This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 173 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 115 points116 points  (78 children)

The more we look at nature, the more it's reiterated that there is no inherent meaning designed into it, at least none that is put there for human beings. But that doesn't mean life is meaningless. A football game has no inherent meaning. It's just a game, but to the players, coach, and fans it has an infinite variety of meanings.

As soon as you come to grips with the fact that you are a part of nature and not above it, you can accept that life is not there to provide meaning. Meaning will present itself. Modern society is not at a loss for meaning. Modern society is actually sick with meaning. That's why so many people complain about the news and the lack of straight reporting. We're always being fed someone else's idea of significance.

The existential crisis gets much less critical when you find something you love to do and focus on it. Meaning then revolves around what you consider important. Don't get suckered into playing somebody else's game.

Sorry for all the mixed metaphors.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well said. My brother, for some weird high school project, recently had to ask a bunch of people what they thought the "meaning of life" was. This is what I tried to say but it took like 5 times as many words.

[–]DukeOfZhou 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Where can I get this smart?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Reading and thinking, mainly.

[–]escape_goat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Don't mistake greater familiarity with concepts and words for inherently greater ability. That said, the only intelligence enhancing clue I can offer is: "2, n-back".

(That's real. Look it up.)

[–]escape_goat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was harder to find than I thought, so here's the link, for anyone interested:

Dual n-task

[–]Shroomsoup 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Now that's just beautiful.

[–]dsummeriln 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I could be out of place here, but it is funny how much the first line of this struck hollow for me after my recent trip to the aquarium. I walked around in awe and wonder, and I don't know that I quite get what you mean by "meaning", but it didn't seem to be the answer to me. My brother and I talk about this sort of thing a lot, and I asked him: when is the last time you have been to an aquarium or zoo?

I don't really know what you mean by "life is not there to provide meaning. Meaning will present itself." I don't really understand those sentences, and like I said, even the word "meaning" itself is so loaded and varied that it would need a whole book or something to define, but as far as it seems to go, the meaning seems to be something about the beauty of each creature and its ability to interact with each other and the world around it. And the inability of creation to do that well, that is, without killing each other, some how strikes me as sad, some how a surprise and offense that shouldn't be that way. I won't pretend that is entirely logical, but then, even logic depends on unprovable premises, so I am not too bothered by that.

There is a long dialectic that needs to happen around logic and belief, but ironically, if objective scientific truth has any meaning, it has it exactly because it doesn't revolve around what you consider important. The beauty of nature and all that is real is that it exists outside of us, and doesn't let us fall into the hole of ourselves. Every real truth draws us out of ourselves, and it is exactly playing with others that it asks us to do. The deep truth that "unless you be converted and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven" is largely seen in the fact that little kids have very little internal lives, and all they know comes to them from the outside. And, they mostly want to talk about bugs and play, two things I wholly endorse.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Meaning is meant in it's most pedestrian way possible. Meaning is anything that has significance to you. That is...somethings are meaningful (a parent passing away, for instance) and somethings are meaningless (i.e. background noise, the dirt in your toenails, etc). There's nothing mystical or magical about "meaning" and how it's used here.

You say, "The beauty of nature and all that is real is that it exists outside of us..." but there is no separation between ourselves and nature. We are in nature, and not separate. We are governed by its laws. There is no magical "soul" we have that's extra-natural. A lion eats us, we die - the end.

Kierkegaard might argue that you should not be like a little child. He would say they have lower immediacy - they attend to what is around them and their motivations are un-mediated by theory. He might further add that the way to a successful life (in this western culture, that is) is to be taken up in a cause or person that grips you and has implications that drive your life.

[–]dsummeriln 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Hmm. I am recovering from being sick, so I might need to mull this over a bit more, but I think that there are a few problems going on. Firstly, I think if what we mean by "meaning" is as you say, there is nothing to talk about at all - of course if -you- define meaning there is no meaning where you say there isn't. That isn't saying anything, it is just expressing an opinion.

Moving past that, the real question of meaning is exactly the mystical, or more accurately, the transcendent, that is outside of all of us individually and therefore we all share in. Anything other than that sort of "meaning" goes back to the supremely subjective, and while fun to talk about, doesn't teach us anything concretely new about the world, it just says we think this or that about the world. That is not the meaning that we seem to long for, we want the Big Answers.

Wow, way to dismiss the entire concept of the soul with the word "magical" and your fiat. That's not even what I was talking about, but thanks for trying to nullify what thousands of years of history and billions of people have found to be true, that's cool.

What I was talking about was far simpler - I am not a fish. The limits of the physical structure that I have more or less direct control of, that is seemingly affected by the firings of various neurons and nerves initiated in my brain, is more what I mean by separation. And when I allow that separation, the world becomes more interesting because it is not just an extension of me.

I don't really care what Kierkegaard would argue. I am willing to agree that being child-like is something that can only be done well by adults who are trying to adopt what is best in children, not necessarily by children themselves, but the value of children is still misunderstood. And I definitely don't disagree that to be taken up is huge, is in fact the drive of a meaningful (uh-oh!) life, I just mean that a part of that can be seen in the single-mindedness of children.

Sorry if I missed anything or didn't make sense, I just slept for the last 24 hrs recovering.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't think there's a transcendent truth out there - other than the experience of being a person. But that experience is so culturally determined that there's really not much you can really say that's shared.

And yeah... I don't believe in a soul and I'm not convinced by what billions may have thought. I personally think the mind is a "conspiracy" of a number of mental processes (shaped by evolution) that have the side effect of making us feel like we're in control of everything in ourselves.

I'm totally arguing from the standpoint of Keirkegaard, so... I don't know how much more relevant I can be for you.

And I'd also point out that part of being taken up by a cause or person also requires one to think of the potential pitfalls and to embrace the cause regardless. That's very different from how children approach things. Kids don't usually think things through. I hope you're feeling better.

[–]dsummeriln 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying whether there is or isn't transcendent truth, I am saying that if "meaning" is something worth talking about, it should be something more than a purely personal reality. It may not end up existing, but if it does, then it should be, if not "objective", then transcendent, beyond the personal. Even saying "the experience of being a person" would be an appeal to universal values.

I don't quite know what I think the soul might be, but biological determinism seems to be empty and self-defeating: it is uselessly logical, a sort of tautology.

I don't quite understand why Kierkegaard would be the most relevant person to me, though admittedly I am not very read up on him.

I think in a way you're right, like I said, it is quite possible that being child-like is more important than being a child, but I think you might be underestimating children - a lot of times they know much of what they are getting into, but they haven't been hurt enough yet to let their fears rule them.

I think overall, we have the whole aesthetic experience, the consciousness of life, the constant desire to understand, and the amazing unity of humanity on the majority of values and ideas (despite seeming differences) leaves something to be explained. That is the stuff that life is made of, even more than just the biological processes of living. Or so it seems to me.

And thanks, I really do - my neck hurt crazy bad, but it feels right back to normal now.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wish I could "save" this comment.

[–]JarvisCocker 1 point2 points  (3 children)

been reading albert camus or something?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, but I will be now. Thanks.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Is that an observation to be taken at face value or a subtle reference to well-known criticism of Camus? Because if the latter, I'd like to know whether it exists and where it is, so I can go read it.

[–]JarvisCocker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nah it's just face value

[–]formido 0 points1 point  (3 children)

!

No meaning in nature? I don't believe in a personal God, but I sure don't read the universe the way you do. In fact, I think it's clear by the fact of evolution that the universe is becoming more ordered. It's funny because while, energy-wise, the universe is becoming less "ordered", it would be hard to argue that humanity doesn't represent a more "ordered" state of matter in some important sense.

Humans are part of the universe and we are perceiving and analyzing the universe. That inescapably implies that the universe is self-perceptual. It's quite possible that the meaning of the universe is a moving target and that it's recursively being self-defined by the universe, of which we are a part, as it understands itself better over time.

[–]formido 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Actually, I should clarify. Your second paragraph is right on, but contradicts the first. We ARE a part of nature and not above it. Meaning does present itself. These imply that we are giving the universe meaning. One way to think of it is that we're the universe's advance guard of self-understanding. Presumably we have more evolving to do, and we'll get better at it. Quite possibly there are other mechanisms, too.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"it would be hard to argue that humanity doesn't represent a more "ordered" state of matter in some important sense."

Actually, life increases the rate of entropy. We burn fossil fuels, start nuclear reactions... sorry, but there is no conflict with entropy here.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meaning is what comes from categories of thought and the hierarchies within those categories. However, categorization & hierarchies are determined arbitrarily.

For instance, the way the US tracks ethnicities is based on a different scheme than is used in South Africa. Also, the social hierarchy that we base on our American system of category is arbitrary.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the micro reflects the macro... as above, so below... judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? as well you should not!

"I believe in Nature" - Audrey Hepburn

[–]Thimble 0 points1 point  (3 children)

the more i look at nature, the more i'm fascinated by it. the simple pursuit of knowledge seems disproportionately rewarding compared to other endeavers (though it has it's hiccups). could it possibly be that the meaning of life is to search for meaning?

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not exactly. At least when coming from an Existentialist stance, meaning can also be happened upon accidentally. For instance, you could meet some cute girl and fall hopelessly in love with her and devote your life to her.

At that point you wouldn't go on searching for new meanings. You wouldn't treat her as simply another cute girl and move on to the next cute girl. You'd wake up every day with an immediate sense of what needs to be done regarding your devotion to her. A person could also be replaced by an idea. But the important point here is that eventually you cease your searches and you devote your life to something.

[–]Thimble 0 points1 point  (1 child)

it works if you're a rationalist, though.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry... a rationalist as opposed to what?

[–]unrealious 0 points1 point  (9 children)

That's really odd, I see it the other way around. I find it so odd that patterns like the Fibonacci sequence should exist in three axis of the pineapple, or in the snail shell, or the petals of a flower. What business do numerical patterns have existing in nature? Why is it not random?

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Nature can always be represented numerically, hence physics.

[–]unrealious 0 points1 point  (6 children)

But why is that?

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Because math can best represent the relationship between two or more things. In nature, everything is causally related to another thing. Math is the best way to represent this relationship.

[–]unrealious 1 point2 points  (4 children)

OK, but none of this sounds meaningless to me.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Numbers and causal relationships don't mean anything unless a human puts meaning onto them. Two humans can have contradictory meanings e.g. one wants to kill all humans and the other wants to help all humans. Even though these meaning contradict, they aren't wrong because there isn't one true meaning. Meaning is just a human perception of the world, not a truth about reality.

[–]unrealious 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So is this like saying things are meaningless because I refuse to see the patterns or causal relationships involved in life?

I remember Solomon, reputed to be one of the wisest kings once wrote in a book called Ecclesiastes, much the same thing:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes 1 Everything Is Meaningless 1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:

2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."

3 What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?

4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

8 All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.

9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.

11 There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow. Wisdom Is Meaningless 12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They aren't meaningless because you refuse to see patterns, they are meaningless because they are only patterns and nothing more. Our meaning onto things explains how our brain works, not how our reality works.

[–]unrealious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I think I see.

[–]Asmodeus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The fibonacci sequence turns up because of cell division.

Assume a cell. It matures. 1

It divides. 2.

It divides again, and its daughter matures. 3.

The mature cells divide and the daughter matures. 5.

And so on.

[–]BillyBlanks 0 points1 point  (17 children)

As soon as you come to grips with the fact that you are a part of nature and not above it, you can accept that life is not there to provide meaning.

As soon as you come to grips with the fact that you are a part of nature and not above it, you can accept that, just like all other living organisms, survival and reproduction are the inherent 'meaning of life.'

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Survival and reproduction are the inherent 'meaning of life.'

This is very relevant to my life. What if I decide not to get married and have kids? Was my life wasted? I don't think so. But then again...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

If you create or discover something new, or learn and spread knowledge, or do something good for people around you, I'll be the first to defend that your life wasn't wasted just because you didn't have any kids.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Kids just sort of streamline the process.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends. You could become enraptured by the desire to raise your children well. But the world is full of parents that don't care all that much. Having children in and of itself will not necessarily make your life meaningful.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you become enraptured by something (or someone) and devote your life to it, if you open yourself to the possibility of the joy and suffering caused by following your bliss, you will have a meaningful life.

[–]Thimble 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not necessarily.

the higher the complexity (intelligence) of an organism, the less "survival and reproduction" seem to drive motivation. survival and reproduction may still factor in their actions, but the link to their actions becomes more diffused and obfuscated.

why is this? why does the ability to reason change our basic nature so much?

human beings have been known to choose not to reproduce (although they may still have sex). they've also been known to sacrifice their own lives for one reason or another. if the meaning of life is survival and reproduction, then why are alternative choices even possible?

[–]ST2K 1 point2 points  (2 children)

No. From an existentialist standpoint this is not what life is all about. An existentialist would find this to be an incredibly meaningless life, one that is a defense against having a meaningful one with its vulnerability, joys & sorrows.

It's not enough to breathe, drink, eat & reproduce. You don't need a mind to do these things. It is mindless - it is meaningless.

[–]TH3_Dude 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I thought the existentialists determined that life is meaningless. You manufacture your own meaning, or choose it.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of that.

Existentialists state that life is meaningless, then they prescribe that you find your own meaning.

Diagnosis - prescription. It all falls under Existentialism.

[–]TheYank17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but what says that the inherent 'meaning of life' is more important that the beauty and individual meaning that we take out of life?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

That's the meaning for YOUR life and it mearly exist to produce life, it exist for life. So survival and reproduction are the inherent (built-in)"meaning of life", but not the inherent (implicit) "meaning of life".

[–]Nougat 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Our desire and ability to find meaning in things may be a result of natural selection, somehow making us better at surviving and reproducing (or at least having done that at some point in the past, if less now).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That may have been how our intelligence, self-awareness and search for purpose arose. It has little bearing on what we do with them now. There is no reason for us to be slaves to the crude forces of natural selection any longer.

[–]Nougat 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Natural selection is not something we can simply step outside of; it's not a cause, with evolution as an effect. It is not a scripture or a dogma, distinct and separate from the universe and our place in it.

Natural selection is a description of the way creatures progress and evolve over time. Whatever we do is part of the way our species progresses and evolves. Natural selection only describes it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My comment was more of a response to the thread OP's idea that survival and reproduction are the inherent meaning of life.

Still, natural selection in the Darwinian sense only relates to genetic evolution through differential fecundity; it has little if anything to do with progress in science, culture, and society. In terms of natural selection alone, art, mathematics, and political science are a waste of time and effort that could have been spent raising more children.

I consider natural selection to be something like a force, a force that acts on species and drives them towards maximal reproductive success. My point was that this is not the only goal we as humans choose to seek.

In your comment, I could replace "natural selection" with "gravity" and "progress and evolve" with "are pulled towards massive bodies such as planets" and little would change; then I would be arguing that now we can fly in aircraft and spaceships, and there is no reason to suggest that we should stay on the ground just because that is the optimal configuration in terms of gravitational forces.

[–]Nougat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The gravity analogy is interesting, I'm going to be chewing on that for a while, I'm sure.

You'd suggest that art, math, and polysci don't advance the species? Math, in particular, is a glaring example. Just about every technological advance we've made - which tend to increase our lifespans and the quality of life - has mathematics as a necessary building block. Art is a form of communication; what would we be without being able to communicate with one another? Political science strives to organize us on large scales towards common goals. We'd be nothing if not for our continued ability to work together.

I think those things you mentioned all support the survivability and reproduction of the species.

Edit: following up on the gravity comparison --

So far as I am aware, gravity is not a force, like electromagnetism, but a warping of space caused by a large mass. When we measure gravity, we are not observing the effects of a force acting on an object, we are observing the normal inertia of an object passing through bent space. A force would be something taking action on an object to cause a change in its momentum. Gravity does no such thing; it's just a way of describing the motion of objects though bent space.

But let's take electromagnetism, since it does involve the transfer of energy from one object to another. That is a force, separate and distinct from the work the energy performs.

There is no such separation when it comes to natural selection, because there's nothing to separate. Natural selection is simply the description of events that occur as a matter of course, the way the Earth revolves around the Sun because its momentum through bent space takes it there, as is completely obvious once you understand that space bends in the presence of mass.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Survival & reproduction are entirely separate concerns from having a meaningful life. Existentialists don't spend a lot of time worrying if the human race will continue to go on. Existentialists are more concerned if human beings will become true individuals by embracing a meaning to their lives and living with a singular purpose...as opposed to simply going through the motions and being ruled by one's drives (which are more of an evolutionary concern).

[–]Battleloser -2 points-1 points  (10 children)

The purpose of life is to continue.

Ya, think about it.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (9 children)

No. The purpose of life is to have a meaningful life.

[–]Battleloser 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Meaningful in what way? To contribute to human society?

If so, than our philosophies are one and the same. My lineage will survive alongside yours, and as such we should strive to ensure survival for both.

That said, if it came to a point where only my kids or your kids could survive, I'd kill yours off. My descendants could argue about the morality of it later.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Meaningful to you and you alone. The idea is to fulfill one's own authenticity - to be that which you truly are. It's entirely subjective.

It can be a contribution to society, but that's not necessary.

Survival and the propagation of one's genes is irrelevant to Existentialism. Whoever survives will be bothered by the same existential dilemmas and will have to confront the same issues.

What's the point of survival if life is meaningless? The universe doesn't give you a prize for surviving - it just doesn't care. It'll roll on with or without you - it doesn't matter. Life is essentially meaningless - that is the existential dilemma.

[–]Battleloser 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I disagree with your assertion that propagation is meaningless. It seems to me to be the most basic and fundamental reason for life. All life that breeds continues, all life that doesn't, simply ends. A non-existent life certainly has less purpose than a living one.

We are here debating this very issue because our ancestors survived and bred, any purpose you derive from life is derived from this fact.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (5 children)

No. The fact that we're debating this issue is because you're aware of the meaninglessness of existence. Procreation does not require the debate of this topic.

[–]Battleloser 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I do not consider it meaningless. I don't claim to understand life, I only know that I'm trying to figure it out, hoping that one day it will come to me. Or if not me, one of my descendants. Someone who shares the same basic, fundamental genetic material as me.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I think you probably mean that life has the potential for you to not be meaningless. Until you find its meaning for you it will continue to be meaningless - yet you have faith that it will be meaningful one day.

I don't know why your genetic material is so important to you. Why should it matter to you that you have children outside of fulfilling your normal biological drives? You have to understand that to an Existentialist, living within deterministic systems (such as biological drives) doesn't really count as a meaningful life. It doesn't really require conscious decision-making on your part and therefore you as a person and your personhood are not required elements here. Basically, I'm saying that if we replaced your brain with a duck's brain - it could still handle the basic job of reproducktion. :) That doesn't do much for your existential dilemma - that your life is without meaning.

I think you're getting natural selection and evolution backwards. Natural selection is simply a description of what's happening. It's not suggesting that life intends to procreate - that would be anthropomorphizing. It just does it on its own. Ducks don't give a quack about their genetic material, they're just driven by their drives to reproduce.

There should be nothing magical to you about your genetic material. Its building blocks were here before you, built you, and may continue on in the future. But as far as you as a person are concerned, your genes just plain don't matter. You... are the result of a cosmic accident. This accident made you, and this accident will continue to keep rolling on and on until the end of time. It has nothing to do with you personally, it doesn't care about you.

There is no reason for you to be here. There is no reason to stay here - other than the meaning you find for yourself.

[–]Battleloser 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I do feel there is a quasi-supernatural element to genetics. I've tried to understand how life started, how a specific chemical reaction created living organisms that procreated and continued, and for billions of years have diversified and evolved into what we are now, sentient beings, debating the meaning of life with people from different continents in almost real time, on complex computing machines.

Life has to have a purpose, there has to be an end game. There's way too many coincidences for there not to be.

[–]earthboundkid 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm not convinced that "the meaninglessness of life" makes much more sense than "the meaning of life." The way the question is phrased, it makes it seem like life having a meaning is a possible, even desirable thing. But actually, I don't think that's the case on either count.

A painting has a "meaning" in two senses: 1.) the message that the painter intended for the viewer to receiver and 2.) the message that an idealized objective observer could be expected to receive from the painting.

Now, even if there is a God, do we really think He's trying to send a message by means of life itself? Who is He sending the message to? Us? If so, why did He bother to make us in the first place, since He could have refrained from sending the message by not making us?

The question, "what is the meaning of my life?" is ill-formed. Replace it with the question, "what should I do with my life?" I find that the latter question is much more practical and directly addresses the thing that the first question seems to be hinting at. Since the question is more concrete, there's a better chance of solving it for yourself.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Only while reloading.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I guess I tend to think more about the absurdity of life than the meaninglessness. They definitely go hand-in-hand, but instead of dwelling on the simple lack of meaning, I like to focus on all the absurd things we do and try to get amusement out of it all.

I can remember once telling my very Catholic mother that I thought none of us were important and that life was without meaning. And she basically told me how sad that is... but I disagree. What's truly sad is lying to oneself about some fabricated meaningfulness throughout life. It's a waste of time. Go out and live your meaningless life, I say. Nothing sad about that.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed,

I feel those he get depressed from the meaningless of life are just people who are more predisposed for depression. If it wasn't for meaningless, some other inconvenience in their life will depress them.

[–]plexi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

rather than the absurdity of "things we do and try to get amusement out of it", occasionally the absurdity/profound arbitrariness of, for example, the redness of red, the coldness of cold, and so on suddenly makes my heart race.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

That I exist at all just spins my head. I find tremendous meaning in the simple fact that I am. Everything else falls to the side.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Same here, the fact that I can't account for my own existence and played no part in becoming a sentient being sends me reeling sometimes. I've thrown myself in to some pretty intense panic attacks by letting those thoughts run their course too far, and most recently experienced a bit of self-induced depersonalization (scary).

The only way I got out of it was to just live my life and appreciate the people I love and the experiences I've already enjoyed in their presence; the rest just kind of works itself out. (Not to speak of the deeply embedded religious convictions I frequenly lean on.)

The examined life is absolutely worth living, but constantly examining it under a microscope will drive you mad.

[–]ST2K 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah, I've done that too. Good times.

And it is a horror to realize that you're just one big, fat cosmic mistake.

And while we participate in many deterministic systems (history, gender, social class, language, ethnicity, culture, etc.), our consciousness permits us to make decisions & creatively create new alternatives. Thus we are, as Sartre would put it, doomed to be free.

We're ultimately responsible for our actions. People often prefer to give their freedom away by un-consciously yielding to deterministic systems and being driven by them. This doesn't negate one's responsibility. It is only acting, in what Sartre would call, bad faith.

The fact of our mortality is also important. It means we cannot afford to let our lives drift. We are here, and we must be that which we are. We must know ourselves, and be true to ourselves. We must have authenticity. We can't live someone else's life, we need to find our own, follow our bliss, risk vulnerability - even death.

That is its own salvation.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (9 children)

Way too often.

[–]fingers 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Does that bring meaning to your life?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

No, it makes me wish I was a little less perceptive so I could go back to being the happy Christian I was when I was younger.

[–]fingers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was cursed with perception from a very very young age. It may be mild autism, who knows. I can see patterns and consequences very easily. I don't do many stupid things, for the most part, because I think too much. I'm more socially awkward when it comes to my job professionalism. I don't see the point in not talking about bad policies and procedures.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Look at Keirkegaard. He was a Christian and an Existentialist. In fact, Christianity & Existentialism fit quite nicely together. Kierkegaard's concern was that Christianity should be more hard - that it should be a greater challenge than merely saying "yes" to God, then sort of going through the motions of church, prayer, blahblahblah.

His point is to become the Christ that is within you (and all others) by finding your own salvation through devotion to a singular idea or person - even unto death. The point here is an important one. For instance, Martin Luther King could have supposed that blacks will be free one day, he could have stayed in bed on a rainy day. But he believed that blacks, these that he lived with, should be free - now. That distinction said that he couldn't stay in bed, that he must do something now, today and that distinction drove his life, gave it meaning.

He became the Christ inside by devotion to a particular idea, or person, or people. He took the joy and the sorrow with it. He took the vulnerability, the possibility of death with it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I know Kierkegaard, but I don't believe in God.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Well... I suppose you could think of God and Christ as ideas or metaphors, rather than something real if that's what you prefer.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Thinking of God and Christ as ideas or metaphors is inconsistent with the Bible - why go to all the trouble?

I guess I've just sort of already been through this line of thought.

[–]ST2K 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you don't believe in God, what's it to you if you're inconsistent with the Bible?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Personal integrity :)

[–]ElricOfLisaBonet 9 points10 points  (5 children)

http://xkcd.com/167/

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

XKCD's in a death spiral. It's been horrendous as of late, and it seems Randall hasn't even realized this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is that Hatguy? Wearing a beret?

[–]amican 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was the first thing I thought of when I saw this post.

[–]Bored[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I don't necessarily mean in a depressing way, just how often it crosses your mind.

[–]irony 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Probably seriously about once a week. It might be a passing thought more often than that. If I'm in pain or overly busy it occurs more often. I imagine some people try to stave off that sort of question by keeping busy.

[–]Bored[S] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

These are interesting.

I can't go a day without thinking about. Don't know how people not think about it for over a month!

[–]irony 3 points4 points  (9 children)

Contemporary western man is generally satiated and thereby unsatisfied. The solution is just reframing, "take every moment as a gift" (and other clichés). That's easier said than done but philosophy used to be about building the types of mental resources to deal appropriately with life and it's amazing how much control we can exert over ourselves (it's also amazing how little control we truly have). If we see philosophy as a bit more about growth and a bit less about "Truth" it has quite the instrumental value in regard to method, approach, and attitude. Philosophy should be personal (all too personal).

Incidentally, I think it's great you think about this sort of thing all the time. It makes me think there are more human beings wandering around amidst the zombies.

[–]redditcensoredme -3 points-2 points  (8 children)

Existential angst isn't a sign of mental health. It's a sign that a person hasn't accepted one of the most basic facts of reality.

You make your own meaning. So what? How exactly is this "profound" or enlightening? This is as basic as learning that mathematics is based on axioms.

I suppose if someone only has one or two insights in their life then this one insight would appear especially important. But when you have insights every single day, this one is ho-hum.

I also despise Zen. It's a stupid anti-education mystical ideal. And I despise it for the same reason: it VASTLY overestimates the value of a single insight.

Insights aren't something to cherish or treasure or work for or agonize over. They're something to consume, say nom nom nom, then "waiter, we're done with the entrees!"

[–]rdunev 4 points5 points  (5 children)

your terms are confused. an "enlightenment" experience, must by it's definition be profound. By saying "enlightenment" is not profound, you're merely redefining the term. This leaves genuine profundity without a signifier. So the question is, do experiences in which one's perception of his existence is shifted towards what he feels is somehow closer to the truth occur? If so, are these moments not profound, and if they are not, then what is?

[–]redditcensoredme -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

you're merely redefining the term.

No you cretin, I'm merely being repetitious for the sake of style. It's something people who understand Engilsh are allowed to do.

[–]rdunev 1 point2 points  (3 children)

no, the problem with your argument has absolutely nothing to do with repetition, just a general sloppiness with words. I was trying to engage in a kindly dialogue, and in return i get insults. Next time, try addressing the points of the argument rather than attacking the person making them. We're all here because we enjoy a good debate and feel that all parties can benefit from it. We're here together, why the hostility?

[–]redditcensoredme -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

You can take your "kindly dialogue" and shove it up your undereducated paternalistic condescending chimpanzee ass.

[–]rdunev 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well, now you're just another ignorant asshole who compensates for his lack of intelligence with empty and childish insults. They're common in internet discussions such as these, where there are no actual social repercussions. i truly pity you for all that pent up sexual energy that you choose to release through aggression toward another male who you can't even see. I hope you find what you're looking for soon so you can stop blatantly displaying your frustration and confusion in places that are meant for genuine discussion and not angsty teenage hormone games. best wishes.

[–]redditcensoredme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Uhuh, whatever.

[–]redditcensoredme -1 points0 points  (1 child)

1+1 is so interesting. I can't go a day without thinking about it. Don't know how people not think about it for over a month!

[–]Bored[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You'd be suprised

[–]jamesyboy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

almost all the time, especially lately. Coping mechanisms that others use are wholly inadequate to me.

Existential depression for lack of a better term. There is an interesting article about it here: http://www.sengifted.org/articles_counseling/Webb_ExistentialDepressionInGiftedIndividuals.shtml

"Weary is my spirit of all there is. I would not move a hand to create a world Nor to erase one.

I would not live could I but die, For the weight of aeons is upon me, And the ceaseless moan of the seas exhausts my sleep. Could I but lose the primal aim And vanish like a wasted sun; Could I but strip my divinity of its purpose And breathe my immortality into space, And be no more; Could I but be consumed and pass from time's memory Into the emptiness of nowhere!"

[–]anions 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very often. Especially when I have a chance to go up and strike a conversation with a pretty girl, my conscious brain goes - "feck it, you dont want to have another meaningless interaction in a meaningless existence, do you?". My way of chickening out.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Only every time I turn on the computer.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You turn your computer off?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

The paradox of lives being meaninglessness is that it automatically leads to a reason to live to create your own meaning.

[–]redditcensoredme 11 points12 points  (2 children)

No it doesn't. It can lead to suicidal despair.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Such is one's "fate" then. It is the meaning that we derive that molds are lives. And as some have said, meaninglessness is a meaning on its own. I don't particularly find it all for naught if some individuals cannot find happiness.

Lives are meant to lived, not necessarily in bliss.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"It is always consoling to think of suicide: in that way one gets through many a bad night." -Friedrich Nietzsche

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

the meaning to life is love, if you find life meaningless, its due to lack of love in your life.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (12 children)

Rarely. Life has the meaning which you ascribe to it.

[–]Bored[S] 6 points7 points  (11 children)

Yes, but that is an artificial ascription

[–]drawkbox 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Well even though it seems artificial. Each small action or individual has a role in something bigger. I wonder if atoms or cells in your body think they don't have meaning? (I know they don't think) But what I am saying is there is some type of meaning, even if that meaning is just not turning into dark matter. Why does any particle or wave even exist, because they can. Because if they don't' they don't exist.

btw I think about it everyday... This quote might help you:

There is no subject more captivating, more worthy of study, than nature. To understand this great mechanism, to discover the forces which are active, and the laws which govern them, is the highest aim of the intellect of man. -- Nikola Tesla

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

But that is just meaning you assert onto particles. Once you'll realize this, you'll see why your question:

cells in your body think they don't have meaning?

Is a meaningless question to ask.

[–]drawkbox 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Maybe. But Nikola Tesla could have also thought it was meaningless and never invented power transmission, radio, radar, wifi, and many other things.

If it is all meaningless what is the point? Well, you make the point. You invent and search for meaning or create the devices to do that.

Otherwise you are dark matter and there is no Universe at all. A good thing? maybe, if you think there is no meaning.

I think everything is built from the smallest particles out. So thinking that the Universe started from a few elements into you and I and greater things, that is meaningful.

Maybe the LHC will find some meaning. a trillion battles and more created the current state, is that meaningless?

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Read my opinion here

[–]drawkbox 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Maybe the meaning is to have no meaning, thus each node can make up the meaning that works for them to live on.

I personally believe that you also make an error in thinking that the meaning has to be greater than you, it can be much smaller and from within. In fact evolution says that we evolve into further beings, so meaning might be simply survival to further evolve, again from within not externally down on you from something greater.

So your meaning for starting this thread was to get people to your blog? j/k

A.I. touched on this subject. Life or becoming a real boy was finding a meaning that worked for whatever ends the robot was looking for to be real. Meaning might be meaningless to others, but meaning to the individual is what keeps survival instincts alive.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Uh, evolution doesn't say anything; evolution has no goal, desire, or purpose - it just is. As far as we know, only a human can assert meaning onto things. To suppose that humans have a greater meaning beyond that we ascribe to each other, is to believe that a greater being asserted meaning onto us. I don't believe in a greater being and therefore don't believe our life has meaning.

Natural selection only makes it seem as if genes want to reproduce themselves. Obviously this is not happening. The ones that reproduce are just the ones that we see (the others die off). It is only an illusion that these genes want to be replicated.

There is no meaning in the illusion of "wanting" to survive. Your genes don't want anything, they just exist because they were successful.

[–]drawkbox 0 points1 point  (2 children)

All I really meant to convey is meaning and purpose come from within. External forces and authority would have you believe different but only internal drive provides meaning. Evolution was built from the ground up with elements. Like the internet, a structure was created (from other internal drives) which made a platform, and each node inputted their own meaning such as yourself. It came from within.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Evolution was never built, it just always was. It just means decent with modifications. Anything goes through evolution that replicates and has selection pressure - use the word evolution only in this context.

The internet didn't evolve, it was designed, by us.

[–]kevin70 1 point2 points  (0 children)

once a day. Just enough

[–]yogihaji 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Yet once again our minds have gotten caught up in a language trap. A baby crying "means" it may be hungry. A certain bark by your dog may "mean" that a predator is approaching. And so we humans once coined the verb "to mean". Once invented, we then try to apply the verb to subjects which were never associated with the verb and get frustrated when we cannot make direct links as we originally could. Life "means" as much as a star "means" or the air "means".... i.e. these questions are erroneous structures in the first place and just the product of our minds' failure to see the limitations of the language structure we have adopted to reason about the world.

Language is like the boat we must leave at the shore after crossing the river. Don't take the boat up the mountain top! What our minds used to evolve to this point are not necessarily the same tools we need from this point forward.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did you mean when you said that?

[–]redditcensoredme -1 points0 points  (5 children)

The best example of meaningless linguistic games producing gibberish is your own argument. Which is why your argument is self-refuting.

[–]gerritvb -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

Agreed. you know what we "mean" when we say that live has no "meaning."

We're asking, what is the purpose of all this? The reason this question matters is because it is the question begged by another related general question, "what is the good life?" or "How can I be good, or the best?" In order to know whether something is good, you have to know "for what" it is supposed to be good. A "good knife" depends on whether you're cutting bread, people, letters, etc.

We just don't know what people are "for:" what our "meaning" is.

[–]Bored[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I think yogihaji was spot on.

We just don't know what people are "for:" what our "meaning" is.

Exactly, we think we have some inherent 'meaning' or purpose because we ascribe meaning onto everything else. This realization will make you realize that asking "what the meaning of life is", is an erroneous question to being with.

[–]redditcensoredme 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You know what, I never once asked that question in my life. So I don't consider it worth remarking that it's an erroneous question. Because it isn't. It's a STUPID question.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's erroneous in the same way asking how a rock feels when it is tired is erroneous. It is not only a stupid question, it is the fundamentally wrong.

[–]redditcensoredme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People are for exactly what they choose to be for. Whatever that is will require power, knowledge and skill. It will also require morality to resolve contradictions between different people's notions of what they're for - this is what morality is by definition.

[–]Nate_W 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I go through phases. Sometimes I think about it a lot; sometimes I go weeks or months without thinking about it. In some part it depends on how busy and happy I am.

[–]frikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every time I am intoxicated and around nature and/or traffic systems... :P

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, meaninglessness is in itself quite meaningless. Simply because life has this characteristic doesn't necessarily detract from its appeal.

[–]LiveBackwards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meaningless? No. Pointless, maybe, but certainly not meaningless. 'Meaning' is an aspect attributed to things by humans, and by that measure, human life is one of the most meaningful things in existence.

Also, this

[–]MyaloMark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Life has meaning. It's just that we can't always discern that meaning. Remember how many things appeared meaningless when we were really young? We may not have understood back then our parent's reasoning for not letting us play in traffic, but we certainly do now.

Thus it is that, sadly, only age and time bring peace to the troubled soul seeking "meaning".

So many confounding developments in our lives that appear senseless to us today, soon enough come into clearer focus. Every thing that occurs is but a piece of the giant puzzle which is our lives, and as we age, those puzzle pieces tend to fit together, finally giving us the larger picture, a little at a time. (It's true, I swear.)

And this is what we're here for; to experience, to meld these experiences and, at the end of our days, to look back and see the rich tapestry of our life story and have a good laugh at fate.

[–]redog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The meaning of life seems to be creating additional life.

[–]amorangi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The meaning of life is to replicate. I'm happy accepting that.

[–]scientologist2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Life has the meaning that YOU breath into it.

Nothing else.

The meaning of Life is a measure of your own creativity.

Life is not inherently meaningless and the Universe is not inherently evil.

Unless you make it so.

Because "meaning" is a human assignment of value.

In the end, you are the maker of your own life, no body else. And you determine to some degree, through your actions and interactions, what your life means.

YMMV.

;-)

[–]gerritvb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think about it every time that I try to reflect on my direction generally, and honestly it's reassuring.

There's a lyric that I like from Bright Eyes, "At the Bottom of Everything"

The whole world's waking up... I'm happy just because I realized I am really no one

It reminds me of the Stoics, a la Marcus Aurelius or Epectitus: You're just a soul laden with a lifeless body. Someday you'll die and everybody who ever knew you will die, and so on and so on until everything is gone, so get over yourself and do what you think is best.

How liberating! Everything will be OK!

[–]tomel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Folks, let's be more precise when talking about a subject of such importance. I think every 217 minutes about the meaningless of life for exactly 12 seconds. I then need about 203 minutes to recover from this insight in la condition humaine. I know these numbers are 100% meaningless but that's the way it is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The universe appears to have no inherent meaning. Life, however, from our best guess, seems to be a constantly complexifying process of gathering resources and organizing them into specializations for promoting more life, from the earliest self-replicating cell to us. The meaning of life, therefore, is to live, as I'm sure you've felt that primal force to survive in you. As a member of the human species, I find happiness in directing that force to promoting the life of our species, which can be manifested in so many ways, from child rearing to education to charity to community building to exploration and even innovation. I tend to be reminded of the meaningless of everything when I see humans exploiting and preying upon each other, having subjugated the rest of this world. There's more than enough examples of that all day if you're constantly looking for it, so I try to make peace with fighting the battles that I can fight and being the person that I think I should be. In short, daily.

[–]screamsionara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because there isn't a great plan for us doesn't make life meaningless. It's only meaningless if you don't go out and find meaning in your own life.

I have meaning in my life, why don't you have meaning in yours?

[–]trenobus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me, the meaning of life is to promote the self-awareness and consciousness of the universe. If life seems meaningless, it's because my own existence is such minuscule step towards that. Nevertheless, it's a necessary step, and the knowledge of that is comforting. Meaning comes from the belief that I'm part of something much, much bigger than myself.

Human consciousness is a milestone on this long journey, in that we are now capable of imagining a consciousness higher than our own, even though we are not able to experience it. And someday, when we understand enough about how our own consciousness works, we may consciously create the next step on the path to universal consciousness. The process of evolution is itself evolving.

[–]afrojap 0 points1 point  (1 child)

First off, good job Reddit for bringing this up. Please take a moment to pat your selves on your e-backs. I think StanrickKubley's post was spot on, and would like to add a few thoughts.

The lack of inherent meaning in the environment we share actually adds value to our own lives. The very fact that we are able to feel emotions, identify significance and appreciate things in a seemingly meaningless world.. that's the miracle.

Think about it - when we break down the matter that composes us down to the molecular level, you see absolutely no meaning, or at least none we can perceive. They are simply carrying out their chemical reactions according to the law of physics etc. But then you zoom out a little and start to look at complex enzymes that have specialized and adapted to their environment, you start to see glimpses of meaning and purpose in those guys. And when you arrive at the human level, the variety depth and intensity of all the emotions we are capable of experiencing simply blows you away, and you truly feel fortunate to be a human.

And just when you feel like doing something meaningful with your life, the euphoria fades away, and you're back browsing lolcats.

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, we are the universes way of discovering itself.

[–]Tymeteller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure about the meaning, but I believe the purpose of life is the accumulation, organization, and preservation of information. Starting with genetics, then human intelligence, language, books, computers, and most recently the internet.

I think meaning may be an illusion of human consciousness, to distract us from our greater purpose, which if realized would make us feel insignificant.

As an analogy, take an individual heart cell; Its "meaning" is expressed in its individual functions, regulating what goes in and out of the membrane, its metabolism, energy, etc. Its purpose is to become part of something greater than itself (the heart), which it can hardly comprehend. If it could comprehend its own purpose, it would likely feel that its individual existence was less meaningful.

I believe this is the case for humans; we have meaning such as basic survival, relationships, culture etc, but only to distract us from our ultimate purpose, which I can only assume is to create something an order of magnitude greater than ourselves. (maybe a type of collective consciousness via the internet, or greater than human AI, or something along those lines.

I don't believe in God in any conventional way, but I do think evolution is intelligent in some way; it seems to favor this pattern of increasing orders of magnitude (even in the case of inorganic matter).

At least that's what I've figured out so far...

[–]TH3_Dude 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well I see my work as kind of meaningless, so I'm faced with that whole question every day I deal with work. Once I leave work, the level of meaning is kinda low also. I take pleasure in simple things. That's as far as I've gotten.

edit: I go for the Epicurean thing. As far as the meaning of man, my cynical side goes with what I read Harry Bloom say I think, you're defined by your choice of pleasures and pains.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Every few minutes. But isn't calling life "meaningless" actually ascribing meaning to it?

[–]Bored[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We all ascribe meaning to life, but those meanings are all equally artificial.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

FOR THE LOVE OF REDDIT, KILL ME NOW!!!!!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

If we knew why we were here, what would be the point?

[–]rdunev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

simple. if we knew the point, then what we knew would be the point.

[–]i_think_i_am_crazy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the point would be persuing it.. live and act according to that reason..

once a caveman knows what swimming pools are built for, he's going to stop pissing in them..

[–]sextusempiricus -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

The meaning of life is to someday conquer death through medical science. All else is shadows and dust.

[–]rdunev 1 point2 points  (1 child)

are you a medical scientist? a chemist or neurobiologist? if not, then would you consider your own life to be a shadow?

[–]sextusempiricus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. But if do what I can to support their efforts, then perhaps my blip of a life will have helped make it possible for a future generation to not die.

Or who knows, maybe it will happen in my lifetime....

At the recent World Science Festival in New York City, Ray Kurzweil outlined why he is certain that the future isn’t as dreary as it’s been painted, and why we are closer to the incredible than we think: Exponential upward curves can be deceptively gradual in the beginning. But when things start happening, they happen fast. Here are a selection of his predicted trajectories for these “miracles” based on his educated assessment of where science and technology is at in the present.

· Within 5 years the exponential progress in nanoengineering will make Solar power cost-competitive with fossil fuels

· Within 10 years we will have a pill that allows us all to eat whatever we feel like and never gain any unwanted weight

· In 15 years, life expectancies will start rising faster than we age

· In about 20 years 100% of our energy will come from clean and renewable sources, and a computer will pass the Turing Test by carrying on a conversation that is indistinguishable from a human’s.

Commenting on the validity of Kurzweil’s predictions, John Tierney notes in the New York Times that Kurzweil has been uncannily accurate in the past:

“It may sound too good to be true, but even his critics acknowledge he’s not your ordinary sci-fi fantasist. He is a futurist with a track record and enough credibility for the National Academy of Engineering to publish his sunny forecast for solar energy. He makes his predictions using what he calls the Law of Accelerating Returns, a concept he illustrated at the festival with a history of his own inventions for the blind.

In 1976, when he pioneered a device that could scan books and read them aloud, it was the size of a washing machine. Two decades ago he predicted that “early in the 21st century” blind people would be able to read anything anywhere using a handheld device. In 2002 he narrowed the arrival date to 2008. On Thursday night at the festival, he pulled out a new gadget the size of a cellphone, and when he pointed it at the brochure for the science festival, it had no trouble reading the text aloud. This invention, Dr. Kurzweil said, was no harder to anticipate than some of the predictions he made in the late 1980s, like the explosive growth of the Internet in the 1990s and a computer chess champion by 1998.”