Being alive is more evolutionarily successful than being dead. Living things have more children, who inherit the desire to be alive and reproduce also.
As for responsibility, far as we know it was chemistry.
As for why, my friend’s father, a Holocaust survivor, said “Why is a crooked letter.” And he ought to know.
I’m not going to dignify that with a response, but I will expand on what I was saying:
It’s great to spread positive messages, and try to make people feel better about their lives. “The power of positive thinking” is a very popular concept, particularly in the US.
But ultimately, at some point you have to see things as they are. And, very simply, if we’re going to say life is great because we get to experience joy, then by the same token you could say it’s crap because we get to experience misery.
I’m not saying life is all bad; I’m trying to counter the implication that it is all good.
Or you could say that life is good because we get to experience crap too.
Or you could simply say that life is.
Right, and I would say the latter because the former doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
You see plenty of people who are very happy who have not yet experienced significant emotional or physical pain: they don’t feel they are lacking anything. Indeed, this is the way life has progressively gone in the developed world; far fewer of us will experience the grief of losing a child, or the pain and horror of losing a limb.
So is this a bad thing? Do we need these negative experiences for our lives to be good?
No body is saying it is all good - that would be unrealistic. However there have been studies which have shown ones attitude is not directly related to ones position in life. People who have the most miserable of circumstances can be very positive.
I’m a bit manic-depressive, so I’ve seen it both ways.
By a couple of decades, I wasn’t implying 2 decades, but just a few: 7 to 10 for instance. And for those who’ve managed to make it to 4 decades and beyond, what have they learnt about the meaning of life and the universe? If the answer is nothing, then it just shows that they haven’t been contemplating about it, not that life itself is meaningless.
Chemistry and physics is not an answer for explaining life, it’s just a way to either run away from the question or demonstrate to others that one just doesn’t know. If my favorite team loses a game, the reason for the loss cannot be just “chemistry or physics”; if I manage to have a son or a daughter, the reason why this individual is now alive is not “chemistry or physics”. Physical sciences are but a mere medium through which life manifests, not the cause. The sciences do not huddle around a board room to decide what life form they want to create next, something(s)/entity/force/energy, obviously imperceptible to humans, is directing the course of life, just like it’s also directing the course of the planets and the universe. Physics and chemistry are the terms humans use to make sense of it all. These sciences are by their very nature limited and thus cannot explain the origin and dynamics of thought, intellect and other cognitive phenomena. Hence they fail miserably to account for the existence of intelligent sentient beings.
The source from whence these inherent drives originate from is the main point of this thread.
Quite the confused little caterpillar, aren’t we?
I don’t know where to begin to address this muddle. Especially since many posts here have already addressed your ‘question’.
Maybe you should stop contemplating for a while and actually read them.
You find out why you were alive at the end of your life.
Oh, I guess I was there to do that. So what you do is why you are here.
It’s pretty easy to demonstrate that those with a desire to survive and reproduce will live longer and have more children, creating more with a desire to survive and reproduce. No, the real question is why the heck sentience and sapience exist.
Exactly.
I’m not sure that’s the real question actually; I’d much rather know what consciousness is than how it came about.
I know how and why I’m here. As for all you other zombies, however…
And who created this something? 
And who gave it the directions to follow?? :smack:
Yes, yes they are. You are the one running away from the answer.
Because you want there to be more.
Yes, yes it is. Chemistry and physics make one team win and the other lose.
You wanting one to win has no influence on the forces in play.
Unless maybe you cheer them harder and that has some influence on some player’s brain chemistry so he’ll try harder.
Yes, yes it is. Chemistry (and a bit of physics).
Not just ‘a mere medium’ they are the medium through which we can understand life and the universe a bit better.
well, you got something right at least.
Forces, yes. But nothing sentient. WE are the sentient ones, brought forth by non-sentient forces.
Indeed. Right again.
Why the thus? This doen’t automatically follow from the above.
They can and do explain a lot.
But, yes there is still much more to learn out there. Thank heavens.
All posts have been taken into account. However, a response does not necessarily constitute a satisfactory and correct answer. What one deems satisfactory and correct isn’t always so for another. Asking for more simply implies lack of satisfaction from the responses.
Take the upcoming elections for instance, chemistry and physics will not determine whether the Democrats will win or lose the elections. I can assure you that your desire and subsequent vote in favor of the Democrats will definitely play more of a role in deciding the elections than the molecular configurations and reactions on Election Day. As a matter of fact, if the entire country shared your intention to actually vote for the Democrats, Obama will be reelected. Don’t really see how chemistry and physics will play any role there.
Begging your pardon sir/ma’am, but are you serious? One would think that sentient beings can only come from sentient forces.
Due to the deficiencies of chemistry and physics, certain intangible phenomena like sentience, sapience, mind, thought etc, cannot be explained by them; nor are these intangibles a product of chemistry and physics.
Definitely not chemistry and physics!
Interestingly enough I just saw a talk last week by someone who cited a number of studies to show how your political orientation is in fact biologically determined (to some extent).
To some extent, meaning that it’s not to a great extent and is thus immaterial and not the overall determining factor.
Asking for more simply implies lack of satisfaction from the responses.
[/quote]
Your lack of satisfaction wil not alter reality.
(bolding mine)
Desire or a thought for that matter, are not some kind of ‘magical spirits’ floating around.
They are brain processes.
Begging your pardon sir/ma’am, but are you serious? One would think that sentient beings can only come from sentient forces.
[/quote]
Begging your pardon. Why would one think that?
As said above they are brain processes. Chemo-electrical processes in a physical organ.
True, we do not yet understand fully how it works exactly, yet.
Though our accumulation of knowledge (aka science) on this subject is at an early stage, rough measurements of thoughts, emotions and the like can already be taken from the brain.
Also, look at how damage to the brain, or just a simple chemical inbalance can alter emotions, thoughts, behaviour.
“It’s turtles all the way down”
Ridiculous. I don’t believe in nihilists.