Meaning of life

[Anonymous No.4390895]

I have come to a conclusion about the ultimate question /sci/.
>Why are we here?
We are here by pure chance. We exist in spite of the sheer improbability nay impossibility that we came to be at all.
That much is certain.
It is evident to me that our purpose is that we are the instrument through which the universe will come to know itself.
And that is all.
Oh that and preserve our genetic code, but that is more of a biological requirement.
What do you guys think?

[Anonymous No.4390937]

We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself. Carl Sagan said that.
You're pretty much right, OP.

[Anonymous No.4390943]

[Anonymous No.4390948]

>>4390895
>>4390937
>>4390943

[Anonymous No.4390953]

>>4390948
your right

>>4390895
also, i dont agree with this view on humanity - making it seem fairly insignificant. although, i know a lot of /sci/ nerds would agree. so i wont say anything

[Anonymous No.4390967]

>>4390937
I had heard it somewhere before, wasn't trying to pass his ideas off as my own I just couldn't remember who's idea it was first

[Anonymous No.4390972]

>>4390953

Insignificant? Are you kidding?

One sec...

“Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing.
And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter... Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold... that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle.

But...if me, my birth, if that's a thermodynamic miracle... I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!.

Yes. Anybody in the world. ..But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another's vantage point. As if new, it may still take our breath away. Come...dry your eyes. For you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly. Dry your eyes... and let's go home.”

[Anonymous No.4390978]

>>4390937
If we are part of the cosmos
And the cosmos is trying to know itself
Isn't the cosmos, then, identical to us?
Doesn't this also indicate eternal life?

Might be comprehending this wrong but tell me if i am

[Anonymous No.4390984]

well, if that's taken in an abstract sense (disregarding any specific meaning such as "some alien created us for the purpose of entertainment"), it's always true

so that conclusion is correct

[Anonymous No.4390985]

>>4390978
Also, why would the cosmos require multiple human beings to know itself? Does that mean the cosmos requires relationships between humans as a process of understanding its need to share a relationship with itself?

[Anonymous No.4390989]

>>4390984
who are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.4390995]

I don't think "Why are we here" is a good question let alone the ultimate question. First it presumes an answer to an inherently deeper question "is there a reason we're here". Which is also a silly question. Does the hammer drive nails better or worse for it's lack of understanding of it's purpose? Could the hammer understand, should the intent of it's creation be important to the hammer? The hammer is free to find its own meaning and its own purpose even if it decides there is none at all and chooses to live merely the most comfortable life a hammer can live.

This type of philosophy is smoke and mirrors.

[Anonymous No.4391004]

>>4390972
wow, what a beautiful quote. who said that?

by "insignificant" i was referring to the common perception on /sci/ that life is pointless

[Anonymous No.4391014]

>>4391004

The quote is from the character Dr Manhatten in Alan Moore's comic "Watchmen"

If you define "pointless" as "not having a divinely/naturally appointed goal intended in its design" then I would agree.

But we have the unique ability to provide our own point, our own meaning.

Life is life. To do with as we see fit. I would prefer that involve growing, and knowing, and eventually spreading life.

[Anonymous No.4391029]

>>4391014
No, as in THERE IS NO POINT AND NEVER WILL BE A POINT
that is usually the mindset of a typical /sci/ nerd

I agree with your point. We are imbued with the gift of freedom, to create a point for ourselves.

I feel like I'm talking with a breath of fresh air (not that your that inanimate, lol). Tell me stranger, what are your views on an afterlife?

[Anonymous No.4391059]

OP your question is sort of limiting. if you're going to ask why anything, ask why nature? why earth, grass, humans, cats, why does something exist that allows a chance for life to exist? you say we are here by chance, but I ask you why is the possibility of a chance something that exists? why are there forces of gravity, why do things have matter, why are there different elements? why do these laws of nature exist, it makes no sense.

[not op No.4391068]

>>4391059
the answer: there was an intelligent mind that CHOSE to create
i do not believe in 'coincidence'
there is too much law and order for anything to be termed as merely a coincidence
(NOT OP)

[Anonymous No.4391076]

While what you're saying is essentially true OP, you're not really saying much. 'Why are we here?' is a hidden two part question. Yeah, we are an instrument through which the universe is coming to know itself. And it happened by chance (obviously). Since selection occurs mostly on a genetic scale, that last bit includes both 'chance' and 'preserving our genetic code'.

But these only explain the 'cause' of our existence. Where is this meaning of life you were talking about? I'm not saying these are 'unworthy' of being the meaning of life, I'm saying they don't really look anything like a meaning, more like causes for life. When they ask 'Why are we here?', a lot of people are asking 'What are we here to do? What are we supposed to do?' The only valid answer to this part are the words which Carl Sagan also said, which would imply living a life of knowledge seeking and science. If that's all you're saying, I agree. I've been one of the life extension freaks since I was little. Which is why I am studying Molecular Genetics in university, and I was lucky enough to land in one with a really successful professor doing exactly this kind of research.

>>4390972

That's a cool quote, but I would not call that a miracle. You are only looking at the single result in all the probabilities. Consider a result that has not happened, where instead of you I am the son of your mother. That didn't happen. If we disregarded genetics for a moment (or instead considered another sperm of your fathers), it has an equal likelihood of happening. Is your mother not giving birth to me a miracle? Or someone else? I don't think we need to crawl around looking for a sense of uniqueness for life to be rich.

[Anonymous No.4391077]

>>4391068
who are you to say though? who is anyone to saying anything about why we are here?

I agree with >>4390995 in response to these questions, in that the best thing we could do is live comfortably

[Anonymous No.4391083]

>We are here by pure chance.
... as opposed to what other kind of chance?
saged for buzzwordfag

[Anonymous No.4391087]

mfw this is the first time im on /sci/ and its wonderful

[Anonymous No.4391092]

>>4390953
>Our species has conquered insurmountable odds to discover the true nature of our Universe
>Hurr durr that seems pretty insignificant. Ur a bunch of nerds

[Anonymous No.4391093]

>>4391059
I.... huh

[not op No.4391100]

>>4391092
What is the "true nature" of this universe?
awaiting a shitty reply, no doubt

[Anonymous No.4391102]

Remember kids: Significance is measured by mass and energy out put.

Giant rock and balls of gas a million light years away are more important than you because they're bigger.

[Anonymous No.4391105]

>>4390978
If by life, you mean growth, change, interaction, and complexity, beauty, then the Universe will always be full of life. If by eternal life, you mean the chance to shake hands with Uncle Billy and Elvis Presley at the Pearly Gates, then I'm sorry, but you're out of luck.

[Anonymous No.4391109]

>>4390895
My take on it is that everything exists, and my existence is a mere subset of that everything. Chance and choice both imply some underlying mechanism whether or not that mechanism is understood, from which each underlying mechanism implies another deeper underlying mechanism, and so on to infinitude. Does that mean one's mere existence is insignificant? Not at all. Every one thing is a necessary and sufficient condition for all other things.

[Anonymous No.4391112]

>>4391102

if the universe actually did have some sort of personal rating on importance, this could be true. while we could write thousands of symphonies celebrating the idea of life and creation, observe and understand the world around us, build gigantic pyramids, those suns will be around way longer than we will, will be bigger than anything we could create and will provide more energy than we ever will. suns are more important than people.

[Anonymous No.4391115]

>>4391105
>/sci/ nerds speaking with utter conviction
>conviction with no evidence
>no evidence

>lack of a modifier

/sci/ has been so shit lately

[Anonymous No.4391118]

>>4391059

My mind just shorted out.

[Anonymous No.4391119]

>>4391112
Remember kids: Significance is measured by the amount of time a system in a particular state.


A river rock is more important than a moment you share with a friend because it'll last longer.

[Anonymous No.4391121]

>>4391105
Yes, so if we are part of the universe we will always be "full of life"

Also, is this Carl Sagan fellow a respected philosopher/scientist (whichever he is) on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.4391126]

>>4391121
0/10

[Anonymous No.4391127]

Personally I don't think that there is an afterlife, and people should act like it. It's a bad attitude. It's like being giving an incredible gift, and instead of saying thank you and doing the best you can with it, you stamp your foot and say the gift is useless, unless you get the gift again and again forever. We should all be grateful for the life we do have (not that anybody on /sci/ has a life) instead of pining after other lives.

[Anonymous No.4391130]

>>4391127
We're all part of the greatest non-finite system. You're a fool to think that you cease to exist.

[Anonymous No.4391132]

"Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the things which compose it...nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be laid out before its eyes." - Pierre Simon de Laplace

You should not simply surmise, "Well, it's all random, anything can happen." For one thing, certain things simply cannot happen, either in classical physics or quantum physics. The conservation laws of mass, energy, momentum, and angular momentum are still valid, so for instance processes that create energy out of nothing are not just unlikely according to quantum physics, they are impossible.

So in other words, the Universe is like a big piece of clockwork that had to be set in motion. But again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Anonymous No.4391134]

>>4391119

or rather significance is unimportant and irrelevant because there is no real means to base such a thing on. A river rock may live exponentially longer than I will, but it will never experience the joy of a first kiss. but then again, I'm still putting significance on things even with my example. so maybe the better way to say it would be that everything does indeed have equal and infinite significance and that no one thing is greater than another, whether it be a human or a sun. but I'm just rambling.

[Anonymous No.4391136]

>>4391121

Mostly, yeah. Though there are a few who criticize him for not doing much actual scientific research and instead tv series for laymen.

His approach to the cosmos is especially appreciated by stoners.

[Anonymous No.4391139]

>>4391130
what is the value of "existence" without experience? My matter may go one forver in one form or another but the tools I use to observe the world and have feelings about it won't.

Further more my matter is constantly exchanged. I'm not the same collection of particles I was last year, and if you only look at the particles that make up the dendrites in my brain then I'm not the same person I was a few minutes ago. It is the configuration of the system that is important. Not the particular neutrons.

[Anonymous No.4391137]

>>4391132
> The conservation laws of mass, energy, momentum, and angular momentum are still valid
Yes, in this location. There may exist as of yet nonexplorable locations which these laws do not apply.

[Anonymous No.4391145]

OP here is my theory on why we are here. We are all connected outside of these physical bodies, whether it be various members of a higher dimensional civilization or as a single soul. We are viewing earth through many eyes. We love Earth and want to be apart of this life that we found here. Lights are beautiful, the scenery is beautiful. We have gadgets and boats and can interact with other humans. It's better than being alone in the vast space of nothingness. We are God collectively.

[Anonymous No.4391146]

>we are the instrument through which the universe will come to know itself.

If so, we're doing a pretty bad job at it. Most people aren't interested either in "knowing the universe" or in knowing in general.

Any awe-inspiring story is good enough for most.

[Anonymous No.4391151]

>>4391139
> My matter may go one forver in one form or another but the tools I use to observe the world and have feelings about it won't.
Yes, the biological structures you have in common with the rest of every one of us humans will fail to prevail upon your departure from Earth.

[Anonymous No.4391154]

>>4391134
or how about we stop being retarded about the definitions of words. If you zoom out to look at the milkyway then earth is "insignificant" in size. That does not mean that it is not important, and it certainly doesn't give you license to play a semantics game to generalize everything as "insignificant" as it's meant in common speech. IE: Important.

[Anonymous No.4391157]

>>4391146

Another good quote from Carl Sagan:

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

[Anonymous No.4391159]

> Deny the existence of God.

> Bawl like a bitch when there's no all-powerful being to explain what the purpose of life is.

[Anonymous No.4391161]

>>4391151
Departure? Even if I had the money I think jettisoning my remains into space is silly.

[Anonymous No.4391171]

>>4391136
Cosmos is a brilliant series. (Available on hulu)
I used to think that Carl Sagan was a bit mystifying and romantic, but then I realized that everything he says is 100% objectively true. Also the criticism that he wasn't a "real" scientist is stupid and uninformed. He worked closely with NASA and was director of Cornell's Laboratory for Planetary Studies. Just because there is no "Sagan's theory" whatever does not mean we wasn't a dedicated scientist and researcher.

[Anonymous No.4391172]

>>4391159
We're bawling because people keep pushing the idea that there is a purpose to existence.
I don't need to imagine myself as some sort of cosmological VIP in order to find meaning in my life.

In any case no answer is better than the wrong answer.

[Anonymous No.4391178]

>>4391159
>implying that if there was no God, we'd be alive to "bawl"
>has just contradicted his own beliefs
do you realise what a retard you are?
and what's more humorous, you made an ass out of yourself instead

[Anonymous No.4391184]

>>4391172
Purpose is generated by the self. There is a purpose to existence if you choose to give it purpose.
What if all life were everlasting, derailing your notion of being a "cosmological VIP"

And I guess I'd agree that "no answer is better than a wrong answer"
Nothing angers me more than a an adherent of religion or atheist expressing their views with no modularities in their language and, instead, with the utmost conviction despite a lack of evidence

[Anonymous No.4391188]

>>4391184
And to not sound like a hypocrite, *What if****

[Anonymous No.4391189]

>>4391146
>Most people aren't interested either in "knowing the universe" or in knowing in general.
That is true, but it's not always a bad thing. There's more to life than knowing. As long as people get to experience the beauty of life, and help others experience as well, I think their lives have been well-lived, whether they know anything or not.

[Anonymous No.4391190]

>>4391171

Agreed, I think the same. People still say silly stuff though. Also, I don't think integrating science into the general public is any less significant than doing research. In the long run, Carl Sagan will probably inspire a greater amount of scientific interest and research than any amount of research one might do in a lifetime.

[Anonymous No.4391192]

>>4391189
This.

/thread
im getting sick of all this bickering

[Anonymous No.4391197]

>>4390895
Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous No.4391198]

>>4391184
Sorry, I misunderstood your post
>>4391172

[Anonymous No.4391199]

>>4391139
You may not feel that life will have no meaning if you do not live forever, but unfortunately, the nature of the Universe will not change itself to accommodate your desires. What the people ITT are trying to tell you is that this is simply the way the world works and no amount of wishful thinking will ever change it. So you might as well have a positive attitude about it.

[Anonymous No.4391201]

>>4391199
But that is assuming that there is no afterlife.
What if there is no need for "accomodation" because it is an essential law of the universe?
We don't know
We may never know
But for you to state that in the representation of a fact is plain absurd, for the most part.

[Anonymous No.4391203]

>>4391184
Yeah those silly atheists. Don't they know they have to provide evidence in order to reject claims with no supporting evidence?

[Anonymous No.4391207]

>>4391203
I included religion as well you mocking faggot

[Anonymous No.4391210]

>>4391189
Of course, but then the quote is an exaggeration of the role of humans in the universe. We aren't a means for the universe to know itself if most people simply don't give a fuck about knowing, and only care about, as you said, fucking bitches and acquiring currency.

[Anonymous No.4391213]

>>4391199
and how am I not saying that? My concern is that people take these concepts and miss-apply them.
The universe is much bigger and longer lasting than us. We aren't important.
I assign value to things as a way of functioning in the world. Value is intrinsic.
Energy can't be destroyed. There's an after life.

I think you've confused me for one of the mystics.

[Anonymous No.4391218]

>>4391210
Everybody questions the nature of existence. I would actually be confident to present that as a fact. Until youve been into someones head, who on the outside seem like complete narcissistic dickheads, you dont know what they are thinking of.
The same can be said about my conclusion, but from personal experience, everyone I've met have thought about it

[Anonymous No.4391219]

>>4391207
That's not a concession. Theists presenting a claim with no evidence is not equal to atheists rejecting a claim without evidence. It is the lack of evidence that leads us to reject the claim.
If you're ad because some atheist somewhere made an affirmative claim without any evidence than go ahead and slap him, but it was not their "atheism" that motivated that.

[Anonymous No.4391225]

>>4391219
> Theists presenting a claim with no evidence is not equal to atheists rejecting a claim without evidence
So, you mean to tell me that Atheists "reject" the claim of God without establishing the counter-claim that there is "no God"? You are,either, confusing yourself between agnosticism and atheism or haven't thought it through.

[Anonymous No.4391227]

>>4391210
how many people need to know the universe for it to count as "the universe knowing itself"?
And why is the "universe knowing itself" itself important? Why isn't it enough that we make these discoveries, make a detailed account, and then make it freely accessible to anyone who might want to know it?

[Anonymous No.4391248]

>>4391218
I agree with that, but they usually settle for narratives which they find in their own culture. Considering how widespread religions are, it shows how effective they are in channeling most people's existential questions. They are so deeply entrenched in their psyches, that no amount of knowing seems to make them doubt them. I fail to see how this is a reflection of "the universe knowing itself", unless the universe doesn't really want to know itself, but wants to give birth to the most whimsical stories. We might equally say the universe doesn't want to know itself as much as it wants to delude itself.

[Anonymous No.4391254]

>>4391225

Not the person you're quoting, but: Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. They are usually depicted as the x and y axes of a coordinate plane. Gnosticism vs. agnosticism is claiming absolute knowledge vs. not claiming absolute knowledge. Atheism versus theism is not believing in God vs. believing in God. A gnostic theist would be someone who claims to know God exists. An agnostic atheist (such as myself, or the 'militant atheist' Richard Dawkins as he himself has stated) is someone who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim to know for sure.

Of course, that is just semantics. For most, accepting there is a tiny chance there is God is like accepting there is a tiny chance you can be struck by a meteorite at any moment. The chance exists, but you don't live your life as if you're going to be struck by a meteorite.

I call myself 'atheist' because for all practical purposes I am one, and I don't want to explain to every single person what I just wrote out. You don't have to disprove there is a chance to be hit by a meteorite in order to live your life as if that will not happen.

[Anonymous No.4391264]

>>4391254
its those little details that make all the difference, anon.

i concede my point

[Anonymous No.4391265]

>>4391213
>Thinks that souls are made of "energy"
>Not a mystic
>mfw

[Anonymous No.4391268]

>It is evident to me that our purpose is that we are the instrument through which the universe will come to know itself.
Wow, this is an excellent way of putting it.

[Anonymous No.4391307]

>>4391225
agnosticism is atheism.
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4391309]

>>4391265
When did I even say souls exist?!

[Anonymous No.4391316]

>>4391178
Logic much? Even as a believer, that type of conclusion is just sad. Troll harder.

[Anonymous No.4391333]

>>4391309
>Believes in eternal life, but not souls
soul
[sohl]   Origin

soul
   [sohl] Show IPA
noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.

>mfw his beliefs are a contradiction

Get a coherent belief system before you get into internet arguments.

[Anonymous No.4391335]

>>4391203
What constitutes valid evidence? No, really.

If you believe in God, what specific (as detailed as possible) demonstration not mimic-able by chance would you accept as undeniable proof that God does not exist?

On the flip side, if you don't believe in God, what specific (as detailed as possible) demonstration not mimic-able by chance would you accept as undeniable proof that God does exist?

You're saying people need proof. I'm saying no acceptable standard of proof could exist for such a claim.

[Anonymous No.4391340]

>>4391307
>a__ism is a__ism
Lrn2distinguish, faggot

[Anonymous No.4391345]

>>4391333
>It's written in this book/source/website, so it must be the basis of all understanding.

You people throw around words as though you really know what they mean. You all pretend to be happy in what you perceive as a finite space bound by simple laws of nature and common knowledge. You pretentious little assholes honestly think that everything can calculated, that everything can be understood, that some "conclusive final answer" can be achieved. Foolish. All of you.

You have these questions: "Why?", "What reason are we here?", "How does anything exist?"

Do this for me. Create a universe inside your head, right now. Using everything you've learned so far, imagine how YOU would create a universe, from beginning to end.

[Anonymous No.4391362]

>>4391333
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ETERNAL LIFE, SOULS, OR ANY SORT OF SUPERNATURAL THINGS
FUCK!

[Anonymous No.4391380]

>>4391335
Saying that there could be no good proof for a claim is not a a good excuse to thik that it's true.

And claims about god or the supernatural are all ad hoc statements that just assume we all have answer to so many more questions. Like how I said in >>4390995
claims about an afterlife assume that theduality theory of conciousness is true. You cannot live beyond your matter if your conciousness is not bother seperate and independant of it. In this case I'm not stuck in the catch 22 of not being able to "disprove" something. Duality is falsifiable with experiments highly accessible to everyone. Just consume a substance like alcohol or LSD. If it alters your experiences or behavior in any way then that means that those things are influenced by your body chemistry (not independent). Or, and admittedly this is anecdotal but verifiable and repeatable, people who suffer brain trauma and experience a whole continuum of behavioral changes. That leads to the conclusion that the matter defines the process (not separate). If there is no duality there is no after life.

[Anonymous No.4391382]

>>4391380
Learn to use the keyboard properly, then post. I got to the part with the missing "c" and missing space and stopped processing your response.

[Anonymous No.4391386]

>>4391380
Learn to use the keyboard properly, then post. I got to the part with the missing "n" and missing space and stopped processing your response.

[Anonymous No.4391389]

>>4391340
Nope sorry you're wrong.
Being an atheist means NOT being a theist.
agnostics are NOT theists and thus ARE atheists.
The hair splitting has to do with propoganda equating anti-theism as atheism and social stigma related to the title.

"Oh well I think the bible is crap, but I don't want all my community members to think I'm a jerk. I'll just make up a new word and use that!"

This is literally what Thomas Huxley thought when he coined the phrase.

[Anonymous No.4391390]

>>4391380
I didn't assert any statement was true. I asked a question and requested an activity. Please insert a card. Please try again.

[Anonymous No.4391391]

>>4391386
Marry me.

[Anonymous No.4391393]

>>4391386
Then don't read my posts.

[Anonymous No.4391396]

>>4391393
Either learn to communicate properly, or get ignored.
It's not difficult, retard.

[Anonymous No.4391397]

>>4391390
wtf? Yeah and I answered your question. I'm not arguing with you.

[Anonymous No.4391399]

>>4391396
then ignore me.

[Anonymous No.4391402]

What's with all the post deleting?

[Anonymous No.4391406]

>>4391225
Atheism does not mean what you think it means.
Apparently neither does agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.4391416]

>>4391389
>This is literally what Thomas Huxley thought
Huxley was a faggot, too

[Anonymous No.4391419]

Huxley, Gandalf, OP and all you /sci/ nerds are faggots

/thread, fuck off little ones

[Anonymous No.4391424]

>>4391406
Oh please enlighten me. Actually let me guess:
You're going to tell me that atheism is an affirmative claim for the non-existence of specifically the christian God motivated by teenage angst and pimples.

If I had a billion dollar propaganda machine then I could make the title of "agnostic" just as hated and have just as much stigma as atheist, and you know what would happen? The people who simply cannot accept ridiculous theist claims, but don't want to lose social face, will just make up a new word. Because that's what's important to people like you, the word.

[Anonymous No.4391427]

>>4391399
>Posts on internet forum that anybody can read
>Tells people to ignore him

[Anonymous No.4391428]

>>4391416
Huge faggot. Then why is his colloquialism so popular?

[Anonymous No.4391429]

>>4390895
Nothing you said was completely wrong.
Carry on.

[Anonymous No.4391433]

>>4391427
Then don't ignore me. Shit do whatever you want. You don't need my permission.

[Anonymous No.4391436]

>>4391428
Why is thinking humans only use 10% of their brains so popular?

[Anonymous No.4391455]

>>4391433
Oh I am quite aware that I do not need your permission

[Anonymous No.4391461]

>Why are we here?

because we aren't aware of all the times we aren't here.

[Anonymous No.4392004]

>>4391461

"We're all here because we're no all there"?

makes sense...