constitutes a philosophical question concerning the purpose and significance of life or existence in general. This concept can be expressed through a variety of related questions, such as Why are we here?, What is life all about?, and What is the meaning of it all? It has been the subject of much philosophical, scientific, and theological speculation throughout history. There have been a large number of answers to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds.
The meaning of life is deeply mixed with the philosophical and religious conceptions of existence, consciousness, and happiness, and touches on many other issues, such as symbolic meaning, ontology, value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, conceptions of God, the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife. Scientific contributions are more indirect; by describing the empirical facts about the universe, science provides some context and sets parameters for conversations on related topics. An alternative, human-centric, and not a cosmic/religious approach is the question "What is the meaning of my life?" The value of the question pertaining to the purpose of life may coincide with the achievement of ultimate reality, or a feeling of oneness, or a feeling of sacredness.
One must understand whether "what is love" can be a question which can be answered? Love cannot be a question. For, if it is a question then an answer should be there. If the answer is there, where is it? This question is ancient and an answer should have been found by now! If the answer has been found, the question would have disappeared.
But the question still remains, meaning the answer has not been found. If it has not been found as yet, then what is the certainty that it will be found? Maybe the mind can never find the answer! A single answer, which will please all minds, is not possible for each mind has its own ideas of love. Hence a universal answer is an illusion.
Individual answers are there for love and for this very reason there are arguments about love for each mind will contradict the answer of another mind. This contradiction is normal for each mind lives in a different point in time. Hence "what is love" is an illusionary question, which has no answer!
People like to say, as if it were obvious, that life is hard to define. This is misleading. Life has properties that clearly distinguish it from everything else. Firstly, every living thing is cellular. In other words, it is either a single-celled creature or a creature composed of biological cells. Every cell is bounded by its own outer membrane and contains a full set of instructions necessary for its operation and reproduction. Furthermore, every cell uses the same operating system: "DNA makes RNA makes protein." DNA is a long complex molecule that contains the cell's instructions. It is transcribed into RNA, another long complex molecule similar to DNA; and then the RNA transcript is translated into protein. There are hundreds of billions of different proteins used by living things but all of them are made from the same twenty amino acids, the "building blocks of life."
If matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, then I should be able to go out to the Mountains of Colorado and find naturally-occurring computers, cameras, and cell phones. As we've seen, those inorganic devices are much less complex than a "simple" organic bacterium. Yet, most people would find my statement to be "silly" at best. Why? Whether organic or inorganic, the complexity and design is obvious.
To take this concept to a simple level, I examined the watch on my wrist (mine is digital). I contemplated the interdependent system of silicon chips, wires, and LED displays? Actually, by today's technological standards, that's a pretty simple device. However, is there any question that it was created by a group of designers, handed off to a team of mechanical engineers, and then placed into production by a team of automation specialists?
Then I took a minute to look at the wrist under my watch. I've grown comfortable with its apparent simplicity. I looked closer at the skin and hair follicles. I touched them. I thought about the nerves that just told my brain to synthesize that touch. Then I focused more closely and pondered the microscopic makeup of each of my cells. I imagined the complex cellular city at work, and contemplated the wonder of my brain that allowed me to imagine such a thing. I thought about the veins just under the surface of my skin. I thought about my heart pumping oxygenated blood through those veins to keep my wrist and hand alive. I thought about my lungs as they inflated, deflated, and processed that oxygen for my heart.
Then I flexed my hand. I pondered the miraculous communication effort that occurred in a milli-second. I created a thought -- my brain processed the subconscious instruction and translated it into a task for my body -- my nervous system delivered that task to my wrist - and my wrist performed the task perfectly. I never really thought about what just happened? How does an interconnected system like that evolve gradually and randomly over time?
It goes on and on... My digestive tract -- How did that evolve gradually over millions of years? Without processed energy, how would my earliest, evolving ancestors even exist? My part in a two-part reproductive system -- Come on, how did that evolve randomly over millions of years through natural selection and genetic mutation? How do you pass on new and improved genetic traits without the means to reproduce in the first place? I was finally thinking about these things!
So, out of all this, I developed a new thesis for my view of life... We need to drop our preconceived notions. Dump our presuppositions. Just meditate on this material with an impartial mind. Does this stuff have "metaphysical" implications? Sure. But why should that deter us from logically examining the evidence? Where did we get the notion that science and technology somehow have to exist in a naturalistic vacuum? That's not true science. True science is observing the evidence, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis through various means. Philosophical presuppositions have no place in true science. If science reveals things outside the bounds of known physics, then science should be applauded for its impartial contribution to philosophical and metaphysical thought.
If matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, then I should be able to go out to the Mountains of Colorado and find naturally-occurring computers, cameras, and cell phones. As we've seen, those inorganic devices are much less complex than a "simple" organic bacterium. Yet, most people would find my statement to be "silly" at best. Why? Whether organic or inorganic, the complexity and design is obvious.
To take this concept to a simple level, I examined the watch on my wrist (mine is digital). I contemplated the interdependent system of silicon chips, wires, and LED displays? Actually, by today's technological standards, that's a pretty simple device. However, is there any question that it was created by a group of designers, handed off to a team of mechanical engineers, and then placed into production by a team of automation specialists?
Then I took a minute to look at the wrist under my watch. I've grown comfortable with its apparent simplicity. I looked closer at the skin and hair follicles. I touched them. I thought about the nerves that just told my brain to synthesize that touch. Then I focused more closely and pondered the microscopic makeup of each of my cells. I imagined the complex cellular city at work, and contemplated the wonder of my brain that allowed me to imagine such a thing. I thought about the veins just under the surface of my skin. I thought about my heart pumping oxygenated blood through those veins to keep my wrist and hand alive. I thought about my lungs as they inflated, deflated, and processed that oxygen for my heart.
Then I flexed my hand. I pondered the miraculous communication effort that occurred in a milli-second. I created a thought -- my brain processed the subconscious instruction and translated it into a task for my body -- my nervous system delivered that task to my wrist - and my wrist performed the task perfectly. I never really thought about what just happened? How does an interconnected system like that evolve gradually and randomly over time?
It goes on and on... My digestive tract -- How did that evolve gradually over millions of years? Without processed energy, how would my earliest, evolving ancestors even exist? My part in a two-part reproductive system -- Come on, how did that evolve randomly over millions of years through natural selection and genetic mutation? How do you pass on new and improved genetic traits without the means to reproduce in the first place? I was finally thinking about these things!
So, out of all this, I developed a new thesis for my view of life... We need to drop our preconceived notions. Dump our presuppositions. Just meditate on this material with an impartial mind. Does this stuff have "metaphysical" implications? Sure. But why should that deter us from logically examining the evidence? Where did we get the notion that science and technology somehow have to exist in a naturalistic vacuum? That's not true science. True science is observing the evidence, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis through various means. Philosophical presuppositions have no place in true science. If science reveals things outside the bounds of known physics, then science should be applauded for its impartial contribution to philosophical and metaphysical thought.
