We’re here because the properties of our universe allow for life to exist in the first place. That’s pretty much it.
Things like “meaning” are self-defined. There’s no “objective” meaning to the universe unless you’re religious or something (in which case I’d still argue it’s self-defined, hehe).
Either way, point is that “why are we here” is like asking “why is the seventh rock on the bottom of the tenth river from my right pointing due east?” Clearly you’d regard that last question as silly and meaningless, but it’s not much different at its core: It’s asking a question about “why did things end up this way?”
We don’t know “why” our universe exists, let alone one that allows life to form. There are many answers to that question and there’s no telling yet which one is right. In my opinion, nonexistence isn’t possible (i.e. you can’t have pure “nothing.” There’s always “something,” or some framework in existence).
Why are we alive?
Beats the alternative doesn’t it?
What’s the point of being alive when after a couple of decades we die.
Did you sign a contract that included a point before you got the gig of being a living being, no… its is neither management fault nor responsiblity to provide a point after life has begun.
Who/what is responsible for starting life on planet earth and who/what is it?
A chemical reaction gone horribly wrong… horribly, horribly wrong…
Why did bring forth life on this planet?
Cause living things are like coachroaches, fungus or IRS Agents, once you let them out its hard to get rid of them.
If there’s nothing there, all the contemplation in the universe won’t change that.
Perhaps you need to clarify what it is about life that you need explained.
You asked a question that seemed to be from outside perspective, what brought the universe into being, why is there life? Those questions have been answered, regardless of your pleasure with the answer.
If you wish to look at the question from inside the experience, then it is up to you to decide what to make of life. That has also been stated.
Says who? On what grounds can you make that statement?
Well duh, “the sciences” are not sapient beings.
Physical forces like gravity are directing the course of the planets and the universe. Physical forces like selection pressures and genetic variation are directing the course of life.
Unless you are proposing some sort of conscious entity at work?
Just because we have yet to find the answers does not mean that we never will.
A lack of satisfaction from the responses does not imply the responses are inaccurate.
Let us assume this is true. Humans, therefore, came from some other sentient force. So, what sentient force brought that one into existence? And the one before that? And the one before that?
Inertia, mostly; the immense majority of us don’t see a point in dying purposefuly. Per your accounting I’m still inertying around at twice my life expectancy at birth, woohoo; I think I’ll celebrate by living a few decades more. Well, there was this complex process which according to current astrophysics started with the Big Bang (but it’s not clear whether there was a previous edition), and according to other sources gets less mathematical but makes for better storytelling. “Because”, which as any 6yo can tell you is actually the ultimate reason.
Why would you conclude that “to some extent” means “it’s not to a great extent”? The speaker showed that a certain percentage of the variance of political leanings in the US could be explained by biological factors. BUT he made no claims about the rest. The only thing that could be said is that according to his research, the rest of the variance is unexplained.
The more important point though, is that you seem to think such things as political opinions exist in some sphere completely apart from the natural sciences. The speaker (Chris Mooney for those curious) seemed able to show that essentially you are wrong.
Right now, the evidence points to the fact that you are your brain, you are your central nervous system, you are material, and nothing more. Think about the rare and bizarre mental conditions that you may have come across. Face blindness, for example, (which I have a bit) where people actually have a reduced [or in]ability to recognize familiar faces. Or cases where one has an accident and loses the ability to speak, but can sing (because there are different centers of the brain at work in these activities), or people who have strange disorders affecting perception of time. How about those who suffer hallucinations? And of course, memory loss.
Everything you perceive as an amazing component of human consciousness can be taken away or affected by damaged or underdeveloped parts in the brain. There’s nothing else! It’s all brain.
(1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but just changes form;
(2) Since it can’t and wasn’t created, then it must have existed before the universe was created, or rather, before the ‘big bang’;
(3) Its existence is thus not determined and dependent on the existence of physical phenomena (like brain processes).
This Energy, being ever active, assumes infinitude forms, one of which is our solar system, inclusive of me, you and the rest. We are all different forms of this same one eternal stream of Energy. A thought process, intention or desire is but a form of this Energy. This Energy can also assume a form, that you and I both have, that we call Consciousness. Just like there’re infinitude variations of physical energy forms, beyond what the mind can comprehend, so too are there infinitude variations of Consciousness, which cannot be fully grasped by the human mind. This implies that Consciousness not only manifest in humans or animals, but also exist on a greater and cosmic dimension.
According to your theory, consciousness and the pursuant thought processes are all “brain processes”. Now If I may ask you: where is brain of the Consciousness of our solar system; where is the brain of the cosmic Consciousness; and where are the brains of the other infinitude variations of cosmic Consciousness? For according to your theory, consciousness is a product of “chemo-electrical processes in a physical organ”. Where, then, are the physical organs for these infinite forms of Consciousness?
These other more grandeur cosmic Consciousness, assuming a form completely different from that of a human being’s, need no physical organ to function. Human Consciousness is thus but an individualized product of this one Cosmic Universal Consciousness we call Energy.
Again, it’s from the individual’s standpoint. That still suggests a “purpose” to me (biologically, at least) although I don’t rule out the chance that I’m misusing the word, or just too dense to get it, like that’s never happened before. And for the record, I don’t mean a purpose dictated by a god, but something that came about through the process of evolution.
Why can’t sentience and sapience come from the same place that survival and sex come from–evolution?
To understand the universe, it has to be looked at objectively without any emotional lobbying from our brains. Stick any negative label on that method that you want, but you can’t argue with success. It’s how we know as much as we do today.
It was determined long ago that they came about through evolution. Time to move on.
And I thought this thread was about more than just survivin’ an’ screwin’ that all animals do. More like “We’re conscious, therefore we’re special and must have a higher purpose.”
Realistically, there is no great purpose to being alive. We live, we eat, we procreate, no different than the animals all around us. The only purpose of being alive seems to be just staying alive and procreating.
Why is it that understanding the universe “has to be” looked at “objectively without any emotional lobbying”?
Why can’t we argue with success?
In fact, why is understanding the universe any better than not understanding the universe? George Bernard Shaw once said, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.” But, is that so? Indeed, specifically why is it not to the point that a drunken man is happier than a sober man? Who makes this determination? Is it that we we yield unquestioningly to the revealed wisdom of George Bernard Shaw? Harrumph!
I do not believe in nihilists because it says so in my Bible. I wrote it in pen in the margins. There it is - page 17 - “Nihilists do not exist.” I rest my case.
Number one, good ol’ survival. There are threats to our existence from the planet, from the solar system, from outer space and from ourselves. To escape or minimize those threats, we have to know what they actually are and how they actually operate. Emotion-driven superstitions don’t help at all.
Number two, simple curiosity. If I want to know how the universe began, I won’t find the answer in dozens of wildly different origin myths or the rantings of thousand of wackos.
No, I didn’t miss it. It looks like it’s based wholly on wishful thinking. I’m pretty sure premise number 2 is just plain wrong, so the conclusion you get from it is wrong.
As stated, it is a correct statement, with 1 caveat - that “law” applies within the universe. It makes no statements as to “before” the Big Bang, or “outside” the universe.
Incorrect. See above.
Correct as stated. Energy is not created by or dependent upon physical phenomena like brain processes. Energy is the manifestation of physical processes.
Wait, energy being capitalized, Warning - possible definition switcheroo. Proceed with caution.
Alert! Alert! “Eternal stream of Energy” does not appear to be accurate representation of science. Proceed with caution.
Alert! Alert! Fuzzification of the term “energy” in process. Strong indication of a misrepresentation occurring.
Clarify: in what way does “Energy” assume the form of “Consciousness”? (Also with idiosyncratic capitalization, suggesting a specific but unspecified use.)
And this conclusion rests on what evidence?
Implication is irrelevant because foundation of argument is unsupported.
You have the question backwards. You propose that the universe has some cosmic Consciousness, so the question is to you, where is the brain of this Consciousness? Where does the Consciousness reside? By what process does this Consciousness manifest?
I will grant a little leeway in that we are not entirely clear how consciousness arises from our brains, so it may be difficult to explain how it arises in some other form. But with brains, we at least have the evidence of our own existence and the examples of the billions of humans around us by which we form the definition of “consciousness”. You are stuck with needing to demonstrate evidence of some other source or locus of consciousness, whether or not you can explain the exact process by which that Consciouness arises.
Before you can assert such as true, you must present convincing evidence of said cosmic Consciousness.
Alert Confirmed: misapproriation of the term “energy” and applied use outside of scientific definition.
Stepping past the mangled terminology, you seem to be proposing something of the following: the universe is an inherent manifestation of consciousness, one form of which we identify and recognize appears in individual human forms. But this is a mirage, and the consciousness itself continues outside and beyond human form.
Does this also mean that each individual human consciousness is really just a part of some larger whole? Or that each individual is a whole form, but when life ends, that consciousness changes “form” and reenters the “pool” so to speak, to be reused?
Regardless, you asked us a question. Many of us answered that question to the best of our ability within the philosophical framework that we feel is most accurate. You then seem to be arguing that our framework is not correct, and that you have a different framework that is more correct, so we should be using your framework to provide you answers. But (a) we don’t know your framework, and (b) you have not shown your framework is more accurate.
Both Mijin and I are concerned with the use of the word “purpose”, because of the implications of that word. “Purpose” is related to “intent”. “Intent” requires an “intender”. The very framing of the sentence has the perhaps unintended consequence of suggesting an agent at work, i.e. a consciousness that is the creator, “intender”, one shaping the process. This is manifest large in this thread, in the very question of the OP - “Why are we alive?”
Stepping away from the word “purpose” and any unintended implications, you seem to be asking about the function of inherent drives for survival and for sex. Yes, those drives do serve a function, the function of survival and reproduction. The presence of these drives had the function of enhancing survival and reproduction, which means that the beneficiaries of those drives were around to continue the process better than the equivalent competitors that did not have those drives. And because those drives are somehow embedded biologically, they are inherited, and thus passed along. Therefore, the offspring with those drives overall fared better than their competitors.
That is not to say that survival and reproduction are necessarily goals for any individual or group - not necessarily an active target - merely that survival and reproduction are the main means of comparison for life itself through time, simply by default. You’re either there or not there.
The being that didn’t care if it survived or not quickly died when the being next to it was hungry. The being that didn’t care if it reproduced didn’t leave any offspring, because the being that was horny as hell had all the sex.
Who’s still around, the blue rats that didn’t care if they lived, or the brown rats that ran and hid? Who’s still around, the green rabbits who didn’t care about sex, or the brown rabbits who went at it all the time? (Okay, I made those examples up. Visualize the point.)
It is rather easy to see how “desire for survival” and “desire for sex” aided in reproductive success. It is a bit harder to see how desires originated in the first place. Similarly, it is fairly easy to see how sentience and sapience provide advantage to survival and reproduction. It is somewhat more difficult to answer how they originated in the first place. Without understanding the cause or the actual process of how they occur, it is difficult to guess at what could contribute to the arisal.
Saying they come from evolution does not particularly answer the question. “Why did the giraffe get such a long neck?” “Evolution.” Um yeah, but what are the details?
The thread title is “Why are we alive?” Thus many of us have answered that question to the best of the ability we have - “we just are, shit happened that way”.
Some people seem to be trying to morph that question into something else: “Since we are alive, what should we do with it?”
Answer: Pick and choose, you get to decide, but your plans will be constrained by how they affect those around you, and by their desires and plans.
Yes, okay.
Accepted, in the sense that we stand out, we’re different, there’s nothing else quite like us.
Nonsequitur. Must? Who says? Whose purpose? Higher in what way?
Humans are biological creatures with heritage of other biological creatures on Earth. We carry the genes and thus the inherent drives and instincts of our ancestors. That we also carry a higher level of reasoning than our relative biological creatures is merely a happenstance of evolution.
But we are in this position. Do we owe the rest of biological life anything? Do we owe each other anything, merely by dint of being here? We are driven by the same urges to survive and reproduce, but we have the reasoning ability to shape how we use those urges. Does that mean we must seek something besides those functions? We have the ability to choose other goals and the means to achieve them, which we are free to utilize or not as we see fit.
But mere existence does not impose a moral imperative to do anything. Even continuing to exist is not a requirement. Though as humans, we have the abilty to create a moral clause that continuing to exist is preferential.
