[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 102 KB, 446x630, 552745a84ba6741b000f6a706700c342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4118858 No.4118858 [Reply] [Original]

Who here knows the meaning of life? Very few of you

>> No.4118861

Life: [lahyf], noun

1.
The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

>> No.4118863

Who here knows that meaning of the Niagara Falls? Very few of you.

>> No.4118882

Nothing AFAIK, just be good, enjoy life, and make the world a better place. That's what I'm trying to do anyway.

>> No.4118884

"The meaning of life" is not an objective question, but a subjective one. It's a psychological tool, the response to which tells you more about the one responding than about the apparent subject of the question.

>> No.4118888

>>4118858
Creation.
That and 42.

>> No.4118893

the meaning of life is do shit that makes you happy.

>> No.4118943

>>4118882
op here, pretty much man.
The meaning of life is life itself.
God made the universe for life, and life just like this is infinitely throughout it. So don't worry about the meaning, just live it

>> No.4118944

>>4118858

the meaning of life, or so it appears to me, is to maximize the positive and minimize the negative. However, life is also a mystery, and here it is: what is positive and what is negative are non-obvious- we are deeply biased beings. Therefore the meaning is to overcome the biases, discern the mystery, and solve for what is positive and what is negative.

So far I've discovered that most of civilization, society, and technology, along with culture and religion, is negative- in other words, just destructive bullshit.

What is positive is generally non-consumptive in nature, non-wasteful, respectful, creative and emotionally complete.

The reality of life is that just about everything is full of shit- careers, jobs, society, "Christmas shopping", people's egos, families, and other arbitrary bullshit.

More and more I am seeing life in classic terms: you are the hero of an impossible storyline. The odds, tilted against you, the fate of everything in the balance. And yet you have this time, this life. Embrace the pain of life. Take the hard road, and always go out of your way to destroy bastards.

Finally, there is no God, no superstitious bullshit. Hell, even Acupuncture is bullshit.

>> No.4118958

>>4118944
You're smart bro, everything you said is brilliant... except the end. I have come to learn that there is a god, and all of the superstitious bullshit is true.

>> No.4118961

>>4118943
>God made
0/10
Way to obvious

>> No.4118964

Guess the quote time.

>He started to tidy his messy writing table and was startled to realize that at a moment like this he was able to devote himself to such meaningless activity. What did he care whether the table was messy or not? And why had he handed out his card just now to a complete stranger? But he was not able to stop himself: he pushed all the books to one side of the table, crumpled up envelopes from old letters and threw them in the wastepaper basket. He realized that this is just the way a person acts when disaster strikes: like a sleepwalker. The inertia of the everyday keeps him on the rails of life.

>"The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

>> No.4118971

You can't have meaning in a deterministic universe

>> No.4118976

>>4118858
>the meaning of life
>the
>implying I don't already know three different meanings of life while you're still thinking there is only one

>> No.4118980

Sex.....Seriously, reproduction is the entire and ONLY point.

>> No.4118999

>>4118980
The most we can say this this regard is that reproduction happens. Just as survival is a mechanism of life. We can say life and death both occur. But we cannot elevate one above the other. That would be taking what is and trying to derive a inherent indisputable ought instead of simply a justifiable one.

>> No.4119000

I'm going to go out on a limb here, after all this is 4chan.org/sci...

I meditated one time and discovered there are really two aspects that make up myself as an individual. At least, this is what I now perceive. There is the part of me that consists of all the experiences this body has gone through in life. It is the painted canvas on which all my decisions, my memories, my name are plastered. But it is distinct from this other part of me.

The other part is this experience, this absolute pure awareness, caught in this perpetual moment, witnessing the world. This part of me doesn't have tied to it emotion; that is an aspect of the former. This awareness that is present this moment is what is eternal. One day my body will die, and with it the canvas will cease to be illustrated. But I never really died. I live through every animal, every person, every single part of this reality. This reality is me.

If this is confusing in any way, I invite you to consider this: when do you die? Many people think it is when your body ceases functioning, and that is our modern view. Consider however if I were to take you and brainwash all your memories away. Have you died? Every facet of the canvas has been washed. Some part of you has died. It's the same part that dies when your body dies.

Your existence far exceeds what is normally perceived by the consciousness. It's only an illusion, produced for physiological reasons by the brain, that you see yourself as separate from the world.

>> No.4119006

>>4119000
>I meditated one time

Stopped reading there.

Try reading a book instead. You will learn something.


>I live through every animal, every person, every single part of this reality.

I have to question on what basis you mean "I". If you existed in those things so would everyone else so everyone and thing who has existed is in those things.

fear of death is not fearing what you'll miss after you're gone, it's fear of losing the past.

>> No.4119008

>>4119000
Absolutely beautiful, brilliant, and on point. You are indeed wise my friend. Glad to know that some other people are as well. I learned all of those things while meditating as well. Try meditating on acid and see what you come up with :D I saw the universe from far away, could see all of the life throughout it, how everything is connected, god holding it together, the balance of good and evil, beautiful stuff

>> No.4119010

>>4119006
clear your mind, forget everything you think you know, just meditate and you'll understand

>> No.4119011

>>4119006
Sorry, you will find no book that has an answer. If it claims to, it is wrong. This is outside of science but I'm not the least bit discouraged discussing it. We have not incorporated all parts of reality into a scientific body of knowledge - it will take much longer to say anything concrete about these issues in that context.

I meant "I" in the widest sense of the word, as in every being that has ever experienced "I".

I can see you honestly did not understand what I said. I'm sorry it's abstract, just the nature of the beast with these issues.

>> No.4119015
File: 106 KB, 530x530, 1321891716027.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4119015

>>4119000

What ridiculous bullshit. The point of meditation is not to think at all. You have completely gone the other direction, into the land of fairy tales and lies. Once you organically decay, or your neurons stop firing or fire abnormally, you are toast, bro. You went to the recycling bin. Game over. Like you never were.

>> No.4119017

>>4119008
> :D
As if the rest of that post wasn't stupid enough

>> No.4119018

>>4119008

No offense but, my dick grew wings and flew away when I was on acid. Beautiful shit, wonderful feelings, brah. But there ain't no God, and ain't no balance between good and evil. Evil is kicking good's ass and has been for years. What cul-de-sac of nonreality do you live in?

>> No.4119020

>>4119015
There was a time when if you told someone a particle "feels out all paths through the universe when deciding what to do," they would say you are discussing nonsense and fairytales.

But that is exactly what the computational methods of quantum electrodynamics convey to us. Guess what, the world is as strange as it can be. You don't have the power to dictate what is reasonable and what is not. Anytime you do you are being philosophical unless you can point to experiment to validate or disprove a claim.

>> No.4119029

If you're an idiot and you use psychedelics, you'll see stupid shit like your dick growing wings and flying away and you'll say "that was fun."

If you go into it with no expectations and keep an open mind, you'll probably learn something.

>> No.4119030

I'm going to go out on a limb here, after all this is 4chan.org/sci...

I consider there to be two aspects that make up myself as an individual. At least, this is what I now perceive. There is the part of me that consists of all the experiences this body has gone through in life. It is the painted canvas on which all my decisions, my memories, my name are plastered. But it is distinct from this other part of me.

The other part is this experience, this absolute pure awareness, caught in this perpetual moment, witnessing the world. This part of me doesn't have tied to it emotion; that is an aspect of the former. This awareness that is present this moment is what is eternal. One day my body will die, and with it the canvas will cease to be illustrated. But I never really died. I live through every animal, every person, every single part of this reality. This reality is me.

If this is confusing in any way, I invite you to consider this: when do you die? Many people think it is when your body ceases functioning, and that is our modern view. Consider however if I were to take you and brainwash all your memories away. Have you died? Every facet of the canvas has been washed. Some part of you has died. It's the same part that dies when your body dies.

Your existence far exceeds what is normally perceived by the consciousness. It's only an illusion, produced for physiological reasons by the brain, that you see yourself as separate from the world.

/revised

>> No.4119033

>>4119029

> go into it with no expectations and keep an open mind,
> you'll probably learn something.

Yeah- like previously held beliefs. I'm an athiest- I don't see Gawd when I'm high and neither do other athiests. Muslims see Allah. Jews see Yahweh. Indians see the magickal Cows.

>> No.4119036

>>4119033
>like previously held beliefs
On acid? Those don't exist.

>> No.4119037

The truth is that you as well as the toaster on your kitchen counter are sitting on the surface of this molten spherical rock, floating around a burning gas ball, flying through a galaxy of similar gas balls, orbiting along with more galaxies consisting of gas balls, in an enormous void. Honestly I can't wait to die and get an answer to this serious wtf...
(I know I won't get one)

>> No.4119045

>>4119033

I was an atheist. I tripped. I saw/felt "god." Now I'm not an atheist anymore. Still hate religion though. Sorry you didn't have a meaningful experience.

>> No.4119047

>>4119036

Yeah, pretty much.

>> No.4119048

>>4119045
It's odd, many people see god. I saw...myself

>> No.4119049

There is such a thing as diminishing returns with acid over time if you are investing that time in gathering real knowledge.

In other words, if you are a no-nothing twit who believes absurdities, you aren't going to believe how far out LSD will take you. There is a reason religious people have religious experiences on LSD- its because they are already convinced so much bullshit is possible they manifest those visions in their hallucinogenic state.

Which is not to downplay the significance of tripping whilst having intelligent knowledge of reality.

>> No.4119051

I met this homeless guy once and I liked the way he put it: "this ain't no fuckin around bullshit".

>> No.4119053

The meaning of life is that we are all complex autonamous beings set in motion by governing laws that inherit every base substance of matter. These laws give rise to time and space as we know it, as well as objective truths that can only be guessed at within our primitive subjective references.

>> No.4119055

>>4119053
Of course because that makes tons of sense

The meaning of life is variable in time

>> No.4119056

The problem is that "meaning" so conceived is unanswerable when considering the totality of existence. Life is meaningless at this scale, not in a nihilistic or apathetic sense of of the word, but in an epistemological one. The real question being asked is, "why is there a universe and life/order/humans/consciousness in it, instead of nothing at all?" I am not sure such a question can be answered. I can, however, ask why I need to eat food and drink water, why the sun revolves around the sun, why too cold a termperature will result in my death, etc. But I can't answer the "why" to the totality of all of those inquiries combined.

Another thing....what do we mean when we ask for the "meaning" of life. Are we asking for a purpose, an explanation, a causal chain, etc.? What is meaning, really? When someone else here cited the dictionary definition of life, and said sarcastically, "this is the meaning of life," I question what relation at all those set of words had with the word "life." Meaning seems to be the curious connection between two ideas. What constitutes that connection, and how is it formed?

>> No.4119058

>>4119053
Objective truths? Ha! Show me where and how I can come to know them.

>> No.4119059

>>4119048
Theyre interchangeable, semantics are unimportant with something like that.

>> No.4119060

>>4119056

You should read "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies.

>> No.4119069

>>4119056
This. Meaning only exists within some contextual framework, which seems to always necessitate taking some thing for granted. We can explain gravity if we accept special relativity and energys ability to curve space time. In science we never really have an answer to why, just connections and patterns among collections of facts of the world.

>> No.4119070

>>4119060
I'll look into it, thanks!

>> No.4119075

>>4119058
We are always discovering new ways of looking at things. Theories constantly evolve depending on whether the mind is capable of perceiving it. So become a futuristic supercomputer I guess.

>>4119055
The dimension of time is dependent on matter existing, which gives rise to space. Time is the apparent movement of space. Time exists at all points but we perceive it moving in one direction for biological reasons.

>> No.4119078

I don't know, more or less to survive I guess.

>while doing this, i find purpose in my life by working really hard while attempting to make a beautiful piece of art.

>> No.4119079

>>4119075
New ways doesn't mean objective ways. It is impossible to escape the imperfectness of our senses, for it is the only way to perceive our world. The list of objective truths is unfortunately very small, and it constitutes ideas we can know without having to appeal to the senses. So we have those at least.

>> No.4119083

>>4119079
Yes, objective will always remain outside of our grasp. The point being that everything we perceive right now is akin to an illusion. I'd wager the majority of Earth's population don't even realise this!

>> No.4119088

>>4119083
Say youre watching a magician, and you realize the trick and see what he's doing, is it still an illusion?

>> No.4119095

>>4119075
There really isn't any movement of space or time. Time direction is illusory, but not time itself. Particles move on a four dimensional manifold, and we understand our classical world as made of an enormous number of these particles interacting with one another. Each their interactions is completely time reversible - there is no arrow of time on this scale. The arrow comes into existence when you deal with large numbers of particles moving and you're attempting to measure some order in the system. The number of configurations for such large systems is so great that probability dictates an order repeating itself is infinitesimal. It's the multiplicity of action that allows us to form this abstract idea or orderliness, and the tendency of systems to become less ordered over time.

>> No.4119099

>>4119088
You have a conceptual idea of the trick that is probably not too different from the magicians' perception of the trick. An organism of another species with a different sensory system will have an overhauled opinion.

>> No.4119113

>>4119099
I meant that more in a metaphorical sense.
ie-if you see the illusion for what it is, is it still illusion?

>> No.4119115

>>4119095
Yes, and this tendency to become less ordered over time is what gives rise to human perception of moving forwards through time. Speaking from a Darwinian point of view, it became important to develop a way of dealing with the less ordered i.e (energy collection for use, prediction of harmful events).

>> No.4119118

>>4119113
Scientifically speaking everything is an (accurate) illusion.
Semantically speaking you no longer suffer the delusion and win the game.

>> No.4119124

The best part of tripping was realizing the intimate connection between my mind and matter, through my ability to move my hands. I always wondered how the connection is made, and it's very subtle.

>> No.4119129

>>4119118
Buddhism in a nutshell (semantically speaking).

>> No.4119141

>>4119129
Except buddism, like all religion, is horseshit

>> No.4119154

>>4119141
You can believe anything youd like.

>> No.4119156

>>4119141

Buddhism is a fucking philosophy for the last time.
The religion you're thinking of is either Hinduism or Japanese Shinto.

>> No.4119160

>>4119141
Thats actually kinda the point of Buddhism, that any belief system is illusion, the point being to see through our web of thoughts and see reality as it is.

>> No.4119162

meaning of life is simple... life is a way for the universe to know itself

>> No.4119165

>>4119156
Depends on how you define religion, not all definitions require the belief in a deity(s).

>> No.4119178

>>4119162
And?
Kick itself in the balls?

>> No.4119183

>>4119178
If it wants to.

>> No.4119185

What a pointless thread..

>> No.4119187

meaning of life is to seek fulfillment within yourself based upon your needs, enjoy your life and do what is good for you, don't eat fast food, don't put anything not good for your body inside it, reproduce and forward this knowledge to your offspring.

>> No.4119196

Who here knows the meaning of Mt Everest?

>> No.4119201

ITT: Organisms talking about their wellbeing strategies and what makes them comfy in the ecosystem, and calling it "meaning of life".

>> No.4119203

what a waste of glorious picture to the shittiest thread possible

>> No.4119207

>>4119203
Simply because you cannot find interest in a few of the marvels of the world does not mean others cant either.

>> No.4119209

>>4119011
You read multiple books, not for an answer but to expand your horizons.

>> No.4119210

>>4119207
what marvel of the world? 1/10 for making me respond

>> No.4119212

>>4119045
>I saw/felt "god."

doesn't make it any more true than anything else. Still philosophical suicide. Take the easy way out if you wish. But it's lazy and fearful. Don't let the absurdity bully you.

>> No.4119217

>>4119210
>what marvel of the world
precisely

>> No.4119218

>>4119069
Taking god for granted is pointless. it's so ill-defined. And if you try to specify, because there's no basis for it, you run into problems with justification, the problem is compounded if you not only hold it as a belief, but start to make it part of your Self.

>> No.4119220

>>4119218
You begin to force unwarranted justification solely as a means of preserving a part of you. Not because it's intellectually or morally valid.

>> No.4119223

>>4119220
a part that wasn't even there prior to your adjunction

>> No.4119233

>>4119223
Proof?

>> No.4119236

>>4119233
No baby has ever mentioned God without being taught it. This is true of anything. A baby has nothing, not science, not God.

>> No.4119240

>>4119233
people get on absolutely fine without God faith. Faith is necessary, maybe. but not necessarily God faith.

>> No.4119247

>>4119236
So how did the idea of god come to be. Were some babies, born without that knowledge, somehow able to just conceive of such a thing without base entirely by chance? (ie the first people to conceive of god)

By your logic the god idea did not originate with humans

>> No.4119251

>>4119247
Because people learned of the baselessness of everything. They invented an ambiguous base and slowly and methodically giving and taking attributes over time.

>> No.4119252

>>4119240
I'm not so sure even faith is necessary, I don't have to believe I can speak to speak.
Not that theres anything wrong with faith.

>> No.4119255

The meaning of life is to buy stuff to push the thought of death away... Until you die....

>> No.4119258

>>4119252
That's why I said 'maybe'

Interesting you should say that. Baudrillard says that belief is to doubt for precisely the same reason you say you do not need to believe you can speak.

>> No.4119261
File: 131 KB, 837x469, Screen Shot 2011-12-09 at 12.18.43 pm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4119261

>>4119258
>quote

>> No.4119262

>>4119251
So you are implying the universe is baseless. That from no base can come the order and precise nature of physical law?
If there was no base it seems anything should be possible, but not everything is possible.

>> No.4119271

>>4119262
I'm not implying the universe is baseless but that no base is self evident or given legitimacy over any form of conjecture. it's always infinite regression or circular reasoning no matter how deep an explanation goes. The third response is to accept the base axiomatically. That's the least preferred, because the point at which you stop is arbitrary.

>> No.4119280

>>4119271
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
I'm not English major, but I would say you are implying the universe is baseless. How in the hell can anyone interpret that string of words differently?

>> No.4119283 [DELETED] 

>>4119280
it's a problem with my wording. it's not that they're asserting baselessness, but that they realise as they begin to question things around them that I'm not implying the universe is baseless but that no base is self evident or given legitimacy over any form of conjecture. it's always infinite regression or circular reasoning no matter how deep an explanation goes. The third response is to accept the base axiomatically. That's the least preferred, because the point at which you stop is arbitrary.

>> No.4119286

>>4119280
it's a problem with my wording. it's not that they're asserting baselessness, but that they realise as they begin to question things around them that no base is self evident or given legitimacy over any form of conjecture. it's always infinite regression or circular reasoning no matter how deep an explanation goes. The third response is to accept the base axiomatically. That's the least preferred, because the point at which you stop is arbitrary.

>> No.4119290

>>4119286
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything
>it's not that they're asserting baselessness
>because people learned of the baselessness of everything

Perhaps you don't know how to use words? Because you totally were asserting the world is baseless. Don't deny it.

fullretard.jpg

>> No.4119295

>>4119290
change it to

>because people learned as they begin to question things around them that no base is self evident or given legitimacy over any form of conjecture. it's always infinite regression or circular reasoning no matter how deep an explanation goes. The third response is to accept the base axiomatically. That's the least preferred, because the point at which you stop is arbitrary.

You pedantic prick.

>> No.4119301

>>4119290
Might want to tone down the butthurt
Anyone would think you were insulted. Like beliefs you'd cherished without adequate justification were suddenly brought tumbling down.

>> No.4119302

>>4119295
I refuse to change the sources from which I cite. I guess you do the opposite?

>> No.4119303 [DELETED] 

>>4119302
It was my words. I'm entitled to clarify.
Once again: >>4119302

>> No.4119304

>>4119302
It was my words. I'm entitled to clarify.
Once again: >>4119301

>> No.4119307

>>4119301
He was being contradictory, unless claiming the universe is baseless and following it up by the statement that it isn't baseless is considered logically sound by you. Wouldn't surprise me

>> No.4119315

>>4119307
You're talking to the same person by the way. I've already told you didn't mean to suggest that I was claiming lack of a base. I meant no base over and above any other hypothesised. It's really quite pathetic of you to latch onto this confusion in order to disregard everything I've said.

>> No.4119316

>>4119304
Clarify, sure. But dont change the whole damn premise and get mad if someone calls you on it

2.3/10 bc I responded

>> No.4119319

>>4119316
Not mad. I'm clarifying and you're refusing to acknowledge that because tehy only way you can beat me is pretending the conversation stopped at this confusion. it didn't.

>> No.4119330

>>4119316
Same guy here you've talking to the whole time by the way.

You can continue with your axiomatic base if you so desire, but it's not enough for me. it's insufficient because it's not any more true than anyone else's axiomatic base. Once I realise that, I understand that there's no use in stopping the journey of enquiry here.

>> No.4119334

You see what's happening here right? Right?
You know what the whole point of this was?
It isn't to have a discussion, or an argument.
It's to get you to waste time and spend about an hour going in circles until you trip and fuck up.

Then he disappears. That's called trolling. You've been trolled. Maybe you should learn from this and never let yourself be so easily baited again.

If anything experience is the purpose of life, if not meaning. Let this experience be a lesson for you.

Also, no one fucking knows. You'd have to be nigh omniscient to fathom the concept. Your attempts at guessing are as fruitful as trying to guess someone's entire genetic make-up by spouting out letters at random.

>> No.4119338

>>4119334
He made himself look more stupid than me. Once the confusion was resolved he effectively put his fingers in his ears yelling 'you made a mistake ahahaha'. I couldn't care less if he holds axiomatic truth of whatever. I'm not out to convert.

>> No.4119339

To die

>> No.4119340

>>4119330
What's strange is this doesn't seem to be true in the world. The quantum world only has reality because of classical measurement - without reference to classical mechanics, we cannot make any sense of quantum theory. So it's not a matter of an infinite number of equally valid bases. We can have no based whatsoever!

>> No.4119579

bump

>> No.4119580

To enjoy it.

>> No.4119588

image name ends in 42.
wut

>> No.4119590

The meaning of life is what you make it.
Whew, that was hard, i better go lie down now.

>> No.4119595

>>4119033
I believe the correct term is Brahma and he's not a cow. l2read faggot.

>> No.4119634

the meaning of life is zero divided by zero. it's simple isn't it? :)

>> No.4119659

>>4119095

explain more please

>> No.4119664

>people actually think that they can attribute meaning to life, especially as a human that can only take in a fraction of the information provided from the universe

>> No.4119669

>ctrl+f " 42"
YES.

>> No.4120150

Some of you know what's up, some of you don't. That is the way it is and always will be when looking at people's beliefs on a large scale in the world.
Sometimes you must forget everything you think you know or have been told, and ask a question to expand your mind.
For example: We know our galaxy is moving through time and space at 40,000 miles per second... is that the case or are we sitting still and time is moving by us at 40,000 miles per second?