The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Mortran wrote:Knowledge is not the ultimate purpose of humanity, it is the other way around.
The ultimate purpose of knowledge is humanity. This is the other way around.
Knowledge can't have a purpose. It is not an animate object, nor an inanimate one. It is impossible for knowledge to have a purpose.
Or maybe you meant that purpose is the ultimate knowledge of humanity? That'd be fitting, as nobody knows what the ultimate knowledge of humanity is. At this point in time. But this is not a proof, and there is no support for this.
Or maybe you meant that the knowledge of ultimate humanity is purpose. Or that the knowledge of ultimate purpose is humanity. You figure these two out.
At any rate, none of the "other ways around" make any sense to me. But that's just me...maybe it is a sign that I am too unknowledgable about purpose, humanity and knowledge.
Greta wrote:Humans make the possibility of the Earth seeding other worlds with life (panspermia) exponentially more likely in the one billion years maximum that the Earth's surface will remain habitable for any kind of biology.
If humans also "seed" other worlds with self-constructing and self-improving advanced AI, the sky is the limit (for them, as the last remaining representatives of Earth, anyway).
The limit is not the sky... but ultimate entropy. Sorry.
And if humans seed the skies or the universe with humans, then we also seed it with a billion and a half other organisms that live in our bodies.
Who will kill whom first? Which organism will survive ultimately? How many of these internal organisms in human bodies, without which humans can't survive, will mutate and ultimately kill us all? The sky is the limit.
Lark_Truth wrote:One of the most universal things that I have noticed about people is that they are all innately curious. It seems to be the defining characteristic of humans, our curiosity, and that we want to know about our surroundings, and perhaps most of all in these modern days, about ourselves. Perhaps the point of humanity is to discover who we are, and we can only do that by searching for the answer ourselves. Our curiosity demands it!
Not to argue; not at all. Just to add: all mammals, and many (or most) other species are curious.
Curiosity establishes knowledge, and knowledge leads to better survival skills.
Therefore curiosity and knowledge-seeking has been built in into all animals that can comprehend.
Humans too, as you well pointed out.
ALL I AM SAYING this is not a human-only trait. It's pervasive among those species that are capable of learning.
[quote]One of the most universal things that I have noticed about people is that they are all innately curious. It seems to be the defining characteristic of humans, our curiosity, and that we want to know about our surroundings, and perhaps most of all in these modern days, about ourselves. [quote]
I agree that as a child this does indeed seem universal. I also agree that this should be universal as an adult. Personally I think it's a great reason or point to live. Sadly where I begin to disagree is that for many people curiosity is trumped by other concerns. I hesitate to put a number to it as it would be purely anecdotal but I would guess a majority of humans have replaced curiosity in a majority of subjects.
What you need is 'perspective', which is the underlying force of 'motivation', which is what is needed to continue to exist. You appear to lack motivation, because you do not have an adequate perspective.
ON AN ADEQUATE PERSPECTIVE
In attempting to maintain motivation to live (in the face of a higher brain that questions it - note that animals have no such dilemma - living in the extreme immediate world - i.e. merely responding to physical stimuli), humans have tried two approaches: 1.) fooling themselves with myth (religions) and 2.) searching reality for reasons (science).
You do not appear to have been motivated by either, so loading more myth on you (religions) will probably not work, and, as it is, it is the wrong path to take, so I would not do it anyway.
So that leaves us with 'reality'.
ON REALITY AS A MOTIVATOR
I too faced the 'wall' that you are facing, and I stepped back and asked, "Why Bother?" (why bother to continue to exist), and I made a serious (rather than the usual smart-ass) attempt to answer it, and I arrived at "Because consciousness is a good thing", which can be used as the fundamental foundation for motivation, not only in our everyday decisions, but also in (what I call ) The Great Struggle - which entails trying to perpetually exist in a harsh and deadly universe.
Then, thinking further, I asked (because 'thinking further' entails asking more questions, then searching for answers), "So WHY is consciousness a 'good thing'?"
My answer was, "Because we, as embodiments of it, are 'obligated' to argue 'for' it (and just consider the alternative) - let inanimate energy and matter argue for non-consciousness (and vegetation and microbes). You can see that their arguments will not exist - for they cannot think. In fact, using a certain "Potentially Useful Perspective" (as I like to call such 'Tools of Perception'), it can be viewed that even inanimate matter, and especially vegetation and microbes, WISH to also attain 'higher consciousness status' (which has its own set of definitions, such as the abilities for extended reason and proactive action based only on reason), the assumption being that higher consciousness increases the odds of survival in a harsh and deadly universe, bringing new survival abilities to the table (microbes use diversity, dispersal, and sheer numbers, while humans (or more usefully, 'higher consciousness') introduced extended reason, proaction based on reason, and technology - and, just to note, with that perspective, you can now make any moral decision as well as identify where your action fits in to the Big Picture).
So we are at "Securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe" (and 'higher' consciousness takes priority - the assumption being that it offers the highest odds of survival).
Now what do we have? We have an Ultimate Value of Life - higher consciousness, and an Ultimate Goal of Life - securing it.
Having a goal now gives us the ability to quickly and clearly distinguish good from evil (which humans cannot do yet, being mired in philosophical subjectivism - where there is no 'objective value' that everyone can agree on, such as higher consciousness), and the ability to quickly and clearly distinguish good from evil now enables us to build worthwhile individual lives (with a clue - for currently the best that people can do is live 'good but clueless lives'), and relevant civilizations (finally).
So now you are much further along the road to motivation, and better, you have answers to the Greatest Questions of Life, in fact, in answering "Why Bother?" you have the answer to the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life (for you must admit, you must answer "Why Bother?" before you even begin to answer any of the other, now lesser, Great Questions).
Let me give you an example 'live' scenario to demonstrate ('live' because I am going to improvise 'live'):
"Oh, Zandylan, what is the point of humanity?"
"Why, my dear one, humanity makes it own points, so feel free to make a point, any point - there is enough room in the universe for as many points as you wish to make, because, my dear one, the universe is pointless itself!"
(haha, that was unexpected, but let me try and continue...)
"So what point should I make, Zandylan - what do you suggest?"
"I would suggest 'survival', and not just the individual survival of you or I, but of all of life, which I call 'Broader Survival', and in a harsh and deadly universe."
"But Zandy, I've lost my will to life."
"Why is that, my dear one?"
"I'm not sure - it is just a feeling - perhaps of a lack of motivation, perhaps because the world is so screwed-up mentally, and I just can't fight it any longer."
"Well then, go ahead and die - cells do it all the time when they 'feel' that they no longer have a function (although the process is more mechanistic - for cells cannot, given the evidence, 'feel' emotion). You are not obligated to live if you cannot see a purpose."
"Are you motivated to live, Zandy, has life been so good to you that you wish to continue on in it?"
"Life has by no means been good to me - like you noted before, the world is a very screwed-up place, and I do not have the physical looks to live a charmed social life, to 'get by on my smile' as the saying goes, nor could I with good conscience - I'm not one to be a blind sheep following blind sheep, nor a blind sheep leading blind sheep (and I've tried both). I think I find my motivation in the Great Struggle."
"The Great Struggle?"
"Yes - trying to perpetually exist. You see, the term 'living forever' is a paradox, because eternity makes that impossible - there is always more time ahead, so the best you can do is struggle to perpetually exist, in the face of a harsh and deadly universe. The same goes for 'knowing everything' - infinity makes that impossible, for whatever you know, there is always 'more out there' (in space) to know." So both of those combined is what I call "The Great Struggle". So that, I suppose, motivates me, and we are kind of obligated to engage in that struggle."
"Obligated?"
"Why, yes, my dear one, since life has embodied itself in us, we are obligated to work to perpetuate it - let inanimate matter and energy 'argue' for non-life, and try to perpetuate that. Why, in our continued struggle, we may even come across other being in the universe that are engaged in the same struggle, and think of that excitement - that along may be a wonderful motivator, though not as broad as securing higher consciousness against a harsh and deadly universe."
"So I am not motivated to continue to live because human mentality is so screwed-up right now?"
"Yes, and it always has been, as evidenced by continued envy-seeking, jealousy, vanity, xenophobia, hate, war, a lack of self-worth, depression, and suicide, just to name a few. So it is clear that all philosophies and all religions, both current and past, have failed us, and we need a new world philosophy, not only for motivation, but for actually keeping our minds on track in securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe, and, after that, ever-broadening our existence in boundless time and space, just on sheer principle."
"Has anyone developed a 'new world philosophy' yet?"
"Why, yes, my dear one - Numi Who - but no one listens to him - he has won a few engineers over, but the world at large - no - they are prideful and will not let go of their current deficient mentalities. Why, my dear one, even that provides motivation for Numi to continue to live - for he sees it as an exciting intermediate challenge - that of trying to enlighten the world, to get them to properly 'see' the Ultimate Value and Ultimate Goal of life, where then there will be many more 'higher consciousnesses' addressing the survival of higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe."
"Hmmm... I can faintly sense the motivating force there... give me time to think... maybe it will work for me, too..."
"Well, note that in regard to survival, the premise is that the better grasp of reality we have, the higher our odds of survival, so you can begin by pursuing our understanding of reality (in order to increase our odds of survival), or you can help 'spread the word' of this new enlightenment. Numi does it through Internet forums and comment boxes - there is a certain modern 'grass-roots' satisfaction to disseminating it that way.. and it is an exciting challenge in trying to enlighten a world that is still swimming in a sea of philosophical stupidity..."
Bravo, Dark Matter! I love it! Our purpose is found in the spirit!
Quick question though: Say somebody with a sure knowledge of the future - God for instance, no fortunetellers - tells us that we have a definite purpose in our lives?
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
Greta wrote:It seems preferable to the alternative. I remember being young and superstitious - afraid of the dark, of ghosts, monsters, zombies, aliens, Satan, demons, Hell, Purgatory, walking under ladders, inauspicious astrological predictions, and the list goes on.
It may seem preferable, but does that make it the "point of life"? After all, the point of life is a huge thing to define, and I would be wary of definitions based on preconceived notions, or simply preferences to alternatives.
Sure, knowledge is a means to an end although I personally find it preferable to know what I'm doing rather than groping blindly around for understanding or, worse, giving up the quest for understanding altogether.
I personally see humanity as part of the Earth's systems, an expression of the Earth and its biosphere. Thus far, human activities seem uncannily reminiscent of the actions of imaginal discs in metamorphosing insects. Humans seem to be a sign of the biosphere moving into a reproductive form. Either that or its death, or both.
Of course, reproduction is an unsatisfactory reason for being, leading to pointless infinite regression unless one believes in some kind of ending Omega Point - at some point the future life will become as complex, intelligent and as empowered as it ever will be. So when it comes to purpose we also must consider the inner journey, not just of the individual, but the moral and ethical development of humanity en masse, and whatever comes after us. Ideally, I suppose, we would aim to be the best possible "link in the chain" towards what we think of as an ethical future, at least as far as that is within our bounds.
The moral and ethical challenges of the future will most likely be as far beyond our ken as adult ethical dilemmas are for a small child. Any grand purpose - be it existent or emergent - is simply not going to be knowable by, or comprehensible for, us.
Eating a meal feels good.
Sex feels good.
Loving feels good (Not to confuse with sex.)
Pain feels bad.
Agony feels bad.
Sacrificing for loved ones feels good.
Caring about the self and others feels good.
Philosophising, poeting, skating, skeeting, scooting, scouting, all feel good.
Raising offspring feels good.
Giving commands feels good.
Obeying commands feels bad.
Being tortured feels bad.
Why can't we go with this?
True, these are not purposes... any one of them. Not on the grand scheme of things. (Many of us actually deny that there is a "grand scheme of things".) But "the sum of a woman is greater than her whole", or of a man; individually in the list, and even the grand sum of above activities may not give you a "grand" feeling that "YESSSS! This is the purpose of my life", but the sum of the activities -- avoiding pain, and seeking pleasure, pleasance -- may qualify to be exactly that.
Spraticus wrote:As a newbie here I am astonished at how many people on a philosophy forum are fully immersed in 100% made up, speculative theories.
You mean like some atheists in the sciences and philosophy that subscribe to the view that all mathematical evidence of the universe indicates we are living in a simulation?
If we are living in simulation then what does that say about left-wing, liberal objection to racism, sexism, or even some individuals abducting children, raping them, then murdering them? As in if we evolve to to be such enlightened and holy people then why are our future enlightened selves intentionally creating so much pain and misery in this simulation? Pure sadistic amusement?
Subscribers to the simulation scientific hypothesis, philosophical theory, claim the mathematics of the universe are too precise and ordered, to be brought about accidentally, and rather some intelligent designer has to have intentionally created it.
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtual—and what it means either way
By Clara Moskowitz on April 7, 2016 أعرض هذا باللغة العربية
NEW YORK—If you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.
Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”
But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”
Short video explaining the issue (but visual video quality is poor):
A little longer video in a Ted Talk (but better visual video quality):
Published on Feb 11, 2014
Astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner George Smoot studies the cosmic microwave background radiation — the afterglow of the Big Bang. His pioneering research into deep space and time is uncovering the structure of the universe itself. He has also made a cameo appearance (as himself) in an episode of the 'Big Bang Theory.'
Spraticus wrote:As a newbie here I am astonished at how many people on a philosophy forum are fully immersed in 100% made up, speculative theories.
You mean like some atheists in the sciences and philosophy that subscribe to the view that all mathematical evidence of the universe indicates we are living in a simulation?
A simulating environment is a stimulating environment!!
I guess a variation on this theme is "out of the mouth of babes...". Another great piece of poetry from the King James Bible. A popular notion that naivety and gut reaction brings us closer to truth than chin-stroking contemplation.
director of the museum’s Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment."
No. Because if the creators of the program are so intelligent, then they don't find our foibles and toils entertaining. Much like we, humans, can't be bothered (most humans) to observe a day in the life of orangutans. If they can write a program that simulates a universe, then they will be bored by the program and probably know everything that happens way before it happens in that universe (of ours).
People write programs on computers to enhance thinking; to do the part of thinking that humans are incapable of (like computing very simple operations but at breakneck speed, repetitiously, without making errors.) So these super smart entities will never write a computer program to simulate our universe, because it is so trivial to them.
Unless of course our existence has been written by some programming students in their reality, an entry level program or as that of a beginner's level. Like most of us wrote our first program that asked for a name and then it regurgitated, "Hi, (that name)."
That would explain the imperfections in our lives, in our universe. A beginner-level programmer would make such an imperfect program.
