The meaning of life. Deep Down.

[George S]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

 

[Kharakov]

Fricken replicators. We need another SG series or film to take them out once and for all.

 

[untermensche]

Humans are not replicators.

They only give their offspring half their genes.

Each individual is a random combination of two genomes.

None are a replication of either parent.

 

[blastula]

Replicate is what human lives do, but not necessarily what human life means, depending on what you mean by meaning.

Personally, I don't think there is any one objective meaning to life, just a bunch of subjective meanings to individual lives.

 

[George S]

Humans are not replicators.

They only give their offspring half their genes.

Each individual is a random combination of two genomes.

None are a replication of either parent.

So true, untermensche.

However what I pointed out is that genes are replicators.

 

[George S]

Replicate is what human lives do, but not necessarily what human life means, depending on what you mean by meaning.

Personally, I don't think there is any one objective meaning to life, just a bunch of subjective meanings to individual lives.

Humans do not replicate themselves. Unlike asexual reproduction, the organism does not replicate. However, genes replicate (duplicate) themselves in both cases. Genes are what life is, deep down.

...................................................... A rework of two lines of the OP

Humans and other organisms are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans and other organisms, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

 

[rousseau]

That is not a meaning of life, it's a generalized description of what life is. At the same time life offers a framework for experience, which varies from organism to organism.

Humans, for example, have the ability to formulate and understand a huge number of concepts, like meaning, and purpose, and so the composition, and track of a human being's life can be highly variable. There is nothing dictating that a human being must propagate at all costs, and if they don't propagate they don't just go jump off of a bridge. There are other things that offer them an acceptable existence.

 

[cpollett]

I like to think of things in terms of the meaning of X to Y where we imagine X and Y are two mainly disjoint systems. Then we can
take the meaning to be something like how much useful information can Y extract from X. For example, there is a lot of
information stored in the relative jiggling of my molecules that another person at least at the conscious level will probably
never be able to extract about me. So this will not be part of the useful information they can extract about me. My large-scale
actions can be converted to useful information by them and so would be part of what I mean to them. Within myself, I can
look at what I've done, my large scale actions, means to myself going forward. In terms of replicating entities such as genes,
one of the things that the universe seems to be able to extract from them is large scale structures cells, plants, animals, etc.
So if life is these self-perpetuating entities, then part of the meaning of life to the universe is these extensions, plants and creatures
that the universe builds out of them.

 

[PyramidHead]

Our most noble and selfless moments are often examples of going against what our genes 'want' from us. We owe our genes nothing, and whatever meaning we derive from this life we never asked for, it doesn't need to be compatible with any biological imperative.

 

[Treedbear]

Our most noble and selfless moments are often examples of going against what our genes 'want' from us. ...

I understand why you placed "want" in quotes, but can you give an example of these noble and selfless moments that are in no way derived from genetics? Noble and selfless tends to mean showing empathy for others like ourselves, which seems to be a genetic trait since we are social animals.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

Meaning is something human beings do and each human do it from their own individual and subjective perspective I'd have to guess to try to make sense of the world as well as find a way to work with others cooperatively to achieve something worthwhile. So life is most likely to mean different things to different people as I'm sure it would appear quickly if you conducted a poll of the general population. Whatever the physics, life still looks very much like we are the ones in charge. If I want to do something, I do it. Genes? Nah.
EB

 

[rousseau]

Our most noble and selfless moments are often examples of going against what our genes 'want' from us. ...

I understand why you placed "want" in quotes, but can you give an example of these noble and selfless moments that are in no way derived from genetics? Noble and selfless tends to mean showing empathy for others like ourselves, which seems to be a genetic trait since we are social animals.

People have the ability to empathise with the experiences of other living things. One can't argue that this doesn't arise from genetics, but our unique ability to do things at great cost, and with little benefit, seems to set us apart from other animals.

Sometimes, people act only because they want others to be happy, not because of some cost/benefit biological math equation.

Genetically, we're built to do this, but not everyone achieves that state of enlightenment.

 

[bilby]

The replication of genes is just one minor example of the true purpose of the universe - to increase entropy.

OK, that's not a purpose; but it is what happens, and what drives everything else that happens. Increasing entropy doesn't really qualify as a 'meaning', but then there is nothing else that qualifies for a meaning either.

Meaning is only meaningful to self aware entities; and for such entities, meaning is whatever they choose it to be. But choice is an illusion, caused by the sheer complexity of self aware entities.

In the narrow sense, meaning is just communication; In the broader sense, 'meaning', like 'soul', 'ghost', 'god', 'square circle', 'married bachelor', or 'immovable object', is a concept without a possible object. We can think of things that cannot be real, and deep meaning is such a thing.

TL;DR - 42

 

[Speakpigeon]

But choice is an illusion, caused by the sheer complexity of self aware entities.

With all due respect, your meaning here remains unclear to me, Sir.

For the kind of choice that's available to us to be an illusion there would have to be something else that would qualify as true, genuine choice.

And then, for you to assert that our kind of choice is illusory, you'd have to know what true choice would consist of, and be able to explain it to us. I think.

So, now, pray tell us how you would go about specifying what true choice consists of so that we can all be clear that there's indeed clear water between our kind of choice and true choice (whether or not true choice exists at all).

For me, choice is what I do and it's strikingly uncomplicated. I would grant you that whatever I do is one hundred percent the result of what my body does and that what I call my choice can only be whatever my body does. Same thing for my weight, the colour of my eyes, the nice little thoughts I get to enjoy in the privacy of my mind, and so many other things. I'm sure we can easily get confused as to how these things get to exist at all and as to their nature but that doesn't make them unreal somehow. If there is no such a thing as my choices then there's nothing that could qualify as my body weight, the colour of my eyes, or the thoughts I have. And how could I, or you for that matter, possibly think that my (resp. your) thoughts are not the kind of things that exist in any sense at all?
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Our most noble and selfless moments are often examples of going against what our genes 'want' from us. ...

I understand why you placed "want" in quotes, but can you give an example of these noble and selfless moments that are in no way derived from genetics? Noble and selfless tends to mean showing empathy for others like ourselves, which seems to be a genetic trait since we are social animals.

A team of firefighters rush into a burning building to save an elderly lady. They get her to safety, but many of them die in the process. From a genetic standpoint, this is a massive waste of reproductive resources and they should have let the elderly woman burn to preserve the more valuable assets in the gonads of the firefighters.

A less extreme example would be dedicating one's life to improving the welfare of non-human animals. This is done purely out of compassion for other sentient beings and does nothing to further the replication of one's own DNA, which would rather we use that energy to make stable copies of itself in other humans.

 

[PyramidHead]

But choice is an illusion, caused by the sheer complexity of self aware entities.

For the kind of choice that's available to us to be an illusion there would have to be something else that would qualify as true, genuine choice.

Not necessarily. It may be that the kind of choice we think we have doesn't actually exist, and the nature of the actual kind of choice available to us is something not everyone is aware of.

 

[Kharakov]

The replication of genes is just one minor example of the true purpose of the universe - to increase entropy.

Isn't it the purpose of Maxwell's demon, I mean the universe, isn't the purpose to make it look like entropy is increasing so people don't panic.

 

[Kharakov]

A team of firefighters rush into a burning building to save an elderly lady. They get her to safety, but many of them die in the process. From a genetic standpoint, this is a massive waste of reproductive resources and they should have let the elderly woman burn to preserve the more valuable assets in the gonads of the firefighters.

There is pretty much an assumption that if a firefighter has survived one fire, they have one child. It works out in the end so that more firefighters have children then do not.


Ok, I'm bullshitting, but I would really like to see a # of offspring by profession, combined with religious affiliation, combined with socioeconomic background/relationship mapping chart.

 

[Treedbear]

I understand why you placed "want" in quotes, but can you give an example of these noble and selfless moments that are in no way derived from genetics? Noble and selfless tends to mean showing empathy for others like ourselves, which seems to be a genetic trait since we are social animals.

People have the ability to empathise with the experiences of other living things. One can't argue that this doesn't arise from genetics, but our unique ability to do things at great cost, and with little benefit, seems to set us apart from other animals.

Sometimes, people act only because they want others to be happy, not because of some cost/benefit biological math equation.

Genetically, we're built to do this, but not everyone achieves that state of enlightenment.

A more evolved intelligence sets humans apart. But as an evolved trait I think that the ability to empathize has everything to do with passing on our genetic code. In other words it is about the survival of our species. From this objective perspective it can be seen as a rational choice to sacrifice one's self for the benefit of our loved ones. That includes the lives of our children who, although they carry our genes, are generally replaceable as long as one stays alive. So it isn't so much about the individual as it is about communal genetics. To focus on the former is to embrace the subjective experience rather than achieve an objective understanding. I would think you would appreciate that perspective. The happiness of others is usually, in principle, the least costly and most beneficial thing to do. Whether it's a conscious decision or otherwise.

 

[Treedbear]

I understand why you placed "want" in quotes, but can you give an example of these noble and selfless moments that are in no way derived from genetics? Noble and selfless tends to mean showing empathy for others like ourselves, which seems to be a genetic trait since we are social animals.

A team of firefighters rush into a burning building to save an elderly lady. They get her to safety, but many of them die in the process. From a genetic standpoint, this is a massive waste of reproductive resources and they should have let the elderly woman burn to preserve the more valuable assets in the gonads of the firefighters.

The firefighters are duty bound to protect the lives, and to a lesser extent the property, of their community. Strictly speaking it's an ethical matter. It's part of being a firefighter and it's how they maintain self respect and the respect of the community. So it's built into their identity. That's partly a matter of one's culture, but it's directly a matter of human nature and genes. Not risking their lives would result in the loss of their personal identity which is derived from fulfilling one's role in society. The point that they are saving an elderly person no longer able to pass on her genes is overshadowed by the cultural understanding that all citizens must be treated as having value. Otherwise our society wouldn't work as well as it presently does. People just wouldn't have as much of a stake in contributing to it.

A less extreme example would be dedicating one's life to improving the welfare of non-human animals. This is done purely out of compassion for other sentient beings and does nothing to further the replication of one's own DNA, which would rather we use that energy to make stable copies of itself in other humans.

If we used all the energy and resources at our disposal to reproduce we would overpopulate the Earth and create misery and chaos for ourselves and our decendants. Protecting the environment is more than simply compassion for non-human species. To some extent there is a symbolic component that comes from the recognition of valued human qualities in the other animals (and even non-sentient life forms). To devalue it in them tends to influence how we treat other people. And then there's the importance of recognizing the limits of our own ability to wisely manage our environment given our natural inclination to modify it to our immediate perceived needs. These efforts are, as a general principle, essential for our survival.

Compassion is an emotion. It's a positive or negative state of arousal for the purpose of motivating action (or inaction). But there is a logical reason for most emotions whether it is compassion, love, hate, joy, depression, etc. The objective here is to determine what they mean.