Does life only have meaning if you give it meaning? (ethical, points)

[VGravitas]

Earlier this year, I read an article about existential depression and gifted individuals. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"[T]he more they (the gifted) try to struggle out of-or wallow in-their depression, the more they become acutely aware that their life is brief and ultimately finite, that they are alone and are only one very small organism in a very large world, and that there is a frightening freedom and responsibility regarding how one chooses to live one's life. They feel disillusioned, and they question life's meaning, often asking themselves, 'Is this all there is to life? Isn't there some ultimate and universal meaning? Does life only have meaning if I give it meaning? I am one small, insignificant organism alone in an absurd, arbitrary, and capricious world where my life can have little impact, and then I just die. Is this all there is?' Questions like this promote a sense of personal disintegration."

This article really made me wonder: does life have meaning only if we give it meaning? Why or why not?

[TwoByFour]

Define "life" in your question, as the answer depends on what you mean. Are you referring to biological life, i.e., the ongoing process that started three billion years ago, or are you referring to what we think of as human life, i.e., an existence that may be independent from our biological existence?

For the first, I think the meaning already exists and your question is trivially resolved. Every living organism on the planet from bacteria to slime molds, to plants, birds, and people are all here for one purpose - as a vehicle for DNA and a platform for evolution to do its thing. There is no endpoint to that process, it just marches onward forever. Humans certainly are not the pinnacle of evolution, we are one step in what presumably will be other species in the future. At least that has been the norm for the last 3 billion years so there is no reason to think that will end now.

As to the second interpretation of "life" - I personally do not believe we (i.e., people) have a spiritual existence that is independent from our biological existence. In other words our consciousness is just an artifact of the bundle of neurons that is our brain. Consciousness is not objectively real, it is all in our heads. I do not see that it requires a meaning other than the fact that we are a curious species and will constantly introspect ourselves and seek to understand the nature of consciousness.

I suppose at this point you could say, OK, if we are just DNA machines and nothing more, than what is the purpose of DNA? Why does it even exist? There is an answer to that which comes out of physics and evolutionary biology. It is complex and I am not going to try to repeat it here. But I am comfortable with it.

I do not agree with this part of your quoted article: "..the more they become acutely aware that their life is brief and ultimately finite, that they are alone and are only one very small organism in a very large world....". I spend a lot of time brooding about these things and I am very comfortable with my finite existence. It is a necessary part of being part of the process of evolution, which as I said, is our raison d'être. I understand what is going on, and it is what it is. I have no problem at all with this reality.

[ConeyGirl52]

To answer the OPs title question - yes, and no.

Yes, on an individual level we need a reason to go on. What is a man without his dreams? It is okay to never fulfill those dreams and fantasies, sometimes, its even preferable; and, one can rest assured that even the depressed have dreams, as everyone at least subconsiously dreams.

No, on a global scale. If one person is negative and not contributing in some way to a conscious existance, it doesnt mean the world is also not contributing. Sh@t happens, and Life goes on.

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

As to the second interpretation of "life" - I personally do not believe we (i.e., people) have a spiritual existence that is independent from our biological existence. In other words our consciousness is just an artifact of the bundle of neurons that is our brain. Consciousness is not objectively real, it is all in our heads. I do not see that it requires a meaning other than the fact that we are a curious species and will constantly introspect ourselves and seek to understand the nature of consciousness.

I see what you are saying, but dont necessarily agree with it. You quote physics in the paragraph that follows this one, and it made me think of Deepak Chopra's book, "How to know God". He uses quantum physics and the Bible to show that the concept of God is possible:

First, there was the word. What is the word? Thought. What is thought? Energy...and so on.

Einstein proved in his Theory of Relativity that there is no energy lost. E=mc squared is the formula.

Whether you believe that you are able to keep your energy in one cohesive bundle, or spread it all over the cosmos, if there is no energy lost, and merely a thought is energy then there is certainly the possibly of life after death. Every bit of what went into making you, everything you thought, every feeling you ever had, every physical action you ever made or took etc, is all energy, and it doesnt leave just because the form that was you expired. The caterpillar does become a butterfly, and doesnt just waste into nothingness inside its binding shell of a cocoon.

[TwoByFour]

Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52

First, there was the word. What is the word? Thought. What is thought? Energy...and so on.

And where exactly did this thought reside? "Thought" is a human concept, relevant to human brains. There is no brain around before life on earth existed.

Einstein proved in his Theory of Relativity that there is no energy lost. E=mc squared is the formula.

Whether you believe that you are able to keep your energy in one cohesive bundle, or spread it all over the cosmos, if there is no energy lost, and merely a thought is energy then there is certainly the possibly of life after death. Every bit of what went into making you, everything you thought, every feeling you ever had, every physical action you ever made or took etc, is all energy, and it doesnt leave just because the form that was you expired. The caterpillar does become a butterfly, and doesnt just waste into nothingness inside its binding shell of a cocoon.

E = mc**2 is not a conservation law for energy, it is an equivalency between mass and energy. It explains the tremendous energy put out by all stars - they convert mass to energy.

I believe the laws you would really want are the first and second laws of thermodynamics which are important because they describe what happens to energy that is used in a process. You mentioned "thought" as having equivalence to energy, but it is more complex than that. A thought is a result of a process, thinking. It is the thinking process that uses energy which is supplied by a chemical called ATP. When we "think", our neurons are burning ATP. The first law of thermodynamics tells us what happens to that energy - it is converted into heat. That is why our bodies are warm - from burning ATP. That heat is dissipated. It is essentially unusable at that point (this is what the second law of thermodynamics tells us). The heat from the thinking process is dissipated into the environment.

So what about the "thought" that resulted from thinking? Well, it is maintained as a neural state. There is no energy associated with it. The energy was all used and spent in the process of setting that state, i.e., thinking. That energy is long gone. When we die, any thoughts that were in our head are locked in the neurons which of course rot away with the rest of us.

Even if you could somehow capture all those neural states to reconstruct all the thoughts in someone's head, there is nothing around to process those. Remembering, understanding, pondering are all part of "thinking" which was a function that occurred in our neurons and dendrites in a live brain. But those are gone when we die. There is nothing to process any thoughts that might linger. But it is all moot since those thoughts don't transcend death anyway.

Sorry, there is no way physics can be invoked to explain a theory of life after death.

[Zot]

Originally Posted by VGravitas

This article really made me wonder: does life have meaning only if we give it meaning? Why or why not?

If you give love, you will eventually be loved. I find forgetting that which has offended me, and recalling that which I was pleased with in life makes living better. I've never understood people who held grudges. Our meaning is in our experience, ultimately barring disability or circumstances beyond our control, most of life is up to us.

[ConeyGirl52]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

And where exactly did this thought reside? "Thought" is a human concept, relevant to human brains. There is no brain around before life on earth existed.



E = mc**2 is not a conservation law for energy, it is an equivalency between mass and energy. It explains the tremendous energy put out by all stars - they convert mass to energy.

I believe the laws you would really want are the first and second laws of thermodynamics which are important because they describe what happens to energy that is used in a process. You mentioned "thought" as having equivalence to energy, but it is more complex than that. A thought is a result of a process, thinking. It is the thinking process that uses energy which is supplied by a chemical called ATP. When we "think", our neurons are burning ATP. The first law of thermodynamics tells us what happens to that energy - it is converted into heat. That is why our bodies are warm - from burning ATP. That heat is dissipated. It is essentially unusable at that point (this is what the second law of thermodynamics tells us). The heat from the thinking process is dissipated into the environment.

So what about the "thought" that resulted from thinking? Well, it is maintained as a neural state. There is no energy associated with it. The energy was all used and spent in the process of setting that state, i.e., thinking. That energy is long gone. When we die, any thoughts that were in our head are locked in the neurons which of course rot away with the rest of us.

Even if you could somehow capture all those neural states to reconstruct all the thoughts in someone's head, there is nothing around to process those. Remembering, understanding, pondering are all part of "thinking" which was a function that occurred in our neurons and dendrites in a live brain. But those are gone when we die. There is nothing to process any thoughts that might linger. But it is all moot since those thoughts don't transcend death anyway.

Sorry, there is no way physics can be invoked to explain a theory of life after death.

According to you it is boxed into a neural state, and what seems to be 2-dimensional thinking. The laws of a man? Who says anyone is limited to the rules that confine a Science Lab or chalkboard? Who died and made man God?

Even ancient tribal people understood Geometry and different planes of existence. They werent boxed in by self-imposed rules. They worked with nature, and thought logicly according to someone that understands his place in the great expanse beyond what they could merely see.

Time and space were comprised of 7 directions - the basic four directions most people know about - N, S, E and W. The Zenith (straight up), the Nadir (straight down) and The Here and Now (dead center). IF** we measure equal points on the basic ones - we have a flat square, and IF** we measure the same equal points on the Zenith & Nadir, adjoining them with arcs to the four basic directions, we will find ourselves with a flat 1 dimensional square inside a round 3 dimensional ball. Obviously the notion that you cant put a square peg inside a round hole is false. But what "law" says those things are limited at all? What man desided say 3 ", or even 3,000 miles, is as far as you can go in any direction? Couldnt you keep adding dimensions infinately? Sure you can. Why not? You might not get away with it when confined to set of rules you got from a textbook, but that doesnt mean it isnt possible either.

A thought is more than just a thought confined in neurons - its an action, and actions also create energy. You throw a stone - also an action that creates energy - in the middle of a body of water, and it creates a ripple effect that advances outward, and that ripple effect, which is also a continuing action, and creating energy, is only visually limited to the eyesight capability of the person watching it, and the expanse of that body of waters size, but we cant see the ripple downward very far, and we certainly would have a problem seeing the ripple upward, but does that mean there is no ripple downward and upward simply because we are incapable of seeing it?

Man is limited to the Here and Now, so chances are his 'laws' will be as well - until he learns to be the mouse who can jump beyond the height of the grass, which forms the confines of the only world he knows - he might never learn that there is so much more beyond that confining grass. Does that mean the thoughts and the energy created by those thoughts, are not still rippling beyond the confines of what we can see? Does that mean its impossible for the energy to go on, as the spirit/soul or alternate embodiment of the person that created them? Does it mean that because man is a vain, fearful, and pompous creature - that there is no God?

Hardly.

[ukrkoz]

Originally Posted by VGravitas

Earlier this year, I read an article about existential depression and gifted individuals. Here's an excerpt from the article:
This article really made me wonder: does life have meaning only if we give it meaning? Why or why not?

That article is standard propaganda conditioning people into all kinds of thought up diseases and belief that life is finite and pointless.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by VGravitas

Earlier this year, I read an article about existential depression and gifted individuals. Here's an excerpt from the article:

This article really made me wonder: does life have meaning only if we give it meaning? Why or why not?

Wallowing in existential angst is really an artful way of for a person to bemoan the realization that life is not all about you. Or about you at all. Or about anything at all. It is really just being depressed over not being the star of your own reality show.

Most of life is mundane, even for extraordinary people -- and certainly for most of us ordinary people. Meaning is therefore found in the mundane. It is striving for transcendence and not achieving it that drives people to distraction.

I have learned to find enjoyment in doing good work that I'm proud of, taking care of and protecting my loved ones as best I can and as best as they will let me, and the very simple accomplishments like doing chores or paying bills. I try to stay curious and learn new things. I'm much more patient than I used to be, much more willing to let people and circumstances be as they are. This is the stuff meaning is made of.

I have come around to the point of view that meaning is built up from a lot of little things rather than distilled from a few big things.

[TwoByFour]

Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52

According to you it is boxed into a neural state, and what seems to be 2-dimensional thinking. The laws of a man? Who says anyone is limited to the rules that confine a Science Lab or chalkboard?

I was merely responding to your assertion that Deepak Chopra has used physics to prove that life can exist independent of biological life. If you wish to now invoke undiscovered laws, that is another thing. You can assert anything you want, as can I, that would only be true in a made-up universe. We already have that, it is called religion. If you want to use science to prove that god exists, or that we have souls, or whatever, you are going to have to stay within the world in which science exists. You cannot have it both ways.

Who died and made man God?
.

I am not sure what you are saying.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by VGravitas

Earlier this year, I read an article about existential depression and gifted individuals. Here's an excerpt from the article:






This article really made me wonder: does life have meaning only if we give it meaning? Why or why not?

First, about most posts after the OP: I honestly don't see the relevance to this topic of neurons, the laws thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc.; the brain's neuron configuration, behavior, etc. can either believe there is a meaning to life or not.

Now to the OP, given that the meaning itself part is the ultimately relevant issue.

As for meaning, it depends on how you look at it. Moreover, when deciding what one's meaning (or lack thereof) is, it cannot avoid moral and ethical issues. Is it right to have a definition of "meaningful life" that can be achieved only at great grievous expense of others?

F. ex., Genghis Khan surely felt the meaning of his life was to bring glory to the Mongol tribes, more specifically by conquering vast stretches of Asia to do so - and in the process killing millions with great cruelty. Same essential thing with Julius Caesar killing off a huge fraction of the Gauls during the Gallic Wars. It doesn't matter how happy or meaningful these men felt their lives to be. If their idea of self-fulfillment comes about by causing such great harm to others, then I cannot see how their lives could be truly worthwhile.

Even in less extreme cases the same principle applies. People getting rich by being callously indifferent to the concerns of others (Bernie Madoff, and earlier Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay). This goes even for ordinary day-to-day types of people who pursue their own pleasure or tasks at others great expense. Surely nobody else would call their lives meaningful - for the simple reason that any fulfillment they may have had was more than offset by the harm or grief they caused to others.

For this reason, it seems the definition of a meaningful life has to include - at minimum - a life that does not cause great non-trivial harm or grief to others without a very compelling reason (e.g. soldiers, police, etc. harming or killing a wrongdoer when there is no other way to stop the acts of that wrongdoer). Still, in practice and for most people, is merely not causing non-trivial harm or grief to others sufficient to provide subjective self-assessed meaning to their life?

I think there are some people out there can say in all sincerity "The meaning of at least my own life is solely to entertain myself, namely by pursuing fun interests, whims, hobbies, etc. as long as I don't do any pointless, avoidable harm to others with merely self-centered motives"; though I suspect this kind of person is pretty rare (though still doesn't make his or her life any less meaningful). From what I understand, most famous actors, models, athletes etc. past the career peak - who do have glory days they can look back upon - still want to find meaning in their lives when their past primary source of meaning is no longer available to them. The most famous ones use their time, money, and energy to either advocate for various causes (PETA being the most famous one among entertainers) or pursue acts of enlightened self-interest like for-personal profit consulting, providing helpful information, being a mentor for younger people in their former profession, and so forth.

In the end, the meaning of life you do have to find out for yourself, but not all meanings are equally valuable. To me, the highest meaning in life would have to be to simultaneously help others in need and do so in ways that are non-harmful or non-grievous to others (barring extraordinary or narrowly specific circumstances). That's my take on the "meaningful life" matter anyway.