I find it fascinating the range of people's opinions on this matter, and people's journeys that took them to their conclusions.

I think humans can be quite obsessed with attaching meaning to things, where no meaning may be present. However, I definitely feel consciousness is mysterious. We are atoms, the universe, looking back on itself, a mirror. And that is pretty amazing. And how this situation came to be in the first place is still pretty mysterious. And I'll think that, no matter how many scientific journals I encounter.

I think we are definitely smarter than animals, for the most part anyway. We are self aware, as are a few other species, and we are aware of our own mortality. Animals act on their genetic programming and instincts, and simply live their lives...they aren't aware of their mortality, and aren't trying to attach meaning to things as much as we like to.

So I think consciousness is DEFINITELY mysterious. My Iboga experience, and the crystal clear and lucid visions I experienced are still very much in my mind when I state this. No amount of cacti, fungi or Salvia (as much respect I have for these) would have shown me the things Iboga did...I am absolutely positive that consciousness is very mysterious indeed, and one shouldn't be too hasty drawing conclusions about it. There are, I think some 'deep secrets' buried deep in their, and of that I am certain.

For me I think I sort of walk a middle path between materialism and spiritualism...I mean..I dont really care to get hung up on one or the other..They are polarities..but one polarity cannot exist without the presence of the other to contrast it..Maybe it's just the whole left brain/right brain thing..

I feel that it's amazing enough to be here and be alive..life is beautiful..if you choose to see the beauty..it can be transcendental if that is what you choose to see..

On the other hand, one can focus on rationalizing and compartmentalizing things..more left brain, get caught up in analaysis and see the limitations of this world as well..if that is where they choose to focus they're attention..

Neither is wrong or right in my opinion, yet both just are.

If you can find that balance, than notions like "spiritualism" vs "materialism" seem to fall away into the background..but can there be a way to bridge the 2 instead of constantly contrasting the 2?..I mean there seems to be some force(whatever it may really be) joining everything..Most of us call it love I guess..

So I guess I believe in "love"..it's there if you choose to see it, and it sure as hell can connect us..

All that aside..I have often wondered about the meaning of life..and I have come to the conclusion all I can sayabout that is that to me, the answer is implied in the question..the onlymeaning I can comprehend is to create meaning..even if it was never really there to begin with..

I would agree with that..and what a neat vision!

I agree with you that conciousness is very mysterious, something always right infront of us that we can never grasp... But I dont know why you seem to think humans are the only ones with conciousness. I dont see animals acting in ways that would endanger themselves unless they were provoked to act in such a way. I believe that animals are aware of their mortality simply by the way they act. Many protect their babies more than we do. Many are kinder than most humans. Many seem to think of the good of their community including themselves. I also dont know how you know they dont attach meaning to things they experience. Youre giving humans too much credit and not realizing were an infinitely small part of something infinitely big. It seems to me consiousness manifests itself in an infinite manner of ways.

The computer analogy is a terrible one in my opinion. A sigle celled organism is far more complex than the most advanced computer, which in turn is nothing compared to a human being.

Of course machinery can seem like it has a soul, but that is just your subjective experience of it.



This is the understanding I have come to as well from all my research and experience. The meaning of life is to learn, and to love. More specifically to learn to love.

Beautifully said I completely agree Saidin, the whole point of life it to spread as much compassion as you can during your life time to every sentient being on our planet. In turn by those actions you can become free of your ego and negative emotions and the true nature of the mind and reality will be revealed.


Much Peace

I would just like to say that thats not true about the single celled organism being more complex than any computer. I'm not trying to be abrasive here but you should try to look in the numbers applied to the storage of genetic information and how we have a very much set clock speed much like a processor based on the firing rates of our neurons and the amount of simultaneous connections between them. Its all really interesting but based on storage of data, thinking capabilities and even design modern computers surpass simple life. As far as humans and even little creatures like ants theres still quite a ways to go

Sure, if you are only taking storage capacity as your measure. We can create a computer, yet we cannot create life.

As the famous analogy goes, the random creation of life out of the basic materials available is analgous to a tornado going though a junkyard and constructing a fully functional 747 from the debris.

Constructing a computer takes intelligence, yet life from a materialists point of view relys on random chance...life in its most basic form is far more complex than a machine.

A bacteria and a computer have totally different functions. Bacteria can't make complicated mathematical calculations and a computer cant self replicate. They can't be compared as to who is more complex without asking what parts are being compared and against what.



We are getting very close to making new life in a lab. Very close.



These kinds of analogies are the kinds of things creationists use to dazzle people about how unlikely evolutionary origins of life are. They are often made by people who have no idea what they are talking about and who know little to anything about molecular biology. RNA can self replicate and catalyze reactions. That's a simple form of life. Far simpler then a single celled organism but its a very real possibility for the origin of life.

Some people seem to think that scientists are saying from primordial soup spontaneously formed a single cell organism. That's highly unlikely and that's not what we is being said. But amino acids and nucleic acids can form they have been proven to form from simpler building blocks. They are even found in space. The next step is to observe those pieces forming a strand of RNA or DNA or protein with catalytic ability or self replication.



I like my ego. Why is everyone so bent up on ego's? Having an ego is a wonderful thing.

Its up to an individual to decide what the meaning of their life is. There is no absolute meaning to life.

.the process of rna replication is very complex. at least two "systems" (rna-system and protein-system) created by the random play of "trial" and "error" independent from each other BUT working and fitting perfectly together without even created for each other (!!!) are needed for replication of molecular structures...and replication of molecule structures is the very simplest form of the phenomena scientists call: "life".
the probability for this is so small that even in 4,55 milliard years (thats how old the earth is....)is not enough time to make it happen, at least some mathematic calculations has been prooved it....
that problem (or can't we say "miracle/enigmatic"....) caused francis crick to his theory about origin of live by space travel (directed panspermia)...

very fascinating....

I have to agree with Burnt here

These kinds of analogies are the kinds of things creationists use to dazzle people about how unlikely evolutionary origins of life are. They are often made by people who have no idea what they are talking about and who know little to anything about molecular biology. RNA can self replicate and catalyze reactions. That's a simple form of life. Far simpler then a single celled organism but its a very real possibility for the origin of life.


I am not pointing any fingers but is is a drag that we had a member with a Phd in molecular biology once but a petty misunderstanding occurred and he fled the site.

I had just gotten to know him well enough to ask his thoughts on a fairly long term on going experiment I know of concerning plant groth and ultrasonic frequencies. But he departed in a huff and never even returned once more he never read the pm I sent him telling him to chill and hang here.

No big deal ON with the experiment!

PEACE
MV

ONLY AN EXPERT CAN GIVE US THE TRUTH!!!!

amen!

open minded?

Statistics don't mean a thing. if the chance of life, evolving on a planet like ours, out of molecular reactions is one in a billion, then you almost will know for certain that there will be live on billions of planets.

If live would be an incredible coincidence, i don't see why this would make evolution a less likely theory. Coincidences happen, especially in an almost infinetely big universe.

If you look at it that way, it even makes the evolution of life somewhere, quite unavoidable.

This analogy was first proposed by Fred Hoyle, whose theory of stellar neucleosynthesis was the proof that all the heavier elements in the universe came from nuclear processes in stars. He is not some random creationist. And the analogy is a good one, if you take the statisitaical chances of random atoms combining into molecules, which then combine in just the right was to become self-replicating, and then from there to go onto what we consider life.

Indeed Burnt we all have our own personal journey to travel but i personally feel that my ego is a negative aspect of myself that holds me back in my journey of self discovery.

Its an illusion of myself that i hold onto to comfort myself, my ego is not who i truly am as a person deep inside. With it still around i feel i will never know who i really am until i can let go of my ego completely.



Much Peace

Once again: even if this statement where true, then still the eveolution of life is inevitable when you look at the amounts of inhabitable planets in the universe.

And i don't see why such a coincidence would be a problem.

Seeing it as a problem is i think a mistake of the following nature:"isn't it an enormous and far fetched coincidence that of all planets, on our planet life came to evolve?".
Instead, if you look at all the planets, than life had to emerge somewhere. And this planet only is our planet, simply because it happened here.

The 747 is just an analogy i guess. I don't suppose he actually calculated the likelyhood of the emergence of a 747. I think if he would have, then the maths would prove it to be a wrong comparison.

Stars are not biology, also.

Such a conicidence is not a problem at all. Given the size of the universe, even with those odds life would evolove somewhere at some point. But life would be sparse, less than one civilization per galaxy, and that is an aweful lot of empty space. Unless of course, the first life that arose became lonely and spread itself out among the stars, ie: panspermia. But that is a whole different discussion.

He calculated that the chances of life evolving randomly from the elements available in the early universe was 10 to the 40000 power. This number has been disputed, but even revised numbers make the chance of life arising out of inanimate matter highly unlikely.

I know that stars are not biology, but my point was in contrast to your statement about creationists, and to indicate that the person who initially made the statement was not some bible thumping creationist, but actually an astrophysical atheist.

Of course you like your Ego. It is the only thing you have ever known, there from the moment of your conception. Unfortunately it is a fallacy, and will do whatever it can to maintain its own existence, it is a self-perpetuating delusion.

What is your experience of Ego loss on psychedelics? For me it leads to a state of bliss, though my ego fights hard to keep control before I can let it "die" and be at peace.

It is up to the individual to decide what makes their life meaningful, but to say there is no absolute meaning to life is an unprovable assumption, and purely your subjective opinion. I believe there is an absolute meaning to life, and my belief is just as valid as yours.

If its up to me to decide what makes my 'life' meaningful, than how can a true meaning to life be assumed?

I said that it is up to the individual to find meaning in their own lives, but to assume there is no true meaning to life is just that, an assumption. I believe that there is a true meaning to life, at least as we know it on this planet, but that too is an assumption.

Perhaps we have all forgotten? Maybe we have been decieved in order to keep us more easily controlled...