Is There a Point to Living - General

But if one says that the purpose of life is to mainly do what your body needs you to do, which is to feed and maybe even reproduce, then those aren't really concepts invented by humans, and there for could objectively be seen as one of the main points in life. Without them, you wouldn't be enjoying life in the first place, as a side-note. You could probably just narrow it down even further like concluding that clearly the point of life is to.. make use of energy, which you automatically do no matter what you do. Or that how could there even be a point in something that is so pointless, i.e. a reality where everything getting wiped out or destroyed in the end anyway?

The point to living is to defeat the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43849746]The point to living is to defeat the 2nd law of thermodynamics.[/QUOTE] We've all failed :'(

[QUOTE=Ziks;43849782]We've all failed :'([/QUOTE] It's a work in progress. Life is a bubble of negative-entropy.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43849790]It's a work in progress. Life is a bubble of negative-entropy.[/QUOTE] But any local reduction of entropy is always tied to an unavoidable and more substantial increase of entropy elsewhere, to violate that you would need to violate conservation of energy laws.

[quote]But if one says that the purpose of life is to mainly do what your body needs you to do, which is to feed and maybe even reproduce, then those aren't really concepts invented by humans, and there for could objectively be seen as one of the main points in life. Without them, you wouldn't be enjoying life in the first place, as a side-note.[/quote] Requirements and purposes are different though. I'm required to eat if I want to survive, but this doesn't mean I survive solely so I can eat. I was going to make a similar argument in that one altruism thread, that just because happiness is an end result of our actions doesn't automatically mean we do actions solely for happiness. Causation is not correlation. The thread isn't asking the right question. "Is there a point to living?", there are thousands of different answers. So long as someone assigns a purpose to their life then they have a purpose to live. There's nothing interesting about that statement, but its true. The question should be "Is there an objective purpose to living?", in which case no, there is not.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43849896]But any local reduction of entropy is always tied to an unavoidable and more substantial increase of entropy elsewhere, to violate that you would need to violate conservation of energy laws.[/QUOTE] I can just tweak my response to something along the lines of "To create a system which is maximally complex and internally does not (or otherwise minimally) suffer from entropy"

I will use an analogy to describe the the world with us in it. picture a collection of rocks on the coast of a beach. every one of these rocks represent 1 human being. All of these rocks are on different areas of the beach and none of them are in the same exact spot, some are different sizes and some are more brittle than others. every now and then a wave comes up and splashes against these rocks, slowly making it smoother and changing its size over time. You can see that there is no purpose here, as a matter of fact asking if there is any purpose to be found here wouldn't make sense, the waves splash the rocks and the rocks change shape, its just logical. its a cause and effect relationship and thats all there is to it. I view human beings as effects of two causes, environment and genetics. the initial size of the rock coincides with the genetic aspect and the wave splashing against the rock represent the environmental aspect. and the purpose of this analogy was designed to show that and that there is no objective purpose to life, we are here as a effect of a cause, and everything you even think about, everything you think you are, everything you love, hate, are effects of a cause, of both environment and genetics. Even our sense of identity is purely a construct of the environment and genetics. These 'Nihilistic' conclusions that you have reached is purely an effect of the world shaping you. there are some people that are shaped differently by the world and reach different conclusions, like religion. You can use this analogy with non living things, i hate using the word living because I don't truly believe anything is a living thing. Surely some objects are more complex than others and therefor have a higher range of attributes that can be influenced by environment and genetics, but thats it. there is no soul, nothing beyond the physical. Its incredibly difficult to create a working definition of what life is.

Is there any point to being [I]dead[/I]? I believe there is no reason ANYTHING [I]needs[/I] to exist. Things exist because they can exist, not because they need to exist. What needs to exist is a subjective opinion determined by other things whom already exist. There is however absolutely no more reason to be dead. What we know of life is what we see, what we know of death is nothing, and an educated guess is that death might very well be no more than just nothing. With life you have choice. You don't need to live, but unlike with being dead, you can choose to do things with your time while being alive. Life has more purpose to me than being dead, because while both states serve no real purpose, being alive at least gives me the choice to fulfill a purpose.

Well, my parents created me for the purpose of extending their blood line. That is a purpose as good as any other, isn't it?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43851414]I can just tweak my response to something along the lines of "To create a system which is maximally complex and internally does not (or otherwise minimally) suffer from entropy"[/QUOTE] That seems more accurate, although it only describes observations of what life does. Why should that description be the objective intended purpose of life (intended by whom)? Rain condenses in the atmosphere and then falls to the ground, so is that the purpose for rain? I could see how that could be rain's objective purpose if our atmospheric system was intentionally designed for it, but what if rain is just an emergent phenomena with no external intention? What if the same is true for life?

To laugh. That's what I do most of the time anyway. To enjoy yourself, really.

The purpose of life is to become relevant at a cosmic scale.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43857629]That seems more accurate, although it only describes observations of what life does. Why should that description be the objective intended purpose of life (intended by whom)? Rain condenses in the atmosphere and then falls to the ground, so is that the purpose for rain? I could see how that could be rain's objective purpose if our atmospheric system was intentionally designed for it, but what if rain is just an emergent phenomena with no external intention? What if the same is true for life?[/QUOTE] Because rain is a cycle, and life is a progression. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] although internally cyclical.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43860610]Because rain is a cycle, and life is a progression. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] although internally cyclical.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why that distinction would matter, there are plenty of things that have intended purpose bestowed upon them by us that act in cycles with no progression. Additionally, the exact structures we declare to be "life" are subjectively chosen; objectively they are ordinary collections of fundamental particles obeying the same rules as any other fundamental particles. The particular groupings we call a person or a rock are only distinct structures within our minds, and not objectively so.

All I know is my reason for getting up in the morning is to not die for as long as possible.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43860776]I'm not sure why that distinction would matter, there are plenty of things that have intended purpose bestowed upon them by us that act in cycles with no progression. Additionally, the exact structures we declare to be "life" are subjectively chosen; objectively they are ordinary collections of fundamental particles obeying the same rules as any other fundamental particles. The particular groupings we call a person or a rock are only distinct structures within our minds, and not objectively so.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but that is just wrong. We have divided existing things into organic and non-organic. While some may be border-line, when we take into account large scale replicating structures, starting at the organelle level, we consider this life. Furthermore the distinction would matter as a rain cycle does not get more complex as it goes along, but life does.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43860892]I'm sorry but that is just wrong. [I]We[/I] have divided existing things into organic and non-organic. While some may be border-line, when [I]we[/I] take into account large scale replicating structures, starting at the organelle level, [I]we[/I] consider this life.[/QUOTE] So you agree that the conceptual distinction between life and non-life is a human construct then, judging by your use of "we"? Our division of the universe into organic and non-organic is just human pattern recognition. There's nothing objectively special about life (special being a subjective term also).

[QUOTE=Ziks;43861047]So you agree that the conceptual distinction between life and non-life is a human construct then, judging by your use of "we"? Our division of the universe into organic and non-organic is just human pattern recognition. There's nothing objectively special about life (special being a subjective term also).[/QUOTE] No, because not all our decisions are based on arbitrary distinctions. Some of them are based on logical distinctions such 'ability to self replicate'. If we didn't exist, the logical concept of something being able to replicate itself would still exist.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43861263]No, because not all our decisions are based on arbitrary distinctions. Some of them are based on logical distinctions such 'ability to self replicate'. If we didn't exist, the logical concept of something being able to replicate itself would still exist.[/QUOTE] I don't think I ever said the distinctions we use were arbitrary, most of them are pretty useful distinctions for us to make when attempting to understand and manipulate our environment. I can agree that self-replication is a pretty solid mathematical concept, but it's one that we subjectively pattern-match onto structures we observe in our environment. We conceptually aggregate particular macro-scale groups of fundamental particles and call them an animal, and when that group of particles collects other fundamental particles from its environment and manipulates them into a superficially similar structure we declare that the animal has self-replicated. We neglect to appreciate that the new structure isn't mathematically isomorphic with the original and so isn't an objective self-replication in the mathematical sense, only a replication with enough similarities for us to subjectively decide the two structures are of the same species.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43861445]I don't think I ever said the distinctions we use were arbitrary, most of them are pretty useful distinctions for us to make when attempting to understand and manipulate our environment. I can agree that self-replication is a pretty solid mathematical concept, but it's one that we subjectively pattern-match onto structures we observe in our environment. We conceptually aggregate particular macro-scale groups of fundamental particles and call them an animal, and when that group of particles collects other fundamental particles from its environment and manipulates them into a superficially similar structure we declare that the animal has self-replicated. We neglect to appreciate that the new structure isn't mathematically isomorphic with the original and so isn't an objective self-replication in the mathematical sense, only a replication with enough similarities for us to subjectively decide the two structures are of the same species.[/QUOTE] Frankly I think you are just being difficult. we can define an individual's species by who he is able to reproduce with. Regardless of what is being replicated, the idea is that they are still creating a new token of the their kind. If a distinction isn't arbitrary, then it exists without the arbiter.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43861495]Frankly I think you are just being difficult.[/QUOTE] I'm doing my best at attempting to look at the universe objectively, which I assumed was a key part of this particular discussion.

Are we talking about the purpose of life, or the purpose of me as a person?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43861557]I'm doing my best at attempting to look at the universe objectively, which I assumed was a key part of this particular discussion.[/QUOTE] objectively there is a difference between higher order complex structures and inanimate matter. It is like saying a drive shaft and a car are identical. They are not, one constitutes the other objectively.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43862188]objectively there is a difference between higher order complex structures and inanimate matter. It is like saying a drive shaft and a car are identical. They are not, one constitutes the other objectively.[/QUOTE] The problem I see is that while a difference exists the value you attach to that difference seems arbitrary when based purely on natural reasoning.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43862454]The problem I see is that while a difference exists the value you attach to that difference seems arbitrary when based purely on natural reasoning.[/QUOTE] That's exactly it, and well phrased too. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] Zenreon117, you can still have objective value and purpose for life, but only if a creator exists to define such attributes. Hopefully you can appreciate that purpose and value being entirely subjective without objective definition is logically consistent in the case that there is no sentient creator, and so is a possibility.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43862454]The problem I see is that while a difference exists the value you attach to that difference seems arbitrary when based purely on natural reasoning.[/QUOTE] Two counterpoints; Firstly, the difference exists, but if we are to take into account time, we will find that the tendency for life is to fight entropy. In this sense it has an objective, a thing that it tends towards. Similarly I can draw a parallel to a thermostat. A thermostat has an objective purpose insofar as its wish is to see that the temperature it reads is the same as the temperature it is told to maintain. Secondly, we don't need to attach value to something in order to say that it is objectively true. I am not saying 'Life is better than non-life', at least not yet. I am saying that life in of itself is like a thermostat which tends towards the minimal setting of entropy. It has a tendency and a direction it goes in, and for this reason it has objective purpose in it's progression through time. Now, as far as value and a creator goes; Existence as such is an incredible gift, whether bestowed upon by what you think of as figurative cogs, or whether you assign the thanks to that which dictates how cogs must necessarily coexist. Notions such as thanks, long suffering, and forgiveness may well contribute to this goal objectively. Ultimately I'd say that morality and values needn't always be logical. If you must be logical about it, then I suppose you can compare actions and tendencies to the highest order of purpose to which you belong, that is, life. You also need to separate the notions of value and purpose. Bacteria's purpose is to reproduce, that doesn't require a value judgment. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] I suppose it would be helpful to clarify objective purpose as meaning something that tends towards something else whether or not you believe it to be so.

I feel like your first point can only be true based on our current knowledge of life

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43864055]Two counterpoints; Firstly, the difference exists, but if we are to take into account time, we will find that the tendency for life is to fight entropy. In this sense it has an objective, a thing that it tends towards. Similarly I can draw a parallel to a thermostat. A thermostat has an objective purpose insofar as its wish is to see that the temperature it reads is the same as the temperature it is told to maintain. [/QUOTE] Tending towards something =/= having that as it's objective. A river tends to erode earth, does that mean a river's objective is to erode earth? I think not. An objective requires free will (not a logical natural assumption) or given purpose by a being with free will (like the thermostat). As another proof: Even a broken thermostat that does not tend to keep the same temperature that it is told to maintain STILL has a purpose and objective. So whether something tends to follow it's already given objective is irrelevant to whether that objective exists. An objective purpose must be given. [QUOTE]Secondly, we don't need to attach value to something in order to say that it is objectively true. I am not saying 'Life is better than non-life', at least not yet. I am saying that life in of itself is like a thermostat which tends towards the minimal setting of entropy. It has a tendency and a direction it goes in, and for this reason it has objective purpose in it's progression through time.[/QUOTE] It has an objective trend, but trend is not the same as objective or purpose.

I'm not going to say that people are any different from the rest of the universe in this sense. To say people have purpose is to say that everything has purpose, and that kinda give the word 'purpose' a lack of meaning. Meh.