Talk:Meaning of life/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 GET THIS TO FA STATUS 2 Logical Flaw 3 Today is August 1st 4 Synonyms 5 Things that can be said about Life 6 Respect for expertise 7 Meaning of life philosophy and science 7.1 Conservation of energy 7.2 Object oriented programming 7.3 Entanglement 7.4 Belief systems 7.5 Equality 7.6 Aliens 7.7 Point zero 7.8 The impossible dream 7.9 Life extension and transhumanism 8 More about meaning of life and science 9 Frustrating 10 Synthesis tag 10.1 Scientific views and WP:SYN 11 Moving misplaced comment 12 Keep, for otherwise what is Wikipedia for?

[edit] GET THIS TO FA STATUS

This page should have the most upmost scignificance in wikipedia. It is extrodinary well written and address all the issues with the topic. However it is incoherent. A good clean up should fix it.Perhaps we should establish a task list?Jackchen123 (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC

[edit] Logical Flaw

The lead in to science states that science does not look for the meaning of life. The it goes on and on about science and the meaning of life. If the first statement is true, doesn't it make sense to delete the entire science section? Aidan Boyle_undertow ^talk 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems so FiringRange 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this interpretation: The goal of scienctists is not to find the meaning of life, but people (Tolstoy comes to mind) sometimes look to science to try to find answers to questions about the meaning of life, and some scientists study what people find meaningful in their lives, or feel gives their lives meaning. Anarchia 00:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been edited so many times, it has lost its original context. Science can't verify meaning inherent in life, such as if there is a purpose behind it all (such as might be the case if the universe was created by a supernatural being), but it can explore the possible answers to the interpretive questions. The Transhumanist 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the contradictory passage. The Transhumanist 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV not merely permits requires contradiction when different people have different opinions. A goal of having the article content be self-consistent would be a violation of WP:NPOV when presenting all significant points of view requires presenting flatly contradictory claims. I've restructured this part of the article into sections presenting different points of view and re-inserted the "contradiction". Best, --Shirahadasha 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today is August 1st

Well, not in my part of the planet, but it is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Transhumanist, are you going to take out those sources soon, or do you want me to do it tommorow after I'm awake enought to spell tomorrow? --Longing.... 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment out the unsourced material as agreed. The Transhumanist 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms

Questions like "What is the purpose of life?", "What is the reason of life?" and "What is the reason to live?" are in fact synonymous with "What is the meaning of life?", shouldn't this be mentioned at the beginning of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.232.191 (talk) 06:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are synonymous with the question is itself a matter for philosophical argument. Anarchia 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"What is the purpose of life?" is in the lead section, and versions of all the others you posted above are in there too. The "reason to live" question is posed as "purpose in on'es life", while "What is the reason of life?" is the same as "What is the origin of life?" but can also be interpretted as the very same question as "What is the purpose of life?" or even "Why are we here?". They're all in there. The 5 questions included are all distinct, and I searched high and low for further contexts of "What is the meaning of life?", but could only find synonymous phrasings of the 5 such as those you just mentioned. But I'm glad you asked. Keeps us on our toes.  :-) The Transhumanist    02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things that can be said about Life

There are a very few things that can be said about Life. Life begin with very simple forms and grew on Earth to more complex forms. The complex forms we find today could not possibly live in the environment of the long past. There had to be an abundance of carbon dioxide before plants could flourish. Then, plants created an abundance of oxygen and animals could flourish. Both plants and animals grew more and more complex over time. The article might entertain this idea of Life creating the environment that more complex Life can live in, and then evolving into more complex life which created an environment for even more complex life, and so on. This idea appears obvious but I don't find a reference for it. 76.211.230.86 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respect for expertise

I was involved on another page where one or two headstrong undergraduates were trying to overrule several editors with PhDs in the field and specific expertise in the areas involved. "Meaning" or "Meaning in life" (within the context of positive psychology's study of happiness, life satisfaction, engagement, etc.) is my #1 area of interest at present. If I take the time to try to salvage a section of a Wikipedia article that is poorly written (and obviously not written by those in related fields), I do not appreciate having my contributions deleted with no explanation! Contributions from experts are needed in this article and in many other Wikipedia articles, in some cases quite desperately. -DoctorW 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I looked at the edit history without realizing that my edits may have been only temporarily deleted, and probably by mistake in an attempt to revert vandalism. -DoctorW 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion above which resulted in the temporary removal of all unreferenced material from this page until citations could be found for it. The article was essentially gutted, but there's no defense against policy. WP:VER was enforced. It's typical that the person who enforced policy hasn't lifted a finger to help find citations. I've restored some of the material by finding citations, but have been too busy to work on it recently. Please feel free to track down citations for the rest, and add each fact as it is cited. Good luck. The Transhumanist 05:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that it was you, The Transhumanist, who went on what might be criticized as a rampage and put fact tags all over the article including on sentences that did not warrant them, then offered the "solution" that all the uncited material be commented out by a certain date. Am I not remembering this correctly? I clearly remember thinking how utterly disingenuous that solution was. If I am mistaken, please provide links to the relevant diffs.

Regardless, it was a very bad choice to eliminate (comment out) a whole section that had not been controversial (in fact, was the core of the article by any reasonable assessment) just because some fact tags were added (and very injudiciously so in terms of quantity). That kind of solution is not Wikipedia policy.

Anyway, I addressed that problem by providing a reference here and there, eliminating weak sections, rephrasing poorly worded sentences that would have required a citation, leaving only a small number of fact tags remaining. You had absolutely no business reverting my work. -DoctorW 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of life philosophy and science

[edit] Conservation of energy

Conservation of energy states that everything is energy and energy is conserved. The experience of the observer is energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. There is as much positive energy as there is negative energy. If they canceled each other there would be nothing. Experience is also energy. There is no free energy or perpetual motion device because energy can not be created or destroyed. Since the observer (you) is energy as well, the observers happiness can not be created or destroyed. Happiness, satisfaction, love, pleasure or what ever you call it, can not be created or destroyed, but only changes form where various forms of pleasure are later paid of with various forms of displeasure, pain, suffering etc. Happiness can not be created, the only time people are happy is when they are creating their own doom and are not aware of it. So the happier you are the more unhappy you will be in the future and vice versa.

[edit] Object oriented programming

Several decades ago computer scientists have realized that programming is greatly simplified by creating of what is called an object. An object is quite simply, everything. Every code, process, algorithm, function etc. is the same thing, a thing, or an object as called in computer lingo. It is thus greatly simplified to code when everything is treated as the same thing. Similarly in life, everything is the same thing. In other words, everything is alive and everything is equal. Everything is an experience. Because everything is an experience, it doesn't matter who's experience it it, everyone is essentially equal, from the greatest minds in the universe to the Tutsi fly. Nobody's experience is any better or worse that anyone else's because everyone's energy or happinesses are conserved. Since energy is conserved, it doesn't matter who or what you are, everything is conserved. Happiness equates unhappiness.

[edit] Entanglement

This coincides with theories of quantum entanglement that everything is the same thing, that everything is connected or entangled. Since everything and everyone is equal, we have a lot in common, we're all the same. We are all experiences and all experiences are related to each other. Time is an illusion just like space. There is no time, it's only an experience of how different physical perceptions relate to each other. There is infinite time and space dimensions and time travel is possible and easy once physical mechanisms of hyperspace or multidimensionality are mastered.

[edit] Belief systems

There is nothing physical. Scientists have never been able to find a single atom of physical presence. Matter breaks down into atoms, atoms break down into subatomic particles and so on and so forth. In the end, there really is no matter, only information. Belief systems are the same thing, just information. No one belief system is any better or worse that another, because they are all just information, when it all comes down to it. In other words, the Flying Spaghetti Monster belief is no different that the Big Bang or the Grand Unified Field Theory. What matters in not weather it's scientifically proven, but weather you believe in it. If you can imagine it, it's information. It's no different from anything else because nothing but information has ever been found in search of something real, physical or matter. It doesn't mean that by believing in something you can easily make it real. In the end you'll find that it's hardest to believe in what you want the most and the benefits balances out, refer to Conservation of Energy.

[edit] Equality

Since everything is energy and everything is conserved and is merely information, there's no such thing as someone being better or worse than anyone else. Everyone's experience is infinite. No matter how smart or how dumb someone is their experience is just as rich as someone who has a higher IQ or is perceived to be smarter. This brings us to the deduction that no matter how dumb someone is they are just like us. Since everything is the same and everything is an object, anything you can imagine is just as alive as anything. In other words, a mosquito, rock, Santa Clause, X or anything at all is just as alive as human beings. You'll never know what's it's really like to be a grain of sand, just like you'll never know what it's like to be Whitney Houghston until you actually become it. Meanwhile we'll keep thinking that we are the only ones alive because we can only understand those who are similar to us. In actuality, everything is alive and going through it's own chalanges we just don't realize it because we live in our world.

[edit] Aliens

The whole question of extraterrestrials and aliens is redundant because not only do other life forms exist, they are everywhere. The only question is which life forms do we choose to relate to and accept.

A specific question is if there are other humanoid life forms elsewhere in the universe. The answer is probably yes, but if they have superior technology and better lifestyles, they would not have any reason in coming here. Just like we have no reason of going to underdeveloped countries unless there's a benefit in it for us. The answer is probably that if you have yet not seen aliens, thank you lucky starts that they've left you alone because if you're not careful, you might lust get what you wished for. All these government conspiracies and cover ups really are for your own protection designed to preserve our ways of life by those for whom it is already too late.

[edit] Point zero

So where does this leave us? Well apparently none of it really does matter. The universe is perfectly fair and at the same time, you just can't get a break no matter what you do. So should we all now run for the hills and wait for the sky to fall, or summon the aliens and await the horrendous consequence that will come? Well apparently one again, according to this theory, it really does not matter because aliens are really just like us. One bean of hope however remains, maybe I'm wrong about all this. Maybe the universe is not balanced and there is a way to obtain free energy after all, despite that fact that no one has done it and it is the most impossible thing to do imaginable. Obtaining this free energy, this free lunch, something for nothing, free happiness without consequence is what is called point zero.

[edit] The impossible dream

Obtaining free energy will be the hardest technological, sociological or spiritual undertaking that has never been done by man, aliens, god or any other life forms anywhere ever since the beginning of time because it would have only had to have been done once. By all logic, rationale and sanity, it is impossible no matter what you do. Obtaining this point zero is the only thing left imaginable to do once we realize that nothing really matters and that we are all the same and we all just want to be happy. By definition, it is not easy and it is the most impossible thing ever conceivable or more accurately inconceivable. It is the most impossible, hardest most ridiculous thing imaginable that anyone could ever try to do and by definition guaranteed not to work, and it is the only choice we have left.

[edit] Life extension and transhumanism

Life extension comes factors in when we accept that nothing matters and we might as well try to stay alive to keep our memories and try as hard as possible to achieve point zero, which is impossible. Life extension is also important as a precautionary measure. It is done just in case this is all wrong and the truth is completely different from what we could have imagined. It is basically a way of saying that life isn't that great, and might not be desirable, but for all we know, death isn't that great either, and not possible anyway, so might as well just stay alive and keep our memories and try to evolve as much as possible in the hopes of one day reaching point zero, which is by all definition not going to happen. At the same time we have no other choice, plus there's always hope that this whole theory is wrong and there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in the distant future.

[edit] More about meaning of life and science

The question of whether science has anything to say about the meaning of life is hotly disputed, and so far the article has presented only one side of the dispute. I've added material by Bertrand Russell, a leading advocate of the Logical Positivism school. Since there's no well-defined finite procedure for determining the meaning of life, from a logical positivist perspective it's not "cognitively meaningful", so as far as this point of view is concerned thinking about such matters is simply a waste of a scientist's time. Quite frankly, the claims that the various specific scientific topics listed "shed light on" the meaning of life strike me as being rather unsubstantiated and appear to be mostly a WP:SYN. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another area involves the claim that teleology has been debunked by science. A school of statisticians, following Walter Shewhart and based on the pragmatist epistemology of Clarence Irving Lewis, argues that scientific knowledge is inherently teleological and that scientific propositions can only be established with respect to some purpose. I've added a section outlining the argument. --Shirahadasha 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrating

I came to this page for the definitive answer on "The Meaning of Life" but all the page contains is a number of theories and postulations. I suggest that the page be simplified and centralised around the answer: the rest of the content is just chaff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.172 (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is merely an encyclopedia, not an oracle. Web technology improves many things, but there are some questions whose answers it doesn't make any easier. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment reminds me of a student who sat through three-quarters of the lectures in a philosophy course on human nature, and attended every tutorial, then said "I just don't get this course, I came to learn what human nature actually is and you still haven't told me!"

To 147.114.226.172, some questions don't have definitive answers. Inapropriate POV comment: To find life meaningful, I would back a combination of Aristotle's recipe for happiness, "live an active life of reason", Richard Taylor's, "find and pursue projects that matter to you", and the psychology book Meaning and the Voids close relationships tend to make most people's lives more meaningful. If you want a meaning of life, as in "is there a purpose to all of our lives", I think that Thomas Nagel's article and chapter on life and absurdity, and Tolstoy's My Confession read alongside Kurt Baier's article on the subject shows there just ain't one. But all the religious types will disagree with me. Anarchia 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis tag

Several areas where I believe OR synthesis still applies:

• The Theistic views section selects several paasages from the Bible (described as the "Old Testament" and "New Terstament) and claims they represent general theistic views about the meaning of life. FIrst, Wikipedia's long-standing practice for religion articles is not to accept an editor's own interpretation of the Bible and hence not to use the Bible as a primary source except in articles about particular Bible stories or similar cases where no interpretation is involved. Second, any claim that these particular passages are representative of any current views need to be sourced. Finally, the concepts described are specifically Christian concepts. Any claim that they represent Christianity generally needs to be sourced. *Scientific views section -- There are sources for claims that science deals with each of the issues outlined. But what are the sources for claims that these issues even have to do with the meaning of life, let alone that they are particularly important or notable aspects? Further, are these scientific views of meaning, or nonscientific reflections on scientific findings? Who characterizes these reflections as "scientific"? The section seems to represent an editor's arranging of topics that seem relevant and important to the editor.
• Humanism section. The only source is the "Humanist Manifesto". What independent source regards the humanist manifesto as representative of humanism generally or even notable? Humanism as a general body of ideas existed for centuries before this manifesto; giving it this much attention and claiming it is suitable sole source for humanism generally doesn't seem to be justified. A document is not a reliable soource for its own originality or importance. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Best, --Shirahadasha 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific views and WP:SYN

The claims that science has something to say about the meaning of life are, so far, are either entirely synthetic or give undue weight to obscure and possibly obscurantist views and sources. Claims about how natural science writ large determines the meaning of life are sourced to an self published web page by a Swiss chemist (Luisi) [1] Luisi where he clearly states that he is offering his personal views. He also clearly states the mainstream view that the meaning of life is not part of science proper, going so far as to call meaning a "mental construct" based on a persons socialization and not establishable by scientific methods. This self-published source does not even meet WP:RS - and the use of this scientists' personal opinions to support claims about natural science or natural scientists as a group is an unsupportable synthesis. Any claim general claim about science or scientists as a group needs to come from reliable sources which talk about science or scientists as a group. Sourced claims cannot be extended beyond what those sources actually say, and self-published sources are not reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving misplaced comment

• Sounds to me like this person just put this on the wrong page (how did no one notice this?). I have added it here and removed it form the article. The comment is as follows: --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Pantheistic Views***

The above edit (Mystcial Views)is considerably like those of Pantheists. First, understanding God as a force, (not an entity who sits in a cloud, and audits our lives), rather, a force whereas gravity is a force that pulls everything toward the core of a mass, the God force holds all things together, making all things one with each other, including the stars, the comets, and the entire universe. We're all a part of each other. When we say things like, "I hate that person"...what we are actually saying is there's a part of OURSELVES that we hate. As for the meaning of life, if you're Panthiest, the meaning of life comes from the creation of life. The creation being part of the big bang means that we are all created by the stars, the solar winds, iron and all other minerals of the universe. Having said that, the meaning of life is then within ourselves. It's what we want it to be in order for us to better ourselves. If, on the other hand, those who believe God as an almighty and perfect entity, suppose they can understand their God's meaning of life, then that God can't be as all knowing as they think, as we are not perfect, nor almighty.

the meaning of life in through the mind of their God, then that God can't be

[edit] Keep, for otherwise what is Wikipedia for?

Wikipedia began as a place for human interaction on both global and personal (even idiosyncratic) scales and almost immediately devolved into two camps: those eager to explore big ideas and those determined to publish and protect convictions already held. Whether as a consequence or a mere collateral Wikipedia, like the political processes of many Western countries, now has enabled a few loud minorities to squash conversations of the larger community by claiming that their personal convictions are so important as to enable muzzling everyone else; the debate about the present article, in my opinion, is an example. Personally, I find the article interesting, if a bit shallow; its many commentaries are deep and narrow, and the objections are shrill. In my opinion the central point is that the experience of reading the whole is informative, stimulating, enlightening, and valuable; removing it would erase a window for viewing interesting ideas. I feel the same when I read many articles in the 11th edition of the Britannica. If Wikipedia deletes a necessarily speculative article about something as intricate as the Meaning of Life because one or more coteries objects to the issues it raises--as opposed to resorting to publishing articles that merely describe the weight of steam engines or size of brassieres (all of which can be found in catalogues, but would offend few purists--wait, an article on brassieres might give someone pause), why bother preserving this necessarily disruptive website as a whole that could "change the world" by helping it know and think?