The Meaning of Life - Is it happiness? (No, seriously) - General

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42020078]Because man can't agree, is fallible and prone to temptation.[/QUOTE] So an AI would be our best bet.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42017439]Laws, including moral ones, aren't made of matter and energy. They don't exist independent of conscious thought that creates and recognizes them. If there is a moral law that goes above humanity then the thought that created the law must be above humanity.[/QUOTE] Why must something must be made of matter and energy to exist? Abstract entities (like numbers, or sets, or any other thing) are said to exist and they are certainly not made of matter and energy. With respect to numbers, we say that [i]there exists[/i] a prime less than 3, that infinitely many primes exist, that there are infinite even numbers, as well as odd numbers, etc. With respect to other abstract entities, we say that physical laws exist. Physical laws are [i]propositions[/i], and propositions are certainly not made of matter and energy. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Merc Z I;42018225]In all seriousness, reproduction. It's the main goal of any living being.[/QUOTE] Well, I certainly don't plan on having children, and I am a living being.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42015971]Okay, lets try a different example; There is a planet somewhere in the universe where the inhabitants ritualistically murder every second infant. They all revel in the display and draw 'happiness' from it. To not kill the infant would make them all terribly sad.[/QUOTE] Another part of morality that I didn't bother mentioning is "fairness", in that the change of happiness is balanced or averaged out as much as possible. Torturing someone to make 1000s of people slightly happier is not moral as the there's a huge gap in wellbeing between the tortured guy and the others. You could define how moral an action is by how close it is the the best conceivable action in terms of total happiness and how evenly that happiness is spread out. Even ignoring "fairness" in the example I just gave, there would in reality be a possible action that leads to more overall happiness anyway. So it wouldn't be moral either way. And again like before this is also ignoring "slippery slope" consequences or justifying such an action. Also, about your example. Since they're an alien race their laws of pleasure and pain might be completely different to ours. If killing an infant gives them great pleasure then maybe death to them is not a 'painful' thing like it is to us [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42016991]You claimed that a moral action is what leads to the most happiness. If murdering the innocent man caused more happiness than the alternative of letting the 10 die then it must be moral based on your argument. Hypothetical situations are a great way to understand the fundamentals of an ethical theory.[/QUOTE] Like I said, in reality there would be other choices both leading up to and during this situation that result to more happiness and fairness

[QUOTE=matsta;42020997]Why must something must be made of matter and energy to exist? Abstract entities (like numbers, or sets, or any other thing) are said to exist and they are certainly not made of matter and energy.[/QUOTE] Those things are only representations of the material world. They can't exist independently of it. For example, numbers would be meaningless if there was nothing physical to number. The word 'tree' is a way to reference a tree. If trees didn't exist the word would hold no meaning. In the same way numbers only have meaning because of what they describe. [QUOTE]With respect to other abstract entities, we say that physical laws exist. Physical laws are [i]propositions[/i], and propositions are certainly not made of matter and energy.[/QUOTE] What is a physical law? [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;42021859]Like I said, in reality there would be other choices both leading up to and during this situation that result to more happiness and fairness[/QUOTE] Exaggerated hypothetical situations are often used in ethical discussions because they force us to pull away from the grey areas of reality and find out what the foundational elements actually are. If your argument is that good moral decisions are those that create the most happiness then that must be able to be applied to EVERY situation, no matter how crazy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42024587] Exaggerated hypothetical situations are often used in ethical discussions because they force us to pull away from the grey areas of reality and find out what the foundational elements actually are. If your argument is that good moral decisions are those that create the most happiness then that must be able to be applied to EVERY situation, no matter how crazy.[/QUOTE] Yeah I understand, but I was also hinting at the possibility that decisions not of considerable morality might have lead to such a situation in the first place, seeing as foresight is a thing and all that

[QUOTE=matsta;42020997] Well, I certainly don't plan on having children, and I am a living being.[/QUOTE] Some people decide not to reproduce to avoid responsibilities, though they still have the desire to have sex. People have created methods of sex that don't end up impregnating the female to full said desire without having the responsibility of raising a child, whilst some people won't have sex in their entire lives.

I think that the meaning of life is to achieve things, ask questions, answer them and create technology for future generations, create the new generation, die. But that's probably optimistic. We're more likely just a speck of dust in the wide mass that is the universe. No meaning. Just a coincidence. The question hugely relies on Religion and Morality, which I don't possess any of the former.

[QUOTE=RobbL;42024947]Yeah I understand, but I was also hinting at the possibility that decisions not of considerable morality might have lead to such a situation in the first place, seeing as foresight is a thing and all that[/QUOTE] So you're saying your ethical theory only works when everyone always makes the right choice? I don't quite understand how saying that better choices could have been made previously (maybe, maybe not) absolves you of having to take on the situation. It doesn't matter in the end though. Let's just say, in this hypothetical, that nothing could have been done and this situation was completely inevitable.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42026334]So you're saying your ethical theory only works when everyone always makes the right choice? I don't quite understand how saying that better choices could have been made previously (maybe, maybe not) absolves you of having to take on the situation. It doesn't matter in the end though. Let's just say, in this hypothetical, that nothing cove been done and this situation was completely inevitable.[/QUOTE] Nah i'm saying someone might have made an unethical decision that lead to the situation , which has nothing to do with the doctor's own morality I was probably going off on a tangent mentioning that

[QUOTE=sgman91;42024587]Those things are only representations of the material world. They can't exist independently of it. For example, numbers would be meaningless if there was nothing physical to number. The word 'tree' is a way to reference a tree. If trees didn't exist the word would hold no meaning. In the same way numbers only have meaning because of what they describe.[/QUOTE] And what exactly is that which numbers describe? Do you realize that to even say that numbers would have no meaning if there were nothing physical to number is making a claim about numbers? More specifically, it is saying that in all hypothetical worlds in which there are no physical things (whatever the word 'physical' stands for), numbers 'have no meaning'. I have no idea what grounds there are to hold this claim. I think there is none. And even if there are grounds for making this claim, you certainly have provided none. [QUOTE=sgman91;42024587]What is a physical law?[/QUOTE] A physical law is a proposition that describes the way things behave in the universe. We say that the universe behaves the way it does because it follows certain physical laws, that means, that some set of propositions are always true of any event of certain kind in our actual universe. If you don't recognize that [i]there are[/i] certain propositions that are true of every event of certain kind, then I don't see how you can make sense of the term 'physical law'.

[QUOTE=matsta;42028393]And what exactly is that which numbers describe? Do you realize that to even say that numbers would have no meaning if there were nothing physical to number is making a claim about numbers? More specifically, it is saying that in all hypothetical worlds in which there are no physical things (whatever the word 'physical' stands for), numbers 'have no meaning'.[/QUOTE] You made the initial claim about numbers by bringing them up as an example of an immaterial concept that has real meaning independent of the physical world. I think the simple fact that numbers are a creation of the a mind, and only specific kinds of minds, is a decent proof that they are representations as opposed to independently existent. We did not "discover" numbers like we discovered quantum mechanics. We created numbers. In fact, language, itself, is simply a construct of a mind and numbers are nothing more than a part of language. [QUOTE]A physical law is a proposition that describes the way things behave in the universe. We say that the universe behaves the way it does because it follows certain physical laws, that means, that some set of propositions are always true of any event of certain kind in our actual universe. If you don't recognize that [i]there are[/i] certain propositions that are true of every event of certain kind, then I don't see how you can make sense of the term 'physical law'.[/QUOTE] I thought you were talking about some sort of natural moral law since your response was to my talking about of a moral law. The word 'law' in science is not the same as the word 'law' when we are talking about moral codes. They have different definitions. A physical law is simply a description of how the material word interacts with each other. A moral code (law) is a set of values that one is expected to follow on the basis of right and wrong. I'm not sure how something being a proposition is relevant at all.

In the original post you argued that happiness could be the meaning of life. I think happiness-pleasure is just the reward system of the brain to encourage you to do things that will ensure you and your species stay alive. ( Technically drugs are not good for you but they do mess up this system so they don't count ). You socialize to survive ( Strength in numbers ), you play games to extend your skills, you fuck to reproduce e.t.c Obviously the [U]goal[/U] of life here is to survive as [U]species[/U], but if you're talking philosophical ( e.g Why does life exists ? ) then I'd say abiogenesis... However, a person might not always want to reproduce, because human beings have completely free wills that are only influenced, but not compelled, by the reward system in order to further the progress of civilization.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42028705]You made the initial claim about numbers by bringing them up as an example of an immaterial concept that has real meaning independent of the physical world. I think the simple fact that numbers are a creation of the a mind, and only specific kinds of minds, is a decent proof that they are representations as opposed to independently existent. We did not "discover" numbers like we discovered quantum mechanics. We created numbers. In fact, language, itself, is simply a construct of a mind and numbers are nothing more than a part of language.[/QUOTE] The "simple fact" that numbers are a construct of the mind is not a "simple fact". There is nothing about numbers that tells us that they would not exist if, for example, there was nothing in the universe. Actually, the most successful theories about modal claims give as a result that, for example "2 + 2 = 4" is true in every possible universe (even the ones that do not contain [i]anything[/i] 'physical'). [QUOTE=sgman91;42028705]I thought you were talking about some sort of natural moral law since your response was to my talking about of a moral law. The word 'law' in science is not the same as the word 'law' when we are talking about moral codes. They have different definitions. A physical law is simply a description of how the material word interacts with each other. A moral code (law) is a set of values that one is expected to follow on the basis of right and wrong. I'm not sure how something being a proposition is relevant at all.[/QUOTE] I was talking about physical laws to give an example of abstract entities in whose existence we all agree. I think the problem is not that 'moral laws' do not exist because they are 'abstract entities' (because we all ascribe existence to at least [i]some[/i] abstract entities). The problem is that they don't have truth-conditions. (Their truth cannot be evaluated, like, for example, the truth of the proposition "2 + 2 = 4".) Also, being a proposition is fundamental for physical laws, because if they were not propositions, they would not describe anything at all. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] In the first answer, when I said "There is nothing about numbers that tells us that [b]they would not exist if, for example, there was nothing in the universe.[/b]" I meant, "nothing [i]physical[/i] in the universe."

[QUOTE=matsta;42032076]The "simple fact" that numbers are a construct of the mind is not a "simple fact". There is nothing about numbers that tells us that they would not exist if, for example, there was nothing in the universe. Actually, the most successful theories about modal claims give as a result that, for example "2 + 2 = 4" is true in every possible universe (even the ones that do not contain [I]anything[/I] 'physical').[/QUOTE] The statement: "The word tree is spelled 't' 'r' 'e' 'e'" is also true in every possible universe because we defined it that way. This does not mean language is independent of the universe. The question is if the statement of "2+2=4" would mean anything if there weren't any minds to give it meaning. The fact that we created numbers tells us that they wouldn't exist if we weren't there to create them. Before humanity numbers didn't exist.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42033041]The statement: "The word tree is spelled 't' 'r' 'e' 'e'" is also true in every possible universe because we defined it that way. This does not mean language is independent of the universe. The question is if the statement of "2+2=4" would mean anything if there weren't any minds to give it meaning. [u]The fact that we created numbers tells us that they wouldn't exist if we weren't there to create them. Before humanity numbers didn't exist.[/u][/QUOTE] First, yes, it is true that the [i]string of symbols[/i] "2 + 2 = 4" can't have meaning unless a group of users of such language gives that string meaning. But it is not true (or at least, it is under discussion) that [i]the proposition that the sting of symbols[/i] "2 + 2 = 4" [i]expresses cannot exist if it is not entertained by someone[/i]. Second, the 'fact' that we created numbers is not so straightforward as you might think. What IS obvious is that we created [i]numerals[/i] (i.e. symbols '0', '1', '2', '3', etc.), not that we created numbers. It is also obvious that the earth and the sun were [i]two[/i] things before humanity existed. And, presumably, they will still be [i]two[/i] things after humanity disappears.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42017439]Laws, including moral ones, aren't made of matter and energy. They don't exist independent of conscious thought that creates and recognizes them. If there is a moral law that goes above humanity then the thought that created the law must be above humanity.[/QUOTE] Why is it then that the gods of the biggest religions are often immoral themselves? Isn't it simply beneficial to our own civilization to have laws to follow that shouldn't be broken for the general good off everyone and the species?

You will probably not agree with this because of some common-sense preconceptions about existence. But if you cannot explain how some true claims can be made about the existence of some non-spatiotemporal entities like "there are infinitely many primes" or "at least one even prime exists". Your conception of existence isn't really that good. Let's not make the discussion about existence too long. After all, it is not the topic of the thread.

I live because some dumb part of me that I'm just going to put down as 'instinct' or something keeps me going through each day when all I want to do is crawl into a ball and die. I can't really give a meaning for life because all I ever find in life is misery, jealously, anger and pain.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42035333]I live because some dumb part of me that I'm just going to put down as 'instinct' or something keeps me going through each day when all I want to do is crawl into a ball and die. I can't really give a meaning for life because all I ever find in life is misery, jealously, anger and pain.[/QUOTE] Then why can't the meaning of life be related to misery, jealousy and pain? If those are the only things that you find, and it you think that other's people's lives a the same, then they are pretty good candidates for being related to the meaning of life.

[QUOTE=matsta;42034586]First, yes, it is true that the [I]string of symbols[/I] "2 + 2 = 4" can't have meaning unless a group of users of such language gives that string meaning. But it is not true (or at least, it is under discussion) that [I]the proposition that the sting of symbols[/I] "2 + 2 = 4" [I]expresses cannot exist if it is not entertained by someone[/I]. Second, the 'fact' that we created numbers is not so straightforward as you might think. What IS obvious is that we created [I]numerals[/I] (i.e. symbols '0', '1', '2', '3', etc.), not that we created numbers. It is also obvious that the earth and the sun were [I]two[/I] things before humanity existed. And, presumably, they will still be [I]two[/I] things after humanity disappears.[/QUOTE] Numbers work as adjectives. They describe reality in a comparable way to something like color. My question is if the proposition, to use your wording, of color would still exist if the electromagnetic spectrum we relate to visible light never existed. I would argue it wouldn't. In the same way I would argue that even the proposition of numbers wouldn't exist if there never existed anything to be numbered. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=matsta;42034649]Let's not make the discussion about existence too long. After all, it is not the topic of the thread.[/QUOTE] It seems to me that this line of discussion is the only non subjective one in this thread.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42037027]Numbers work as adjectives. They describe reality in a comparable way to something like color.[/QUOTE] If you look at the way we talk about numbers, that doesn't seem to be true. For instance, if you analyze the structure of this two sentences: (1) My car is blue. (2) 2 is a prime number. In (1) I say [i]about my car[/i] that it is blue. Hence, the object I'm referring to is my car (I'm talking [i]about my car[/i]). In (2) I'm saying about the number 2 that it is prime. As you may have already noticed, in this sentence I'm talking [i]about[/i] the number 2. [QUOTE]My question is if the proposition, to use your wording, of color would still exist if the electromagnetic spectrum we relate to visible light never existed. I would argue it wouldn't. In the same way I would argue that even the proposition of numbers wouldn't exist if there never existed anything to be numbered.[/QUOTE] Just so we can understand each other. I (and some other people) use the term 'proposition' to refer to what a declarative sentence [i]expresses[/i]. For example the sentence "Snow is white" in english and "La nieve es blanca" in spanish express the same proposition (they say the same thing). That being said, if physical laws had been different and, say, there had not been any electromagnetic waves the proposition expressed by the sentence "My car is blue" would still exist, it would just be false. The fact that there would not have been anyone to express the proposition doesn't imply that the proposition would not exist (or ,at least, I don't see how it would imply such thing).

[QUOTE=matsta;42038082]If you look at the way we talk about numbers, that doesn't seem to be true. For instance, if you analyze the structure of this two sentences: (1) My car is blue. (2) 2 is a prime number.[/QUOTE] Blue is a color. I have two cars. Numbers and colors can both be used definitionaly and descriptively. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=matsta;42038082]That being said, if physical laws had been different and, say, there had not been any electromagnetic waves the proposition expressed by the sentence "My car is blue" would still exist, it would just be false. The fact that there would not have been anyone to express the proposition doesn't imply that the proposition would not exist (or ,at least, I don't see how it would imply such thing).[/QUOTE] It wouldn't just be false. The statement would literally make no sense at all because there wouldn't even be a concept of blue. It would be no different than complete gibberish.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42038958]Blue is a color. I have two cars. Numbers and colors can both be used definitionaly and descriptively.[/QUOTE] Of course they can, but I can rephrase the first sentence by saying that blue objects are colored objects. It is not clear to me whether we can rephrase, for example, the sentence (2) without distorting its meaning. And even if we can do so, the whole area of mathematics relies on [i]referring[/i] to numbers and other abstract entities as we refer to other objects and saying things [i]about[/i] them. Some of the axioms we use in mathematics say that some abstract entities exist, [i]literally[/i]. And, of course, physics and all other areas of science presuppose mathematics and also refer to non-spatiotemporal entities of their own as if they existed. [QUOTE][QUOTE=I]That being said, if physical laws had been different and, say, there had not been any electromagnetic waves the proposition expressed by the sentence "My car is blue" would still exist, it would just be false. The fact that there would not have been anyone to express the proposition doesn't imply that the proposition would not exist (or ,at least, I don't see how it would imply such thing).[/QUOTE]It wouldn't just be false. The statement would literally make no sense at all because there wouldn't even be a concept of blue. It would be no different than complete gibberish.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=I]That being said, if physical laws had been different and, say, there had not been any electromagnetic waves the proposition [b]expressed[/b] by the sentence "My car is blue" would still exist, it would just be false.[/QUOTE] What would make no sense at all (to hypothetical 'humans' of that world, maybe) is the [i]sentence[/i] "My car is blue". It would make no sense at all because [i]they would not be able to to entertain the proposition [b]expressed[/b] by it.[/i] The fact that I'm not able to entertain a proposition doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it 'makes no sense'. (By the way, propositions are not the things that 'make sense' or 'have meaning' the [i]ARE[/i] the meanings. It can be said about a sentence that it doesn't make sense, not about a proposition.)

[QUOTE=matsta;42036748]Then why can't the meaning of life be related to misery, jealousy and pain? If those are the only things that you find, and it you think that other's people's lives a the same, then they are pretty good candidates for being related to the meaning of life.[/QUOTE] If the meaning of life is suffering then I really would prefer not living at all.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42033041]Before humanity numbers didn't exist.[/QUOTE] Numbers have existed all along, before humanity, before anything. It just takes a certain level of intelligence to make sense out of them.

The meaning of life is to fuck as often as possible. So yeah, you could say that it's happiness.

[QUOTE=Merc Z I;42018225]In all seriousness, reproduction. It's the main goal of any living being.[/QUOTE] Under your argument i could propose that the meaning of life is to die since it's also an integral part of life that every living thing ends up doing more so than those that end up reproducing. To reproduce is an unfortunate consequence for having sex with a woman than sodomizing a man for the same pleasure.

How do we even know what exists? Everything we think that is "happening" around us is just something that we think about, and it happens in our mind. Therefore, you can say the whole universe actually exists inside our mind, and we have no idea where this mind actually is, if it's a physical object. Hell, what's a physical object anyway? There's the brain in a jar theory, but it implies that a physical world actually exists, and that the brain itself exists. What it actually comes down to, is that whatever we think "life" is and the universe, is actually all one big story inside our mind. This also implies that our mind is the only conscious mind, and that all other "people", "animals", and everything else that has some sort of intelligence, are just actors inside our own story. Therefore, it would actually be pointless for me to say this to someone else, if i would actually be the only one that can experience this. This philosophy is called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism"]Solipsism[/URL] and has been discovered and discussed before, i recently found out. So, if you'd just live along this philosophy, you'd be the only conscious being, and you would be the maker of your own life story. At least, you don't even know what comes after life or was there before it. So, [B]that also means that you shouldn't give a damn about what happens after your death and you should not at all be of any help to the so-called human race, and things like charity are pointless[/B], because you never get to know what you did for the others. (However, personally, i have a passion for making other people smile, and that's pretty much the only thing that keeps me from hating everyone and possibly just becoming a mass murderer or something.) You also don't know what could come after "life", and therefore you just live to make the best out of your current life, being as happy and egocentric as possible. And that's also what i do in life. Being happy is the best thing there is, and it actually feels good in your mind too, so just do that. But if i'm the only conscious being, and you are all actors, why am i sharing this then? It's simple. After thinking too much about all this, i realized it would be just good to live "by the rules of the game" as long as you can't make your own. It's called Realism and it generally means, once again, that you just live with the "universe game" rules. However, i will continue practicing the manipulation of my own mind, so one day, i can live in my own dream world. Whether i'm actually living in my self-created world (Solipsism) or i'm just having a dream while in a real world (Realism) won't matter anymore to me, because i will be happy, and that's the best thing i can do. Also yes, post is in very bad order. I'm not good at putting thoughts to words.

[QUOTE=MyBumBum;41887275]If someone just walked by and asked you guys about the meaning of life, you would usually dismiss them as some freak or a guy with too much time on his hands. People throughout the ages have pondered on this question and many answers have sprung up. The question I ask is: what do you people think the meaning of life is? Lemme present my argument: people live to be happy. Everything a person does - work, play, sleep... are for their happiness. Why do people go and try to get a History PHD? Because it will get them a good job. Why do they want a good job? Because it pays well. And most people's basis of happiness is having good money and being able to do whatever you want to do. From this, I concluded that the basis of human actions are happiness and the desire for happiness. What do you people think?[/QUOTE] IMO Love is the answer.... many people will say that the meaning is relative, and its up to us to find our own meaning. This is not true... it is certainly something we can say to ourselves to make us feel better, however there are really only 2 answers. Either we are accidents, a cosmic fluke, and there is absolutely no meaning in life, no purpose. Or there is a god who created us with a purpose. Meaning and purpose can only come from something above ourselves, any meaning we attribute to our own selves is self serving and mute, which is why we can't "find our own meaning in life", unless we are discovering a purpose placed upon us from something above us, it is circular. As a Christian, I believe we were created with the purpose to love our creator... it sounds cheesy, but he is pretty legit, managing to speak time space and matter into existence, and forming the laws of physics. But really God commands us to love him and one another.... to quote the bible After being asked what the greatest commandment was jesus said in Matthew 22:37 [QUOTE]‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.[/QUOTE] another good one is 1 John 4:8 [QUOTE]Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love[/QUOTE] I would like to point out, that our version of love may not directly correspond to the worldly, or common view of what love is. but if you want a pretty good definition of Love according to the Bible... of course you cannot ever fully put into words the Love God is, but this is a good starting point. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 [QUOTE]Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.[/QUOTE] probably a lot of you skipped over this, as it is a bible lesson... but I hope some of you read it!

Love is a strong force. [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] Adding to the previous post I mean, holy shit accidental page king.