On March 23 2012 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: in the big picture, ultimately, it is impossible to logically establish any purpose in life, since nothing you do will matter in a century or a millennium if you are lucky/genius. this is assuming you are not religious, of course.
but there's also no point in dying and since living is more "natural" for a living organism (biological perspective), we just continue living.
Guttenburg was by no means a genius at all, yet he has probably been the single most influential human being in all of history.
Hence, "lucky." But, my point will still stand even if you made a contribution that will affect humanity indefinitely. Once you die, you will be no longer exist in any form and nothing that you did will matter to you.
Well, it may not matter to you, but it will matter to the past you, and that's the part we care about-- because after we are dead, we're... well, we're dead. So we should do stuff that matters to us while we are alive.
I sometimes thought about this than i realized life is all about what you make of it. Sometimes you just have to let go lol. Can't build fences around life : )
On March 23 2012 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: ultimately, it is impossible to logically establish any purpose in life
This is not true. It's logically unsound to deduct a REASON for life, but you can find it's purpose pretty easy. All life on earth is gathering and encoding information about it's environment. Humans are no different, we just have tools that expand our environment, that's all. So the purpose of life is gathering and encoding information.
On March 23 2012 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: ultimately, it is impossible to logically establish any purpose in life
This is not true. It's logically unsound to deduct a REASON for life, but you can find it's purpose pretty easy. All life on earth is gathering and encoding information about it's environment. Humans are no different, we just have tools that expand our environment, that's all. So the purpose of life is gathering and encoding information.
One can easily deduce that there is a reason for life, but figuring out what that reason is-objectively speaking-I am fairly certain is impossible.
On March 23 2012 17:41 Kasha_Not_Kesha wrote: One can easily deduce that there is a reason for life
Oh? Please enlighten us.
I've never actually written the proof out formally, it's just something I've tossed around verbally with a few of my friends and it seemed to work out. I'll write it up and see if I still think it holds =P
On March 23 2012 17:41 Kasha_Not_Kesha wrote: One can easily deduce that there is a reason for life
Oh? Please enlighten us.
I've never actually written the proof out formally, it's just something I've tossed around verbally with a few of my friends and it seemed to work out. I'll write it up and see if I still think it holds =P
In terms of like "is something the reason for which life exists" like "evolution" or "the state of the earth at some certain point" or even "this particular diety", I think there was definitely a reason that brought life into existence, whether natural or supernatural. However, if we are thinking about reason as "purpose", I do not believe that you can deduce that life definitively has one-- aside from extrinsically motivated purposes such as "create more life of the same variety" or "keep on existing" which are in place because life without such purposes died out.
I believe that it is possible that life has an intrinsically motivated purpose, but I do not believe that you can "easily deduce" that life has an intrinsically motivated purpose. I think that an agnostic position regarding the possibility of the deduction of the motivation of such a purpose is the only logical one.
EDIT: I have created a pictorial analysis summarizing my position within this spoiler. It's a high-resolution hand-drawn image so do not open it if you have a slow connection.
On March 23 2012 17:41 Kasha_Not_Kesha wrote: One can easily deduce that there is a reason for life
Oh? Please enlighten us.
I've never actually written the proof out formally, it's just something I've tossed around verbally with a few of my friends and it seemed to work out. I'll write it up and see if I still think it holds =P
In terms of like "is something the reason for which life exists" like "evolution" or "the state of the earth at some certain point" or even "this particular diety", I think there was definitely a reason that brought life into existence, whether natural or supernatural. However, if we are thinking about reason as "purpose", I do not believe that you can deduce that life definitively has one-- aside from extrinsically motivated purposes such as "create more life of the same variety" or "keep on existing" which are in place because life without such purposes died out.
I believe that it is possible that life has an intrinsically motivated purpose, but I do not believe that you can "easily deduce" that life has an intrinsically motivated purpose. I think that an agnostic position regarding the possibility of the deduction of the motivation of such a purpose is the only logical one.
EDIT: I have created a pictorial analysis summarizing my position within this spoiler. It's a high-resolution hand-drawn image so do not open it if you have a slow connection.
God damn you were not kidding about that image. Nearly crashed my computer trying to load it up. Once it loaded I was in awe at the truth I was being subjected to. It was mind-numbing (Especially the true fact that is true) how much knowledge you were dropping there.
The problem with the approach you described is that you're trying to positively illustrate there is a reason via example, but if we could come up with a simple example or a reliable assumption that establishes that life has a purpose, we'd be able to easily determine what that purpose is.
The extent to which I've "proven" (To myself and without any verifiable or examinable reasoning) that life has a purpose is rather disappointing. It's really just a simple Reductio Ad Absurdum argument against the claim that "Life has no purpose", which is far easier, but far less useful at the same time.
EDIT:
I too felt it necessary to summarize my position within the spoiler below. Very high quality, high resolution graphical analysis; you've been warned.
On March 23 2012 17:41 Kasha_Not_Kesha wrote: One can easily deduce that there is a reason for life
Oh? Please enlighten us.
I've never actually written the proof out formally, it's just something I've tossed around verbally with a few of my friends and it seemed to work out. I'll write it up and see if I still think it holds =P
In terms of like "is something the reason for which life exists" like "evolution" or "the state of the earth at some certain point" or even "this particular diety", I think there was definitely a reason that brought life into existence, whether natural or supernatural. However, if we are thinking about reason as "purpose", I do not believe that you can deduce that life definitively has one-- aside from extrinsically motivated purposes such as "create more life of the same variety" or "keep on existing" which are in place because life without such purposes died out.
I believe that it is possible that life has an intrinsically motivated purpose, but I do not believe that you can "easily deduce" that life has an intrinsically motivated purpose. I think that an agnostic position regarding the possibility of the deduction of the motivation of such a purpose is the only logical one.
EDIT: I have created a pictorial analysis summarizing my position within this spoiler. It's a high-resolution hand-drawn image so do not open it if you have a slow connection.
God damn you were not kidding about that image. Nearly crashed my computer trying to load it up. Once it loaded I was in awe at the truth I was being subjected to. It was mind-numbing (Especially the true fact that is true) how much knowledge you were dropping there.
The problem with the approach you described is that you're trying to positively illustrate there is a reason via example, but if we could come up with a simple example or a reliable assumption that establishes that life has a purpose, we'd be able to easily determine what that purpose is.
The extent to which I've "proven" (To myself and without any verifiable or examinable reasoning) that life has a purpose is rather disappointing. It's really just a simple Reductio Ad Absurdum argument against the claim that "Life has no purpose", which is far easier, but far less useful at the same time.
EDIT:
I too felt it necessary to summarize my position within the spoiler below. Very high quality, high resolution graphical analysis; you've been warned.
Let me first address your claims before moving on to pictorial analysis. I attempt to positively illustrate there is a reason via example because I do not believe you have successfully done so. You have made a claim, and claims merit proof.
You mention a Reductio Ad Absurdum, but I wonder if you would possibly deign to share it with the rest of us? I think that such an argument would be humorous and enlightening for all parties, and it seems a shame to keep it locked up. After all, if "one can easily deduce" that such a reason exists, surely it wouldn't take you so long to tell us how to do so?
EPT
I'd be depressed too if I didn't drink for 6 months.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U6zq6.png)
[/spoiler]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KxQZ1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c1tge.png)
