So I ask you.....what do you think? Is there an actual purpose or point to life or living? — Mtl4life098

Just like every of our physics theories, my opinion lacks the complete information and thus may be inaccurate. I don't support mind-body dualism presently, which will become evident as you read the expose. I am not denying that the ego is real, but I can't find enough evidence for its transcendence. Therefore, I don't believe in transcendent ethical arguments for the answer to your question. I am in support of the idea of consciousness in the flesh.

A particular type of dynamically organized collections of physical objects try to sustain themselves. By which I mean, to retain behavior and dynamic equilibrium. This is not of great import in the scheme of things and to choose to expire is not objectively inferior, but then your existence becomes hermetic. You leave no fingerprint in nature. Not wanting to sustain becomes self-defeating, and trying to sustain becomes self-fulfilling. Disinterest in life is a transitory trait and terminates soon after. Single organisms can be the end of entire communities, so don't think of it as a personal quality. The sustenance aim of life is not surprising, but the complexity of life is more so the exception. It is apparently the result of many coincidental circumstances, such as enough energy, low entropy, appropriate star matter, supply of information, and time. For your question to come to surface, evolution needs to have carried the drive to sustain to the point where fundamental choices becomes neurologically viable inquiry and seemingly valuable enough to reflect on in terms of the accrued personal and collective experience. Ironically, your heritage of a long collective struggle against the challenge to be a complex lasting organism compels you to ask further.

Why is asking what is the "point" meaningful? In attempts to be lasting, your ancestry evolved from basic reactive systems to intelligent systems. The latter utilize neurological processes to maintain a degree of correlation with the physical environment, current and projected, to make choices for the least expensive and most probable outcome in support of its sustenance, given the present information. But how does the plan form? How do we know to eat, reproduce, socialize, avoid pain, struggle for power. Those are obviously not deliberately planned. Genes, culture, and environment synthesize your innate survival skills. This is your long term memory and a bond to the bigger picture of life. Your survival starts from a collection of irrational impulses.

However, as useful as intelligence is, it has a flaw. Being intelligent means that you try to castrate prejudice and to seek absolute correctness. Which implies many deeper questions such as what is justice, freedom, duty, virtue, entitlement, meaning. Those are practical questions. You are trying to make long term assessment of your decisions and clear yourself of distortions. But in a sense, your whole plan is a data processing error. Your physical and psychological traits are contradiction with the erratic condition of the universe. Nature opposes your very existence. Fighting prolongs it, but to no end. You and your surrounding life are slowly turning to dust in an agonizing struggle. You dismantle the illusion of integrity. "And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

In emotional agony, or in complete indifference, the brain can recede into a purely rational state. The virtues of choices are futile and your existence stalls.

On your question, I have a defeatist attitude. I entertain pantheism or panpsychism and possibilianism, but this is not the question here. My inclination appears to be towards absurdism. I am aware of two other avenues. One, to adopt attitude of least resistance and to be utilitarian Darwinist. You can opt between various views, aiming satisfaction of the natural program with least amount of suffering, according to some specific measure of suffering that varies between variants. Or, you could adopt individual ethics, based on the manner in which you have been upbrought and your convictions. And then exude your influence on others if you are politically inclined. Long rant. Dissatisfying ending.

lmao how you guys get so off topic? — Mtl4life098

Indeed; my apologies.

The ominous reference to the dreaded "communist wolf" seems more like an argumentum ad metum, but it has a kind of nostalgic charm.

I was going more with the original, but if you prefer yours, fill your boots.

Something to consider: there is more to life than meets the eye. At the turn of the 20th century (1900-ish) an experiment was conducted to weigh people at their exact moment of death, in order to determine if there was a soul ( I may be off on the reason, but I am pretty sure that was it). The experiment determined that, moments before death, the person weighed 21 grams more than their body did immediately after death. There has been no accounting for the change in weight, all measurable losses had been considered and factored in, with a 21 gram discrepancy. Each person weighed had the same discrepancy. Perhaps we are here to ensure that the 21 grams that do not remain with the body have some experiences to move onward with. No further experiments of this nature were ever done as they were summarily considered unethical. I have no idea why, but whatever, my ethics and morals are not mainstream.

Still, something to ponder.

The purpose of life seems self-referential. Really, it comes down to maintaining homeostasis, scratching your ass, and not killing anyone else in the process.

Something to consider: there is more to life than meets the eye. At the turn of the 20th century (1900-ish) an experiment was conducted to weigh people at their exact moment of death, in order to determine if there was a soul — Book273

Each person weighed had the same discrepancy. — Book273

Apparently, in the experiment 6 people have been weighted in total, with the measurements of 3 being discarded, the remaining three varying. One lost weight, one lost weight and regained it, one lost weight in multiple stages. Meaning, only one patient exhibited the precise result. Even if I put too much trust in the description of the wikipedia source, sweating, gas release and other factors have to be accounted for. I am not saying that there is certainly no soul, but that experiment was butchered. Furthermore, some beliefs don't afford the soul material expression. I am open minded to any form of existence of the soul if it is proven, but the result would be also irreconcilable if the weight was attributed to an insubstantial part of the person.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the wikipedia source, but as I mentioned previously, it has been awhile since I did any research on it. However, sweat, gas, etc had been accounted for. My source was not wikipedia, it was a rather old text book. Additionally, if the soul exists, then it is energy of some sort, and would there for have mass, recognizable as weight, which would, lacking a physical, recognized substance, qualify as insubstantial. Would that in effect make the concept of the soul irreconcilable to you? Because it has a measurable weight?

However, sweat, gas, etc had been accounted for. — Book273

How would they have been accounted for, given it would be difficult to do even today?

Additionally, if the soul exists, then it is energy of some sort, and would there for have mass, recognizable as weight, which would, lacking a physical, recognized substance, qualify as insubstantial. — Book273

Energy is a form of matter, because you can create a particle with rest mass from the collision of high energy photons.

Would that in effect make the concept of the soul irreconcilable to you? Because it has a measurable weight? — Book273

No. It would be reconcilable with me if it had completely materially transparent or unknown material nature.

How would they have been accounted for, given it would be difficult to do even today? — simeonz

Not at all difficult to do today, were the experiment to get past the ethics board. I believe what was done back then was the patient was placed on to, essentially, a large tray and weighed. Immediately upon death they were weighed again, having never been removed from the tray. A tray shaped platform is important as upon dying the sphincters of the body relax, so any fluids within the body would be released. The tray allows these fluids to remain as part of the total measured weight.

Today a similar set up would be done, except that one could use a light, thin plastic tent to ensure any lost gases were also captured and weighed. Not that escaping gasses would account for much weight, but one might as well be thorough.

I would be willing to do this experiment. Providing the subjects gave informed consent prior. Methinks the ethics board would never approve of it. Neither would the church if they had any say in the matter.

Not at all difficult to do today, were the experiment to get past the ethics board. I believe what was done back then was the patient was placed on to, essentially, a large tray and weighed. — Book273

The wikipedia article includes a critical remark which was made by physician named Augustus Clarke, one of the MacDougall's contemporaries, according to whom right before dying the body releases heat, which affects the liquids in the body, turning sweat into gas and I assume, affecting the pressure of the internal gasses as well. If the pressure or state of the body's own liquids changes right before the person dies, when they are released/evaporate, the buoyant force exerted on those liquids would be different or otherwise, I speculate that the body's intestines and thus the exterior surface would partially inflate right after death, resulting in greater buoyant force on the corpse. According to Clarke, this could account for the 21 grams, although I understand that we are talking about a lot of weight. It seems to me that if Clarke is right about the heat release anyway, to be fully accurate, the experiment would have to place the subject in a hermetically sealed hard surface container that is weighted with compensation for the barometric pressure.

I would be willing to do this experiment. Providing the subjects gave informed consent prior. Methinks the ethics board would never approve of it. Neither would the church if they had any say in the matter. — Book273

There are multiple issues. First, as society, we insist that even the dying receive palliative care, or at least sedation. In principle, even if you have the consent of people that know that they are going to be on life support eventually, they will also have to sign an order to "not resuscitate" and "not intubate". With dying patients that have vital functions, you will be suspected in trying to arrange the time of death of the patients.

The changes of pressure would not affect overall weight of the body, only gas distribution. Clarke should have known that. 21 grams of gas is a lot of gas, volume wise. Barometric pressure should not be an issue if the weights were done within minutes of each other. Also, Clarke's theory of a body's exterior surface partially inflating right after death is erroneous. A body deflates slightly as gases and liquids are expelled due to atmospheric pressure being allowed to compress the tissues as internal pressures from being alive are no longer a factor. Hence the tray to catch the fluids which leave the body.

ICU beds are now quite capable of weighing patients accurately, there is no need to arrange anything. One could program the cardiac monitor to relay a "weigh patient" signal at 30 seconds after asystole begins. There would be no need for outside intervention. Additionally, anyone participating in such a study would be palliative, and therefore, resuscitation and intubation would not apply anyway.

"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." — simeonz

Bah. So what? Make friends with the abyss and carry on.

Make friends with the abyss and carry on. — Book273

Ah, dragons have high standards.

The changes of pressure would not affect overall weight of the body, only gas distribution. Clarke should have known that. — Book273

Clarke only stated that the sweat would have evaporated. I tried unsuccessfully to indicate by stating that "I assume" that it was my speculation that the pressure of the gasses, i.e. their temperature before they exit the colon, would be raised. I wanted to link this to the overall picture. Meaning, the effective weight of the expelled gasses in the presence of the atmospheric buoyant force might change if they get warmer right after death.

Also, Clarke's theory of a body's exterior surface partially inflating right after death is erroneous. A body deflates slightly as gases and liquids are expelled due to atmospheric pressure being allowed to compress the tissues as internal pressures from being alive are no longer a factor. — Book273

Again, this was my clumsy addendum. I meant that if some gasses were blocked in the colon, it would inflate it and push out the tummy of the person to some extent. In retrospect, the change in volume of the human corpse would probably be very small to warrant significant change in buoyancy.

ICU beds are now quite capable of weighing patients accurately, there is no need to arrange anything. One could program the cardiac monitor to relay a "weigh patient" signal at 30 seconds after asystole begins. There would be no need for outside intervention. Additionally, anyone participating in such a study would be palliative, and therefore, resuscitation and intubation would not apply anyway. — Book273

First, I doubt that ICU beds are designed to capture gasses and I doubt that the hospital would design their beds in any way that is not primarily interested in the health care of the individual. If they are on life support, I can see better chances of this happening. The measurements would have to deal with barometric pressure if they are not performed simultaneously and presume to be completely accurate.

It also occurred to me that 21 grams is a lot of energy. Around 525 GWh to be precise, which is more then the electrical consumption of New York city for a month. If this energy is detectable as loss of mass, it means that 525 GWh leave the body without any physical trace on it. I understand that the soul may be speculated to exist in a different unknown energy field, but apparently it interfaces with our weight measurement instruments, so it has to have some impact on ordinary matter.

Barometric pressure should not be an issue if the weights were done within minutes of each other. — Book273

I realized what you mean by this - that the measurements will be done only deferentially. The counterforce from the atmosphere is irrelevant, because it will be approximately the same before and after death. I concede on that point. But again, if sweat evaporation and other gasses need to be captured, with absolutely the same buoyant force, you will need a hard walls hermetic container. I am not saying it has to be under vacuum inside, just sealed. You can't move terminally ill patients, so you need someone on life support, and his signed agreement.

I also thought, how do you know that souls, if they presumably existed weigh the same? Also, how would you prove that what escapes in this field is an organized energy (that captures any intelligence or memory) and not high entropy energy?

One would no be able to prove what the unexplained difference in weight is, only that it does indeed exist within a living body. The interpretation of said weight would be up for debate. Soul, energy, etc. would be up to the interpreter to decide upon and then defend. Also, if one were to be thorough, one should also measure other, non-human life forms to determine if they have a measurable, inexplicable weight loss associated with death. Again, any such would be interpretable as the interpreter sees fit. It would however, assist in addressing, what I believe to be an erroneous assumption, that animals have no soul.

I knew someone who believed in the theory of the soul leaving the body, detectable as a weight difference, so much that he had it arranged so that he would be weighed before and after death. Cost him a fortune, and he had to weigh himself to the gram everyday. Because he was dead - he never got to learn the results of his experiment; but he was proven right! There was a weight difference - of 8 pounds. He was decapitated in a motorcycle accident!

Lovely story. Pointless and added nothing to the discussion. Thanks for that.

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you serious? Is the idea of a ghost in your corpse somehow related to the question of purpose in life? How so?

I can't, and let's face it, I won't bother, explain it to you. Feel free to not respond to my posts, your responses cheapen the forum.

That's more of a response than my explanation of purpose - on page one got.

"I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated. Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation. The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows? It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it."

That's a description of purpose in terms of following in the course of the fundamental truth relation between the organism and reality - in order to secure a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind, and you, ghost hunter, say I'm cheapening the forum? How's about you take your scooby-do bullshit and enter an egg sucking competition with it? You'd win a participant certificate for sure! But it's not philosophy!

I read your explanation of purpose. I filed it under "rape the planet some more and then move to a new planet and repeat" Category of positions. The basic Human Virus bit, so I felt a response was unwarranted. Nice scooby-doo reference, I like that you have stepped up your game.

When I read someone describe the struggle for human civilisation as "raping the planet" I want to strip them naked and leave them in the woods with nothing but sticks and stones. I think you'd die before nightfall, and your corpse would weigh exactly the same as it did before your last breath.

Clearly you have never left anyone in the woods before, people last a lot longer than you think. Also, there is a hell of a lot more in the woods than sticks and stones, so pick an option, do I only have sticks and stones, or am I left in the woods? And why naked? Outside of some fetish, I see no real gain in leaving someone naked, other than the annoying bug bites they would experience. Naked or not, they will just walk out of the woods (again demonstrating your poorly thought out plan). However, as I have been called soulless in the past, maybe you are correct, my body will weigh the same after death as in life. I don't know, I did not pay attention last time I died.

Oh, bubble head, if you don't know why someone who expresses such disrespect for civilisation should be left naked in the woods, go back to your ghost stories. They must surely have some sort of meaning for you - even if you can't tell me what that is, or how it relates to the purpose of life.

“I think therefore I am.”

This puts the idea of existence into play. Just existing is already an achievement within itself. It really is up to each individual to decide what they want to use this opportunity as and for, even if they don’t see it that way. Depending on you, your personality and how you utilize it, is up to you as an individual. Obviously there are imposing factors pushed upon you from society and people in general, but it all circles back to you and what you desire. If you don’t desire anything then you don’t, and that’s your life. Nothing wrong with that, unless it isn’t what you enjoy.

There are levels when it comes to existence: unbearable, painfully tolerable, alright, mediocre, good, and great. Some of us are privileged enough to not have to worry about shelter, eating, drinking water, and staying water. That right there is an edge. When you have less to worry about, life becomes more tolerable and enjoyable.

This plays into feelings and emotions. Why have emotions? There is no manual on how feelings and emotions can intertwine with life and reality, it is simply there to experience. But those feelings allow yourself to become more immersed in reality and truly be present. It truly is up to you, how these emotions come to be, and the situations that result of it.

Indicating as I did earlier, the hypothesis may lie outside of our current frame of thinking, but I am not against exploring it. Especially when one takes such objective view. I am not sure that it will give us meaning, but that is presently unknown. Basically, I mostly agree.

"Of course life has no point. If it had, man would not be free." ~Andrei Tarkovsky

Of course life has no point. If it had, man would not be free. — 180 Proof

Is that supposed to imply a modus tollens:

If life has a point, then man is not free.
Man is free.
Therefore life has no point.

Do you think that is sound? Or was it just a drive by interesting quote?