What is the meaning of life according to biology?

[LogicalAtheist]

[SOLVED] Meaning of Life.

Hey. I saw in the tag for this section, "what is the meaning of life". I thought that'd, as a biology neuroscience major, I'd post here what I've come to consider the answer to this and a VERY similar question.

Q: What is the meaning to A life?
A: To maintain homeostasis.

Q: What is the meaning to life?
A: To reproduce offspring that can successfully reproduce offspring.

Furthermore, it can be implied that the meaning to A life could be to maintain homestasis long enough to reproduce offspring that can succesfully reproduce offspring.

That's Biology, not Philosophy, and I don't believe philosophy could answer this question properly!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are confusing meaning with function. Science has nothing to say about meaning...to suggest so is pseudo-science. Science tells us what not why.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Science has nothing to say about meaning...to suggest so is pseudo-science.

I'm not confused at all. When I see a pseudo-scientific comment I instantly assume an error in syntax which if posted correctly would be the most appropriate non-pseudo word or statement replacement.

So, that's my answer in those terms. Other wise all I could say is the answer to the question "what is the meaning to life" is something like 8/0

It's not defined, because "meaning" does not exist!

PS: Can you gather that I need to remain in the science forums? Heh, don't worry I'll be found there 99% of the time!

 

[BoulderHead]

Very interesting style you have, LogicalAtheist.

"This question has no answer except in the history of how it came to be asked. There is no answer because words have meaning, not life or persons or the universe itself. Our search for certainty rests in our attempts at understanding the history of all individual selves and all civilizations. Beyond that, there is only awe."
-Julian Jaynes

 

[zk4586]

That's Biology, not Philosophy, and I don't believe philosophy could answer this question properly!

It's not defined, because "meaning" does not exist!

Well, you're obviously very hostile towards philosophy -- unnecessarily, I should add. Meaning does not exist? Then how do you justify believing in the answers that science provides?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I'm not hostile towards anyone, perhaps you just feel offended. Philosophy has it's place, and has places it doesn't have a purpose.

Originally posted by zk4586
Meaning does not exist? Then how do you justify believing in the answers that science provides?

That doesn't make sense to me. Justify believing in the answers that science provides? Let me evaluate to explain.

1. I carry only relative belief. Not static belief. What is currently considered truth I hold as truth. I question it, or put effort into seeking out other current "truths" only when I feel necessary or avised to do so!

2. I "justify" my relative belief because if I made assumptions other scientists didn't, we'd all be speaking different languages. Therefore the scientific community keeps hold of current truths so we can speak as one.

3. Saying "meaning does not exist" is a perfectly sound argument. Meaning is a syntax word error which when correced turns out to be a variety of other words (with different meanings).

 

[Zero]

'Meaning' is not an intrinsic trait, but something that humans impose on things.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I'm not hostile towards anyone, perhaps you just feel offended. Philosophy has it's place, and has places it doesn't have a purpose.

It sounds like you have it all figured out, in which case philosophy is a waste of time for you. Possibly your genius is wasted here.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I carry only . . . I hold as truth. I question it . . . I "justify" my . . . if I made assumptions. . .

Thank you for bringing us up to date on you.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Saying "meaning does not exist" is a perfectly sound argument. Meaning is a syntax word error which when correced turns out to be a variety of other words (with different meanings).

Anything else you'd care to lecture we feeble-minded thinkers about?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

LW. It's not a good idea to be sarcastic about you being feeble-minded and then give proof that you are. I'd advise against it.

Furthermore, being an jerk and intelligable will only make us read your posts like watching a clown. Try to say something worthwhile.

Zero said it perfectly:

"'Meaning' is not an intrinsic trait, but something that humans impose on things."

Zero is someone who WILL get my attention, as for LW, sorry feeb, you've been exiled!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

LW - Becoming intelligent and knowledgeable takes a lot of work. I certainly wouldn't ruin my status by making this effort any more attainable to you!

You have to work hard to know things. Try it some time! Or you could stick to the anything goes area of philosophy. It's kind of the hippie-thinkers genre idn't it now?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Welcome to PF LogicalAtheist !

Look buddy, I mostly agree with you so far,
but I've two things to say to you:

1. If you keep talking to people like that,
you ain't gon'na be talking much even with
those who do agree with you. Good manners
can sometimes get in the way indeed but they're
necessary for a web community like this one
because eventually that's all you got.

2. If you do not at least attempt to fully
address and analyze the subject you're talking
about then what's the point of being in the
phil. forum ? You're mostly denying some people's
opinions and introducing others in the form
of "I'm right and you're wrong". Now, if you
think your philosophy is already correct and set
then why bother making discussions here ? Are
you a preacher of logic and atheism that's come
to preach ('cause if you are, this ain't the right
forum for it) ?

Peace and long life.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
LW - Becoming intelligent and knowledgeable takes a lot of work. I certainly wouldn't ruin my status by making this effort any more attainable to you!

You have to work hard to know things. Try it some time! Or you could stick to the anything goes area of philosophy. It's kind of the hippie-thinkers genre idn't it now?

Well, so far all I've seen from you is absolutes, half-baked opinions, ad hominem arguments, half-assed spelling and grammar, and butt head manners. But if you believe you can out-think this old hippie, then why don't you demonstrate it?

I mean, how intelligent is it to start a thread linking meaning and biology in the philosophy section, and then observe "Philosophy has it's place, and has places it doesn't have a purpose"? Philosophy has its place in a philosophy forum, and it seems you have a place in front of the mirror admiring yourself.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

No more in the PHIL forum! No more!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Other wise all I could say is the answer to the question "what is the meaning to life" is something like 8/0

It's not defined, because "meaning" does not exist!

PS: Can you gather that I need to remain in the science forums? Heh, don't worry I'll be found there 99% of the time!

You are correct; meaning is not a subject of science. You are talking about your faith, not science.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You are correct; meaning is not a subject of science. You are talking about your faith, not science.

Talking about my faith? What faith?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Talking about my faith? What faith?

Your faith [belief] that life has function but no meaning. This philosophy can’t be supported by science, so, since it implicitly addresses the issue of a deity, it essentially qualifies as a religion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Hey. I saw in the tag for this section, "what is the meaning of life". I thought that'd, as a biology neuroscience major, I'd post here what I've come to consider the answer to this and a VERY similar question.

Q: What is the meaning to A life?
A: To maintain homeostasis.

Q: What is the meaning to life?
A: To reproduce offspring that can successfully reproduce offspring.

Furthermore, it can be implied that the meaning to A life could be to maintain homestasis long enough to reproduce offspring that can succesfully reproduce offspring.

That's Biology, not Philosophy, and I don't believe philosophy could answer this question properly!

What is the meaning of life? It's all just a matter of perspective now isn't it? Dependent upon what "we" might deem important?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the meaning of life? It's all just a matter of perspective now isn't it? Dependent upon what "we" might deem important?

So there may be many meanings in this case, and not the 'single' meaning that the original question implies?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
So there may be many meanings in this case, and not the 'single' meaning that the original question implies?

Holy fructosciousness! ... What does the original question imply? And to whom?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Holy fructosciousness! ... What does the original question imply? And to whom?

I would have prefered; The meanings of life...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I would have prefered; The meanings of life...

By saying that people wouldn't take it personally and would probably dismiss it.

 

[BoulderHead]

I never thought of that.

How about if I argue that since there are so many 'meanings' of life, that perhaps there is no single 'meaning'...you know, as in no god...

[edit]
Oops, haha, I mentioned the unmentionable, sorry. Forget it then.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
How about if I argue that since there are so many 'meanings' of life, that perhaps there is no single 'meaning'...you know, as in no god...

[edit]
Oops, haha, I mentioned the unmentionable, sorry. Forget it then.

But what is life, without some "implied" meaning? And, what if all the "meanings" arose from the same source?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Iacchus32 is a bit confused.

I don't have faith that there is no meaning to "life". It's logically proven. The very meaning of the word is against logic.

Read up on logic Iacchus32!

Furthermore, if meanings to life exist than a meaning to life does not exist. A static value must be present.

Perhaps you've got the wrong doses of systems!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Iacchus32 is a bit confused.

I don't have faith that there is no meaning to "life". It's logically proven. The very meaning of the word is against logic.

Read up on logic Iacchus32!

Furthermore, if meanings to life exist than a meaning to life does not exist. A static value must be present.

Perhaps you've got the wrong doses of systems!

By whose logic? Is logic infallible? Or, is there such a thing as "faulty logic?" In which case I say to you, logic doesn't "prove" a thing! It may become the vehicle for truth (or, falsehood), but not the actual destination.

Besides, what if each aspect of life had its "own meaning," then there would be myriads of meanings!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Iacchus32 is a bit confused.

I don't have faith that there is no meaning to "life". It's logically proven. The very meaning of the word is against logic.

It's really very simple. Science has nothing to say about meaning so you are really espousing a religion...a religion of nothing. Before you make any more unsupported and unsupportable assertions, would you please prove that life has no meaning?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Perhaps it's to elementary and is being overseen by you et al.

Life has no meaning.

Life has no asdlgk.

These two statements are the same, because "asdlgk" and "meaning" both do not exist.

If some thing does not exist, it can't be applied to a statement nad carry a value.

It's as simple as that. Science "say something" about things that exist.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It's really very simple. Science has nothing to say about meaning so you are really espousing a religion...a religion of nothing. Before you make any more unsupported and unsupportable assertions, would you please prove that life has no meaning?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Perhaps it's to elementary and is being overseen by you et al.

Life has no meaning.

Life has no asdlgk.

These two statements are the same, because "asdlgk" and "meaning" both do not exist.

If some thing does not exist, it can't be applied to a statement nad carry a value.

It's as simple as that. Science "say something" about things that exist.

You are using your assumption as proof. Could you provide a substantive argument? I'm sure that you know that a hypothesis cannot be used to prove itself.

 

[FZ+]

I don't have faith that there is no meaning to "life". It's logically proven. The very meaning of the word is against logic.

This is what we call lifegazerism - or making assumptions, and assuming them to be absolute fact. Let's just suppose that God exists. This would neccessitate a meaning to life, does it not? Now, this doesn't present a proof that there is meaning, but abscence of proof does not equal proof of abscence. Now, different people may see "meaning" in different terms from you, perhaps with different definitions. You can say that from your point of view, meaning is irrelevant to life, and I would agree with you. Lots of people would agree. But don't say it is an absolute fact. Because anyone can be wrong. (Sorry LG!)

Furthermore, if meanings to life exist than a meaning to life does not exist. A static value must be present.

This is an opinion. But the problem is, you can solve this by arguing for the existence of a static, divine and special viewpoint, giving an essentially static value. Of course, this still takes the assumption fo God, which is perhaps unreasonable to some.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Perhaps it's to elementary and is being overseen by you et al.

Life has no meaning.

Life has no asdlgk.

These two statements are the same, because "asdlgk" and "meaning" both do not exist.

If some thing does not exist, it can't be applied to a statement nad carry a value.

It's as simple as that. Science "say something" about things that exist.

Even a plant has meaning when it "turns" in acknowledgment to the sun. At least it does to the exent that it's alive, otherwise what's the point? ... There's your meaning of life right there!

So what are you saying you're no better than a plant or vegetable? Hey don't look at me, this is the level of existence that you ascribe to yourself!