Deep and Philosophical

[Welcomefamily]

As I discuss the bi poplar dimensions of valence and arousal (on another site), I find my self thinking its perhaps time to have another debate on one of the more fundamental question that needs to be answered.

What is the meaning of life? is that mans only purpose to pass over some genetic material to his off spring? or is there more? :confused

[Metalattakk]

Why does there have to be a "meaning of life"? Life just is.

[TBH]

Evolution is the meaning of life, to what end, that's an even bigger question.

[Welcomefamily]

If evolution is the meaning of life then at what point will all things converge into a perfect item?

[Welcomefamily]

Why does there have to be a "meaning of life"? Life just is.
With purpose or without?

[Metalattakk]

With no purpose at all, except that which we make for ourselves.

[TBH]

If evolution is the meaning of life then at what point will all things converge into a perfect item?Time is infinite perhaps meaningless, who knows what we will evolve into, maybe pure energy beings, who knows.

[DeHaviLand]

Time is infinite perhaps meaningless, who knows what we will evolve into, maybe pure energy beings, who knows.

We wont be evolving into anything though. After all, nothing else ever has!!

[TBH]

We wont be evolving into anything though. After all, nothing else ever has!!I would like to think that we are on the path to something more enlightened.
Nothing else ever has? We have been here but a short time but i'd imagine it's a long process.

[Welcomefamily]

With no purpose at all, except that which we make for ourselves.
But that then becomes a purpose? you are suggesting a rational decision based upon factors and influences other than a necesssary component of survival.

[Metalattakk]

But that then becomes a purpose? you are suggesting a rational decision based upon factors and influences other than a necesssary component of survival.

Yes, I believe I am! Of course, this only works for me - I suspect those less fortunate than us in places like the third world have a much different viewpoint. ;)

Again though, that would make a mockery of the idea of a singular 'meaning of life'.

[TBH]

Doesn't every lifeform need a purpose, a will to live?

[Metalattakk]

TBH, I don't believe so. Most creatures survive on instinct alone. Nearly every creature in fact doesn't even know they're alive. ;)

[TBH]

TBH, I don't believe so. Most creatures survive on instinct alone. Nearly every creature in fact doesn't even know they're alive. ;)Most creatures do know they are alive but Humans need thrills to know they are living.

[northener]

Y'now something, I think this is a really interesting thread.

Unfortunately, I'm too pished to come up with anything that would prove that I, as a human, am a sentient being.

[Metalattakk]

Most creatures do know they are alive but Humans need thrills to know they are living.

For an animal to 'know' they are alive, they would need to be able to develop a conscience. The whole concept of being aware of one's mortality is not possible for most animals.

[Welcomefamily]

We wont be evolving into anything though. After all, nothing else ever has!!

Does not a maggot turn into a fly or a pupa a butterfly?

[TBH]

For an animal to 'know' they are alive, they would need to be able to develop a conscience. The whole concept of being aware of one's mortality is not possible for most animals.If a pet protects it's owner from harm then does that not display a concience or is it just blind loyalty.

[Kevin Milkins]

I agree with northener, ( I am pished ) No sorry this is a good thread.
Unlike our animal freinds ,we have far to much time to think it over.
I think the the real secret of life is to be too busy to worry about it.:roll:
Perhaps.:eek:

[TBH]

I agree with northener, ( I am pished ) No sorry this is a good thread.
Unlike our animal freinds ,we have far to much time to think it over.
I think the the real secret of life is to be too busy to worry about it.:roll:
Perhaps.:eek:
That is assuming that animals are unthinking. On that count I am positive you are wrong.

[Metalattakk]

If a pet protects it's owner from harm then does that not display a concience or is it just blind loyalty.

It only shows the instinct to protect its food source, in my opinion anyway. ;)

[trix]

What is the meaning of life? is that mans only purpose to pass over some genetic material to his off spring? or is there more? :confused

oh, there is definately more....

i thinks its all aboot spiritual enlightment, when ye get til 'e ither side :confused

wur only here on earth for a short while but our spirits live on 'e ither side enternally.

[Metalattakk]

That is assuming that animals are unthinking. On that count I am positive you are wrong.


Animals (well most of them - I wouldn't like to comment on dolphins, for example) cannot 'think'. Their brains are not developed sufficiently to allow the creation of conscious thought. Animals operate on instinct alone.

[Welcomefamily]

No the dog seems to identfy hostility otherwise they would be attacking every one, what do other dog owners think? does your animal have feelings?

[Kevin Milkins]

I can assure you TBH I have more respect for animals than I do for humans.
I have spent most of my working life in close contact with animals of all sorts and my opinion is I trust an animal more than an human any day of the week.
There is no hidden agenda with an animal.

[Welcomefamily]

oh, there is definately more....

i thinks its all aboot spiritual enlightment, when ye get til 'e ither side :confused

wur only here on earth for a short while but our spirits live on 'e ither side enternally.

So you believe there is a purpose to our lives? perhaps some sort of preparation for the next stage?

[trix]

TBH, I don't believe so. Most creatures survive on instinct alone. Nearly every creature in fact doesn't even know they're alive. ;)

i suppose MA is rite in awie :mad:

for an animal til know that they are alive they wid hev til understand that they wil die.

i da ken if they understand 'e concept o' life an death :confused

[TBH]

Animals (well most of them - I wouldn't like to comment on dolphins, for example) cannot 'think'. Their brains are not developed sufficiently to allow the creation of conscious thought. Animals operate on instinct alone.Wow, I will need a sober head to reply to this, even then, this is serious melon twisting.:D

[TBH]

i suppose MA is rite in awie :mad:

for an animal til know that they are alive they wid hev til understand that they wil die.

i da ken if they understand 'e concept o' life an death :confusedIf you ever get the opportunity or inclination to go there, try visiting a slaughterhouse.
I swear imo these animals know it's the end of the road for them.

[trix]

So you believe there is a purpose to our lives? perhaps some sort of preparation for the next stage?

absolutely!!

[Welcomefamily]

A lot of people would suggest that dolphins seem to know? or it could be that they do and we have not found a way of understanding it yet. :~(

[Welcomefamily]

If you ever get the opportunity or inclination to go there, try visiting a slaughterhouse.
I swear imo these animals know it's the end of the road for them.

I have to agree with you there.

[TBH]

I can assure you TBH I have more respect for animals than I do for humans.
I have spent most of my working life in close contact with animals of all sorts and my opinion is I trust an animal more than an human any day of the week.
There is no hidden agenda with an animal.That sums any animal other than a human up, no hidden agenda, well said.

[trix]

If you ever get the opportunity or inclination to go there, try visiting a slaughterhouse.
I swear imo these animals know it's the end of the road for them.

i guess they can pick up on an atmosphere an energy an stuff, more so than yer average human.

i wis thinkin 'e average coo' in a field wilna be thinkin aboot how lucky it is til be alive an how wil 'e world develop for their babies, futures babies, long efter their day. they choost hevna got 'e brain capacity.

they da understand o' 'e concept o' life, they choost....are! ;)

[DeHaviLand]

Does not a maggot turn into a fly or a pupa a butterfly?


Indeed, but you are strangely misguided if thats your concept of evolution!

[TBH]

i guess they can pick up on an atmosphere an energy an stuff, more so than yer average human.

i wis thinkin 'e average coo' in a field wilna be thinkin aboot how lucky it is til be alive an how wil 'e world develop for their babies, futures babies, long efter their day. they choost hevna got 'e brain capacity.

they da understand o' 'e concept o' life, they choost....are! ;)But we will never know what a cow is thinking, that is the point.
My bestest coo friend is working on E=MC² as we type.

[trix]

Indeed, but you are strangely misguided if thats your concept of evolution!

evolution on a smaller scale.....

its still an evolutin process :Razz

....which in a way proves that evolution dis exist :confused

[Kevin Milkins]

i guess they can pick up on an atmosphere an energy an stuff, more so than yer average human.

i wis thinkin 'e average coo' in a field wilna be thinkin aboot how lucky it is til be alive an how wil 'e world develop for their babies, futures babies, long efter their day. they choost hevna got 'e brain capacity.

they da understand o' 'e concept o' life, they choost....are! ;)

Working with animals is like the most stupid joke ever told.
You have to be there to appriciate it.;)

[DeHaviLand]

evolution on a smaller scale.....

its still an evolutin process :Razz

....which in a way proves that evolution dis exist :confused

Nonsense, the process is known as metamorphosis[disgust].

[Welcomefamily]

Indeed, but you are strangely misguided if thats your concept of evolution!

The process of evolution is the adaptation and mutation of momomers during periods of rapid development, as the fly and the butterfly both undergo rapid changes in a very short time scale from two completely different states, it is why I quoted them.

[DeHaviLand]

The process of evolution is the adaptation and mutation of momomers during periods of rapid development, as the fly and the butterfly both undergo rapid changes in a very short time scale from two completely different states, it is why I quoted them.


Thank goodness for Google[disgust]

[router]

as michael palin said in the film of the same title

"It's nothing very special really"):
"Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."

[Welcomefamily]

Nonsense, the process is known as metamorphosis[disgust].

Metamorphosis is defined as a change in the animal's form or structure through cell growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth#Cell_reproduction) and differentiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_differentiation). in other words evolution.

[Welcomefamily]

Thank goodness for Google[disgust]

Why would I need google? I would be surprised if they explained it as a monomer but more likely the secondary product of the nucleotides A,T,G,C which would be DNA or RNA.

[DeHaviLand]

Metamorphosis is defined as a change in the animal's form or structure through cell growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth#Cell_reproduction) and differentiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_differentiation). in other words evolution.

Argument for the sake of argument. You are only too aware that the "evolution" that TBH refers to, is a different process from the metamorphosistic (is that a word?) process.

Maybe you should define evolution. In 50 words or less.:)

Or maybe just explain to me what TBH is going to evolve into?

[Welcomefamily]

Thank goodness for Google[disgust]

I take it you disagree with evoultion?

[DeHaviLand]

I take it you disagree with evoultion?


Indeedy, but it doesnt necessarily make me a "creationist", in the sense that pro-evolutionists mockingly use the term.

[Kevin Milkins]

Indeedy, but it doesnt necessarily make me a "creationist", in the sense that pro-evolutionists mockingly use the term.
I was enjoying this thread:D
Then all of a sudden I am looking for a dictonary:(
Please agree or disagree, but please try and keep it simple.;)

[Welcomefamily]

Indeedy, but it doesnt necessarily make me a "creationist", in the sense that pro-evolutionists mockingly use the term.

I would not mock a creationist, however many creationalist do not doubt an evolutionary process exists, that cannot be questioned because there are many example of mutation within cells. What most would suggest is the number of adaptions that would have to take place could not happen within the time span of mankind on this earth. As the gene project highlights the structure of DNA is many times more complicated than it was ever considered. Likewise there has never been any missing links found. Man is far more unique than anything on earth. However if you want to discuss creatitionism it will have to be another thread as I am more interested in what people feel is their purpose or not in life.

[DeHaviLand]

I would not mock a creationist, however many creationalist do not doubt an evolutionary process exists, that cannot be questioned because there are many example of mutation within cells. What most would suggest is the number of adaptions that would have to take place could not happen within the time span of mankind on this earth. As the gene project highlights the structure of DNA is many times more complicated than it was ever considered. Likewise there has never been any missing links found. Man is far more unique than anything on earth. However if you want to discuss creatitionism it will have to be another thread as I am more interested in what people feel is their purpose or not in life.

I thought it had already been established that there is no purpose? We merely "are".:)

[Welcomefamily]

I thought it had already been established that there is no purpose? We merely "are".:)

No some members did feel that we were more than merely here, a view that I would agree with otherwise we would all die the moment we had finished our reproduction cycle.

[Kevin Milkins]

A lion is a fine animal.
In the wild we know what they have to do to to make a living.
What would we think of them if they could pop into town for a Wilderkabab ?

[Welcomefamily]

I was enjoying this thread:D
Then all of a sudden I am looking for a dictonary:(
Please agree or disagree, but please try and keep it simple.;)

Sorry Kevin.

[Welcomefamily]

A lion is a fine animal.
In the wild we know what they have to do to to make a living.
What would we think of them if they could pop into town for a Wilderkabab ?

But likewise so was man, next time I take my spear into Tesco and start stabbing a few rump steaks, I can see what reaction I get. :lol:

[Kevin Milkins]

But likewise so was man, next time I take my spear into Tesco and start stabbing a few rump steaks, I can see what reaction I get. :lol:
Can you you PM me when you intend to do that.
I do like a giggle.:lol:

[Welcomefamily]

Right Im off, but for any of the night owls, What is the meaning of life? is it that mans only purpose is to pass over some genetic material to his off spring? or is there more? :confused
Is this world just a stepping stone to some thing better?
Or do we come back as some thing else and if so what? :lol:

[Rheghead]

Why should we hate crows for all their scavenging and then we admire the beauty of birds of prey? In an alternate universe where birds of prey are very numerous and a pest then we might love the cheeky crow with its black irridescent beauty and ask why we hate birds of prey and their grubby brown plumeage. The point to what I am saying is that we put a human value on everything. To ask questions like 'What is the meaning of life?' immediately leads us to put a human value on the answer.

[The Pepsi Challenge]

Why should we hate crows for all their scavenging and then we admire the beauty of birds of prey? In an alternate universe where birds of prey are very numerous and a pest then we might love the cheeky crow with its black irridescent beauty and ask why we hate birds of prey and their grubby brown plumeage. The point to what I am saying is that we put a human value on everything. To ask questions like 'What is the meaning of life?' immediately leads us to put a human value on the answer.

I guess you could say charisma goes a long way, Rheghead. :)

[Welcomefamily]

Why should we hate crows for all their scavenging and then we admire the beauty of birds of prey? In an alternate universe where birds of prey are very numerous and a pest then we might love the cheeky crow with its black irridescent beauty and ask why we hate birds of prey and their grubby brown plumeage. The point to what I am saying is that we put a human value on everything. To ask questions like 'What is the meaning of life?' immediately leads us to put a human value on the answer.

But then is it not an instinctural behaviour to try to make sense of our environment and in doing so we have to put it in human values as at yet we have no others, in the same context that putting a rat in say Skinners Black Box the rat became curious about his environment and then by touching the level to get food, the rat continued the behaviour. Was not the rat trying to make sense of his environment in the same way however without the power of speech.. Maybe in an alternative universe the rat will have power of speech.
So by asking the question I am only using instinct?

[northener]

Hmmm...rats.

There's been a few examples of rats and other animals actively engaging in problem solving. To solve a problem, one has to weigh up the options available and select a course of action that will lead to the required result.

I'm sure that many animals will get there in the end through working through all the options until the correct one is reached. It could be argued that this is not problem solving, but is in fact a repeated random act - with no pre-planned outcome...it's just that eventually the animal 'hits the right button'...if it learns from this - it will repeat the process and maybe pass on the new skill to it's progeny (evolution?).

However, I believe animals have been observed problem solving by assessment before commitment...does this prove intelligence as we know it? If an animal can assess a given situation and discard certain options without even trying them, then surely this requires intelligence - as opposed to blind instinct.

[Kenn]

There can only be one purpose to life, the survival of the species regardless of whether it is sentient or not

[TBH]

Animals (well most of them - I wouldn't like to comment on dolphins, for example) cannot 'think'. Their brains are not developed sufficiently to allow the creation of conscious thought. Animals operate on instinct alone.What about Chimpanzees using tools to hunt other primates, is that not an example of conciousness?

[Welcomefamily]

Its a difficult one that one as the behaviour has a motive not generally associated with food.

[TBH]

Its a difficult one that one as the behaviour has a motive not generally associated with food.
Would you care to elaborate?

[wifie]

Its a difficult one that one as the behaviour has a motive not generally associated with food.

If it is not associated with food or indeed the need to survive but to hunt then this does show conciousness?

[Welcomefamily]

Yes I agree the behaviour is concious the difficulty is if it was a learnt behaviour by trial and error such as in skinner black box, however here the motive was to protect their supplies of food? and one day a monkey just picked something up and threw it, and it worked which then got taught to its off spring.

I do feel that animals do have concious behaviours, it is us who do not understand how to recogise them. I once watched a very playful dolphin who was often extremely rough become extremely calm when a young ill girl went into the water. That animal seem to sense everyones concerns, I have heard people say the same of dogs.

I will look up the chimps one this evening.

[scotsboy]

Animals (well most of them - I wouldn't like to comment on dolphins, for example) cannot 'think'. Their brains are not developed sufficiently to allow the creation of conscious thought. Animals operate on instinct alone.

Are you stating an opinion or presenting current scientific thinking? If the latter it may be nice if you could provide some references.

[hotrod4]

In the words of the song.. Lifes just what you make it! :)


If we don't know life, how can we know death?-Confucius

[silverfox57]

the meaning of life and everything is 64,

[hotrod4]

the meaning of life and everything is 64,

Bet you had to go halfway across the galaxy to get that one!! ;)

[hotrod4]

The meaning of life-I guess it depends on how miserable you want to make your user...

[Rheghead]

But then is it not an instinctural behaviour to try to make sense of our environment and in doing so we have to put it in human values as at yet we have no others, in the same context that putting a rat in say Skinners Black Box the rat became curious about his environment and then by touching the level to get food, the rat continued the behaviour. Was not the rat trying to make sense of his environment in the same way however without the power of speech.. Maybe in an alternative universe the rat will have power of speech.
So by asking the question I am only using instinct?

Yes, human instinct it is because that is a part of what we are, to ask that very question, but what would the meaning of life be before human conciousness existed and after it may have become extinct?

We can put a human value on the first because life was there to evolve into humans, but we can't with the second. But perhaps we can? Perhaps life is there to let other species who may evolve conciousness to learn about our society in the same way that we look at fossils. Again another human value on the future, it is unavoidable perhaps unless we give up on any specialness to what we humans are. And that has some very serious consequences to the world's religions.

[Tilter]

Nice thread. Here goes: humans are animals - one species out of many. At the moment we happen to have over-run the world. Once dinosaurs were the business and our little mammalian ancestors scurried around hiding from them. Next big thing is supposed to be cockroaches or something.

There is no point to our existence. We exist.

We don't know to what extent other animals "think" because we cannot communicate with them in their language nor they in ours, and we can't think about how they think without interpreting it in the manner in which we think. Perhaps they can "think" like us to a degree, depending on brain, or can "think" in a way we cannot by using senses which in humans are not well-developed.

I don't believe hidden agendas belong to humans alone. You can watch nature programmes on telly to view all kinds of hidden agendas.

[Welcomefamily]

But in response to your last paragraphy, is this not the meaning of life? and at the point where our views will differ greatly. You know as well as I do that man kind will never give up its supreme control of the planet until we are forced to by what ever means this takes.

Perhaps one day from space (if we get chance to go) we will return to see what form one of the lesser creatures possibly cockroaches has become or we could both be sat in paradise or be coming back as roaches our selves.
It is this diversity of idea and views that make our human race so unique and set above all other forms of life.

Perhaps the place to end the thread as well?

[Welcomefamily]

Last post should have quoted Rheghead.

[Metalattakk]

Are you stating an opinion or presenting current scientific thinking? If the latter it may be nice if you could provide some references.

It could easily be perceived as both. But, just for you, here are some references (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=conscious+thought+within+animals&btnG=Google+Search&meta=).

[Venture]

The meaning of life-I guess it depends on how miserable you want to make your user...

What a deep and philosophical quote hotrod.:eek: Didn't take you long to dig that one up?;)

[golach]

The meaning of life-I guess it depends on how miserable you want to make your user...
Lol very origional.........[lol]

[Kenn]

"It is this diversity that makes our human race so unique and sets us above all other forms of life."........posted by Welcomefamily.

I'm sorry but cannot agree with that, we may be a unique species but to put ourselves above all other forms of life is arrogant to say the least.
We have over run the planet like a plague destroying our own enviroment in the process and some of the other species that inhabit it. We have upset nature's balance and may have compromised our own existance by so doing.
If life is about survival then that makes us look rather foolish!

[Welcomefamily]

"It is this diversity that makes our human race so unique and sets us above all other forms of life."........posted by Welcomefamily.

I'm sorry but cannot agree with that, we may be a unique species but to put ourselves above all other forms of life is arrogant to say the least.
We have over run the planet like a plague destroying our own enviroment in the process and some of the other species that inhabit it. We have upset nature's balance and may have compromised our own existance by so doing.
If life is about survival then that makes us look rather foolish!

I am not disputing any of that but was talking in a highly generalised way about man kinds not being prepared to give up his control over the planet. I do not doubt that the damage we have done is non reversable however we are still doing it. Mankind by his uniqueness is responsible for his own destiny

[Welcomefamily]

Our planet is full of nut cases totally content on its self distruction.

[TBH]

I am not disputing any of that but was talking in a highly generalised way about man kinds not being prepared to give up his control over the planet. I do not doubt that the damage we have done is non reversable however we are still doing it. Mankind by his uniqueness is responsible for his own destinyIf you understand the earth as a living, breathing organism then it will far outlive mankind and will repair itself over time.

[wifie]

If you understand the earth as a living, breathing organism then it will far outlive mankind and will repair itself over time.

Do you not reckon tho that something else will take over - which may or may not live more in harmony with the planet? No matter what tho mother nature is the most powerful thing and will win every time. Hmm just realised we are not really answering the OP are we? Or are we by our very answers?

[scotsboy]

If you understand the earth as a living, breathing organism then it will far outlive mankind and will repair itself over time.

Is this Gaia hypothesis not slightly different in that it states that the Earth and all its interacting components (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and cryosphere) will act together to sustain the planet and provide an environment able to sustain life (by life it does not necessarily mean humans).

[wifie]

Is this Gaia hypothesis not slightly different in that it states that the Earth and all its interacting components (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and cryosphere) will act together to sustain the planet and provide an environment able to sustain life (by life it does not necessarily mean humans).

Is that not what TBH said?

[scotsboy]

Well kind of, but I think he said the Earth would repair itself, I could be being pedantic but it may not repair itself, however still provide an environment for whatever form of life happens to inhabit.

[Kenn]

How can one possibly state that mankind will not give up control of the planet?
We don't have control, that is determined by the very complex eco-system than dertermines weather patterns
Meddle with the balance and in a worse case scenario we destroy not only ourselves but the very viability of the planet .
Therefore all life must be sacrosanct whether sentient or not which rather negates the original posting.

[Tilter]

Do you not reckon tho that something else will take over - which may or may not live more in harmony with the planet?

Maybe in the living breathing organism that is Earth, various species will always over-run the planet at different times, then self-destruct, and make way for the planet to re-heal itself to produce something else to over-run the planet. Like a heart beating.

[Welcomefamily]

How can one possibly state that mankind will not give up control of the planet?
We don't have control, that is determined by the very complex eco-system than dertermines weather patterns
Meddle with the balance and in a worse case scenario we destroy not only ourselves but the very viability of the planet .
Therefore all life must be sacrosanct whether sentient or not which rather negates the original posting.

Mankind can control its rate of distruction.

[Welcomefamily]

How many of you use green energy? its an option from your supplier and as I said man kind controls his own path. Who is or what is Mother Nature?

[TBH]

Well kind of, but I think he said the Earth would repair itself, I could be being pedantic but it may not repair itself, however still provide an environment for whatever form of life happens to inhabit.I suppose it depends on what damage has been done but yes, it wouldn't necessarily need to be an environment to sustain Humankind again.
We aren't that important although we maybe like to thing so.

[wifie]

Well welcomefamily to me mother nature is a force to be reckoned with! I often speak of her and I refer to things like storms. Her power is immense and man struggles against her and often loses.

[Welcomefamily]

Well welcomefamily to me mother nature is a force to be reckoned with! I often speak of her and I refer to things like storms. Her power is immense and man struggles against her and often loses.

What like a spiritual thing covering all the earth? or a loose term used to explain an abnormal event? or do people believe it has some sort of actual power? or has our planet got a pre determined destiny?

[wifie]

What like a spiritual thing covering all the earth? or a loose term used to explain an abnormal event? or do people believe it has some sort of actual power? or has our planet got a pre determined destiny?

Wf any spiritual leanings I have connect me to the earth and the universe in general. What I referred to was natural happenings which these days I suppose you could say are somewhat influenced by mankind fiddling with the equilibrium of the planet. I just feel tho that these natural happenings have been going on for a long time, still are and always will be. Hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions, floods......................

[Kenn]

She is the oldest of what we today call god and has many names she embodies the spirit of all life and was common to all races and still is to some.
Sorry to digress but the question was asked!

[Welcomefamily]

She is the oldest of what we today call god and has many names she embodies the spirit of all life and was common to all races and still is to some.
Sorry to digress but the question was asked!

No that fine, but how would she tie in with the big bang theory for example?

[Welcomefamily]

Yes, human instinct it is because that is a part of what we are, to ask that very question, but what would the meaning of life be before human conciousness existed and after it may have become extinct?

We can put a human value on the first because life was there to evolve into humans, but we can't with the second. But perhaps we can? Perhaps life is there to let other species who may evolve conciousness to learn about our society in the same way that we look at fossils. Again another human value on the future, it is unavoidable perhaps unless we give up on any specialness to what we humans are. And that has some very serious consequences to the world's religions.

I prefer your idea of humans being the missing link

[scaraben]

The author of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes states this feeling when he said, "Meaningless! Meaningless!...Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." This author had wealth beyond measure, wisdom beyond any man of his time or ours, women in the hundreds, palaces and gardens that were the envy of kingdoms, the best food and wine, and had every form of entertainment available. And he said at one point, that anything that his heart wanted, he pursued. And yet he summed up "life under the sun" (life lived as though all there is to life is what we can see with our eyes and experience with our senses) is meaningless! Why is there such a void? Because God created us for something beyond what we can experience in the here-and-now. Solomon said of God, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..." In our hearts we are aware that this "here-and-now" is not all that there is.

[Rheghead]

Because God created us for something beyond what we can experience in the here-and-now. Solomon said of God, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..." In our hearts we are aware that this "here-and-now" is not all that there is.

How do you know if we can't experience it?:confused

[Welcomefamily]

Do you have to experience in order to know???

[Rheghead]

Do you have to experience in order to know???

I would think so, so much so that it has to be able for others to verify independently. All else is just taking things on trust, being naive, gullible or stupidity.

[Kenn]

I see no problem with Mother Earth fitting in to that theory.
If as the ancients believed, she is the fosterer of all creation then she would have been the catalyst that started the whole chain.

[scorrie]

If you understand the earth as a living, breathing organism then it will far outlive mankind and will repair itself over time.

Eventually, the Earth will be a dried up, frazzled, rock with no life present. So it said in a book about the Solar System. I'll be long gone by then, but guys will still probably be arguing about Celtic and Rangers ;)

[TBH]

Eventually, the Earth will be a dried up, frazzled, rock with no life present. So it said in a book about the Solar System. I'll be long gone by then, but guys will still probably be arguing about Celtic and Rangers ;)It''l be like a scene from Battlestar Galactica, the cylons and the humans will be looking for the planet 'Old firm' somewhere in another galaxy.:lol:

[wifie]

It''l be like a scene from Battlestar Galactica, the cylons and the humans will be looking for the planet 'Old firm' somewhere in another galaxy.:lol:

Man alive that will be one for the Starship Enterprise to whizz by! LOL - the Blue/Green planet!

[Welcomefamily]

I would think so, so much so that it has to be able for others to verify independently. All else is just taking things on trust, being naive, gullible or stupidity.

But cant experience be unique? does life have to be explained and verified, what about say a gut reaction? such an event cannot be explained within the "scientific" convention of research.
A recent thread on Karma an experience which has no "scientific" grounding, yet totally believed by many orgers as more than an a consequence to a behaviour.
How would someone explain hope?

[Welcomefamily]

I see no problem with Mother Earth fitting in to that theory.
If as the ancients believed, she is the fosterer of all creation then she would have been the catalyst that started the whole chain.

Thank you for that one Lizz, I think we are heading very quickly towards the concept of "scientific", [lol] however while I might not agree myself with the mother earth theory, I know there are many that do.

[Rheghead]

But cant experience be unique? does life have to be explained and verified, what about say a gut reaction? such an event cannot be explained within the "scientific" convention of research.
A recent thread on Karma an experience which has no "scientific" grounding, yet totally believed by many orgers as more than an a consequence to a behaviour.
How would someone explain hope?

Hope and gut reactions are just individual human constructs that can't be verified. Knowing something is being able to verify something's authenticity, they have no basis in the real and tangible.

[Kenn]

A gut reaction is merely an instinctive feeling and all sentient beings have this although it may be tempered by the influences that have come into our sphere of experience over a period of time.
Hope is the opposite of despair and would therefore be the positive and the negative that balance each other out.

[Welcomefamily]

Hope and gut reactions are just individual human constructs that can't be verified. Knowing something is being able to verify something's authenticity, they have no basis in the real and tangible.

So every thing in life that is real has to be tangible and repeatable, proven beyond all doubt ? I do find this such a black and white view.
Nothing unexplainable, if we have progressed I am wondering how ? as such a picture takes away the social imagination of life and of science.
In fact I would suggest that it is the unexplainable that makes life interesting.

[Rheghead]

In fact I would suggest that it is the unexplainable that makes life interesting.

I would suggest that it is the unexplained that makes life interesting.

[joxville]

Eventually life on earth will cease to exist, why worry about it-just enjoy what little time you have on it.

[Welcomefamily]

A gut reaction is merely an instinctive feeling and all sentient beings have this although it may be tempered by the influences that have come into our sphere of experience over a period of time.
Hope is the opposite of despair and would therefore be the positive and the negative that balance each other out.

What about some of the higher psychological needs such as achievement, self esteem (using maslow model) or self actualisation needs such as morality and creativity?

[Welcomefamily]

I would suggest that it is the unexplained that makes life interesting.

I agree its the unexplained that allows us to attempt to hypothese in order to offer an explaination for the un known, as my signature suggests it is the shadow around the light. :)

Its just a pity we cant get concensus on what we know or believe we know.

Does make you wonder what the meaning of life???? [lol] Should you wonder look atpost two and read on.

[Rheghead]

I agree its the unexplained that allows us to attempt to hypothese in order to offer an explaination for the un known, as my signature suggests it is the shadow around the light. :)

Incorrect, how can the unexplained allow us to attempt to hypothesise an explanation for the unknown? Is that an oxymoron or some other fancy word?

It is the observed and the testable, that allows us to attempt to hypothesise an explanation for the unknown.

[Tilter]

But cant experience be unique? does life have to be explained and verified, what about say a gut reaction? such an event cannot be explained within the "scientific" convention of research.
A recent thread on Karma an experience which has no "scientific" grounding, yet totally believed by many orgers as more than an a consequence to a behaviour.
How would someone explain hope?

Yes, life must be explained and verified, otherwise I am being asked to have faith in something, and that is not good enough for me. If someone else has faith in Karma, Mother Earth, etc., that's fine with me. Sometimes it's a little worrying for me when others (present company excepted of course) believe I should accept something that they themselves take only on faith.

I have a gut reaction like everyone else that makes me want to seek for reasons and beliefs, but I think it's probably just a trait that's been beneficial to us in an evolutionary way maybe - needless to say, I don't know. Or maybe simply because we can think, we have to try and solve whatever mysteries present themselves to us at the specific moment of history when we're alive.

[hotrod4]

Eventually, the Earth will be a dried up, frazzled, rock with no life present. So it said in a book about the Solar System. I'll be long gone by then, but guys will still probably be arguing about Celtic and Rangers ;)

Heheehehehe - I can envisage a few keyboards with teeth marks in them
from frustration....

[Welcomefamily]

It was but a very discrete one ;), what is unexplained can be considered as unknown which you suggest is the interesting part of life. So in order to learn what is unknown we have to reject in scientific terms what is explained. So to reject a null hypothesis to to accept an hypothesis

[loobyloo]

I think there are different levels of experience in life. If I take the time to analyse what goes on and read either spiritual/religious/meditative types of material, that actually has an impact on how I experience life on a day to day basis. Or, alternatively, I go through stages where I just exist, getting through the daily chores, working etc.. and those higher ideas don't touch me. I know which state I prefer to be in: the one where I am acutely aware of what is going on around me and open to new experiences, interpretations of what that means. But it's much harder work!!!!

In other words, life is what you make it :)

Interesting thread.....

[Welcomefamily]

Yes, life must be explained and verified, otherwise I am being asked to have faith in something, and that is not good enough for me. If someone else has faith in Karma, Mother Earth, etc., that's fine with me. Sometimes it's a little worrying for me when others (present company excepted of course) believe I should accept something that they themselves take only on faith.

I have a gut reaction like everyone else that makes me want to seek for reasons and beliefs, but I think it's probably just a trait that's been beneficial to us in an evolutionary way maybe - needless to say, I don't know. Or maybe simply because we can think, we have to try and solve whatever mysteries present themselves to us at the specific moment of history when we're alive.

George Kelly once wrote that all men grow as scientist, they hypothesise all behaviours to try to make sense of their worlds, they seek to test all new hypothesis based upon past and present experience. When faced with the unknown they seek to answer all question by further hypothesis. I dont know the references but just google George Kelly should find something.

[Rheghead]

And finally the half-speak emerges.

[Welcomefamily]

In scientific theory surely the aim is to either accept or to reject a null hypothesis?

[hotrod4]

And finally the half-speak emerges.

half-speak??????

[loobyloo]

half-speak??????

That's what I was thinking too.... Are we caught up in some 1970's Hammer House of Horror thread?!!!

[Welcomefamily]

It is possible a reference to a term used to describe G Bush:
http://danfingerman.com/dtm/archives/000219.html

Bush has clung to the false premise that already-existing stem cell lines are sufficiently numerous to support appropriate levels of scientific research.
I think this letter represents a shift in the articulation of Bush's position, but I do not see where it says anything about openness to change. It is refreshing, however, to see Bush move away from scientific doublespeak — even if it is to equally incomprehensible halfspeak.

I might be wrong but its a complement if its a negative one, :lol:

[Welcomefamily]

In statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), a null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis (scenario) set up to be nullified, refuted, or rejected ('disproved' statistically) in order to support an alternative hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_hypothesis). When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence), in the form of a hypothesis test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing), indicates otherwise — that is, when the researcher has a certain degree of confidence, usually 95% to 99%, that the data does not support the null hypothesis. It is possible for an experiment to fail to reject the null hypothesis. It is also possible that both the null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis are rejected if there are more than those two possibilities.
In scientific and medical applications, the null hypothesis plays a major role in testing the significance of differences in treatment and control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control) groups. This use, while widespread, is criticized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis#Controversy) on a number of grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

[Kenn]

How did he get into this thread and are you referring to senior or junior?
I am merely hypothesising that it is a hypothetical attempt to hypothesise on an assertion that is subject to verification and therefore being unproven is a hypothesis!

[teenybash]

Can someone pass the asprins...I've got a sore head reading this lot....thought I would have found the meaning of life but, I can't even understand the meaning of the words used to search the deep and meaningful...........*^$%**!!:confused

[hotrod4]

Can someone pass the asprins...I've got a sore head reading this lot....thought I would have found the meaning of life but, I can't even understand the meaning of the words used to search the deep and meaningful...........*^$%**!!:confused

Same here, learnt loads of new words, just dont know what to do with them now!! ;)
Interesting though.

[scaraben]

Should you perhaps share some of your personal thoughts/experiences/family problems or whatever, with a friend and he/she fails on a future occasion to respond by sharing some of their personal thoughts/experiences/family problems or whatever, with you, always keeping 'his/her own cards close to their chest' your relationship can never be a close one, because you will come away with the feeling that your friend doesn't have enough faith in your discretion (not to repeat it to others ) that will allow him/her to trust such personal matters with you.

‘Welcomefamily’ says : ‘do we have to experience it to know’ …………. The answer must be YES. However Rehghead rightly asks ‘How do we know if we can’t experience it’.

Just as in the possible scenario I described above; it follows that in order for me to have a trusting Father/Son relationship with God it is important that I prayerfully trust Him and invite His Spirit ( As he is a Spiritual being ) into my life. Once that bond of TRUST is established ( referred to as FAITH ) and I became willing and ready to unburden prayerfully ( yes again ! ) ALL to Him, I became His adopted child. It was from that point on, that I found I had a personal relationship with my Heavenly Father & creator, and it is only THEN that I knew, with confidence, that this "here-and-now" is not all, its not the end.

One can’t argue with experience, I have experienced this for myself and I pray God that you will continue to research this great truth and that you too, will find the faith to take God at His word.

At the risk of, ( I hope and pray not ! ) of upsetting you, by quoting the scriptures to you, but I feel it answers your question so adequately it would be criminal of me not to do so. Quote: Its from Hebrews Chap. 11 : V1 onward ‘ Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see. It was their faith that made our ancestors pleasing to God’ unquote. Now I would challenge you to ponder that statement and think long and hard about what it means, and further, that you too can be a trusting child of God. Seumas.

[Welcomefamily]

How did he get into this thread and are you referring to senior or junior?
I am merely hypothesising that it is a hypothetical attempt to hypothesise on an assertion that is subject to verification and therefore being unproven is a hypothesis!

I not sure which one but I believe thats where the term "half speak" came from, I am not sure how it refers to my post? only Rheghead can answer that?
but at the end of the day one of the major forms of scientific research applicable to many areas is the rejection of the null hypothesis as opposed to proving a hypothesis. The process has also been used for a lot of social science research as well which is often where it comes in for criticism.

[Kenn]

So is there no hope for those of us who have looked into the articles of various faiths and rejected them for whatever reason?
Does that mean that we are incapable of experiencing life to the full and that we cannot be a complete person, secure in ourself?
For those who have found that kind of faith I have nothing but respect but there are amongst us many who cannot accept the tenet of absolute belief in the unknown.

[cd1977]

A lot of the gibberish spouted so far here is incomprehensible, I know that for certain.

The meaning of life? None of us will ever know for sure so this debate could run and run. Why speculate on something of which you know nothing?

As for the Bible - a total work of fiction if ever there was one.

[Welcomefamily]

And finally the half-speak emerges.

I am curious as to the context you used your term "half speak"?

[Tilter]

Can someone pass the asprins...I've got a sore head reading this lot....thought I would have found the meaning of life but, I can't even understand the meaning of the words used to search the deep and meaningful...........*^$%**!!:confused

Tried to give you rep Teeny but need to spread myself about again. I've lost the plot too and am going to return to shallow and meaningless conversation forthwith.

[Welcomefamily]

A lot of the gibberish spouted so far here is incomprehensible, I know that for certain.

The meaning of life? None of us will ever know for sure so this debate could run and run. Why speculate on something of which you know nothing?

As for the Bible - a total work of fiction if ever there was one.

Nobody forcing you to read the thread, if you think the bible is a total work of fiction then prove it, why is it a total work of fiction?

[cd1977]

Good answer.

The burden of proof falls on those who believe the fairy stories in the Bible I am afraid. I reject the contents as a personal choice. If, for example, you can prove the existence of God (you know, the white haired mannie, mid 60's by the look of him) then I am all ears.

And if, as I fully expect, you cannot, then I will leave you to philosophise yourself into a hole in the ground.

Meanwhile I will get on with enjoying life without questioning every little detail of it. An exercise in futility if ever there was one.

[Welcomefamily]

I am glad to think that when we talked about the meaning of life you jumped to the notion of God, I have not mention him, most of the thread has been discussed around two types of scientific opinon.

As a book the Bible has some major relevance in terms of history. It is the oldest book there is at AD130 carbon dated, and AD350 for full manuscripts quoted. However when you compare it with other early books such as Livy Roman History (20 copies) or Caesars Gallic Wars (9-10 copies) or Thucydides (8 copies) the NewTestament has 5000 copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. For what ever reason the Bible has been regarded in high esteem and to produce so many hand written book must have been a major task. It would be up to each individual if they believe iit or not.

However the purpose of this thread was not a debate about God and if you read an earlier thread you would have seen this, but on that subject each person is entitled to their own view and I am going to nothing to change it. AVATOR BACK WORKING

[justine]

Meaning of life is easy. We are born, we live it to our max and then we leave it...

The true meaning of life went with the guy that brought it up..He never had an aswer and i dont see anyone else coming up with one either..

Im off to enjoy mine..:cool:

[justine]

QUOTE
"As a book the Bible has some major relevance in terms of history. It is the oldest book there is at AD130 carbon dated, and AD350 for full manuscripts quoted. However when you compare it with other early books such as Livy Roman History (20 copies) or Caesars Gallic Wars (9-10 copies) or Thucydides (8 copies) the NewTestament has 5000 copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. For what ever reason the Bible has been regarded in high esteem and to produce so many hand written book must have been a major task. It would be up to each individual if they believe iit or not."



As many people rush off to the local paper shop to get their weekly magazines with as much enthusiasm as the men that have read the bible.
And they sell better than the bible, does it make it real philosophy. Yes i may get some for that remoark but the bible is nothing more than an eleborate piece of literature, that people believe in..Thats in my opinion only..:)

[hotrod4]

Seems people have just decided to slag this thread off ,why?
yes I dont get what some are on about but thats up to them, I am sure there are those that DO understand it. After all look at the amount of posts and views, cant be that bad can it?
Crack at it guys, maybe those that are slagging you off havent got the brain cell to understand the meaning of a forum never mind the meaning of life!!!!! ;)

[Welcomefamily]

QUOTE
"As a book the Bible has some major relevance in terms of history. It is the oldest book there is at AD130 carbon dated, and AD350 for full manuscripts quoted. However when you compare it with other early books such as Livy Roman History (20 copies) or Caesars Gallic Wars (9-10 copies) or Thucydides (8 copies) the NewTestament has 5000 copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. For what ever reason the Bible has been regarded in high esteem and to produce so many hand written book must have been a major task. It would be up to each individual if they believe iit or not."



As many people rush off to the local paper shop to get their weekly magazines with as much enthusiasm as the men that have read the bible.
And they sell better than the bible, does it make it real philosophy. Yes i may get some for that remoark but the bible is nothing more than an eleborate piece of literature, that people believe in..Thats in my opinion only..:)

Have I claim anything about the bible? except there must have been something about it when out of the first 25000 oldest books, they were nearly all bibles. No I not interested why this is, as a piece of Literature it has stood the test of time, I also thought that the bible sells more than any other book on a yearly basis but I am quite sure if they had magazines back in those days they too would have sold and we might know more about what the societies back then. When as a nation we find it very difficult to go back over 600 years in terms of historical events

[cd1977]

And Harry Potter sells more than any other book in modern times. It's still a work of fiction.

Do you reckon a few thousand years down the line, there will be scores of JK Rowling disciples making a pilgrimage to the ruins of a coffee shop in Stockbridge?

Modern day worship strikes me as an equally bizarre notion.

[Rheghead]

I am curious as to the context you used your term "half speak"?

A lot of talk that seems to bypass the subject in question in an attempt to misguide the listener.

[Welcomefamily]

And Harry Potter sells more than any other book in modern times. It's still a work of fiction.

Do you reckon a few thousand years down the line, there will be scores of JK Rowling disciples making a pilgrimage to the ruins of a coffee shop in Stockbridge?

Modern day worship strikes me as an equally bizarre notion.

I believe that Harry Porter sold 400 m and the Bible sold 2.5 Bn but in 1000 years if people want to make a pilgrimage there then good on them however it will be likely that man kind will not be on the planet at that time.

[Welcomefamily]

A lot of talk that seems to bypass the subject in question in an attempt to misguide the listener.

Sorry at no time did I directly try to mislead you, I did play with words a little, may be :~( but I was expecting the post to be over at 114 and couldnt help trying to finish on an up.

A few posts have passed since then and the above gentleman thinks we talk a load of crap in a round about way..