True Meaning of Life

[Eric LeClair]

True meaning of life is to expand, grow and make the world a little bit better for the next in line. Hopefully you're financially rich and having fun along the journey. Evolution + consciousness = humans. I believe being humans is the first level of consciousness. After you are out of your body, your new found and developed 'consciousness' goes into a more advanced being on some other planet perhaps. Hopefully you won't have to start off as a baby again.

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Eric LeClair said:

True meaning of life is to expand, grow and make the world a little bit better for the next in line. Hopefully you're financially rich and having fun along the journey. Evolution + consciousness = humans. I believe being humans is the first level of consciousness. After you are out of your body, your new found and developed 'consciousness' goes into a more advanced being on some other planet perhaps. Hopefully you won't have to start off as a baby again.

Dude... are you smoking the same weed as me... sweet... bloody good trip... my brother... hang on... did I just say that 

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Dude... are you smoking the same weed as me... sweet... bloody good trip... my brother... hang on... did I just say that 

That's the internal dialog, here's the replies should it be an external dialog:  

Dude... Dude... Dude... DDDDUUUUDDDEEE... no, wait... what were we talking about 

[Bender]

On 18/4/2018 at 1:53 PM, Pembroke said:

If intention does not arise from a point of consciousness in me, then it arises from some natural functioning of my brain, which in turn arose from a long natural process which pre-dates the human species. We could do one of two things: reorient the question about purpose to simply ask what is going on (both externally to and intentially within the human) or else remove the category of purpose from human action except as something like a convenient metaphor or an illusion.

We are the natural processes in our brain. There is no indication that there is anything about us beyond these natural processes. This means there is no difference between us making a decision or the natural processes making a decision, because those are simply the same.

There is also no conflict with free will. If we are determined (and there is no reason to assume we are not), we are determined to choose the things we want to choose. Our decision are the outcome of processes in our brain that take our preferences into account.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Bender

[Sammanta]

you put a very good question. i will try to answer your question. 

generally, the life is to live happily. my purpose on life is different from you. your purpose will be different from others. i said the purpose of life is to live happily and to achieve peace of mind. i am seeing the happiness in my purpose, and you are seeing the happiness in some angles. i need not accept your purpose and you need not accept my purpose. so, commonly we take what is the real purpose of life. That is the meaning of life. 

what is the purpose of life then ? The purpose of life constitutes a philosophical question concerning the purpose and significance of life or existence in general. This concept can be expressed through a variety of related questions, such as Why are we here?, What is life all about?, and What is the meaning of it all? It has been the subject of much philosophical, scientific, and theological speculation throughout history. There have been a large number of answers to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds. 

A person's life has purpose for himself, others as the life events resulting from his achievements, legacy, family, etc., but, to say that life, itself, has meaning. we can live as we wish or we can live for some purpose. Life is not for purpose, but there is purposes in life. Why do people love each other? Because love leads to sexual intercourse, which contributes to the population of the human species. Why do mothers love babies before they are even born? Because it contributes to the maintenance and increase of the population of the human species. Why are so many people against abortion? Because it is a deterrent to procreation. Why are there so many doctors and so much medicine? To maintain the population of the human species. Why is murder such a big crime? 

Finally, so whatever your motivation – hold onto your seat! We are in for a ride, because finding the meaning of life is the most exciting and rewarding adventure of them all! until you discover the purpose of your life, you are living a life of mediocrity. Rise and be great, do the great things you were meant to do. Look deep inside you, realize what is your lifes purpose and your meaning of life and when you do find purpose, you discover yourself to be a greater person than you ever dreamed yourself to be. The world you live in will never be the same and the opportunities life throws at you will be abundant. The Meaning of Life will be clear. 

The ultimate goal of life is to get peace of mind. we can get anything in life except peace of mind because we aim to live in life conveniently, but the goal of life is different from purpose or meaningful life. if we are happy in life, we get peace of mind. Not sure if I can make it interesting...but i want to be the best father, best husband and best relation together with best friendship with good name in the society. I would say that the Ultimate Goal is described as the Good, and we are like Plato and thing happiness is a side-effect of that. Aristotle seems to aim right at happiness. But Plato says the Good and he makes more sense to me. 

Thanks for the opportunities and hope this will help you !!!

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Sammanta said:

you put a very good question. i will try to answer your question. 

We've all tried that, just read the thread.

1 hour ago, Sammanta said:

The ultimate goal of life is to get peace of mind. we can get anything in life except peace of mind because we aim to live in life conveniently, but the goal of life is different from purpose or meaningful life.

Who's the judge? And why should I believe him/her/it?

[Moontanman]

I think Conan said it best! 

 

Quote

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

 

[koti]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I think Conan said it best! 

 

 

You need to listen to this Moon:
 

 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I think Conan said it best! 

 

But he was a mistnonagist and a crushing bore... 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

But he was a mistnonagist and a crushing bore... 

Yeah but tell him that... 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Yeah but tell him that... 

No probs, just give me a headstart and someone to outrun...

[Bjarki Freyr]

The meaning of life is relative within people today, we create our own inner worlds and give life its meaning according to which individual goals we are pursuing (obviously!). I think that life has an absolute meaning though, since we are gifted with consciousness we therefore have the opportunity to support further growth, development and evolution of life. Our role is to inquire for further knowledge about ourselves, how we as individuals think (what the real catalysts to our behaviours are) and how our society would best be constructed. We also have the opportunity to explore the universe we occupy, it is therefore our role to keep our world habitable and in check for all living beings (we have been horribly short sighted and selfish in that department), and search for greater knowledge about all processes in the physical universe.    

Our society's purpose has been lead astray by each individuals self-serving pursuits of "happiness", which is constructed upon power over others, material wealth or having a respectable position. These give us a false feeling of happiness, I believe, since pursuing only these goals will never make you fulfilled and satisfied, we are made to believe that without these we are destined to unhappiness, but the sad truth is also that in the pursuit of these statuses we are as well destined to unhappiness. I believe we are only pursuing these goals to have an advantage when it comes to sexual selection, which is discussed in a book called The Mating Mind, written by Geoffrey Miller, a developmental psychologist. We have to find ways to reduce the competition in society (productivism is perhaps essential to increase yield, but that does not equate to happiness of the population as whole), to make it a world where people can live in solidarity, sharing all resources, living for the well-being of all life, and eventually share the same meaning of life. 

A bit optimistic and simplistic some might say, and I don't blame them for having that view. We have been told all our lives that the only way to find happiness is by being more special than others, to somehow stand out from the general population. But I think this mindset that we have adopted is severely toxic to the well being of our societies.  More and more researches are showing correlation between our surroundings and mental health issues (as some of us had already suspected), as an article written by a M.D. on psychology today sums up (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201206/the-culture-mental-illness"

"Even schizophrenia, which is thought of as a highly heritable and biological psychotic disorder, has been found to be more common in inner cities and urban areas than in rural areas. The reasons for this are unclear: it could be that the stress of urban living increases the risk of the disorder, or that people with the disorder have a net tendency to migrate out of rural areas and into urban ones."

I recommend reading this article as it has some very accurate points on this issue (of course I could be citing a more "credible" resource for some rational skeptics out there).

This is a very interesting and prosperous field to go into for anyone who wishes to help us achieve a better understanding of mental health and of human nature in general. Anyway I don't want to go completely off topic, I think I am still within the parameters of the subject, so in conclusion I do believe we all share the same purpose and meaning, but our minds have been polluted by individual gains and the competition in society.  

 

[Bender]

On 15/6/2018 at 1:22 AM, Bjarki Freyr said:

We also have the opportunity to explore the universe we occupy, it is therefore our role to keep our world habitable and in check for all living beings (we have been horribly short sighted and selfish in that department), and search for greater knowledge about all processes in the physical universe

Who or what imparted that role on us?

[Pembroke]

On 2018-04-24 at 7:14 AM, Bender said:

We are the natural processes in our brain. There is no indication that there is anything about us beyond these natural processes. This means there is no difference between us making a decision or the natural processes making a decision, because those are simply the same.

There is also no conflict with free will. If we are determined (and there is no reason to assume we are not), we are determined to choose the things we want to choose. Our decision are the outcome of processes in our brain that take our preferences into account.

I didn't say that we are different from the unconscious processes in our brains. I outlined a distinction between a conception of intention as arising from a conscious decision on the one hand, and an unconscious process which does the calculation (in a metaphorical sense) and outputs the decision to our conscious mind.

In regards to the second part, I do think there is an issue which arises if what we consider to be our conscious will is in reality formed on this latent level, which is that we cannot be sure of the decisions which arise to us, or in a conscious control of that decision-making process.

You put the issue on the level of wanting (something like desire), but the wanting (on whatever level, conscious or unconscious) does not necessarily make the thing desired or sought after good for us.

The further problem is this: if (and I think they are) our natural reactions (or affective responses) are determined by unconscious processes, there can be no guarantee that we will choose what is good over what we know (even consciously) to be bad.

An example, if one knows that continuously eating things which are high in fats or sugars and not exercising will result in ill health, if the impulse which causes us to ultimately make the choice operates on an unconscious level, there may arise a disconnect between our knowledge and the effective ability to choose something different.

The essence of that example can be related to a number of different instances. For example, one might garner information from evolutionary psychology that human intelligence has evolved for the purpose of effectively navigating the world so that we can sustain organic selves and reproduce, but nonetheless engage in activity which leads finally to the decay of the organism without reproduction because one wishes to enjoy some pleasure.

One coud potentially engineer a sort of environment using ideas from behaviourist operant conditioning (to be extremely simplistic) which leads such people towards self-sustaining and reproductive behaviour, but doing so would be engaging with people on the level of unconscious processes rather than consciousness which is the level which people generally consider free will.

To be clear, I understood what you were saying and on one level I can agree with it, the only reason I take issue with it is because when you say there is no conflict with free will, I think you are redefining what people generally think of as free will when you place the will on the level of unconscious processes rather than in consciousness, which is how people generally conceive of free will.

 

**Edit: I just want to add something here to clarify, as a sort of problem that hopefully we can try to work through together (anyone here):

Let's say I felt a sense of ennui, existential angst, or something like that. If I wanted to feel satisfied with the world as it is - perhaps I had listened to some scientist speaking who said that asking if there is a meaning to life in an objective sense is a meaningless question, so all there is are natural processes. Say I would then understand or believe that, but the sense of ennui or existential angst continues. On a conscious level, I want (referring to what Bender said above) to accept this fact and simply act in life according to it, but though I do not understand the feeling, the sense of ennui or angst continues to rise to my consciousness. Is there not then a conflict between free will as it is generally understood (the ability to decide our fate) and the process in our brain which causes us to react, and potentially even act (let's say, for example, I further engage in activity to assuage the feeling of ennui or angst, despite knowing consciously they are meaningless, futile, or potentially harmful)?

Edited June 26, 2018 by Pembroke
clarification

[Bender]

10 hours ago, Pembroke said:

To be clear, I understood what you were saying and on one level I can agree with it, the only reason I take issue with it is because when you say there is no conflict with free will, I think you are redefining what people generally think of as free will when you place the will on the level of unconscious processes rather than in consciousness, which is how people generally conceive of free will.

The problem with "how people generally conceive free will" is that want to be super-special with consciousness as some mystical property granting us that super-specialness.

Often the unconsciousness is seen as not part of us and completely out of our control. That is complete nonsense. Our unconsciousness can be trained or reprogrammed, and obviously takes our preferences into account. I disagree with the notion that it is separate from us.

10 hours ago, Pembroke said:

Let's say I felt a sense of ennui, existential angst, or something like that. If I wanted to feel satisfied with the world as it is - perhaps I had listened to some scientist speaking who said that asking if there is a meaning to life in an objective sense is a meaningless question, so all there is are natural processes. Say I would then understand or believe that, but the sense of ennui or existential angst continues. On a conscious level, I want (referring to what Bender said above) to accept this fact and simply act in life according to it, but though I do not understand the feeling, the sense of ennui or angst continues to rise to my consciousness. Is there not then a conflict between free will as it is generally understood (the ability to decide our fate) and the process in our brain which causes us to react, and potentially even act (let's say, for example, I further engage in activity to assuage the feeling of ennui or angst, despite knowing consciously they are meaningless, futile, or potentially harmful)?

Our unconsciousness can be flawed and reprogramming can be difficult. The fact that there are boundaries does not invalidate free will entirely.

Personally, I have eg completely lost my existential angst through reason. Some other examples are my fear of heights which is almost entirely gone and the fact that at one point during my early twenties I decided that I can eat and enjoy all food. Before that most vegetables and several other dishes made me convulse. I don't know why other people can't make such decisions, but I refuse to accept that I am special that way.

[Pembroke]

8 hours ago, Bender said:

The problem with "how people generally conceive free will" is that want to be super-special with consciousness as some mystical property granting us that super-specialness.

This is the part of what you said that I understood, but I think it may have larger consequences than you seem to be acknowledging. I may be wrong on that, we can discuss it if you like.

8 hours ago, Bender said:

Often the unconsciousness is seen as not part of us and completely out of our control. That is complete nonsense. Our unconsciousness can be trained or reprogrammed, and obviously takes our preferences into account. I disagree with the notion that it is separate from us.

Our unconsciousness can be flawed and reprogramming can be difficult. The fact that there are boundaries does not invalidate free will entirely.

I also agree that our unconscious impulses can be controlled. I usually use the word activated, but that's not really important. I also agree that it is absurd to think of our unconsciousness and us as separate. But the problem I have is this. If our conscious thoughts arise from the unconsciousness already decided by those processes, then the programming which we do isn't completely in conscious control. (I don't say that it is not within our control.) The desire or impulse to actually change our minds has to already be activated on an unconscious level. I do think that this can happen, for example if we encounter influences in the environment, or if our unconscious mind is already contemplative so that, in consideration it doubles back on itself (self-consciousness) thus making a decision, but the heart of the problem I am indicating is this:

When people generally consider free will on the level of consciousness, they are relating it to our conscious operations, which includes things like conscious perception, and listening to reasoned arguments, etc. but there is not guarantee that those things will influence an unconscious process. Through studies in psychology, certain triggers are discovered which, on average, activates the behaviour of most or many people in a certain way, and so we could say that our wills can be influenced through those triggers, but it is less certain that we can be influenced through perception of things we think are rational, or through the arguments of rational people. I think that latter claim (about rational arguments) holds up to observation, haven't you in the past seen people ignoring rational arguments and wondered why?

8 hours ago, Bender said:

Personally, I have eg completely lost my existential angst through reason. Some other examples are my fear of heights which is almost entirely gone and the fact that at one point during my early twenties I decided that I can eat and enjoy all food. Before that most vegetables and several other dishes made me convulse. I don't know why other people can't make such decisions, but I refuse to accept that I am special that way.

I see that you've lost your existential angst through reason. I mean, I can't debate with you on your own experience, I think that would be absurd because you know your experience better than I have. If it was reasoning with yourself, I think that is possible as I said above... I just think that such self-reasoning might not be infallible for all people, simply because we don't really understand the process of it. If someone reasons with themselves, comes to a rational conclusion, and the mind does not ultimately follow it, there could be some deeper reason that the individual isn't fully conscious of but which continues to activate the impulses of the mind. And I think that is one of the "problems" of our free will originating in unconscious mental processes rather than entirely in the conscious mind as it is generally conceived. By saying it is a problem, I am not saying that we can or should therefore ignore the truth, by a problem I only mean that the way people generally have conceived of influencing their behaviour is likely to be flawed or incomplete.

I think that what I said directly above about angst can be applied to the rest of the things like phobias and eating habits and so on. If I would give a personal example, I used to bite my nails, and it seemed like by an act of pure conscious will I decided to stop doing that and haven't since, but I am still unsure that such conscious decisions are the whole story of why we do things we do.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Pembroke

[Bender]

On 27/6/2018 at 6:55 AM, Pembroke said:

When people generally consider free will on the level of consciousness, they are relating it to our conscious operations, which includes things like conscious perception, and listening to reasoned arguments, etc. but there is not guarantee that those things will influence an unconscious process. Through studies in psychology, certain triggers are discovered which, on average, activates the behaviour of most or many people in a certain way, and so we could say that our wills can be influenced through those triggers, but it is less certain that we can be influenced through perception of things we think are rational, or through the arguments of rational people. I think that latter claim (about rational arguments) holds up to observation, haven't you in the past seen people ignoring rational arguments and wondered why?

I think the distinction between conscious and subconscious decisions is rather fuzzy as both influence each other constantly. This is why I consider such distinctions irrelevant in the context of free will.

The fact that people choose to ignore rational argument, consciously or not, is at best an illustration of that.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually want to be in control. Some people give me the impression that they find comfort in having some subconscious flaws to blame . 

[Pembroke]

7 hours ago, Bender said:

I think the distinction between conscious and subconscious decisions is rather fuzzy as both influence each other constantly. This is why I consider such distinctions irrelevant in the context of free will.

The fact that people choose to ignore rational argument, consciously or not, is at best an illustration of that.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually want to be in control. Some people give me the impression that they find comfort in having some subconscious flaws to blame . 

As regards the first part, that was the subject of my initial post. When a thought, impulse, reaction, or affect arises in the consciousness, we were not consciously aware or consciously anticipating what that thought, impulse, reaction, or affect was. If we were consciously aware or in anticipation, that conscious awareness itself have to already have had to arisen from a point of unconsciousness. An analogous situation is one of memories. You most likely have many memories about your past, but at any given moment you are not conscious of them, but when one arises in the consciousness it has been activated to arise.

If this is the case, I still think it is possible that certain people ignore rational arguments because the processes taking place in their brain is for whatever reason rejecting it. Why processes would do that is beyond the scope of what I can glean from pure reason. But psychological studies are being conducted all the time which show the reasons for people's reactions. In fact many psychological studies would indicate that what I'm saying isn't that far fetched. The fact that people are influenced for example by things that are not fully conscious of (for example the prestigue of speakers, or group pressures) show that there is a strong influence of unconscious forces.

The final remark, whether people want unconscious forces to blame out of comfort is neither here nor there, some people might wish it, some might not. But the purpose of this discussion is to come to a conclusion of what is the case and not necessarily to take comfort of it. I mean, some physicists or evolutionary biologists might take comfort in knowing that the doctrines of Christianity are not true, does that make their studies therefore unfounded?

Edited June 29, 2018 by Pembroke

[Bender]

17 hours ago, Pembroke said:

If this is the case, I still think it is possible that certain people ignore rational arguments because the processes taking place in their brain is for whatever reason rejecting it. Why processes would do that is beyond the scope of what I can glean from pure reason

It is pretty simple: the cost function, usually consisting of conscious and subconscious, rational and emotional components, favoured the irrational choice.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Bender

[Pembroke]

8 hours ago, Bender said:

It is pretty simple: the cost function, usually consisting of conscious and subconscious, rational and emotional components, favoured the irrational choice.

Sure, descriptively I have no problem with thinking of it that way. Why the brain would favour irrational choices seems more difficult to grasp. It might have to be considered on a case by case basis.

The reason I think this is potentially important (the entire subject of the discussion I mean) is because if the brain does operate this way, then when considering that old philosophical injuction "Know Thyself" would imply knowing something about brain functions so that we can understand the 'irrational' side of our behaviour, so as hopefully to better guide it.

[Bender]

16 hours ago, Pembroke said:

Why the brain would favour irrational choices seems more difficult to grasp.

I would guess for the same reason that my Gps keeps asking me to take a U-turn long after I decided to take a shortcut. It is computationally a lot easier to stick to a known path and only deviate slightly rather than calculate a completely new path. Our brain has the additional "problem" that it reinforces used connections in the brain, so once a certain irrational connection is made, it will be favoured in the future, or analogies are drawn too quickly.

[Pembroke]

5 hours ago, Bender said:

I would guess for the same reason that my Gps keeps asking me to take a U-turn long after I decided to take a shortcut. It is computationally a lot easier to stick to a known path and only deviate slightly rather than calculate a completely new path. Our brain has the additional "problem" that it reinforces used connections in the brain, so once a certain irrational connection is made, it will be favoured in the future, or analogies are drawn too quickly.

I think what you say there is true. I was also thinking of habituation. On that issue I still have uncertainties though which I'm not sure can be cleared up by reasoning alone. Take an example of someone who knows it is good to do lots of regular exercise but simultaneously feels laziness. It's true that the laziness can be the result of prior habits, but the thing I am wondering is what is the impetus which would cause the person to switch from the habit to the other more successful behaviour?

To clarify the issue I can return to my personal example of biting my nails when I was young. For a long time I thought it was not good to bite my nails, It was unsanitary and ugly, etc. but the knowledge of those things did not cause me to stop right away. I remember when I did stop, because it seemed to me odd at the top, that just one day it was as if my mind just decided it would not do so and then I did not and have not since. What I wonder is, what was the impetus which caused my mind to suddenly click that particular day. I had not been deeply concerned on preceding days about the issue, it seemed to have come out of nowhere and it seems to have been permanent. Was my brain simply in a build up from past knowledge that took years to finally ferment, or something else? I think the same issue could be considered in a number of cases.

---------------------------------------------------

To bring this whole topic more closely in line with the subject (The meaning of life), I also wonder about whether our unconscious brain-processes might interpret (using that word lightly, more analogously than literally) otherwise than through reason? That problem seems strange to ask because to some it might seem self-evidently the case that it does. The reason I bring it up is that, our brains might have reason to latch on to a belief that seems irrational when considered in the light of reason and truth.

Many people (in this thread and otherwise, including particular many scientists) do not believe that there is a transcendent meaning to life. For some of them we can give meaning to life, or purpose is understood on biological terms to sustain the organism and reproduce, and so on.

There are problems which may arise in the above cases. Certain people might be unable to give a meaning to life because their mind does not simply believe in that meaning which is arbitrary insofar as it originates in a desire, an affect, or a momentary reflection which could be subject to change at later periods of time. Some people might continue to wonder why they bother with a process of perpetual reproduction when that reproduction itself seems without purpose. I'm sure that those who hold the latter view (the biological one) could conclude something like, the ability to ask ourselves the question why? evolved because it enabled humans to consider cause and effect and so achieve a complex understanding of the world and its mechanisms and maximize their effectivity. The desire to ask why? about life in a larger sense is a secondary effect of applying something that was naturally selected for other purposes to something it is not fit for. If such questioning interferes with reproduction it will be selected out of the gene pool.

What could then happen is that some people might latch on to irrational beliefs which are then successful because they operate on the level of energy conservation (energy which might have been used in such questioning) as well as something like safety-nets which keep them from ultimate despair. If something like that is the case then they might be latched onto those irrational views out of a sort of personal necessity, rather than purely habit.

Just a thought, the analysis of which I think is more in line with understanding the brain in terms of unconscious processes rather than on the level of conscious will.

[Bender]

That is an interesting theory: so people have evolved to be irrational to avoid existential angst?

[Pembroke]

It could be one reason. To be upfront, I did come to that idea from reading evolutionary theories of religion, so it's not really my idea solely. I can't point to a particular source because I read a number of theories as well as theories of consciousness and so on. Particularly in regards to religious beliefs, which provide narratives which speak to existential conundrums. There could be additional factors as well, like a need for an established and unquestioned morality perhaps which allows a common language and community. And if the resultant behaviour is not evolutionarily effective it dies out (like Stylites in Late Antiquity, and so on)?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Pembroke

[geordief]

The meaning of life can be seen as a joke  (a bit like the propagating EM wave ,feeding on itself)

 

Maybe though a genuine  meaning of life could be to approach an understanding of this particular question.The answer has to include one's  final dissolution  and progress towards it (and also an appreciation that any  judgement upon it  is a work in progress,like poor old Beethoven and his unfinished symphony   )

[Itoero]

The meaning of life !s life.