is not the answer you're looking for, because you will never find it.
I find it much more remarkable, from an objective point of view, that we actually ask that question. Underlying is the assumption that everything that exists (not only life) must serve a purpose, but why do we assume that?

[maul]

Indeed. God damn human beings always looking for meaning in everything. Such feeble little creatures.

[ramithediv]

Can't be bothered to get too involved, haven't enough time.  

But, I think that the answer to the question is,

"juust one waffer theen meent"  

[danny elfboy]

This is a very long sentence.

I think you are saying that the belief that human action is driven by genetic impluses leads to the promotion of sexism, racism, violence, dictatorships, slavery and rape. I still don't get the link.

It's a pretty logical consequence.
If you're just driven by genetic impulses (completely false assumption since we've as many genes as corn as not nearly enough to explain all our emotions and personal traits through genetic means, not to mention whatever study focusing on environment influence has always disproved the predeterminist hypothesis) impulses which depends on the efficiency of genes spreading, then whatever behavior leading to this purpose is not only acceptable but seperior to others. If you've have no free-will (but believe me you wouldn't even contemplate these questions if you hadn't one) then whatever we do depends exclusively on a sort of programmation. Rape for example would be both a very good way to spread genes and also a predetermined behavior which we can't control. Sociobiology (which is the only ideology that states what you're stating, i.e. that we exist just as conscious slaves for selfish genes) is indeed paradoxically a conservative ideology which takes advantage of a fairy tale that not even genetists believe in (i.e. Richard Lewontin - Not in your genes) just to maintain a sort of status quo. Any form of rebellion, emancipation and altruism would be not only counterproductive but also useless in that the status-quo would be a natural phenomen created by need and not a cultura-social ethnocentric game perpetrated by people with a free-will.

There's another big contradiction. The theory that your brain is just there to keep your DNA safe contradict itself at its very core. It's a very well known paradox that even hard-core prederminists feared. John Haldane recognized this unsolvable paradox that if the mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in his brain, there's no reason to suppose the beliefs and even theories created by that brain are true and therefore that this theory itself is true. In other words there's no way to logically resolve the problem of having a brain which is just a mechanical device and yet being conscious of it and contemplating concepts. Darwin itself admitted that such belief would destroy anything we believe to know (including this belief itself) because we can't logically trust the reasoning of a mind which is the result of chance. Of course such reasoning, Darwin concludes, wouldn't be a reasoning at all but random pre-programmed activity hence completely untrustable.
That is, when you apply genetical/biological predeterminism to the mind/brain the value of all reasoning is undermined, including the very same reasoning that allow you to reach the conclusion that the mind is just a byproduct of brain activity and hence free-will doesn't exist. You would not be able to even ponder these concepts if your own theory were true because you would not posses any sort of rationality, intellect, consciousness of yourself and others and free-will.

Add to that many neurologists are questioning by means of researches and evidences the predeterminist belief that the mind is just the byproduct of the activity of a brain created by chance and random mutations and providing way way way more complex and interesting models of reality.

As much interesting as that many biologists are also providing way way way more complex and interesting models of evolution, questioning everything we believe to know about it. For example the biologist John Davinson has provided a likely model where evolution is a self-limited process and where genetical transmittion through sexual reproduction is there to bring an halt to evolution and maintain stability except for minor adaptations. So much for reproduction being the meaning of life (i.e. perpetual vicious cycle as never seen in natural observation)

The last words has not been said and while I appreciate that we can agree to disagree and have different opinions or knowledge I hope no one here is implying (as sociobiologists love to do) that the last word is indeed been said and those who don't agree with them are *** idiots. I'm not saying anything like that and I hope no one will. We're all ignorant about this, every single human being in this planet involved in science or not; and there's something very life affirming and beautiful in admitting ignorance ... but we can still speculate and reason about what we don't know.

[arensky]

I don't know and don't really care.

But it sure has been interesting and frequently a lot of fun. 

[jlh]

  Not true somethings were never alive in the first place, bread,chees,huny ect.

hmm... let's see: bread was once grain which was once alive.  Cheese is dairy which was once alive in cows or other animals, plus all the enzymes and mold that cure the cheese are alive.  Honey comes from bees and that honey was once a living part of the bee. 

Any other exceptions?  You can't eat something that wasn't once alive.

[ahinton]

Never mind "what's the meaning of life?"

What we might ask ourselves here is "what's the meaning of pianistimo?"

Discuss (in another thread, if anyone feels disposed to start one)...

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

Peaches?

[lisztisforkids]

I don't know and don't really care.

But it sure has been interesting and frequently a lot of fun. 

 Thats awesome, probably the best answer I've come across yet.

[jlh]

Never mind "what's the meaning of life?"

What we might ask ourselves here is "what's the meaning of pianistimo?"

Discuss (in another thread, if anyone feels disposed to start one)...

Best,

Alistair

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,27842.0.html

[ahinton]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,27842.0.html

I wish I'd not suggested it, even half in jest as I did; anyway, I've given my answer there, for what it may or may not be worth.

Best,

Alistair

[buick8]

therefore, "...fear God and obey His commandments; for this is the sole duty of man."

We have a Creator, therefore we can be;
we have life, therefore we have the possibility of consortium with the Creator;
we have choice; therefore we have the possibility of not chosing consortium with the creator;
we have the Word; therefore the possibility of finding knowledge and understanding;
we have with knowledge the possibility of repentence;
we have the Savior; therefore the availability of Forgiveness and healing;
we have through Forgiveness the restoration of consortium; therefore we have peace
we have meaning through consortium with the Creator.

[kard]

therefore, "...fear God and obey His commandments; for this is the sole duty of man."

Why?

[pianochick93]

whats your answer to "whats the meaning of life?"

42.