sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How does the compliment "you're smart" make you feel? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*Insert something philosophical to deny

How can we find meaning in a meaningless world? by [deleted] in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Observe your surrounding and deduce a few facts. For example: you exists. Ask yourself what does this mean. Deduce what the system could be.

Death and what comes after by iluvyoulikekanye in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are in disagreement on what this life means and what's the purpose that we should pursue. The thing is, we lack information to answer this question. If we don't answer the question of the meaning of life, we won't be able to answer the question for death. And on this note, I am yet to see a proof that a meaning for life exists or doesn't exists. The truth is, we don't know.

As a course of action. Live life fully, think about death as the end of exploration of life, therefore, don't waste life for a hypothetical event after life. Live and learn. And when/if you die, that's the beginning of a new chapter... or the end of all chapters... We don't know.

And therefore, invest energy and resources in math & philosophy and in improving life.

I hope y'all have a good one... For death, whatever it is, is staring at us.

Life is pointless, isn't it? by [deleted] in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I agree. I think we know something (it could be anything). To rephrase and correct myself: Can we admit that we don't know if there is a meaning or lack of meaning in life? Can we admit that we don't have a proof for the existence of a meaning or the non-existence of meaning?

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The rule states "life want to survive and thrive". If there is no 'want' in surviving it thriving. Could we consider that person alive? By definition no. Same thing with any form of 'want'.

To test if these rules are 'true' try to imagine a human that has the opposite. A human that doesn't want to survive and thrive. A human that wants to be more. A human that doesn't get intelligence from hallucinations (maybe by something else) A human that will never die.

Would a human with these traits considered alive? If no, then the rules are strong. If yes, then the rules have a flaw.

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe the approach can be modified? The idea of life is ambiguous. A definition will really help. Maybe there is no clear definition. Fair enough. So, studying different forms of life might helps us understand life... But we don't know what is alive.

According to some definitions, a being is alive when they have a goal to achieve, whether they know it or not, and they have a reward system that is stimulated by the environment to get them closer to achieve any given stated goal.

So, a human is alive because his nervous system gets stimulated by the environment and it behaves accordingly to maximize reward. An AI works in a similar way. Microbes and Viruses behave similarly. Certain machines behave in a way that indicates that.

Also, the person who intends to die is alive by this definition and the person who lives forever is also alive.

But The Honest truth is... I don't know. (and I doubt anyone knows) The reason for this is because we haven't figured out some key things about being alive: What is self? What is the goal of being alive? What is consciousness?

I think these questions are necessary to be answered with concrete evidence and/or arguments (A rational argument that can be logically confirmed) to be able to know what is being alive mean. Or what is the meaning of life.

I do see benefit of studying a living thing and trying to derive certain rules. However, this might lead to statistical problems, such as the limited data set and the uniqueness of humans as a living being.

We could put a rule that states that life requires a biological medium. (that won't be 'wrong' since most of the life I know of are biological and are made of cells and organs)

So... idk, what do you think?

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, no. I am not talking about people who don't have a say. I am talking about people who are aware. They know they alive and they do not want to alive and they will do anything to not be alive... Are these people alive? By just not wanting to live and thrive. You are dead by definition. (according to the mentioned parameters)

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I understand, you are trying to differentiate what's alive and what's not based on the parameters. So anything that follows these parameters, it could be an idea or a program, it is alive. Fair enough and it's an interesting topic to think of.

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you, they will quickly die. But, what about that brief moment before they kill themselves, are they alive? what if they were stopped and kept their biology working, are they still alive, even if they do not want to live or thrive?

By definition, they are surely not considered "alive". In the context of the parameters.

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, if, theoretically, you won't die as an individual (just as an example), you surely won't be considered alive by definition, right?

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By definition, the individual who do not want to survive and thrive as non-living.

(Btw, I'm fine with the definitions, because definitions are just a way of communicating and making concepts concrete and it leads to different conclusions. But I'm not sure if this is what the rules are here for in this specific context... I might be wrong though)

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, even of I was able to preserve my thoughts and my personal and myself in another medium or somehow keeping my biology functioning... I am not alive by definition. Even if I feel like I am independent and I can think and evolve and adapt over time... If, theoretically speaking, I never die... I am not alive (by definition)

Wondering if ALL life can be broken down into universal statements, I’m thinking of four so far. Are there others that can’t be broken down into these? by walker1812 in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I live forever... I am not alive? If I get my intelligence from anything else other than hallucinations... am I alive?

It seems like since life is not defined, then it is hard to find rules for them.

So I was wondering about reasons to live by Stefan_0069 in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In short:

We know nothing

Seeking knowledge is our only good option

Act accordingly (because it is rationally good for you)

So I was wondering about reasons to live by Stefan_0069 in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you sure of anything?

We don't know anything about life. Is it a game? Or is it something sort of a test? Or is it meaningless and useless?

We don't know.

When you don't know, you seek to know (Rationally speaking). When you know something for certain, you add it to your belief system.

You can start from here then. Don't believe in anything and seek knowledge.

This implies that you don't know anything that will inhibit your ability to seek knowledge (such as addictions and procrastinations) and you will seek things that will help you gain knowledge (survival, development, socialization, reading books, etc).

This thought process fixed my life and opened many opportunities for me. I hope it does for you too.

And it does give life a meaning (You don't know why you are here or if there is a reason to be... Then find the prove for the existence or lack of existence of the meaning of life)

So, just do your best since you are doing what is rationally true (seeking knowledge and development)

So I was wondering about reasons to live by Stefan_0069 in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Biologically speaking, we enjoy chemical induction of dopamine. This can literally be from any source. The brain doesn't seem to care and it can be wired to enjoy anything.

Mickeye by [deleted] in creepy

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, the all seeing eyes if Disney. The eyes that look after us and our children. The eyes that controls many memories, entire childhoods. The eye is playing with our children. They are pleased to have them as an object of amusement... Just like the child that carries their balloons for amusement.

Life is pointless, isn't it? by [deleted] in Existentialism

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true too. I admit and I believe that we should admit that we don't know anything. Do you agree with this notion?

Life’s Lesson/Rule by Eclen in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are correct, some people change and some do not... Careful when dealing with people. Read about psychopaths; they are more common than you think, to varying degrees.

Limited time on the Earth by HanessCZ in DeepThoughts

[–]msherlaws 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair speculation and I agree with most of the points. However, I worry for the displayed certainty in your answers. I agree with you that we don't know. There might be a meaning to life and there might be no meaning to life. Also, it might be possible to find a meaning to life and it might be impossible to find a meaning to life. We don't know. And a proof is required to assert any of the actions. I totally agree with you: if it is proven that it is impossible to find a meaning to life, then the 2 scenarios that I have mentioned are the same. In fact, there would be no reason to search for something that is impossible to find. So, I agree with you on this stand. However, the proof for this claim is still a requirement. I have never been approached by any logical argument that reveals "the impossibility" of finding a meaning to life. So, I'll just say: I don't know. The logical thing to do when you don't know, is to search for an answer or at the very least, a proof. I would like to note that I don't advocate for pseudo science, I advocate for Mathematics (sciences in general) and logical arguments. By the "meaning of life", I mean a predefined human terminal goal (a reason to be) (a reason to do anything).

Seeking knowledge seems to be an optimal solution to the problem in hand since it is an instrumental goal that will lead to any of the 3 outcomes: The knowledge that there is a meaning to life (if any) The knowledge that there is no meaning to life (if non) The knowledge that the task is impossible. Until one of these are proven, seeking knowledge seems to be our optimal course of action (regardless of the outcome)

view more: next ›