The purpose of all life

[Ecmandu]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

[surreptitious75]

There is no absolutely no purpose to anything at all in the grand scheme of things

The Universe exists simply because it can and also because something actually has to

Ecmandu you are but one infinitesimal part of the meaningless of it all just as we all are

[Ecmandu]

There is no absolutely no purpose to anything at all in the grand scheme of things

The Universe exists simply because it can and also because something actually has to

Ecmandu you are but one infinitesimal part of the meaningless of it all just as we all are

Ahh.. I see. You are the grand scheme of things, so you should know. You are the prophet of the grand scheme of things, so we should all worship your image.

No thanks.

I like logic more than I like you.

[Mr Reasonable]

The purpose of life is money hos and clothes.

[Jakob]

The purpose of life is clearly love.

[Mr Reasonable]

Yes. That's the hos part.

[Ecmandu]

The purpose of life is clearly love.

So, it violates your consent to not have love.

[Mr Reasonable]

Consent can't just mean, "the way I want the world to be". If it was, then everyone's consent would be violated all the time, because the world in its entirety can never conform to the wishes and whims of let alone everyone, but probably any one's wishes and whims.

If it does mean that, then talking about it at all is completely moot. It's like calling someone a hypocrite. If everyone is a hypocrite, then what does it mean to single someone out as one?

[Mr Reasonable]

This guy knows that everyone is a hypocrite...

[encode_decode]

Jakob

I just want to say a couple of things. Has life fallen into the purpose of love or was love given as the purpose of life before it was created?

The purpose of life is clearly love.

I like what you are saying because it sounds nice. I am a big fan of love. It does make me wonder however - if this is the purpose of life . . . then . . . wouldn't something or someone had to of given this purpose to life to begin with? Correct me if I am wrong . . . but . . . does not purpose involve intention and reason?

I imagine that purpose is given to something before it comes into existence. Purpose is often the reason why we humans bring things into existence. Purpose is the reason for which something is done. Purpose is the reason for which something is created. The idea of purpose in this thread is the reason for which something(life) exists.

It seems to me that to have purpose, you would first have to have a creator of life - this begs another question - is the creator able to reason or have any intention?

Despite everything that I am saying - it seems that everything involved with the earth has a purpose and some propose that the life part of this situation evolved. Looking at things this way it seems that things can "fall into a purpose" rather than being given a purpose before coming into existence.

An aside: there is most assuredly some ambiguity in the way people are thinking about such things as "the meaning of life" and "the purpose of life". This ambiguity I believe is involved in the way any arbitrary individual perceives the meaning of the words, meaning and purpose. Wouldn't you agree?

Back to love - if love is the purpose of all life then one can say that either love was given as the purpose for life before life was created or life has fallen into this purpose.

[Ecmandu]

Consent can't just mean, "the way I want the world to be". If it was, then everyone's consent would be violated all the time, because the world in its entirety can never conform to the wishes and whims of let alone everyone, but probably any one's wishes and whims.

If it does mean that, then talking about it at all is completely moot. It's like calling someone a hypocrite. If everyone is a hypocrite, then what does it mean to single someone out as one?

Every being that lives is trying not to have their consent violated against their consent. Since only beings that live have purpose, and they're all trying to do the same exact thing from an infinite and many times mutually exclusive consents.

One thing we can say for certain about the purpose of life, is that eradicating consent violations is its purpose.

If I want a steak, and someone else wants everyone to be vegan; the purpose of life is then how to figure out how to content both parties who will never budge.

This involves things like philosophic zombie universes, hallucinating reality from eternal forms, or hyperdimensional mirrors.

That's where life's purpose is moving

[surreptitious75]

If I want a steak and someone else wants everyone to be vegan : the purpose of life is then how to figure out how to content both parties who will never budge

This involves things like philosophic zombie universes or hallucinating reality from eternal forms or hyperdimensional mirrors

You can have your steak without forcing the vegans to eat it too and they can carry on being vegan without forcing you to convert to it as well
Everyone gets to do what they want and no consent is violated so non zero sum reality

Still no explanation from you about how p zombie universes / hallucinating realities from eternal forms / hyperdimensional mirrors can actually be created
This is because you have no absolutely no clue how to but you still keep on about them as the very idea of them brings you some psychological satisfaction

The reality you are in is the one you have to deal with not the ones inside your head

[Mr Reasonable]

Ecmandu, it's better to see the actual world than to entertain possible ideal ones. People who don't budge, inevitably get shoved out of the way. That's how things actually are. It may not seem pleasant, but you're better off realizing that's how things are and dealing with it than you would be to think that it could be some other way.

[lordoflight]

The purpose of souls is to experience pleasure, they do this by inhabiting life filled bodies and enjoying life.

Colors weave into a spire of flame
Distant sparks call to a past still unnamed
Bare this torch against the cold of the night
Search your soul and reawaken the undying light

These little sparks cling on to life
Everyone caught in the struggle
And then storms of change they fan the flames
scattering ashes to the wind

Every soul contains a whisper of light
Gleaming faintly as it dwindles from sight
No escape no greater fate to be made
In the end, the chains of time will not break


Basically, what this means is, if you are raped by an ugly it is wrong, because the net amount of suffering in the world increases, this goes back to Claptrap morality...
For instance, Claptrap was captured by bandits and being tortured, since he is a robot his level of pain is not as severe, he analyzed whether or not the pleasure of the bandits exceeded the pleasure of his own...
this goes back to the rapist, is a minor loveless orgasm experienced by a rapist going to increase the amount of pleasure in the universe, the answer is no, because the rapist is either gonna feel guilt or paranoia of the cops always, is a mediocre loveless orgasm worth it, it aint even a good orgasm like with a consentual magazine babe, and the rape victim might get PTSD depending on how ugly the rapist is, the answer is the net pleasure of the universe is gonna decrease in most cases, especially if the rape victim is male, they have no feminine image to fall back on, only mental illness will be the end result...
People tend to conflate this as "consent" but its really just epicuranism, net pleasure MIJOT stuff, for example if a kid eats candy it gives pleasure in the short term, rotting teeth and upset tummy long term, the difference between hedonism and epicuranism is hedonism is in the "now", low event horizons, industrialism, habitat destruct etc. Old stuff but sometimes we have to regurgitate the old ancients and put a new wrapper on it, for the modern generation to get.
That isn't to say nanny states are actually epicurian, they aren't, denying prostitution is some kind of perverted interpretation of epicuranism, hellscapes aren't epicurian...

This is still much different from the modern, simple minded morality you see on TV, epicurianism is more advanced, example here...Is it wrong to rape a robot, well the answer is no, despite there going to be an SJW outcry against sexy feminine robots, saying how bad it all is, the answer is no it is not wrong to rape a robot, the answer goes back to epicurianism, claptrap morality, it is understood robots generally don't get PTSD from rape. It is generally understood that rape is illegal because it can cause PTSD in the victim...does this mean modern morality is advanced? No because modern morality is gynocentric, they only care if a gynoid gets PTSD, there are no laws punishing those who give males PTSD, so no our society is not enlightened yet. Modern women are also more masculine, full of pride, pride is the mechanism by which rape traumatizes, so the penalities are more steep in first world countries, in other less civilized countries (not talking about sand people) women are less masculine and so more likely to get less severe PTSD from it, the penalities are thus more lax, it boils down to the cause and effect...Depsite whiny, retarded SJWs trying to say all rape is equally traumatizing, it isn't... for instance its much more traumatizing to a heterosexual teenage boy to be raped by a man than it is for a homosexual who goes to bathhouses...despite whiny retarded sjws telling me a homosexual, who goes to bathhouses to be fucked by random men, getting raped is equivalent to a straight edge heterosexual teenage boy getting raped, I won't believe it, my bs meter goes into full red flag mode, no use arguing with overdramatic insane people, who will guilt you over not seeing eye to eye. Now matter how retarded and hostile SJWs become they will never convince me that Katy Perry raping a heterosexual male is as traumatizing as a man raping a heterosexual male, SJWs are obligated to say this kind of shit though in order to perpetuate their simple minded way of thinking and the marxist equality bullshit. In a rational world, with rational enlightened thinkers, murder would be wrong but also viewed more rationally, for instance its right now just a robotic mindless sentence of life in prison, no thought is put into the sentence, its just a bunch of tards gathering around and deciding laws... In a rational world what is analyzed is, what is the effect of murder, how much PTSD does it give to the family, how much pain did the victim have to endure before being killed, how important was the victim in terms of were they going to be a great person like Mark Twain, a Tesla, or just some nobody a random sperm grown into a person, that all is averaged and weighed, I think the US government is more than justified in suing North Korea for 500 million dollars, after what they did to that man, if you ask me they should sue more, but its a step in the right direction and people are beginning to get a more sensible view of morality.

[Ecmandu]

Ecmandu, it's better to see the actual world than to entertain possible ideal ones. People who don't budge, inevitably get shoved out of the way. That's how things actually are. It may not seem pleasant, but you're better off realizing that's how things are and dealing with it than you would be to think that it could be some other way.

Firstly, to answer both posts:

People who want the universe to be vegan, lose if one person in the universe is not.

For you mr reasonable:

You don't want to see my wicked side. It's a force of nature to behold.

My advice to you, is to just smile and wish me good fortune and luck.

[Mowk]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

It is an interesting question this "purpose" thing.

I have a few additional questions, regarding the objective and how it is determined, or if all life that participates is aware of the distinction you make.

"consent violations" I try to wrap my mind around that up and down the evolutionary 'ladder' so as to include ALL life, that "we know of".

A fungal infection of a plant as example, say leaf blight. I'm not even sure the notion of consent can be applied in that relationship but we have two forms of life that have to fit, as example of the "all life" qualification.

How can this notion of consent be applied to how we use the life form yeast to brew beer. Would that example a violation of consent?

Does the grass consent to a mule deer's grazing; does a mule deer consent to being killed by a lion?

Does an anaerobic bacteria consent to being displaced by a aerobic bacteria because the environmental conditions are conducive or visa versa, if the conditions are not?

How does the environment and it's changes impact life without consent? Does the environment itself need to be considered because of its interactions, both conducive and harmful, as examples of violations of consent. There seems a lot of exchange between intention-less-ness and willfulness that affects life beyond life''s consent.

Many questions remain beyond it as purpose, if the absence of a violation of consent is the criteria.

[Mr Reasonable]

Ecmandu, it's better to see the actual world than to entertain possible ideal ones. People who don't budge, inevitably get shoved out of the way. That's how things actually are. It may not seem pleasant, but you're better off realizing that's how things are and dealing with it than you would be to think that it could be some other way.

Firstly, to answer both posts:

People who want the universe to be vegan, lose if one person in the universe is not.

For you mr reasonable:

You don't want to see my wicked side. It's a force of nature to behold.

My advice to you, is to just smile and wish me good fortune and luck.

Are you threatening me because I questioned your idea?

[Ecmandu]

Ecmandu, it's better to see the actual world than to entertain possible ideal ones. People who don't budge, inevitably get shoved out of the way. That's how things actually are. It may not seem pleasant, but you're better off realizing that's how things are and dealing with it than you would be to think that it could be some other way.

Firstly, to answer both posts:

People who want the universe to be vegan, lose if one person in the universe is not.

For you mr reasonable:

You don't want to see my wicked side. It's a force of nature to behold.

My advice to you, is to just smile and wish me good fortune and luck.

Are you threatening me because I questioned your idea?

That's your actual world, which I'm too cowardly to embrace. You're taunting me to be the best you that I can be. It's not wise to do that.

[surreptitious75]

People who want the universe to be vegan lose if one person in the universe is not vegan

Expecting total conformity to your world view is both irrational and impractical
For the only one you can change is yourself and no one else because of free will

[Mr Reasonable]

That's your actual world, which I'm too cowardly to embrace. You're taunting me to be the best you that I can be. It's not wise to do that.

It's not taunting to disagree. And it seems reasonable that insisting that the entirety of everything is just a paradox of entanglement that can't be resolved is probably not the best view of the world, not just because it's likely inaccurate, but because it's not healthy or conducive to a good life to believe that things are that way. It's commonly understood what the poster above me mentions...and that's that you've got a better chance of changing yourself than you do of changing the world. Given that your take on the world may not be so much an accurate description of it, but instead a description of how it would be if your ideals of it were to be the case, you may have an even greater incentive to just think of changing your view. Changing the world is hard enough when you see it clearly. It's likely impossible when you don't.

[Ecmandu]

That's your actual world, which I'm too cowardly to embrace. You're taunting me to be the best you that I can be. It's not wise to do that.

It's not taunting to disagree. And it seems reasonable that insisting that the entirety of everything is just a paradox of entanglement that can't be resolved is probably not the best view of the world, not just because it's likely inaccurate, but because it's not healthy or conducive to a good life to believe that things are that way. It's commonly understood what the poster above me mentions...and that's that you've got a better chance of changing yourself than you do of changing the world. Given that your take on the world may not be so much an accurate description of it, but instead a description of how it would be if your ideals of it were to be the case, you may have an even greater incentive to just think of changing your view. Changing the world is hard enough when you see it clearly. It's likely impossible when you don't.

It is an objective fact that nobody wants their consent violated against their consent.

True for all beings, not just humans.

To disagree and live in your asshole world is to pull out my monster, and I guarantee it is fiercer than yours. You're taunting me to violate consent.

As for the post about total conformity to a world view.

You're idea of free will in oppositional defiant disorder.

This disorder is characterized by refusing to do something just because some else suggested it, even if it's what you wanted to do.

Also, since disagreeing with me to this regard is a contradiction, you are positioning yourself for sex with a female, as females only have sex with contradictory males.

[Mr Reasonable]

I think objective facts are few and far between, and mostly only occur in the abstract.

I think it's odd that your response to a reasonable post was to threaten me with a monster, say that I have a mental disorder, and the dismiss the entire thing as an attempt by me to get laid, and then to just reassert your conclusion without further argument.

This is bad philosophy man. Maybe you're right maybe you're wrong, but you're doing it wrong either way.

[Ecmandu]

I think objective facts are few and far between, and mostly only occur in the abstract.

I think it's odd that your response to a reasonable post was to threaten me with a monster, say that I have a mental disorder, and the dismiss the entire thing as an attempt by me to get laid, and then to just reassert your conclusion without further argument.

This is bad philosophy man. Maybe you're right maybe you're wrong, but you're doing it wrong either way.

Think about it, you are declaring to yourself and the universe at large that you want your consent violated against your consent, with no stipulation of time limit.

I'm not going to hurt you man, I'm trying to wake you up.

You're not tough enough for what you're declaring, you are posturing and not philosophizing.

And yes, a lot of it is to maintain the psychology necessary for men to get laid.

[Mr Reasonable]

Think about it, you are declaring to yourself and the universe at large that you want your consent violated against your consent, with no stipulation of time limit.

This is false. I don't think that I, or anyone else has made this declaration nor have I said anything that could reasonably be construed as such.

What I have said is that it's not possible for 1 world to conform to the multitude of varying wills of all the people in it, and to yearn for such a world is foolish and a waste of time. As such, it's unhealthy from a psychological standpoint. Further, it stunts and/or inhibits intellectual growth because it leaves you stuck in a loop of trying to solve a problem for which a solution doesn't exist.

What you might do is realize that reality, as it truly is, is not a problem in need of a solution. It's just the state of affairs as they really are. Then from that point of view you may be able to navigate the world that you're in in a more effective way and be closer to your goals and less frustrated.

[Meno_]

Sorry, Reasonable, didn't mean to p.o.-end You. Besides I take You for a man who is disconcerting to dubious formalities.

If You need to figure this out, excuse, my bad.