Talk:Meaning of life

Grammatical Approach

I see a couple of statements approximating this, but I believe this is worth adding.

Grammar and our question? One might use the term "meaning" in various ways but in the case of "What is the meaning of shoes?" meaning must refer to something outside the sentence. Most sentences or their context supply redundencies which aid in their intrepretation, thus, " Shoes allow us to keep from hurting our feet, people will think us strange barefoot, cats like to poop in them etc"; these statement don't express meaning directly ( any comments anybody???, is there an indirect 'meaning'), but the q, "what is the meaning of life" is silly unless we assign an external object to "meaning". "Meaning" in this case Requires A Grammatical Object, without which we only have a phrase and no question At All. Add such an object and The Q becomes trivial indeed.

Of course by reversing time we might say the meaning of life is in the sacrifice and struggle of our ancestors, but this is tricky logically too but immensely satisfying to me. I'm sorry I'm no logician or grammarian on this and I would be grateful for any serious or interested comments. Wouldn't it be nice to put this one to bed for ever!? Wblakesx 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)wblakesx[reply]

I think it (Meaning of Life) is a non question theoretically but seemingly the most important question emotionally! Asking the question seems to imply that there IS a meaning EXTERNAL to human existence but if that meaning IS truly external to human experience, it cannot be understood by humans! Gary

This article doesn't belong for 2 reasons... 1. The meaning of life is opinion not fact which has no use in an encyclopedia 2. I'm not going to lie to you, I find some parts of this article very offensive

Scientific approaches and theories

i dout anyone will ever be able to give the meaning of life but i still believe that the meaning of life is to personal for any one persone to tell the meaning of life to me is birth and death that is all there is and ever will be.

True meaning

Maybe we should add that the meaning of life is by science simple as "reproduction"
- I think it is "The meaning of life is to live it."

Edit

I edited the 'replish' bit in the Genesis quote, that theory has been mostly discredited.

Humorous Explanations

In one of George Carlin's shows, he once said, "Maybe the Earth needed plastic and didn't know how, so he created humans? Maybe that's the answer to the age old question, 'Why are we here?' Plastic!" --Gophergun 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC

I saw somewhere about google calculator telling you the meaning of life =42 if entered in a certain way (as an intended joke from the staff), but can't find it right now, maybe we can add it in the popular culture references if anyone is more in the know about this. The Guy From Ipanema 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. You have to ask for "the answer to life, the universe, and everything" [1] --TLG 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

Under "Spiritual views", there are two long paragraphs labeled "The designed Universe", which are apparently quoted directly from The Science of Soulmates by William Henderson. Besides not making much sense, I worry that they may be too long to qualify as "fair use" and suspect that they ought to be removed.

Section "William Henderson" moved to talk page for discussion

The following big section moved from the article for discussion:

The designed Universe.

Science has theorised ways in which the universe can generate all its complexity by pure accident, but since the odds against these accidents occurring are unbelievably huge, science has therefore revealed that there is an enormous probability that the universe is non- accidental. Or, simply put, science has shown overwhelming statistical evidence that the universe is designed. Because of this, scientists have conceded that there seems to be some sort of underlying order, meaning that there is a non-accidental system at work. To take this further, once we accommodate the notion of some sort of non-accidental order we cannot escape applying rationality to that order and this leads to the conclusion of perfection. That is, if the universe is ordered it must be ordered for a purpose, and logically it must be perfectly capable of carrying out that purpose.

We can’t have it both ways. Science’s methods have revealed that the probability that the universe is unfolding according to some underlying order or design is enormous. Once conceded, scientists must not avoid applying rationality to this order; the same rationality that exposed the order in the first place. Once we admit to order we are saying that the universe is non-accidental. So, boom! We have existence - ordered existence. A non-accidental system! Order can’t come about by accident; therefore it must have already been there. This order, which underlies all existence, cannot be flawed. Therefore this order must be perfectly capable of organising the universe.

This order also must have a reason for existing. It makes no sense at all to have an ordered system for no reason. If there is no reason or necessity for the order, we would have no order. Now if, for clarification, we call the reason for the order meaning, then we can see that that the universe is a system whose purpose is to fulfil that meaning. We should then be able to find the meaning through deduction by looking at what is going on in the universe, remembering that absolutely everything must be a part of the design, including us!

Scientists and researchers who have admitted to the overwhelming evidence for a design have reasoned that the design seems to be geared around bringing consciousness into existence. And this makes sense, because if the living universe is to be fulfilled then it would need to be self-aware. To be properly aware of its Self, the universe would have to be an intimate part of its own awareness. In other words, to be self-aware is not the same as other aware beings gazing upon you. You must be that awareness. Therefore the Self of the universe must be the highly aware beings within the universe. Since we are self-aware, aware of the universe and aware that we are aware of it all we must be the Self of the universe, the self of existence. Since we are capable of knowing, feeling and understanding all of existence then we are the awareness of existence. Existence, therefore, must be two, because we are two distinct beings: male and female. This argument may seem circular, but it’s not; the argument has a source and a deduction. The source is the order that underlies all existence that logic tells us must be perfectly capable of organising the universe, and the deduction is that all that is around us must be the result of the design.

If we are the awareness of the Self of existence then the beings or source of this Self must be non-aware, or asleep The need of the two to awaken answers the endless regress question which asks that there be a reason for an ultimate being’s or a god’s existence. What’s more is that we know that this is a valid self-contained reason because it is also our own reason for existence. And this is the final confirmation: if the universe is capable of reflecting its meaning perfectly, then we should, as the consciousness of the universe, be the perfect reflection of this meaning, and we are.

[P129 The Science of Soulmates, By William Henderson, Booksurge NewYork 2002]

Concerns:

Assuming this is all a copy from that book, it seems a huge copy/paste and could (or should) be summarized, wikipedia is not normally a place for huge copy/pastes. It is capable of being summarized as "William Henderson the author of ___ gives his view as....."
It seems either highly POV or simply mistaken. It states: "the odds against these accidents occurring are unbelievably huge, science has therefore revealed that there is an enormous probability that the universe is non-accidental... science has shown overwhelming statistical evidence that the universe is designed... scientists have conceded that there seems to be some sort of... non-accidental system at work... Once conceded, scientists must not avoid applying rationality to this order... A non-accidental system! Order can’t come about by accident... Existence, therefore, must be two, because we are two distinct beings: male and female..." As best I can tell this is not representative of the views of "sceince" or "most scientists" nor is there "generally accepted overwhelming statistical evidence", nor is it "mostly" interpreted this way.
Likewise the statements that assert order "cannot" come from chaos, what scientists "must not" do, and that there must be "two" and so on, slip into personal belief of the editor or author and in this context probably misrepresent science and scientists' majority views.
The section is too long a copy/paste to be apppropriate usage.

This section needs summarizing into an "Author X's view is", and reflect both views, that most of the above facts stated by the author are not representative in fact of science or scientists views, and are strongly contested by many. FT2 (Talk) 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the notion of a designer is attributed to the notion of god, and hence understainding the meaning through relgion. this has already been disccused, and so it adds nothing to the article but the author's name.--84.228.165.214 08:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haisch cite

It seems that Bernard Haisch added a citation to his own book to this and many other articles. See also

for other edits apparently pushing the scientifically highly controversial POV of Haisch. ---CH 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

47 in Star Trek

You mention the appearance of 47 in Star Trek:

This is an obvious reference to the "Star Trek" series where the number 47 is heavily featured (It does for example occur in every single episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation").

I did not know about this until I read your article. However, some sources suggest 47 did not begin to appear regularly in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" until season 4. See here: The 47s --La Loir Noir 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this paragraph from the talk page to here for discussion...

A lateral view of the problem, 'The Meaning of Life', may result in the following explanation - Death. From a philosophical point of view, the end result - for which no alternative exists - of life is but death. Every person is born into this world, and will inevitably die irrespective of what life they lived; rich, poor, upper class, clever, disabled etc. There is only one constant in the existence of a human being.

The above paragraph is very poorly written, and under closer observation doesn't make much sense. Here's my take on this hunk of text:

First of all, the position isn't any more prevelant than those contained in the body of the article, and therefore it doesn't belong in the lead section of the page any more than any other position presented on the page. If this philosophical musing is to be included, it should go in the Philosophical views section.
How is it a lateral view, are we looking at it sideways? That death goes hand-in-hand with, or is side-by-side with life is figurative poetry; it conveys no message, it's just art. Death comes after life, and therefore is either behind it (because it follows it), or is in front of it (because if you are alive death is in the future, ahead of you, waiting), depending how you look at it. But sideways? (Shakes head slowly).
The opening paragraph doesn't present the meaning of life as a problem, but as a question. The paragraph above refers to it as a problem, but doesn't explain how it is a problem. "Meaning of life" is just a phrase. That we don't necessarily know what the meaning of life is, could be a problem, but the writer doesn't say this. And if that's what the writer meant, then we're simply back to the question "What is the meaning of life?"
Then the writer poses death as the explanation, or answer?, to the problem/quesiton. But there's no clarification as to which context of the question he is answering. The queston itself is vague and subject to a number of interpretations (all of which are presented in the opening paragraph). Which way is he interpretting it?
He points out that from a philosophical point of view the end of life is death, and that no alternatives exist, framing life as invariable. But life is variable, some lives are much longer than others, opening up an alternative to death: death later instead of death now.
Is death the only constant? Isn't that "everyone lives" also a constant? Even though people live differently, and for different lengths of time, the very fact that they all existed is the same for everyone. Another constant. Therefore, that "death is the only constant" is blatantly erroneous.
The author doesn't explain how his observations constitute the meaning of life. How can the mere end of something be the entire meaning of it? He leaves this issue totally untouched.
Just an important thing to note: Life at first was never meant for death. The bacteria and even some of the simplest animals you see in the world today are directly related to ancestors billions of years ago. These organisms are biologically immortal and so have never died. Most of them continue dividing and dividing over and over again. They can thus be said to be billions of years old, and have not yet died. It is only in the evolutionary chain of more complex plants and animals that death becomes present. Therefore it is not truly correct to say that the meaning of life is death.

Because the passage makes little if any sense, I'm for removing it altogether. If it can be rewritten (or its source citation provided), then it should be moved to the Philosophical views section, since it poses itself as a philosophical point of view. --Medulla oblongata 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Theory of Human Existence

I moved the following extract here, because complete source information was not provided, and because I couldn't track down where it came from.

What if human beings were simply animals? Then by observing other animals it might be possible to uncover meaning from their life patterns. Such as the requirement to ensure the survival of their particular species. An objective pursued through the unwitting deployment of individual variation and aptitude. In an endeavour to counter each threat to their collective existence. Such an observation might imply that the meaning of life is life itself, ensuring continuity toward attainment of an ultimate formation. In other words, the subconscious quest for an entity-form or organization, which no eventuality could annihilate.

Yet surely, the meaning of human life could not be so rudimentary? Since humans and animals differ in a vast number of respects. For example, in the ability to exchange complex information. The examination of which quickly establishes, that no two of our kind experience the nature of shared existence in an identical fashion. However, unless reality can exist in multiple states simultaneously, the majority of such perceived variation must be introduced by individuals themselves. Currently, each feels confident in maintaining a belief, that their evaluation of life derives from personal experience of actual reality. That they are wholly justified, in claiming their assessment as correct while dismissing conflicting appraisals as incorrect. But how could such a massive contradiction be plausible? Perhaps, if not a single human being experienced true reality.

Because everything that we term “experience” originates in an organ, totally encased within a sealed protective enclosure. Inside a detached device, remote from any form of tangible involvement with that which it purports to know intimately and comprehend effectively. Yet, any notion formed in isolation can be individual in nature and subjective in content. In effect then, any genuine similarity between an inner recreation of reality and the outer true reality, would be restricted. Limited to those portions of entire actual reality which our external sensory sensors were capable of accurately detecting, encoding, and re-transmitting. In addition to that dexterity which the brain would need to apply in order to interpret these transformed signals. Utilising the utmost quality of memory-maintained comparative material, required to perform a necessarily precise interpolation.

Regrettably, a lack of exactness in any of these sequential operations would tend toward the creation of erroneous conclusions. Accordingly, all manner of illogical opinion, confused conviction, or fanciful explanation concerning anything, including the meaning of life, could then result. Permitting, for instance, one to classify certain acts as either good or evil, the incontrovertible proof of a complex struggle between opposing supernatural forces. While also allowing another to categorize those same events, as the simple manifestation of diverse survival strategies. Ultimately however, selection of any alternate, in preference to continuity of life as the primary objective of our kind, risks incurring a common fatal consequence. That our species will not endure for long enough, to discover which hypothesis if any was correct. (Condensed extract from a unified theory of human existence, omitting detailed analogies, examples, explanations, and reasoning.)

Before this can be reinserted into the article, we should determine its copyright status. Also, it is a bit long. Should it go in the article, or in an article of its own? But first, we really need to resolve the copyright issue. Does anybody know where this came from, who the original author is, when it was published, and when and by whom? --Medulla oblongata 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]Ethics vs. SpiritualitySome of the popular beliefs on the meaning of life seem to be in the wrong category, rather, is it more ethical or spiritual to become one with god? Reasons such as that are listed under ethical. "To work for justice and democracy" is listed under spiritual. Granted it can get ambiguous depending on your interpretation of the words ethical and spiritual, but considering that such beliefs should only be put into one category or the other in this article, perhaps choosing the one that is more accurate is a better idea.Spoiler WarningI laughed so hard, I hit my head on my desk. Beliefs in the meaning of life are a SPOILER that GIVE AWAY THE ENDING? AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. Okay... I'm going to leave it in there without editing it out because it's just too classic. I'll let other wikipedians decide if they see fit to leave it a spoiler. ---Thoughtfix Argh! Which idiot put a spoiler warning UNDER where it says mice are the hyper intelligent creatures? Thanks for ruining my bloody book.Mathematical ApproachThe mathematical approach involves formal methods of optimization whereby the probability of death is the determining factor of the cost function. The optimization used for living organisms is the evolution strategy. The desire to live is an inherent aspect of living, for if a species did not have the desire to live they would most likely be killed off by random natural events, and would thereby cease to live. This results in all living organisms, that exist in a volatile region of space, having a strong desire to live. Extending this logic can result in explaining the existence of intelligence, cooperative group working, relationships, and numerous other human emotions. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]NeutralityThe paragraph on atheistic views seems to create an us-them view which might be interpreted as not maintaining a NPOV. Maybe using "them" less often will improve this. Art is the creation of meaning in life. Perhaps this should be mentioned.Moved this section from the article page to here for discussionThis reads like an essay, and if very hard to follow. It even prompted someone to add a clean-up tag, which I highly agree with. I don't think it fits in the article, at least not in this form. --Chram 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]I agree that this is too complicated. The first sentence stumps me. What is the trial of unification? There's not a Wikipedia article on it. Yes, it does sound like an essay - like there was a fear of using past tense verbs. Also, I don't understand what spacetime has to do with the meaning of life. There does seem to be some good information in there though. For example, "People are inquisitive and unconsciously motivated to increase the knowledge and technological abilities. It enables them to develop…," and also "the ultimate goal of people is to…" That stuff sounds relavent to the meaning of life. Maybe it could be cleaned up. Jecowa 07:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]Here's the section:Cosmological meaning of the human lifeYou must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|September 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template. Recently the trial of the unification and generalization of cosmological, physical and biological concepts leads to the " Theory of necessity of people's participation in reoccurrence of sub - Universe". Its thesis, in another words is.: " People will create new sub- Universe " or "People go to be the new Demiurge". The formulation of this theory is incited by the need to interpretation of the occurrence of the self-awareness ( consciousness ) of people, just 13 billion years after the so called Big Bang and the observed fast and permanent progress in the understanding of everything and fast technological progress. The authors of the theory argue that this consciousness as new neuro -physiological phenomenon is not random. They maintain that any of us is indispensable for the realization of an extremely important task.: " We are indispensable to succeed to reproduce the new real world ". In details, the authors of the theory argue that.: The actual phase of the development of the Universe, characterized by occurrence of the self-awareness of people should be presented in the context of the evolving Universe. The contemporary cosmologists maintain that the Universe comes out from primary singularity, it means from a very dense bunch of matter or rather ' quantum foam '. The singularity existed above time. During the first cosmologic era the primary physical particles appeared. The early Universe was composed from Hydrogen and Helium. More heavy elements occurred inside of the older stars. We know already that many stellar systems are characterized by the presence of planets. At the surface of the planets ( at least on our planet ) so called biological life has emerged . Recently, after 13 billion years of cosmic evolution the Homo sapiens sapiens appeared. Human beings ( as well as dolphins ) are characterized by the self-awareness. It is almost improbable that the occurrence of biological life and consciousness was random. It is rather a cosmic necessity. The existence of a galaxy is probably the indispensable condition. It would be difficult to imagine a planetary stellar system with the biological life on the surface of the planet existing in the intergalactic cosmic void . If we will admit that the biological life is a cosmic necessity the quick formation of galaxies in the expanding universe should be comprehended as an important step in the creation of the elementary conditions for the occurrence of the biological life. Probably the massive centers of Bose-Einsteincondensates existing in the spiral galaxy are indispensable for the promotion of the phenomena of life and consciousness ( see the chapter " 11.1.3. Cosmology of consciousness " in Matti Pitkanen's on line book [2] The appearance of human self- awareness is indispensable to take decisions about important acts related to the fate of human beings. People are inquisitive and unconsciously motivated to increase the knowledge and technological abilities. It enables them to develop the communication and memorizing systems. They quickly transforms our planet in a kind of a huge global brain. It is only first step to much more far reaching goals. Just now people want to analyze, record and understand the genetic code. In fact they want to understand the code representation of everything. Frank Tipler, the author of so called Anthropic Principle ( John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler: The Antropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986.) [3] and the author of " The physics of immortality ", who postulate in it probably unique other similar trial to search the meaning of the human life in cosmological development foresees that the descendants of people will build, in the far future, the huge macro - computer based on the matter of collapsing universe. It will enable the emulation ( reconstruction, in fact resurrection ) of all people who lived before. Frank Tipler' s theory works good only on the assumption that the time space of the Universe is closed and that it will collapse in the future. On 1998, just after the formulation of Tipler's theory ( 1995 ) the astronomers found strong arguments that our Universe is " open " and that its time space will expand endlessly. So, the " Theory of necessity of people's participation in reoccurrence of sub - Universe" takes into account this settlement, however the theory acknowledge the same drive to build the macro-computer and to implement the essence, especially brains and human psyche on so called second level of implementation. The development of the global Internet, the urge to construct so called virtual reality, the main postulate of all religions about further existence in ' other world ' and the recent vision of many science fiction writers ( Greg Egan, Vernon Vinge ), what give usually a good insights push us to postulate that really people will ' scan ' themselves and emulate in the cyberspace. It seems that it is necessary to obtain a much faster and intense development of the thinking and cognition. Thus the ultimate goal of people is to do something with the sad vision of cooling, dilatating, infinitely expanded time-space of our Universe. Probably the descendant of us will try to utilize a massive black hole as a tool appropriate to begin the next offspring Universe [4] The mighty knowledge, technology and power is necessary however to program and tune the characteristics of the " next Big ( Little ) Bang in such a manner that the offspring Universe will obey also the Anthropic Principle. It would cause the similar evolution of the offspring Universe, who should lead to the occurrence of human beings, what will signify in fact the 'reincarnation' of the human species. Thus people and their descendant of the present Universe will want to master the ability to tune the next Big Bang: Therefore they need to decode apart of the genomic information also the patterns for all reality, including the pattern of the physical and chemical characteristics of the matter. The code representation of all objects should be determined. People, who know the scientific endeavors will agree that in fact the trial of the understanding of everything have already began. The presented theory restore the meaning of the human life. It explain why the effort of people is valuable and that this effort will be rewarded by the possibility of reoccurrence.Create MeaningInstinctively we understand what it means when someone says to "create meaning", but how do you describe it? Meaning in this sense has been described as "an individual's personal interpretation of the world" (www.askoxford.com) but it does not work in this context? To "create meaning' suggests a sense of personal or social value and a tangible objective rather than an interpretation.The meaning of life is...Meaning : "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action" Mean : 1. intend to convey, indicate, or refer to (a particular thing or notion); 2. intend (something) to occur or be the case 3. have as a consequence or result Life : 1.the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death 2.the existence of an individual human being or animal 3.the period between the birth and death of a living thing, esp. a human being So the Meaning of Life is, either : 1/1 The condition that distinguishes animals and plants etc. indicates just that. OR 2/1 The intention of [the existence of] the condition that distinguishes animals and plants etc. - such a notion assumes the condition etc. is a consequence of a sentient beings action, which remains to be proved/disproved, speculation of which is already present (at some length) in the article. OR 3/1 The consequence of The condition that distinguishes animals from plants etc. is, well, very big... and very evident. 1/2 The existence of an individual human being or animal indicates the current state of the life on earth at this point in time, what it conveys is purely subjective {and therefore irrelevant?]. What is indicates is yet another minute part of a vast universe. 2/2 See 2/1 3/2 See 3/1 After this point it becomes very vague and subjective, so that approach to the question has failed. Alternatively you can look at it this way : The original meaning of life on earth was to balance the carbon cycle : too many plants putting out CO2 and all that jazz, bacteria-based life flourishes and evolves. The meaning of human life : random natural selection. As the entire ecosystem seems to have succeeded in creating an all powerful super-species which can dominate all others, and it did seem to be pointing towards that from the start, one could assume that was it's intention . As for what it conveys or represents [to me], it is a fine example of the nature of the universe : in a constant state of balance, yet it must also be unblanced in some respects to "be" balanced, thus the paradoxical and therefore infinite nature of the universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.143.94 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) A popular new theory as to the meaning of life is found in the Constitution of the United States of America: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I.E., to live free and to enjoy living free. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.108.140.129 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Does this page belong?I'm not really sure this page is encyclopedic, as it just enumerates different groups' views on the subject. Maybe sections in the articles on Atheism, Christianity, and the other groups that explain that group's viewpoint, as well as a section at life would be better.--Grand Slam 7 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]why ask the meaning of life?Since the the word 'meaning' is too vaguely used in the sentence; its quite possible the the question "what is the meaning of life?" is a more lamen term to ask something more complicated? Therefore can't the question be first created so that it could ask for something more specific? Henceforth, it cannot. becuase everybody does not mean the same when they ask "what is the meaning of life?", one can ask for the meaning of thier life and the other for the meaning of the human race. plus if the answer is given, would the person be trusted enough or reveered enough to be accounted for? So, here's another question, ( in a simple term) "Who can give us the answer?". And since that would lead into more greater research and more knowledge required, the one who can give an answer will not be found. Yet not one has brought up the notion that 'life' is a noun, why cant the question be changed into "What is the meaning to live?" That could also be interpreted into, " why do we live?"... Moreover, everyone who seeks for an answer, wont be satisified until it's found. So when you do find he answer, you'll accept it or deny it. Then that means everybody will search for an answer that will suite them anyways. there should be a section included on the singularitarian veiw (where the 'meaning of life' meand the supergoal). From theis article http://sysopmind.com/tmol-faq/tmol-faq.html. Basically it goes something like this: 1)We must assume there is a meaning of life (not to do so woul be self defeating - and in abscense of certainty it is illogical to go with a self defeating possbility(one that gives no information on 'good actions". 2)We do not have enougth informaton to make a good guess at what it is yet. 3)Assumeing there is a meaning of life(a supergoal) and we do not know it. it is logical that the interim meaning of life is to find the "meaning of life"(supergoal) 4)The reason humans havn't found the meaning of life may be lack of inteligence or information. Therefore we should create superhuman inteligence(via enchancement, the singularity, AI etc) and more information (science). (this page really needs to be protected). Douglas Adams wrote that the answer was 42. Whilst driving in central north Wales I stoped at an old tower/horse shelter which had been turned into a museum. Sure enough in the museum there was an artifact that said the meaning of the univers was 42. Can anyone refresh my memory as to the name of the town? It was on a major ( well for Wales!) road going from Hay on Wye towards the north east.Should this article even exist?It isn't encyclopedic at all. The entire premise of the article is based on an extremely vague ponderance of a nature probably only common in the English language or the western world. It is a pointless mish-mash of popular views, completely NPOV, and not representing a world-wide perspective. It is too long and opinionated and should be split up into seperate articles or removed altogether. --Weldingfish 12:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] The meaning of life is not "an extremely vague ponderance of a nature." It is the ultimate concept and has not been answered completely. In laymans terms, no facts, but this does not mean it should be removed! It is difficult to form facts on this topic for obvious reasons. This is not a fact book. It's an encyclopedia. Look up the definition of encyclopedia.At best, it seems to me that it needs to be entirely re-written - and probably included as a subarticle to Philosophy. It rambles, it's ill-organized, and it's extremely difficult to understand. As far as the definition of encyclopedia, try "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically". --MatthewDBA 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]I agree. this needs some attention if this is going to stay-serious modifications need to be done to at least the 'Popular beliefs' section. It was so upsetting [just reading that section] that I couldn't bear to read the rest of the article. An article of this quality (or lack thereof) doesn't belong in any encyclopedia-especially Wikipedia. Here is a list of things wrong with the part of this article that I could (barely) bear to read. The "Popular beliefs" section needs serious review, of at least three different types. 1.Format This is a list. Shouldn't it be prose? [Would that be considered part of formal tone?] 2.Redundancies Even in list form, which is extremely bad enough, there are several redundancies: e.g."for sex, drugs, and rock and roll" [emph. added] "to survive and reproduce" [emph. added] "to have sex" "to produce offspring through sexual reproduction" "to attempt to have many sexual conquests (as in Arthur Schopenhauer's will to procreate)" "to get laid"3.Almost everything wikipedia ISN'T original research/unverified claims see also:"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball [and] Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." NPOV? and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" -even if you could say these lists have a reasonably able-to-be-picked-out point of view see also:"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." I agree to a large extent...this article should not try to document the "meaning of life" as that is not fact, but opinion. The article should be an objective and brief sociological analysis of the quest for the meaning of life, with a few various beliefs that have occurred in different parts of history(must be referenced and well supported). The "popular beliefs" section should be removed...i will do my best to clean it up, but I have no expertise in this this area of history. Will someone help? The emphasis is on being shorter!--Vox Rationis 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]i've taken the liberty of largely cleaning the popular beliefs section... however, much work still needs to be done, and this article still needs to be shortened...--Vox Rationis 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Singularitarian view of the meaning of lifethere should be a section included on the singularitarian veiw (where the 'meaning of life' meand the supergoal). From theis article http://sysopmind.com/tmol-faq/tmol-faq.html. Basically it goes something like this:We must assume there is a meaning of life (not to do so woul be self defeating - and in abscense of certainty it is illogical to go with a self defeating possbility(one that gives no information on 'good actions". We do not have enougth informaton to make a good guess at what it is yet. Assumeing there is a meaning of life(a supergoal) and we do not know it. it is logical that the interim meaning of life is to find the "meaning of life"(supergoal) The reason humans havn't found the meaning of life may be lack of inteligence or information. Therefore we should create superhuman inteligence(via enchancement, the singularity, AI etc) and more information (science). (Michael)(Reply): Singularitarianism is a subcomponent of transhumanism, which is covered in the article. The whole philosophy section had been blanked by someone, but I've restored it. The Transhumanist 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]I'll take a crack at your points above, in the context that you are referring to "meaning of life" as "purpose in life":The question "What is the meaning of life?" implies that we assume there is a meaning, and that we simply don't know what it is! (If we did, we wouldn't have asked the question). On the other hand, humans are born ignorant, and will eventually get to this question if someone hasn't taken the time to fill them in. But, if you assume that knowing the answer to the question entails that the entire human race know it (and believe it), well in that context, the question will probably remain unanswered forever. But if it only takes one to know the answer for the answer to be known, there are over 6 billion chances for the answer to be known right now, and therefore it probably is (known, that is). And it might encourage you to know that... ...we've had enough information on this issue since the time of Aristotle. He and his contemporaries concluded that the concern and purpose of each of us should be the common welfare of all. This makes sense, because if we all cared about one another and helped each other, most of the problems of the world would disappear. No more violence, no more war, no more crime, no more starvation, etc. The purpose, being open-ended, can and should be refined over time. Contributing to the common welfare is as much a skill as it is a goal, and as such can be improved. Your question model above parallels the "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". But the assumption that we don't know what it is all about may be false. Or it may be that we did at one time know the answer, but merely forgot it. That was Mortimer J. Adler's conclusion in his book Ten Philosophical Mistakes: on the philosophical level, the ancient greek philosophers figured out the answer, but it was lost during the Dark Ages, and modern philosophers missed it when reconstructing philosophy. The tools you mentioned could be applied toward improving the common welfare, which would simultaneously improve the answer (the set of instructions on how).I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC) [reply] Yeah that does help. "Transhumanists argue that improved people will necessarily have improved capabilities to seek out and answer questions regarding "the meaning of life" as they see it, more so than even humans do currently." Already sums the above up nicely.Since the purpose of knowing the meaning of life is to implement it. I suppose one person knowing it could be enough. But the ideal would be where enough people know (and believe it) to implement whatever it requires. We do not know how many this happens to be, so we should find out (along with implementing all the possible meanings of life, hopefully using some system to discriminate between the likely and unlikely answers) I must admit I haven’t much knowledge on how the Greek philosopher conclusions. But I am of the understanding that they used intuitions as a basis for their philosophy, which are an arbitrary (although widely shared) assumption. The conclusion of the common welfare relies upon the 'badness' of the world problems. But how are the 'badness' worlds problems justified? After all doesn’t this badness rely on the meaning of life in the end, and so using badness to justify a meaning of life would be circular logic. And 4 These make complete sense to me, after taking the assumption of the common welfare as the meaning of life.(Michael)Section blanking lacks consensusDimitriRU, your removal of the original science section lacks consensus. If you'd like to remove large sections of an article, you should propose it on that article's talk page first, and express your reasons for desiring the removal. Please refrain from blanking it again until consensus has been reached. Personally, I'm against removing it, as it is geared towards beginners, whereas the Schrödinger stuff is quite advanced and may leave younger readers (or those new to philosophy and science) scratching their heads. The passage also complements the article's lead section by treating each of the five questions presented there. Note that I've left your additions in place, for the sake of more advanced readers. Please don't unilaterally chop articles down without prior discussion. Keep in mind that other people on Wikipedia have put in a great deal of time and effort on the various articles here. None of us like to see our work erased unless there is good reason to do so, determined by the wisdom of the community. The Transhumanist 11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]Listing of "42" as an meaning is from Adamms bookIf there is some commonly held joke or reference among philosophers please explain. Chivista 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. by the end the mice decide that the Question for Life, the Universe and Everything is "how many roads must a man walk down". I think it should be included somewhere as it is very well known.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Doesn't matter, it's mentioned anyway.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]Erich Schneider sectionA couple of criticisms: This entire section, and much of the Schrodinger section as well, are lifted directly from a book by Erich Schneider. There is a copyright notice on the page linked at the end of the Schneider section, so this appears to be a violation of copyright. The section should probably be removed entirely, though I wanted to give people a chance to discuss that before doing it myself. Also, assuming the section does stay, it comes across as unreasonably POV to me, particularly the first sentence. "Linking our purposeful behavior to life's function as a gradient-reducing complex system is another move in the scientific tradition of increasing our knowledge while deflating our arrogance." Whether or not "the scientific tradition" deflates human arrogance is a matter of opinion, not objective fact. If the section stays, it needs to be reworded from an NPOV, not simply a direct quote from Schneider. 74.114.148.69 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]Be bold. Remove it!Migdejong 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I presume that most people expect to see philosophy not creative musings merely; please justify why this "Eric Snyder" fits the category? There are sections of pop culture as a concession to the popularity of the topic. :) Chivista 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Section removed, for the reasons stated above. 74.114.148.69 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]Whoa...This article really gets my attention. I think about the meaning of life a lot. And I'm just a kid! --Das654 07:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]The Meaning of Life - a brilliant article which stimulates, informs and entertainsOk, its not perfect, but the fact that Das654 (respectful bow to him or her) got turned on by this article means it should stay. I'm completely Wiki naieve, so I wouldn't dream to touching the main page. However, it does seem a tad long. Very interesting, but a tad long. I suppose the interest comes from the diversity of opinion and approach. On reflection, maybe it should just stay long and eccentric. It certainly made me think about the issues, not done that since university! I concluded there are really two questions with different answers:1) The meaning OF life is the experience of existence. When consciousness apprehends the universe, both are elevated above simply being. 2) The meaning IN life is the contentment which comes from exercising your capacity to love, to think, and to act for the good.Not as long and colourful as the main page, but succinct and all my own wurk... HarveyDo 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] NO! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT WIKICLOWN!Neither is it Wikintertainer! Such articles seriously are bad...I mean, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL COLLECTION OF OPINION AND INFORMATION!!!!121.7.56.203 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]VandalismNot really sure how to get rid of the "MEANING OF LIFE IS GLORIOUS COMRADE STALIN," which, while mildly amusing, doesn't belong here. --StarKruzr 10:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply] Isn't the purpose of life to reproduce? Every animal has a inherent drive to reproduce, and, in the case of insects, some die after copulation....wouldn't that be the meaning of life? Zankou 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]