The point of life?

[Nicolás San Jorge]

The nature of freedom can't be defined without an individual. I can't say about a fuchsia (sponge, dog, rock, etc.) that is free. In the sense that is noted about determinism, the only thing that should be clear is that choice is determined by the individual (that means choice), and that choice is also influenced by other things.
I don't believe in a point of life.

[Fake from State Jarm]

by living, you (you in totality, not just the you that speaks from the conscious level of your mind, which is the you that is talking now) denote that you value living. (and the you that speaks and is self aware, but is not all of you or aware of all of you, is based on the part of you you do not know)

[Nicolás San Jorge]

I've heard that argument many times. Actually, it is a petitio principii, because the conclusion is included in the premises.
The only thing that can be explained by the argument that in the fact of living we are doing a point of life is merely functional. The system of a living being has in itself a point, homeostasis, as is referred in second order cybernetics. I should say that we are different of a dog; cybernetics is not the point here.

[pacothenacho]

The very concept of determinism denies any real point to life, instead it merily decides that occurences are based on past events out of the control the person that is experiencing their lot in life. To give a serious answer the point of life is simply to find happiness and content within your mind, if life is only a series of events caused by a single occurence in the past then our actions are only the by product of other events. The only place where we can have meaning and any sense of freedom is within our mind in what we care about and what our thoughts are to an extent.

Seek happiness and love==meaning of life.

and....................always......boobies

[Fake from State Jarm]

I've heard that argument many times. Actually, it is a petitio principii, because the conclusion is included in the premises.
The only thing that can be explained by the argument that in the fact of living we are doing a point of life is merely functional. The system of a living being has in itself a point, homeostasis, as is referred in second order cybernetics. I should say that we are different of a dog; cybernetics is not the point here.

either at some point the 'truth' is connected to itself, self-evident, and circular, or it is not fully true. there are many circular arguments that are false, but if the circle can be expanded far enough so as not to exclude anything, a circular argument can be true. there comes a point at which expanding it further is useless, and it's enough to imply the possibilities outside of it as only superficially outside of it, reinforcing it by their superficial uselessness. logic in totality is a circle that expands infinitely. it makes everything useful and includes everything.

we are not fully the same or fully different from a dog.

there is no such thing as mere function (except in perception which is only superficially separate from it), because function, identity, and perception are all facets of the individual pheonomenon of existence. and every 'thing' is an individual, because to exist is a verb which implies a noun which implies a definition which then continues on to imply a verb again.

The very concept of determinism denies any real point to life, instead it merily decides that occurences are based on past events out of the control the person that is experiencing their lot in life. To give a serious answer the point of life is simply to find happiness and content within your mind, if life is only a series of events caused by a single occurence in the past then our actions are only the by product of other events. The only place where we can have meaning and any sense of freedom is within our mind in what we care about and what our thoughts are to an extent.

Seek happiness and love==meaning of life.

and....................always......boobies

"occurences are based on past events out of the control the person that is experiencing their lot in life."

that's a misconception of determinism that assumes that individuality = being unaware of your past, your entire self, and your future. just because you do not know your past, your future, or what you will do in all situations and who you really are, does not mean that those things are indeterminate. having your awareness stuck at a point in space-time has created like i said earlier, an optical illusion in your mind's eye. when you think of 'who am I really' your mind drops an anchor and doesn't hit the bottom. Your deepest thoughts of yourself acknowledge the mystery. You then consider the idea of determinism and realize its apparent lack of mystery in the way it orders things, including you, your past and your future, and since you have associated your deepest sense of yourself with a sense of mystery, you think you are a mystery, specifically a mystery that can't be solved. at least this was the assumption I deconstructed in my mind. but that assumption doesn't hold. to know yourself completely you actually have to be omniscient, to include all factors that may effect you. once you were omniscient you'd know who you were, who you are, who you will be, what you'd do, what you do, and what you will do, what you thought, what you think, and what you will think. however, the past present and future stretch on infinitely, there is infinite potential in all directions, so even if the mystery has changed, things wouldn't be boring, and you wouldn't be any less yourself. I suppose that's the one thing about determinism that I disagree with - that all you are is the sum of what you were. say you were in touch with this Omniscience, I tend to think of it as an experience, but some people might call it god, no point in labeling it one way or the other. say your mind was swimming in this knowledge of everything; you'd come to realize infinite potentials in every direction, and in every individual and instance of choice. From this vantage point you could see your choices because you would know you are perfect and be perfectly at peace with all possibilities. but knowing everything you would know the highest and best and most logical and most beneficial choices, (and love ultimately is the highest form of logic) so you couldn't resist making them, because you had become a part of this omniscience and pepetrating it would just be you being yourself. you could calculate everything else and their actions and perceptions by how much they were experiencing the same state of being. and in this state of being nothing lacks meaning because the internal congruency and symmetry is absolute. there is no shortage of pure experience involved in knowing everything, because the knowledge stretches infinitely like the circle that always expands.

tldr; happiness love boobs

[Nicolás San Jorge]

There is such thing as mere function. I didn't said that we can rely on mere function; I said that function is an explanation of life, and of course, if we see only the biology in life, we'll only see function. And perception can be done by groups: mass media are doing this all the time.
Even though logics can be a circular system, it denies the possibility of tautology as a valid argument. A petitio principii can't be, actually a manner in which we explain something: it is created to explain something making it fit to the basis.

Ok. Boobies.

[Moth]

"Plastic, assholes!"
-George Carlin, quoting the Earth, explaining why humanity exists

Life has no intrinsic point. It is at best what the individual with free will makes of it, it is as least that which establishes awareness within the Universe, and it is as worst nothing more than the same autonomous, predetermined clockwork that drives the motion of celestial bodies. Purpose in the cosmic sense is meaningless, and life as a whole is very much at the cosmic scale. And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.

[Thunder Strike]

We are only alive to feel pain. By the end of it we yearn for death and hope it will come quickly. Life really holds no meaning and the quicker it is over the better.

[Moth]

We are only alive to feel pain. By the end of it we yearn for death and hope it will come quickly. Life really holds no meaning and the quicker it is over the better.

What makes pain so valuable that it was worth causing life to happen?

[Thunder Strike]

It's not, it is just a cruel joke.

[Fake from State Jarm]

And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.

to question whether 'anything at all' exists is one of the most profoundly illogical mental stunts an awareness can perform; however it can never be performed sincerely. how can something that doesn't exist, wonder if it doesn't exist? only if logic doesn't apply, and all of language and thought is made up of structures of logical assumptions. our awareness are in part composed of them; so it's pointless to try and use these logic structures to test objectively whether logic structures exist. by the nature of trying to ascertain whether some things are possible or impossible, it is implied that some things are possible, and some things are impossible, or else the attempt won't go anywhere. it's like questioning the validity of questioning, or assuming the invalidity of assumption. I suppose the more complex and broad an oxymoron is, the harder it is to recognize it for what it is. but the idea that nothing exists, that nothing is absolute, that nothing can be known absolutely or objectively, that nothing is limited, all of these ideas are self-defeating and pure mental faptrainnery. but I guess anyone could figure that out if they had as much idle time as I do >.<

[Moth]

And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.

to question whether 'anything at all' exists is one of the most profoundly illogical mental stunts an awareness can perform

Tell that to Rene Descartes. >_>

How can you be certain that you exist? By what standards do you judge the meaning of existence? And are those standards truly indivisible and unquestionable? Don't get me wrong, I too believe that existence is real, but I cannot extend my confidence regarding it beyond belief. It is not knowledge.

But anyway, back to the point at hand. We are alive to experience a cruel joke? How is pain a cruel joke? Is pain an inherently malicious experience? Is it humorous? If so, what is on the giving end of this joke? The words you use to explain meaning need to be clear and certain. Any ambiguity in meaning is contradictory.

[Thunder Strike]

I'm sure my pain is huge amusement to others. I always pictured life as a computer game. Someone is sitting up there on a computer playing away and watching his characters suffer. They will kill someone off just to see how it affects you, and laugh when you break down. It is a cruel joke. They will make someone get raped and jerk of like it is porn, and enjoy the sadistic nature of it. They will keep torturing you until you can't take it anymore.

Then, Game Over.

So they just restart the game and some other puppet has to deal with all the trails and try to make it through long enough until the player gets bored and just lets you live your life unmolested.

[Moth]

As the great philosopher Claypool once stated, who is "they"? o_o

[Fake from State Jarm]

And this is all assuming that anything at all exists.

to question whether 'anything at all' exists is one of the most profoundly illogical mental stunts an awareness can perform

Tell that to Rene Descartes. >_>

"How can you be certain that you exist?"

it can't really be debated, in that the debate doesnt go anywhere; the only evidence for it is self-evidence, the only argument for it is circular,  < these things, as far as I can tell, and probably as far as anyone can tell. which is why it wouldn't be useful to debate.

presumably we are dealing with the most common concept described as existence which we crudely handle with words and language which are by nature separate from the concepts they describe.

but it amounts to asking an oxymoronic question; how can you (you being by definition, someone who exists and is self-aware, thus aware that you exist) be (what you were just defined as being)? if the definitions involved in the assumptions weren't valid, weren't conceptualizations of real phenomena, then we couldn't even logically answer the question, let alone pose it. if you ask yourself, 'Am I Real?,' you've validly, circularly proven that you are, by implication; all things that ask themselves questions are real. any definition of reality that denies this implodes into impossibility.

how can we know (the thing defined as x) is x? because we defined it as x. it proves itself. even the 'is' and 'x?' portions are subjective descriptions, so it is in effect saying how can we know (what we define as x) is (what we define as x). We play a trick on ourselves thinking that one part of the problem is subjective and the other is objective. But everything we describe in this manner, is described subjectively, and there is no point at which we no longer have to use faith. in this direction of thinking, where we attempt to find something valid by doubting everything, there is no point we come to at which we find something we can't doubt, no point at which things aren't in some way subjectifiable via perspective. Ultimately your own belief is the only thing you can rely on. And even though everything in our experience can be doubted, this does not mean it is all negatable. it cannot be completely, sincerely, 100% doubted (which might imply negation), as we are too subjective, we are subjected by our connection to reality, which keeps us pinned in a position such that we can't completely doubt it, because it would require us doubting what we are, 100%, i.e., not existing.

if you ask anyone 'but why?' long enough, and they progress linearally, they will come to a point where they say, 'just because.' the thing defined as x, is x, 1. because we defined it as x, 2. because x defined it as x, 3. because x is defined, 4. because.             answer: all of the above, and any other symmetric iteration of assumptions.

By what standards do you judge the meaning of existence?

I judge that things are meaningful based on how symmetric a given conceptualization of them is with the information they produce (stimuli) and the information produced by everything else I experience. our perceptions of the things around us organizes itself into patterns in our awareness as a means of exploring its potential past present and future. I judge the meaning of things based on how well I am able to integrate them into the pattern of my awareness, and how and where they are integrated.

And are those standards truly indivisible and unquestionable? Don't get me wrong, I too believe that existence is real, but I cannot extend my confidence regarding it beyond belief. It is not knowledge.

all methods of perception are divisible and questionable, but not 100%, absolutely, or sincerely. questioning and doubt can be extended endlessly, but is not possible without an assumption that is not questioned, from which to leverage the question, and is not useful without valid assumptions basing the questions.

knowing things objectively, is something we dont really experience; everything is believed, including the things we consider knowledge, the difference is the intensity, depth, and reflexiveness of the belief. if we do 'know' anything really, it is that we exist, and that the stimuli we experience exists, and the basic implications of those phenomena. but that basic knowledge does not exclude the involvement of faith; its truth, self-belief, and self-evidence are inextricably linked phenomena that forms the phenomenon of being. if anything can be known/believed, this is the most absolute 100% form of knowing/believing. and while we experience this phenomenon of being, our consciousness is fractured and we do not experience the phenomenon completely because/and thus we do not know ourselves completely.

But anyway, back to the point at hand. We are alive to experience a cruel joke? How is pain a cruel joke? Is pain an inherently malicious experience? Is it humorous? If so, what is on the giving end of this joke? The words you use to explain meaning need to be clear and certain. Any ambiguity in meaning is contradictory.

not sure who this is directed to, and the morality and purpose of pain leads the debate in an explicitly spiritual direction

[Moth]

<i>you've validly, circularly proven that you are, by implication; all things that ask themselves questions are real.</i>

>_> I disagree. In essence, you've given a simplified form of Descartes' argument for the validity of existence. Strong though it may be, it does not take into account the possibility of the logic we utilize to come to that conclusion as not truly existing. We could be illusions of ourselves using an illusion of logic we believe to exist, simply because we're incapable of thinking in a manner that belies its existence. >_>

Yes, you are right that these debates always get circular, BUT due to the impossibility of proving that anything exists, there must be cause for doubt. The neat thing is that if the logic we understand is only an illusion to go along with everything else, then it still reinforces my point. ;>.>

Descartes tried to eliminate faith from his proof, in order to prove the existence of God without the use of faith, but in doing so, he removed a crucial counterexample to his proof of the validity of existence. >_>

[Fake from State Jarm]

"We could be illusions of ourselves using an illusion of logic we believe to exist, simply because we're incapable of thinking in a manner that belies its existence. >_>"

in terms of being or not being - if we Are, then we are real in some sense, as are all illusions. if something exists in perception, it exists, even if only within the whole of that which perceives it.

"Strong though it may be, it does not take into account the possibility of the logic we utilize to come to that conclusion as not truly existing."

the logic we utilize would have no utility if it did not consider some things possible and some things logically impossible. it is logically impossible for us to come to the conclusion that we are not and have never been anything. if we came to that conclusion, it would be illogically (and inconclusively, because subconsciously and partly consciously, we would not believe it, because it is functionally impossible to believe, as belief is also a thing and implicitly linked to existence). I think it does take that possibility into account, but it does so within the very definition of logic itself. all language is built on a structure of logic - this means this and not that. one thing and not the other. definition. in nothing, there is no definition. there is no logic. nothing doesn't exist. even these quantifications of nothing can only imply something logical, because if used absolutely, they defeat themselves and become oxymorons, as does anything that treats 'nothing' as an absolute. so no one can ever come to absolute conclusions about nothing (yes this is also self-defeating). besides, if we do not truly exist, then logic can't tell us that we don't, because to know that truly we'd have to be objective. also, utilizing logic, coming to conclusions, thinking, believing, perceiving, all imply some level of existence and definition. either you disbelieve in the existence of definition (which is self-defeating because by disbelieving and in fact doing any thinking at all you have defined a moment of belief or thought, AND you have to define the term definition to believe or disbelieve it) or you can see how the circular argument did take into account that possibility, as being logically impossible. either you believe that nothing can prove itself (a belief which can't prove itself, is self-defeating, and defeats all other belief) or you believe something can prove itself (a belief which works).

"The neat thing is that if the logic we understand is only an illusion to go along with everything else, then it still reinforces my point. ;>.>"

no, because if it has a point, than it has a logic. if logic is only an illusion, than so is the premise that logic is an illusion. see what I mean by self-
defeating? to be illusory is to behave according to a certain kind of logic, the logic that defines the term illusory. to be nothing and insubstantial is to behave according to a certain kind of logic, which logic defeats itself in an attempt, in this sentence, to describe what it can't describe. nothing, and absolute insubstantiality, cannot be accurately described or encapsulated, even in this sentence. every attempt to handle nothing is useless, even this attempt, which defeats itself. the idea that logic is an illusion is likewise self-defeating. so when you start to recognize these oxymoronic loops in thinking, while you can spend as much time defeating yourself within them as you want, easier just to move on. all thought is a form of attempted organization; so disbelieving in logic, in the long term, amounts to attempting to organizing a way to realize that you never attempted to organize.


if what we experience is not existence, then the concept of existence is useless. if what we experience is nothing, than all conceptualization is useless (and nothing), so any questions in that direction amount to a snake biting itself in the ass. just because a snake can bite itself in the ass doesn't mean that that is the reason it evolved that ability.

the purpose of questioning is not to question everything, but to find things to believe in, things that are the least questionable. you can go on questioning forever but if you question questioning itself you know the point at which questioning destroys its own basis, which is Finding a Useful Answer.

[Moth]

You're strengthening my argument by continuing this circle. >_>

[Fake from State Jarm]

your argument debases all arguments.

[Nicolás San Jorge]

Democritus swears that the abderitans are all liars; Democritus is an abderitan; then, Democritus is lying; then, all abderitans says the truth; the, Democritus is right; then, all abderitans are liers. This argument, referred many times, including a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, extends infinitely.
Logics can have these unsolving arguments; it have its basis in faith, actually. We have to believe in the grounds of a discipline in order to discuss it. Epistemologically, there in such thing as a distinct ground for religion or science, as pointed Feyerabend, as all things, at last, are based on belief.


Actually, I revised the topics thinking about the rise of murder punishment in the civilizations, as I'm reading some things in Criminology. The tradition can be a common ground, but it seems weak and undemonstrable.