[lutusp]

> Do you Consider Life to be Futile

This presumes that life has its own predefined explanation that all organisms must obey. But:

1. Evolution by natural selection contradicts the idea that life has a predefined explanation, and evolution is one of the most powerful and well-supported of scientific theories.

2. As thinking creatures, we get to use our intelligence to decide for ourselves what our lives mean. This is the personal version of natural selection.

So, on that basis, if you have the idea that life is futile, just come up with a new idea. This intellectual latitude is what separates you from a rock.

> And please don't bring uncertain entities(like God) or concepts.

Wouldn't dream of it. God (religion) is one of the classic traps that makes life seem to have a predefined meaning, one not in our control. On that basis alone it should be rejected by all free thinkers.

[porker]

> Wouldn't dream of it. God (religion) is one of the classic traps that makes life seem to have a predefined meaning, one not in our control. On that basis alone it should be rejected by all free thinkers.

How can you determine whether life has predefined meaning, no meaning at all, or somewhere in-between? Shouldn't all viewpoints be rejected by free thinkers and only an agnostic-to-any-position viewpoint be held?

[tekkanphan]

Good Argument until "This intellectual latitude is what separates you from a rock.

[lutusp]

Oh, well, it sounded good at the time. :)

Were you objecting on the basis that the rock has some version of consciousness? The argument has been made and it's interesting, but I thought it was pretty far afield from the present topic.

[tekkanphan]

>The argument has been made and it's interesting, but I thought it was pretty far afield from the present topic.

Well your argument was right on Topic.Are you referring to any other topic.

>Were you objecting on the basis that the rock has some version of consciousness?

No i took it personally :)

[lutusp]

Whoah, very sorry -- it wasn't meant as any kind of criticism, solely that rocks aren't usually thought of as conscious entities.

It's just that one theory of consciousness is that we shouldn't be trying so hard to locate it in ourselves for the reason that all matter has consciousness. I emphasize that this idea has zero scientific support, it's just a philosophical speculation.

Again, no offense intended -- not at all.

[collyw]

There isn't a lot of scientific evidence for anything related to conciseness.

Science is based on observation, while we experience consciousness. And as the Buddhists, say you can't observe an experience.

[lutusp]

> There isn't a lot of scientific evidence for anything related to conciseness.

Or consciousness either. :)

But it's true, whichever spelling we use -- consciousness is a subjective, philosophical area with no real scientific substance, and it will probably remain that way.

[tekkanphan]

I was only joking. No offense is taken.