# The meaning of life -- Why are we here? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927 "2005-07-03T17:41:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![What\_Is\_Schwa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8baadc/32.png) [@What\_Is\_Schwa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Is_Schwa)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/41 "2005-07-04T21:25:46Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I agree wholeheartedly. What’s wrong with “it is what it is?” To quote a line from _National Lampoon’s Radio Dinner_: > > **You are a fluke of the universe > You have no right to be here > Whether you can hear it or not > The universe > Is laughing behind your back.** So… the meaning of life is: because. Thanks. I didn’t know I could argue this way. This sounds like the mother of a small infant. Why mommy? 'cuz. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/42 "2005-07-04T21:26:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Just to help put the whole thing in perspective: > > I remember an episode of _The Prisoner_ where Number Six, meeting the challenge of an arrogant bureaucrat and his team of computer scientists, crashes a supposedly omniscient computer by asking it “The one question to which no man or machine knows the answer: W-H-Y-question mark!.” “Why?” One of those easy plot devices that sounds oh so clever. > > But (I am indebted to Bertrand Russell for this very simple insight) whenever we ask “Why?” we must remind ourselves that any question with “why” in it sounds slightly more profound and mysterious than it is, because the word, in English, conflates two distinct and slightly simpler concepts/questions: > > 1. Resulting from what cause? > > 2. For what purpose?\* > > In terms of the first question, “Why are we here?” can be answered, if at all, in terms of cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biology – and possibly theology. The second question is essentially teleological and much more challenging. **The answers to the two questions might have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.** Or, then again, they might. > > \*Try out the above on your kid next time he/she persists in asking “Why?” It might not turn the kid into a philosopher, but it might send him/her away puzzled and quiet for just a little while. Cue the music. Now the chorus – “That’s entertaaaaainment!” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![What\_Is\_Schwa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8baadc/32.png) [@What\_Is\_Schwa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Is_Schwa)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/43 "2005-07-04T21:30:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 1. For what purpose?\* QUOTE] \ OK than… for what purpose are we here? To eat, screw and have fun? If you are satisfied with that bleak purpose than kudos. I’m bowing out here, no one seems to be concerned with a debate as much as they wish to argue semantics. I don’t know the meaning of life, I just know it isn’t THAT. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/44 "2005-07-04T21:33:30Z")
> [@What Is Schwa](#): > > Good greif, because I read the TITLE OF THE OP. > > So… the meaning of life is: because. > > Thanks. I didn’t know I could argue this way. This sounds like the mother of a small infant. > > Why mommy? > 'cuz. **Kalhoun** and I were trying to be polite. But: _THERE AIN’T NO “WHY.”_ Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/45 "2005-07-04T21:41:55Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > Does the computer virus replicate itself or is the new virus just a result of a process akin to a photocopier? I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making here. What is the differene between a replica of a document (to continue the photocopier analogy) and a copy of a document? > [@](#): > > Does the host cell instruct the virus to replicate itself? Does the cell make the copy, as the computer does? Or does the virus actually do that on its own, once it gets to the proper environment? My understanding of viral replication is that it does the former (although the virus instructs the host cell, not the other way around). The virus caries the instructions necessary to make a new virus, but it cannot do so on it’s own. The host cells executes the instructions given to it by the virus. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus): > [@](#): > > Replication: The viral genome contains all the information necessary to produce new viruses. Once inside the host cell, the virus induces the host cell to synthesize the necessary components for its replication. > \ > When the virus has taken over the cell, it immediately directs the host to begin manufacturing the proteins necessary for virus reproduction. [About.com](http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa110900a.htm) > [@](#): > > A single virus particle (virion) is in and of itself essentially inert. It lacks needed components that cells have to reproduce. Viruses are intracellular obligate parasites which means that they cannot reproduce or express their genes without the help of a living cell. > > Once a virus has “infected” a cell, it will “marshal” the cell’s ribosomes, enzymes and much of the cellular machinery to reproduce… Though I suppose you could charitably say it is the last definition, assuming that the “proper environment” is a set of machinery that can execute the instructions carried by a virus. But then again, cars get made spontaniously given the proper environment. > [@](#): > > Yes, the virus does act on its own. Perhaps you could clarify. What exactly does the virus do on it’s own? > [@](#): > > The computer virus really has no “within”, for one thing. For another, the computer does the execution of the instruction, where the cell does not. Sure it has a within. The code that make up the computer virus exists somewhere on a hard drive (or in memory). The area where that code is placed is “within” the virus. What role does the cell satisfy if it does not make the virus (which essentially boils down to making the various parts of the virus)? > [@](#): > > I can see lots of differences – one of which being that the set of magnetic signals has no meaning at all until it is organized by something else. Do you think a chain letter is alive? A chain of nucleic acids doesn’t have any inherent meaning either. The only difference I can see is that the nucleic acids replicate in the natural world, while the magnetic signals replicate in an “artificial” world. > [@](#): > > I don’t get that at all. Just blocking one potential exit. > [@](#): > > Are people the only things with intent? Let me introduce you to my dog at dinner time. > > The point is that there are lots of things that are said to “seek” and most of them are not human. No, which is why anthropomorphic is probably a bad word for this case. But stating that a virus has intentionality akin to us (or your dog) is absurd. > [@](#): > > So then you would agree, by the same argument, that chain letters are alive and resist entropy. Correct? I never said that resisting entropy implies life. That was your argument. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/46 "2005-07-04T21:42:21Z")
[QUOTE=What Is Schwa] > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. For what purpose?\* > > QUOTE] > > \ OK than… for what purpose are we here? To eat, screw and have fun? If you are satisfied with that bleak purpose than kudos. I’m bowing out here, no one seems to be concerned with a debate as much as they wish to argue semantics. > > I don’t know the meaning of life, I just know it isn’t THAT. Just ain’t entertaining enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/47 "2005-07-04T21:49:34Z")
> [@Dr. Love](#): > > I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making here. What is the differene between a replica of a document (to continue the photocopier analogy) and a copy of a document? The difference lies in what made the copy. Did the photocopier make the copy, or did the document copy itself? > [@](#): > > My understanding of viral replication is that it does the former (although the virus instructs the host cell, not the other way around). The virus caries the instructions necessary to make a new virus, but it cannot do so on it’s own. The host cells executes the instructions given to it by the virus. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus):[About.com](http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa110900a.htm) > Though I suppose you could charitably say it is the last definition, assuming that the “proper environment” is a set of machinery that can execute the instructions carried by a virus. Then the virus is “alive” while the computer virus would not be. It depends on who made the copy. > [@](#): > > But then again, cars get made spontaniously given the proper environment. Huh? > [@](#): > > Perhaps you could clarify. What exactly does the virus do on it’s own? Copies itself. As opposed to the computer virus that does not copy itself. > [@](#): > > Sure it has a within. The code that make up the computer virus exists somewhere on a hard drive (or in memory). The area where that code is placed is “within” the virus. That “within” is really only a logical idea. In physical terms, it is just a bunch of disconnected pieces. > [@](#): > > What role does the cell satisfy if it does not make the virus (which essentially boils down to making the various parts of the virus)? Same role that the ocean supplies for fish breeding. > [@](#): > > A chain of nucleic acids doesn’t have any inherent meaning either. The only difference I can see is that the nucleic acids replicate in the natural world, while the magnetic signals replicate in an “artificial” world. That’s enough, isn’t it? The magnetic signals are not even one part of an identifiable whole until someone or some thing says they are. > [@](#): > > Just blocking one potential exit. I still don’t get it. > [@](#): > > No, which is why anthropomorphic is probably a bad word for this case. But stating that a virus has intentionality akin to us (or your dog) is absurd. Certainly not as complex an intentionality, but certainly an intention to continue its own kind. > [@](#): > > I never said that resisting entropy implies life. That was your argument. Yeah, I know. That was part of my definition. But according to your argument, is a chain letter “alive”? If I tell you “Repeat this sentence” and you do it – does that mean that “repeat this sentence” is alive? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/48 "2005-07-04T21:53:18Z")
> [@What Is Schwa](#): > > I’m bowing out here, no one seems to be concerned with a debate as much as they wish to argue semantics. I don’t think so. I was just trying to clarify the terms of the discussion. > [@What Is Schwa](#): > > \ OK than… for what purpose are we here? To eat, screw and have fun? If you are satisfied with that bleak purpose than kudos. > > \ > > I don’t know the meaning of life, I just know it isn’t THAT. Then what would you **like** the purpose of life to be? That’s the basic problem of existentialist philosophy: Man is a “hostage to his own freedom.” That is, there is no God (that’s assumed; I never heard of a theistic existentialist), therefore there’s no higher power to assign us a purpose. Therefore we have no purpose (other than eating, screwing, etc.), unless we invent our own, which is a great and mighty responsibility. OTOH, it’s a responsibility which you, as an individual, owe to nobody but yourself. So – what purpose do you want your life to serve? Any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/49 "2005-07-05T04:12:09Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > Are you offering this as an alternative definition? > > As for memes, I don’t find anything to indicate they are similar to life. They look to me to be closer to computer viruses and computer viruses are not life. > > Why are computer viruses and memes not life? Because they don’t do anything. They are only acted upon. A computer virus is just a set of meaningless instructions until a computer acts on those instructions and makes another copy. The instructions themselves didn’t do anything of their own. > > Computer viruses and memes are closer to chain letters. Let’s suppose that I say to you “Repeat this sentence.” You then say “Repeat this sentence.” The sentence itself is not alive. It is simply a product of other things reproducing the sentence. In the Wiki article, they do cover a clear definition of life: “Life may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part” And a “living thing” is something that is used by DNA to perpetuate itself. This is essentially Verelas definition. There are other definitions of \*life \* and _living things_, however these are ambiguous and vague. The old schoolbook definition of growth, motion, metabolism, reproduction and response to stimuli could also cover robots in a few years. By bringing up means I was not saying memes are life, I was pointing out that they have corresponding properties. Life is to DNA. Human brains, recording and storage devices is to memes. Neither DNA or memes seek/try/strive/struggle/aim etc to survive and replicate, it is just because they \*\*do \*\* they **are**. They just happen to replicate and therefore they exist as replicators. Life is an outcome of the replication of DNA. Living things are a tool for life. hehe I am a tool for life. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/50 "2005-07-05T06:46:52Z")
We appear to be talking past each other a bit here, so let me make my case simply: A virus is something that makes copies of itself by invading a host. Once inside the host, the virus gives the host a set of commands for making more viruses. The host then executes these commands. The difference between a computer virus and a biological virus is that the host is a computer or a cell, respectively. However, in both cases **the host, not the virus, makes the copies**. In both cases, entropy is averted by reproducing. I am unaware of anything that could be called metabolism in either case–or growth, after the copying process is finished. Given this, the only differences between a computer virus and a biological virus are the substances they are made of, and their ancestral history. Neither of these differences are sufficient for classifying one as life and one as nonlife under your definition–both are equally capable (at least in theory, if there is no actual computer virus that satisfies this yet) of seeking to continue their own existence, “doing something”, or resisting entropy. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But then again, cars get made spontaneously given the proper environment. > > Huh? Cars could get made spontaneously (i.e. without any help from the outside world) in the proper environment. Of course, that environment would have to consist of a factory with incredibly sophisticated machinery, a power supply, and a supply of raw materials, but it could be done. This was meant to bolster my previous point about how generous the definition of “proper environment” would need to be in order to maintain that the virus “makes itself”. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I know. That was part of my definition. But according to your argument, is a chain letter “alive”? If I tell you “Repeat this sentence” and you do it – does that mean that “repeat this sentence” is alive? I (more correctly, **SentientMeat** ) was not arguing that the chain letter is alive, but stating that that is a consequence of your definition of life. The chain letter has as much intentionality as the virus or bacteria (arguably more), and resists entropy, though it does it by way of using other machinery, somewhat like a virus. To answer your original question: _If_ resisting entropy is considered to be the only condition for life, the there could be a very good case made saying that a chain letter is alive. Personally, I think the definition of life needs to be quite a bit more strict than that one. I also don’t believe that it is possible to find anything that is _the_ definition of life. Like everything else in evolution, life is fuzzy around the edges, and they will always be cases on the boundary that cannot be easily classified. We must simply learn that nature does not always present us with sharp dividing lines. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/51 "2005-07-05T08:48:53Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > **Kalhoun** and I were trying to be polite. > > But: _THERE AIN’T NO “WHY.”_ Deal with it. While you’re explaining politely, could you explain why your declaration must be categorical? Isn’t it possible that there is no reason for you to be here, while there is indeed a reason for someone else to be here? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/52 "2005-07-05T10:41:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > While you’re explaining politely, could you explain why your declaration must be categorical? Isn’t it possible that there is no reason for you to be here, while there is indeed a reason for someone else to be here? I can see that the “why” we are here( or anything else for that matter) is because life and existance is a continuation of the beginning of existance. It has always been so and probaly will alaways be. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/53 "2005-07-05T10:44:21Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I can see that the “why” we are here( or anything else for that matter) is because life and existance is a continuation of the beginning of existance. It has always been so and probaly will alaways be. > > Monavis Okay, but what about my question? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/54 "2005-07-05T10:49:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > While you’re explaining politely, could you explain why your declaration must be categorical? Isn’t it possible that there is no reason for you to be here, while there is indeed a reason for someone else to be here? I can see that the “why” we are here( or anything else for that matter) is because, life and existence is a continuation of the beginning of existence. It has always been so, and probably will always be. No sweat as far as I am concerned. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/55 "2005-07-05T10:52:16Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I can see that the “why” we are here( or anything else for that matter) is because, life and existence is a continuation of the beginning of existence. It has always been so, and probably will always be. No sweat as far as I am concerned. > > Monavis Okay, but what about my question? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/56 "2005-07-05T12:04:28Z")
**Life** is a game. Sometimes a computer game. **Life** is a cereal. **Life** is a magazine. **Life** is a cabaret, my chum. Come to the cabaret. … ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/57 "2005-07-05T12:48:59Z")
Thanks CalMeacham - it looks like we were slipping into a time loop there. Dr Love - dont get caught up with entropy. Many systems decrease entropy on a local scale, yet increase entropy more broadly. Life is one such system. Crystalisation is another. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/58 "2005-07-05T14:24:10Z")
> [@What Is Schwa](#): > > So… the meaning of life is: because. > > Thanks. I didn’t know I could argue this way. This sounds like the mother of a small infant. > > Why mommy? > 'cuz. You may want to ask yourself, “why not?” Why not simply a fluke of the universe? Why not an accident? Why do you have to turn it into something big and dramatic? What’s wrong with labeling it a cosmic “oops”? It makes it pretty difficult to pass judgement on others, that way…I’ll grant ya. But it also allows people to forget about the hereafter and get down with the business of living in the here and now. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/59 "2005-07-05T14:36:20Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > The definition there is my own and I didn’t post it lightly. Actually, I have discussed this issue with a number of biologists and other similar folk over the years. So far, all of them have agreed that my definition is superior to the others. So far, that is. That’s why I brought the question here. Count me as a biologist who does not find your definition superior. A computer virus “seeks to reproduce” just as much as a biological virus does. If you seek to include biological viruses but reject computer viruses, you have failed. Biological viruses do not have any “drive” to reproduce. They are, at their simplest, a DNA molecule enclosed in proteins that help that DNA molecule find a host (by providing for attachment to a cell) and protect the DNA from degradation. They do not do ANY of the reproduction themselves; they carry the information to make more viruses, but it is the host cell’s machinery that performs the reproduction. At most, the virus contains the protein for reverse transcription of RNA to DNA, and then the cell takes over from there. Please explain how your definition differentiates those from computer viruses. BTW, I wasn’t familiar with the Valera/Maturana definition, which appears to be superior to the traditional “laundry list” of things living things do. Thanks for circuitously leading me to that, if nothing else 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927/60 "2005-07-05T16:50:04Z")
Life is what you do while you’re waiting to die. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-life-why-are-we-here/310927.md?page=4)