AND, some 'thing' MUST HAVE BEEN responsible for the earth, stone, and rock to exist in the first place. Have ANY of 'you' WORK OUT what that some 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, YET?Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:11 pmEarth / stone/rock.. must have been responsible for the blood to exist in the first place, else where did the blood originate? where could blood have been possibly founded, but in the foundations of the Earth/rock/stone itself?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:02 am What? Like getting blood out of a stone? (stone=rock=Earth)
The meaning of life
Re: The meaning of life
Re: The meaning of life
'Incidental' to 'what' or 'who', EXACTLY?
And, and in which way are you USING the 'incidental word here?
If by 'incidental' you are USING the 'happening as a result of' meaning, then I AGREE that absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'incidental' or 'happens as a result of ...', some 'thing' ELSE.
WHAT IS your OWN 'purpose' "dubious"?
WHY is your OWN 'purpose' DIFFERENT from "other's" purpose? And,
Is EVERY one's 'purpose' DIFFERENT from each OTHER?
Is this your OWN 'little narrative' ALSO, which was either MADE-UP or just BORROWED, AS WELL?
Re: The meaning of life
I will agree with Jean Paul Sartre who argues that life in itself is meaningless. However it's up to us and us only, to give it meaning. We are the only ones who can. And that can vary with different opinions as to what gives life meaning. For some it's serving one's country, others ones family, devoting their life to a religion or a cause, or running their business and turning it into a fortune 500 corporation.
Others may dedicate their lives into being a great artist, actor or musician.
Others may dedicate their lives into being a great artist, actor or musician.
Re: The meaning of life
WHAT 'triggered' the what is 'big bang'?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am The meaning of life has its potential within the secrets of life, i.e. the DNA code that has evolved via evolution triggered from the Big Bang.
HANG ON, BEFORE you continue, what IS 'the meaning of life' and/or 'the basic meaning of life', FIRST?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am DNA Secret of Life Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmcMDq3ueHY
The DNA represent essentially what is human nature as evolved from the Big Bang.
There is no absolute teleological purpose [e.g. from a God].
However if we are to understand the nature, features, and mechanics of the Big Bang, Human nature and the human DNA, we could easily infer a basic generic meaning of life.
One of the basic feature of life is attached to the pain and pleasure circuit or algorithm where if one is not aligned with the meaning of life, then pain is triggered; pleasure is triggered when one is aligned with the basic meaning of life.
There are exceptions to the above, but they must be done optimally.
ALSO, HOW and WHY if what you SAY and CLAIM here was true and right different people experience DIFFERENT 'things' as being 'pleasurable' and 'painful'?
What do you mean by 'one meaning of life'? And,Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am One meaning of life can be expressed as;
-to survive as long as possible till the inevitable;
HOW do you KNOW there is some so-called 'inevitable' here in regards to 'survival'?
Talk about CONFLATION, in the extreme.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am -to survive in alignment with pleasure circuit, not the pain circuit, with exceptions;
-to align with the 4Fs [Fight, Flight, Food, Fuck] optimally.
-to unfold and activate one's moral function optimally
HOW does one KNOW WHETHER these 'things' are 'taken to the extreme' or NOT?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am Where the 4Fs are taken to the extreme either way, there is evil emerging from every corner, e.g.
What about 'flight', or what you call 'cowardice', then HELPS progress towards 'survival'?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am -Fight [genocides, murders, violence, etc.]
-Flight [cowardice that hinder progress]
So, to you, what is written down and expressed as 'the laws of a country/culture', then that somehow FITS IN WITH 'human nature' and 'the basic meaning of life', correct?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am -Food [Obesity, hunger, etc]
-Fuck [Rapes, child-marriage, all sort of sex related crimes]
What happens if a child marries the 'love of their life' and lives HAPPILY forever more, or if one finds being 'raped' VERY PLEASURABLE?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am -the above generates all sort of sufferings which negate the meaning of one's life and that of others.
So, IF you live life meaningful, then what IS 'the meaning of life', EXACTLY?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:42 am To live life meaningfully one must adopt an effective Problem Solving Techniques to deal with all life related matters, i.e.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
and other similar techniques.
Re: The meaning of life
I don't understand the question.
I don't remember whether I've heard anyone explicitly say that, but I have certainly inferred it from some of the things I have heard said about evolution.Age wrote:But have you actually heard ANY one say or express that evolution has a predetermined goal?Harbal wrote: I think some people do believe that evolution has a predetermined goal, so I suppose some of them will have said otherwise.
I am not able to explain exactly. Brains seem to have a degree of consciousness that is able to access some of the information stored within them; that consciousness is what I refer to when I use the word "mind".Are ANY of you human beings even able to EXPLAIN, FULLY, what this so called 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY?
I don't usually state irrefuatable facts, but if you say I did state one, I will take your word for it.Age wrote:Well considering you were 'trying to' state an absolute irrefutable fact I was just adding on to 'it'.Harbal wrote: I don't know why you said it, or if it is relevant to our conversation.
That might be correct, but not a very useful or informative way of talking about how natural selection works in any particular set of circumstances.Well EVERY 'creature', you know of, lives on earth, AND within the Universe. So, it could be said or argued that the habitat in which EVERY creature lives is the habitat of earth, and/or of the Universe, Itself, correct?
Human beings live in various habitats, but if I have any particular one in mind, it is probably what we call an urban habitat.And which habitat does the human being live in, EXACTLY?
The way you have constructed this question makes it hard for me to work out exactly what you are asking, and I don't want to guess at it.So, which one of the specific habitats or environments, which you listed above, are human beings and which they change?
No, I'm not sure. I don't know a lot about what DNA is, or how it works.So, again, you are NOT absolutely SURE that there is NOT some 'plan' instinctively built WITHIN, the dna of, for example, organisms, creatures, nor of Life, Itself, right?
I'm sure we have all seen documentaries about primitive tribes in Africa, or South America. These people -I am suggesting- live in conditions much closer to the ones in which human beings reached their current stage of evolution. Their lifestyle is very different to the lifestyle we have to adopt in order to live in a modern, developed, urban environment. It seems to me that modern living is not fully compatible with the human psychology that developed in different circumstances.Okay. Can you think of ANY condition that human beings have been made able to function 'optimally' in or with?
And, when you say 'optimally' in regards to human beings being made 'adaptable' to, what do you mean EXACTLY?
Yes, I did assume that, because I thought it was a reasonable assumption to make in response to your comment, "OR, just KEEPS EVOLVING, KEEPS PROGRESSING, and just KEEPS GETTING BETTER."Age wrote:Did you think or ASSUME that I was saying that there is some 'thing' that keeps evolving, progressing and getting better?Harbal wrote: What keeps evolving, progressing and getting better?
If yes, then WHY?
Re: The meaning of life
I have reached a conclusion based on the evidence -or lack of it- available to me. If I became aware of any new evidence, or information, I would assess its implications with an open mind. Depending on how compelling the evidence was, I might even revise my conclusion.
I have reached a conclusion about what is likely to be the truth of things.But if what you have ALREADY 'concluded' is NOT ALREADY the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things', then what have you 'concluded', EXACTLY?
Because that is very often the best we can get, and I didn't say I would accept those arguments, but I would at least consider them.Also, WHY are you, supposedly, OPEN to 'arguments' that ONLY 'suggest' 'things'?
If I only acted upon what I know to be irrefutably true, I would hardly do much at all. You obviously have more confidence in your deductive skills than I have in mine.I much prefer to ONLY USE 'arguments' that are sound AND valid ONLY. SEE, those 'arguments' do NOT 'suggest' absolutely ANY thing AT ALL. Those 'arguments' ACTUALLY PROVE or PROVIDE what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge. Sound AND valid 'arguments' SHOW, and LEAD one up, the Right TRACK in Life.
Re: The meaning of life
I could tell you some of the things I consider worthwhile in my own life. They would only be things of value to me, though, and would not have any objective worth. Is that what you mean by, "meaning"?
If that is not what you mean by the word, will you explain what you do mean by it?
And, if not, why not?
I was married to an alcoholic, which amounted to two people living in a state of misery. Some people manage to come through that with a happy ending, but we didn't, and many others don't. Watching someone you love gradually destroying themselves, and having no power to prevent it, is one instance of what I would call personal tragedy. Just switch on the news if you want more examples of it. I'm not an expert on mental illness, so I might be sticking my neck out when I say it is not possible to live happily with clinical depression, or severe schizophrenia. Physical illness can leave some people in constant pain, or severely restrict their ability to lead the life they need to be happy.If you would LIKE TO continue on with this discussion could ACTUALLY STOP or PREVENT one from just living PERFECTLY 'happily', then best you provide some examples of what you think or BELIEVE would be a so-called 'person tragedy', 'mental illness', and a 'physical illness' that would STOP or PREVENT 'you' or "another" from living PERFECTLY 'happily'?
I can't list "personality types", I'm not a psychologist. I have known people who always seem to be miserable, regardless of what is happening in their lives. I can't know, of course, what they are experiencing emotionally, so if you don't want to regard this as evidence of anything, we can discount it.AGAIN, if you would LIKE TO continue with this discussion, then you will HAVE TO list some examples of what CERTAIN so-called 'personality types', which are, SUPPOSEDLY, completely and utterly UNABLE to be 'happy'.
Re: The meaning of life
The question was asked because if there was, to you, some internal and/or instinctual Knowing of A 'way of living', which was ALSO Right and Good for EVERY one, then it might be concluded that there was an ACTUAL 'predetermined end result' somehow built WITHIN the very fabric, or the very dna, of 'living things', namely here, 'human beings'.
But do NOT be too concerned NOR worried about this for now, for as they say, 'it will ALL be worked out and understood, EVENTUALLY'.
This can also be expressed as KNOWING what the end result IS and WAS, EXACTLY, then HOW and WHY this 'result' WAS 'predetermined' ALSO becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and KNOWN, AS WELL
Okay.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:27 amI don't remember whether I've heard anyone explicitly say that, but I have certainly inferred it from some of the things I have heard said about evolution.Age wrote:But have you actually heard ANY one say or express that evolution has a predetermined goal?Harbal wrote: I think some people do believe that evolution has a predetermined goal, so I suppose some of them will have said otherwise.
I do NOT recall ever having actually inferred this in regards to things said about 'evolution', but I have inferred this in regards to things said about religion and/or God, and Its 'creation'.
Okay, can I now ask, then why not just say 'consciousness' if this is what you actually mean, when you use the 'mind' word?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:27 amI am not able to explain exactly. Brains seem to have a degree of consciousness that is able to access some of the information stored within them; that consciousness is what I refer to when I use the word "mind".Are ANY of you human beings even able to EXPLAIN, FULLY, what this so called 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY?
Because 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY MEAN so MANY DIFFERENT 'things' when 'you' use the 'mind' word it can be somewhat difficult to keep a track of what 'you', ALL, individually, are ACTUALLY MEANING.
Okay. But just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I NEVER did say that you did state an irrefutable fact. What I did mean, and WILL say, is that you were just 'TRYING TO' state some 'thing' AS 'an absolute irrefutable fact', which you will have to WAIT to SEE if 'it' ACTUALLY IS or NOT.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:27 amI don't usually state irrefuatable facts, but if you say I did state one, I will take your word for it.Age wrote:Well considering you were 'trying to' state an absolute irrefutable fact I was just adding on to 'it'.Harbal wrote: I don't know why you said it, or if it is relevant to our conversation.
Also, WHY do you usually NOT state 'irrefutable facts'?
WHAT do you usually state, INSTEAD?
Will if one NEVER EXPLAINS what the PARTICULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, EXACTLY, like you have NOT done here, then this is NOT a very useful NOR informative way of talking ALSO about how natural selection works, correct?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:27 amThat might be correct, but not a very useful or informative way of talking about how natural selection works in any particular set of circumstances.Well EVERY 'creature', you know of, lives on earth, AND within the Universe. So, it could be said or argued that the habitat in which EVERY creature lives is the habitat of earth, and/or of the Universe, Itself, correct?
Or do you ASSUME or BELIEVE otherwise?
Also, NO one has to talk about 'ANY particular set of circumstances' to FULLY UNDERSTAND 'natural selection' ANYWAY.
After all, 'natural selection' WORKS the EXACT SAME WAY for absolutely EVERY 'thing'.
There is NOT some particular way of 'natural selection' of SOME 'things' and OTHER particular ways of 'natural selection' for OTHER 'things'. 'Natural selection' works in the EXACT SAME WAY for ALL 'things', in and under ALL circumstances.
Okay, so your claim here was; Natural selection gradually moulds a species to best thrive in its environment. Which just, more or less means, that 'natural selection' gradually molds the 'human being' to best thrive in 'the environment', which the 'human being' is actually creating itself. Which would just further mean that 'natural selection' is just molding, or just creating, through evolution, itself, 'species' as well as ALL of 'the environments', in which ALL species exist and dwell WITHIN.
Which could just be expressed as, 'natural selection' is molding 'environments', or just 'the environment', itself, so that ALL species can best thrive WITHIN.
After all ALL of 'you', human beings, CAME FROM 'the environment' FIRST, or 'In the beginning', NATURALLY. So, the species, 'human being, CAME FROM the 'naturally selected' 'environment', FIRST, BEFORE ANY gradually 'molding' of the species ACTUALLY had a so-called 'starting point' or BEGINNING.
Okay. And considering you asked NO QUESTION for CLARITY, I do NOT want to ASSUME ANY ANSWER NOR CLARIFICATION is actually being SOUGHT AFTER here.
Okay, that is fair enough.
When you say things like, 'we HAVE TO ADOPT', to me anyway, it comes across as though human beings had NO PLACE AT ALL in making and creating this so-called 'modern, developed, urban environment'.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:27 amI'm sure we have all seen documentaries about primitive tribes in Africa, or South America. These people -I am suggesting- live in conditions much closer to the ones in which human beings reached their current stage of evolution. Their lifestyle is very different to the lifestyle we have to adopt in order to live in a modern, developed, urban environment.Okay. Can you think of ANY condition that human beings have been made able to function 'optimally' in or with?
And, when you say 'optimally' in regards to human beings being made 'adaptable' to, what do you mean EXACTLY?
So, WHY are 'you', human beings, CREATING such an 'environment' for "yourselves"?
OBVIOUSLY, there is CLEARLY absolutely NO OTHER 'thing' making and creating 'that environment', which you are speaking of here.
When you said, 'MAYBE it is a fundamental principle of nature that every system eventually breaks down, or burns itself out'.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:27 amYes, I did assume that, because I thought it was a reasonable assumption to make in response to your comment, "OR, just KEEPS EVOLVING, KEEPS PROGRESSING, and just KEEPS GETTING BETTER."Age wrote:Did you think or ASSUME that I was saying that there is some 'thing' that keeps evolving, progressing and getting better?Harbal wrote: What keeps evolving, progressing and getting better?
If yes, then WHY?
And I said, 'OR, just KEEPS EVOLVING, KEEPS PROGRESSING, and just KEEPS GETTING BETTER'.
When I wrote this I was INTENTIONALLY MEANING with the 'MAYBE' word INCLUDED. When I wrote the 'OR' word I had the 'MAYBE' in thought. BUT, as I CLEARLY DID NOT ADD the 'MAYBE' word, I was NOT making MY MEANING Truly CLEAR, CONCISE, and PRECISE. Which I Truly NEED to WORK ON MORE, and TO LEARN HOW to COMMUNICATE MUCH BETTER. So, I APOLOGIZE for CAUSING ANY MISUNDERSTANDING here, and EVERYWHERE ELSE.
Re: The meaning of life
According to human data...the answer to the thing responsible for the earth is ....The Earth formed over 4.6 billion years ago out of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun. It grew larger thanks to countless collisions between dust particles, asteroids, and other growing planets, including one last giant impact that threw enough rock, gas, and dust into space to form the moon.Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:03 amAND, some 'thing' MUST HAVE BEEN responsible for the earth, stone, and rock to exist in the first place. Have ANY of 'you' WORK OUT what that some 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, YET?Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:11 pmEarth / stone/rock.. must have been responsible for the blood to exist in the first place, else where did the blood originate? where could blood have been possibly founded, but in the foundations of the Earth/rock/stone itself?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:02 am What? Like getting blood out of a stone? (stone=rock=Earth)
You can accept that version, or you can make up your own version Age.
Re: The meaning of life
SO, you REACH 'CONCLUSIONS' HOLD 'them' as being true, right, and/or correct ONLY UNTIL so-called 'new evidence or information' comes along YOUR WAY, and then, and ONLY THEN, you will ASSESS the NEW EVIDENCE or INFORMATION, and their IMPLICATIONS, with what you are ALREADY HOLDING, or CONCLUDING, as being true, right, and/or correct, correct?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:58 amI have reached a conclusion based on the evidence -or lack of it- available to me. If I became aware of any new evidence, or information, I would assess its implications with an open mind. Depending on how compelling the evidence was, I might even revise my conclusion.
AND, depending on how so-called 'COMPELLING the evidence was', you, MIGHT, even revise your OLD, HELD ONTO 'CONCLUSION', right?
Just out of CURIOSITY, if and when you BELIEVE, for example that God does NOT exist, then HOW, EXACTLY, could ANY so-called 'new evidence or information' ACTUALLY COME ALONG or COME YOUR WAY?
If, for example, one has ALREADY 'CONCLUDED' that some 'thing' DOES NOT exist AND COULD NOT exist, then HOW could ANY 'new evidence or new information' POSSIBLY come-to-light?
If some one has ALREADY CONCLUDED and BELIEVES that some 'thing' COULD NOT exist, then there could NEVER, and FOREVER MORE, be ANY 'NEW INFORMATION' AT ALL that could EVENTUATE, to them.
Also, and by the way, the way 'you' OPERATE above here, to me, seems a VERY CUMBERSOME and VERY SLOW way of LEARNING and SEEING/UNDERSTANDING here.
Furthermore I MUCH PREFER to LOOK AT 'proof' ONLY INSTEAD of ANY supposed 'evidence', that way I am ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING what IS IRREFUTABLY True.
But which could be FULLY or PARTLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?
If yes, then this would MEAN that ALL of what you have 'CONCLUDED' could potentially be PARTLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect or FULLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Which, to me, would make the point of 'CONCLUDING' 'things' are Truly VERY WASTEFUL time of energy and resources. Especially considering the Fact that thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' can be SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED, INSTEAD.
To me, if a so-called 'argument' is ONLY 'suggesting' 'things', then that 'argument' is NOT worthy of being repeated. Just like ALL of the OTHER unsound or invalid arguments ARE. To me, it is ONLY the sound AND valid arguments that are worthy of being REPEATED, as ALL of them express IRREFUTABLE Facts.
Also, I NEVER even BEGAN TO ASSUME that you MEANT that you WOULD accept ANY 'argument' that ONLY 'suggests' 'things'.
What do you MEAN here?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:58 amIf I only acted upon what I know to be irrefutably true, I would hardly do much at all.I much prefer to ONLY USE 'arguments' that are sound AND valid ONLY. SEE, those 'arguments' do NOT 'suggest' absolutely ANY thing AT ALL. Those 'arguments' ACTUALLY PROVE or PROVIDE what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge. Sound AND valid 'arguments' SHOW, and LEAD one up, the Right TRACK in Life.
What are you thinking or MEANING that you WOULD DO, and, WOULD NOT DO?
But MY 'deductive skills' ONLY COME FROM EVERY 'thing'.
SEE, REALLY it is VERY SIMPLE and EASY to ASCERTAIN Truth, from Falsehoods, Right, from Wrong, and what IS Correct, from what IS NOT Correct. That is; ONCE one LEARNS and KNOWS H.O.W.
For EVERY 'problem' there IS A 'solution', and, for EVERY 'solution', there IS A 'formula'.
And, the formula that WILL and DOES solve ALL Truly MEANINGFUL problems in Life IS H.O.W.
Once one LEARNS HOW to answer, or solve, ALL of Life's REAL 'problems', then 'this', itself, IS, literally, the RE-SOLUTION, which HAS BEEN and IS WITHIN ALL of 'us', ALREADY.
Just being PATIENT while A 'species' evolved ENOUGH to LEARN HOW to RECOGNIZE, FIND, and SEE 'the answers', which have ALWAYS BEEN HERE, BEFORE 'us' ALL of the time, has just been the HARDEST PART. 'Patience' WAS, and STILL IS, A VIRTUE, for those of 'you' who are STILL, WAITING.
Re: The meaning of life
As for the meaning of life. There is no meaning or purpose to life, life just is, simply with or without reason, purpose or meaning.
It's only got meaning...if I place it there.
Ultimately, life is meaningless. If it wasn't meaningless, meaning could not be imposed upon it. In the same context, a blank white canvas could not become a picture put there by an artist.
If life did have a meaning, then each and every other meaning imposed upon it would change the original absolute meaning, which would render the original absolute meaning as meaningless. Therefore, life has to be meaningless by natural default.
As for meaning imposed upon the absolute meaningless of life...it's each to their own as the purveyor of knowledge.
If you know you exist, you must also know that you will not exist.
In not existing there is no meaning... therefore, meaning can only be placed and known by the purveyor of knowlege, who knows it exists.
In knowing you are alive, is to know you will die, although you will never know actual death.
So this knowing you are alive has to exist only as an illusory sense of being.. that seeks purpose and meaning to the illusion itself, which is meaningless within the grand scheme of things.
Illusions have no need for purpose or meaning, but illusions are indeed very real apparently...as we draw and paint them from our imagination.
.
It's only got meaning...if I place it there.
Ultimately, life is meaningless. If it wasn't meaningless, meaning could not be imposed upon it. In the same context, a blank white canvas could not become a picture put there by an artist.
If life did have a meaning, then each and every other meaning imposed upon it would change the original absolute meaning, which would render the original absolute meaning as meaningless. Therefore, life has to be meaningless by natural default.
As for meaning imposed upon the absolute meaningless of life...it's each to their own as the purveyor of knowledge.
If you know you exist, you must also know that you will not exist.
In not existing there is no meaning... therefore, meaning can only be placed and known by the purveyor of knowlege, who knows it exists.
In knowing you are alive, is to know you will die, although you will never know actual death.
So this knowing you are alive has to exist only as an illusory sense of being.. that seeks purpose and meaning to the illusion itself, which is meaningless within the grand scheme of things.
Illusions have no need for purpose or meaning, but illusions are indeed very real apparently...as we draw and paint them from our imagination.
.
Re: The meaning of life
Because I don't think of the mind as being just consciousness. We human beings can mean many different things when we use a good many words. That is just the nature of language and how we human beings conceptualise things.Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:14 am
Okay, can I now ask, then why not just say 'consciousness' if this is what you actually mean, when you use the 'mind' word?
Because 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY MEAN so MANY DIFFERENT 'things' when 'you' use the 'mind' word it can be somewhat difficult to keep a track of what 'you', ALL, individually, are ACTUALLY MEANING.
I might state something as a fact if I firmly believe it to be the case, but I am always aware of the possibility of being mistaken.Also, WHY do you usually NOT state 'irrefutable facts'?
WHAT do you usually state, INSTEAD?
All animals have instinctual drives that direct their behaviour. The drive to eat, or to procreate, for example. Human beings seem to have a drive to "progress" socially and technologically. As I don't believe that natural selection can see into the future, it is not hard form me to envisage that progression arriving at a point where it could conflict with other elements of our human nature.Age wrote:So, WHY are 'you', human beings, CREATING such an 'environment' for "yourselves"?Harbal wrote: It seems to me that modern living is not fully compatible with the human psychology that developed in different circumstances.
OBVIOUSLY, there is CLEARLY absolutely NO OTHER 'thing' making and creating 'that environment', which you are speaking of here.
Re: The meaning of life
More or less. What 'meaning' ONE 'thing' HOLDS for 'itself', ONLY, REALLY is, literally, NOT that MEANINGFUL, NOR IMPORTANT, IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
BUT,
NO one is going to KNOW if what 'meaning' one is HOLDING onto is of VALUE to that 'self' ONLY or for absolutely EVERY one. So, ONLY when people START SHARING what they consider 'meaningful' and 'worthwhile' in their lives, and what 'things' are of VALUE to them, ONLY THEN can thee ACTUAL SHARED 'meanings', 'worthiness', and 'value' of 'things' can BECOME Truly KNOWN, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD.
SEE, what IS Truly MEANINGFUL, WORTHWHILE, and VALUABLE, in Life, is SHARED, COMMONLY, by and with EVERY one.
I think I was MEANT to write 'purpose' instead of 'meaning' there, but without looking back I can NOT be sure. But what I think I was trying to get out of you was IF you would OBJECT to making 'Lfe' WORSE, then what 'purpose' could there be to 'Life', itself?
That is; IF there is an INTERNAL and INSTINCTUAL OBJECTION to making 'Life', Itself, WORSE, then that could mean the 'purpose' to 'Life', 'living' and 'being alive' could just be to make 'Life', Itself, BETTER, for EVERY one.
And, what I MEAN by the word 'meaning' is just more or less how one 'defines' A word. After all the words 'definition' and 'meaning' MEAN more or less the EXACT SAME 'thing'.
See, to me, if ANY one Truly WANTS to SEE, FIND, and KNOW the 'meaning' of ANY 'thing', like 'Life', for example, then all that have to REALLY DO is just LOOK IN A 'dictionary'. And, THE 'dictionary' I LOOKED IN defined the word 'Life' as 'living; being alive'. Which, in other words, just MEANS that 'the meaning of Life' is JUST living; being alive.
And, to me, there is NO REAL 'purpose' in making living; being alive WORSE. But, I FOUND a LOT OF 'purpose' in making 'Life', living; being alive BETTER, and for NOT just SOME but for ALL and EVERY one, VERY PURPOSEFUL, and VERY REWARDING TOO, I will add.
SEE, 'the purpose of' 'Life', Itself, is the EXACT SAME for 'the purpose of' human life is the EXACT SAME.
Also, 'making Life better' is best NOT conflated with 'making a better life'. As the latter is usually referred to in regards to ONLY some, and a ONLY TO a VERY FEW usually VERY CLOSE family and friends ONLY.
I hope I NEVER MISS EXPLAINING what is ASKED FOR, from me.
Those who are labelled and named "alcoholics" are 'that way' BECAUSE of some PREVIOUS 'state of misery', in childhood. Which, it WILL BE FOUND, MEANS that WHEN ALL adult human beings LEARN HOW to LIVE PERFECTLY HAPPILY, AND are DOING SO, which, by the way, is FAR SIMPLER and FAR EASIER then FIRST ENVISIONED, in the days when this is being written, then NO child lives in ANY 'state of misery', then ALL the ADDICTIONS, like above, which people 'grow up' WITH end up VANISHING, COMPLETELY.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:59 amI was married to an alcoholic, which amounted to two people living in a state of misery.If you would LIKE TO continue on with this discussion could ACTUALLY STOP or PREVENT one from just living PERFECTLY 'happily', then best you provide some examples of what you think or BELIEVE would be a so-called 'person tragedy', 'mental illness', and a 'physical illness' that would STOP or PREVENT 'you' or "another" from living PERFECTLY 'happily'?
Also, could it be POSSIBLE that 'your partner' could BLAME becoming 'an alcoholic' BECAUSE of 'the partner' that they were married to?
Or, was the WHOLE CAUSE and BLAME of the 'state of misery' ON BOTH of 'you' SOLELY BECAUSE of 'your partner's' LOVE OF, or ADDICTION TO, alcoholic beverages?
Are you suggesting here that there was ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' AT ALL, in Life, that you could have done to HELP 'that situation'?
WHEN you COME TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY these 'things' CAME INTO Existence, then you WILL BE CLOSER to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING HOW to PREVENT such 'things', and HOW TO LIVE PERFECTLY HAPPILY, FOREVER MORE.
LOL We are BACK TO 'living the life that one NEEDS', 'to be happy'.
What WAY does one NEED, in order to live 'their life' HAPPILY?
And, to you, is there ONE WAY for EVERY one, or, MANY DIFFERENT WAYS for the MANY DIFFERENT people that exist?
To me, there is A WAY, and this ONE WAY, is RESOLVED by REMOVING the DISTORTED THINKING that there ARE DIFFERENT WAYS of 'living', which DIFFERENT people 'NEED', in order to just BE HAPPY.
BUT, I am STILL SOME WAY YET of being ABLE TO express and share 'this way' FULLY, CONCISELY, PRECISELY, and PROPERLY.
Okay. So, 'you' are NOT a "psychologist" NOR a "mental illness expert", YET you still CLAIM that, to you, there seem to be certain 'personality types' who are unable to be happy, BUT you can NOT name those so-called "personality types" of 'human beings'.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:59 amI can't list "personality types", I'm not a psychologist.AGAIN, if you would LIKE TO continue with this discussion, then you will HAVE TO list some examples of what CERTAIN so-called 'personality types', which are, SUPPOSEDLY, completely and utterly UNABLE to be 'happy'.
OF COURSE THERE WERE, in the days when this WAS being written.
HAVING TO 'grow up' IN, and ENDURE, 'that world', which existed when this was being written, then the fact that there were MANY people who could NOT find ANY REAL and True HAPPINESS, even AT ALL, is PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND, and EVEN PERFECTLY REASONABLE.
But, OBVIOUSLY, when 'that world' CHANGES, then SO TOO do OTHER 'things', like, for example, people's HAPPINESS.
BUT, ACTUALLY you CAN LEARN, and KNOW.
WOW that was a Truly WEIRD 'thing' to just COME UP WITH and ASSUME here. Well to me anyway.
Re: The meaning of life
I am NOT SURE what you are 'trying to' ALLEGE here.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:26 amAccording to human data...the answer to the thing responsible for the earth is ....The Earth formed over 4.6 billion years ago out of a mixture of dust and gas around the young sun. It grew larger thanks to countless collisions between dust particles, asteroids, and other growing planets, including one last giant impact that threw enough rock, gas, and dust into space to form the moon.
You can accept that version, or you can make up your own version Age.
But anyway, CLAIMING that the earth 'formed' OVER 4.6 billion years ago, when, OBVIOUSLY, the earth is STILL 'forming' NOW, is a bit MISLEADING is it NOT?
To me, it would be a bit like saying the Universe WAS 'created' at the big bang, when OBVIOUSLY, SOME 'thing' PRIOR to the 'big bang' MADE or CREATED the so-called 'big bang', which would, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE TO BE A PART OF 'the Universe', and, the Universe is STILL IN 'creation' and so the Universe was NEVER 'created', BEFORE.
Unless, OF COURSE, we want to LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT the Fact that there is ONLY the HERE-NOW, WHERE EVERY 'thing' IS BEING CREATED, ALL AT ONCE, it could be argued.
Re: The meaning of life
If Life, SUPPOSEDLY, has ONLY 'got meaning' IF 'you' or 'I' place 'meaning' here, then could it be argued that if Life has got 'NO meaning', then is this ALSO because 'you' or 'I' have placed 'NO meaning' here?
Or, does 'this' only work ONE WAY?
To WHO?
Is this true ONLY to those who placed 'NO meaning' to 'Life'?
To me, ultimately, and ACTUALLY, 'Life' is FULL of MEANING, and thus, literally, VERY MEANINGFUL.
But you just got through 'trying to' claim that ONLY 'you', or 'I', could place 'meaning' to 'Life'.
And, HOW, EXACTLY, do you think or believe that it 'logically follows' that ONLY because 'Life' IS 'meaningless' that 'meaning' could be imposed, or placed, upon 'Life'?
WHY could 'Life' NOT ALREADY HAVE 'meaning' and 'you', human beings, NOT be able to place, or impose, your OWN personal 'meanings' upon 'Life'?
To me, this does NOT follow.
BUT the Truth that the earth is NOT flat, is NOT at the center of the Universe, and the Universe did NOT begin and is NOT expanding does NOT mean that the Falsehoods that 'you', human beings, 'try to' IMPOSE upon 'It' mean that the Truth ACTUALLY DOES CHANGE, OBVIOUSLY.
Although the conclusion here may be IRREFUTABLY True, the way that you so-called 'argued' for 'it' does NOT work. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and POINTED OUT.
BUT WHEN the True and Right Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' becomes KNOWN, then what is ALSO KNOWN is that 'I' am ALWAYS ALIVE.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:56 am As for meaning imposed upon the absolute meaningless of life...it's each to their own as the purveyor of knowledge.
If you know you exist, you must also know that you will not exist.
In not existing there is no meaning... therefore, meaning can only be placed and known by the purveyor of knowlege, who knows it exists.
In knowing you are alive, is to know you will die, although you will never know actual death.
So this knowing you are alive has to exist only as an illusory sense of being.. that seeks purpose and meaning to the illusion itself, which is meaningless within the grand scheme of things.
Illusions have no need for purpose or meaning, but illusions are indeed very real apparently...as we draw and paint them from our imagination.
.