The Meaning of Life (Answer Actually Inside)

[Tone]

What is the meaning of life? Wouldn't it be cool if you knew that answer to this most basic question that has existed as long as intelligent life its self. What better place to discuss such a thing but Trenchwars?

The answer is quite simple. Various meanings are created by thought. But every thought or action we do has in impact on our wellness level. if you look at sentient life, and subtract all cognition and all things creative, you are left with a wellness level. that is, a net state of pleasure and pain. The meaning of life, therefore, can be simplified to one word, Wellness. In the largest picture, one could say that all thoughts are meaningless in the end. but regardless, it is a net state of pleasure and pain, a wellness level that all sentient life experiences and exists in.

All alleged meanings of life have an impact on wellness. For instance, if one says the meaning/purpose of life is to 'spiritually evolve and break the cycle of reincarnation', that still comes down to the wellness of a soul. For this example, note that theoretically, if heaven could be created on earth equal to or greater than the heaven of being spiritually advanced and ascended, that would defeat the whole purpose of pursuit of this goal, because in the end, it all comes down to a wellness level. The same could be said for any other meaning of life you could think of. The sole exception may be 'The meaning of life is to cease to exist' because there would be neither pleasure nor pain, there would in fact be nothing. There is no logical motive for this meaning or even any idea how it could be archived or if it is even possible, perhaps death, perhaps not. Therefore that leaves wellness as the the most simplified and logical meaning of life.

All paths/meanings impact wellness level, but many are perverted and seem to have false means to achieve the end result. Lets take a minute to explore non-religious means to achieve the ultimate and only meaningful end result - Wellness

Utilitarianism is an ethic that states the morality of any action is defined by its utility to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Good is defined as anything that is pro-happiness. Negative Utilitarianism states that which is anti-pain for the greatest number is right

Abolitionism is the new philosophical term that basically means the ethical imperative that suffering in all sentient life be abolished through any ethical means necessary, and this would include the use of biotechnology (genetic engineering, drugs, nanotechnology). Whatever eliminates pain/suffering is right

Hedonism is the same as above except the ethical imperative of increasing pleasure in all sentient life. Whatever causes pleasure is right.

Abolitionism and Hedonism are utilitarian and obviously the only logical ethics to determine what is right and what is wrong. In the study of ethics, 'Natural Law' is considered to be the other objective paradigm for determining what is right and wrong, but it is blatantly a logical fallacy which leaves us with with the utilitarian paradigm of Hedonism and Abolitionism

Transhumanism takes it from where humanism left off. wikipedia has worded a definition well:

Transhumanism is an emergent school of speculative philosophy analysing or favouring the use of science and technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition.

I believe that Transhumanism of the future is the most likely feasible method for facilitating Abolitionism and Hedonism and therefore the best purpose we have for life is to go forward with Transhumanism, guided by proper Utilitarian ethics. I now leave you with an interesting essay by Abolitionist David Peace and a few interesting weblinks.

- Tone

[Tone]

Happiness, Hypermotivation
and the Meaning Of Life



HYPERMOTIVATION
Stepping on a strongly electrified grid is highly aversive. A desperately hungry rat - even a rat who hasn't eaten for 10 days - won't run across an electrified cage-floor to reach a food-source: the shocks are too painful. But a rat with electrodes implanted in its neural reward circuitry will cross the grid, repeatedly, to gain the chance to self-stimulate its pleasure centres. Direct electrical stimulation of the mesolimbic dopamine system is so overpoweringly delightful that the anticipated reward eclipses the immediate pain.

The brain's dopamine system has a dual psychological role: it regulates not just pleasure, but cue-induced craving. Cues such as seeing, smelling or tasting something potentially enjoyable - and the prospect of pressing a magic lever - heighten the desire for an anticipated reward without necessarily increasing the pleasure of the reward itself. An experienced rat with electrodes in its pleasure centers is very highly motivated. A mother will abandon her unweaned pups in order to self-stimulate indefinitely.

Euphoriant drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines activate the mesolimbic reward circuitry too. But they also activate the homeostatic mechanisms of the brain. These are control mechanisms that regulate our level of well-being (or commonly ill-being) analogous to the inhibitory feedback loops of, say, the thermoregulatory system. Psychostimulants activate not just the reward pathways, but neural "stress chemicals" such as corticotrophin-releasing factor(CRF); CRF-1 antagonists now in the pharmaceutical product-pipeline are promising anti-anxiety agents and antidepressants.

Our endogenous stress system serves to minimise, or act as a brake on, the amount of pleasure we can "naturally" obtain in a lifetime. This design-limitation is quietly satisfying to pharmacological Calvinists and religious fundamentalists alike. It is also the cause of immense suffering and malaise. Stress-induced overactivity of hypothalamic CRF/CRH neurons contributes to hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) system. Chronic HPA overactivity eventually demotivates and depresses its victims. HPA hyperdrive can lead to a spectrum of learned helplessness and behavioural despair characteristic of some forms of clinical depression.

By contrast, direct intracranial self-stimulation subverts these homeostatic mechanisms. Wireheading never ceases to feel sublime, regardless of how many times the subject self-stimulates the neural reward centres. Possibly - though this is controversial - tolerance to its hedonic effects is absent because electrical stimulation of the mesolimbic dopamine system activates the final common pathway of pleasure.

Experiments with electrified grids for self-stimulating humans to navigate are not imminent. So we can't prove just how powerfully motivating would be the implantation of optimally-located microelectrodes in normal human subjects. Even uncomplicated wireheading is currently considered unethical by medical orthodoxy. Thus the pioneering human experiments of controversial Tulane psychiatrist Robert Heath have not been repeated or refined - even to treat victims of refractory depression unresponsive to conventional antidepressants. Instead, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), ECT, and even (rarely) psychosurgery are medically sanctioned in extremis for "treatment-resistant" depressives. Their long-term clinical efficacy is uncertain.

Better drug-design is one option. Another is rewriting our own genetic code. Our genetically-enriched descendants may enjoy levels of incentive-motivation that are analogous to - and possibly far greater than - whatever drives a rat to cross an electrified grid as an ingredient of lifelong mental health. Decoding the human genome - and soon the proteome - opens up technical possibilities it would be unethical to ignore in an unspeakably pain-ridden world. For we can potentially amplify, modulate and redesign the architecture of our own neural reward mechanisms. Unlike our bodily thermostat, which can operate only within a narrow temperature range, the homeostatic mechanisms that govern human emotion and motivation can be radically recalibrated. Recalibrating the pleasure-pain axis may endow us with a far higher emotional "set-point" around which to oscillate than the dismal Darwinian norm.

Uniform happiness is no more educative or illuminating than uniform despair. A wholly emotionally stable subject - and in theory an entire civilisation - could get "stuck in a rut", whether that "rut" is a slough of despond or a sub-optimal plateau of bliss. But learning and personal development based on gradients of well-being can be both educative and powerfully motivating. A life animated by gradients of well-being is also personally more soul-enriching than learning based on gradients of pain.

On this scenario, bad hair days in any future post-Darwinian era of paradise-engineering may be merely wonderful rather than sublime. Centuries hence, the computational-functional analogs of traditional "painful lessons" will survive, but not their cruel Darwinian textures. Indeed the homeostatic baseline of even our own (un)happiness could potentially be reset at a level of sustainable well-being orders of magnitude higher than the norm adaptive for small social groups of naked apes on the African savannah.

What's the theoretical maximum? We don't know. Should the empirical methodology of science be used to find out? No research proposal with that aim has yet gained funding. How accurately can pleasure and pain be quantified on a single unidimensional scale? This is disputable, albeit more as a complication than a fundamental obstacle to the abolitionist project. What fail-safe genetic mechanisms can prevent - or today sometimes fail to prevent - extreme happiness spiralling off instead into psychotic mania? We're still not sure. This challenge must be met before we can safely explore germline therapy for hereditary mental superhealth.


THE MEANING OF LIFE?
In future, safer and more sophisticated analogs of wireheading may conceivably be on offer as an individual lifestyle choice. Implausibly, for sure, the freedom to wirehead might one day count as a basic human right. After all, an inalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness" was recognised by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the American constitution. Yet the pursuit of wireheading or its analogs is not an evolutionarily stable strategy - whether for rodents, monkeys, or a future (post-)human civilization. In the era of mature genomic medicine, when the corrupt legacy code of our ancestors has been rewritten, our descendants may be animated by gradients of lifelong happiness far richer, multi-dimensional, and more profound than anything physiologically accessible at present. Globally, however, it's hard to envisage how individual well-being could be purely orgasmic, undirected at intentional objects. ["Intentionality" is the philosophers' term of art for the "object-directedness" or "aboutness" of thought.] Selection pressure doesn't favour higher vertebrates who neglect their pups.

Over the aeons, natural selection has favoured the "encephalisation of emotion". We've become brainier and (comparatively) more emotionally sophisticated. Raw feeling and emotion typically infuse neocortical representations of ourselves and our environment in ways tending to maximise the inclusive fitness of self-replicating DNA. Most recently, the rich generative syntax of human language enables us to be (un)happy "about" innumerably more notions than our hominid ancestors. Admittedly, the discontinuity represented by the imminent revolution in reproductive medicine - a major evolutionary transition in the development of life on earth - could in principle reverse this long-term trend to complexification. In the post-Darwinian era of "unnatural" selection based on premeditated design, we could, in theory, choose genes that make our children blissed out rather than blissful. But it's more likely our descendants will opt instead to enjoy a well-being for their children (and themselves) that is far more encephalised than our own. Posterity will be smarter. They may even be nicer. The tendency to encephalise feeling may accelerate, even as those feelings tend to become deeper, more intense and more beautiful. Our emotional palette may be expanded far beyond today's primitive Darwinian appetites and their crude sublimations. Thus our enriched well-being may be predominantly empathetic, sensual, psychedelic, cerebral, aesthetic, introspective, maternal, or forms of consciousness unimaginable to twenty-first century emotional primitives.

Our post-human successors presumably won't undergo the agonies of our laboratory rodents in pursuit of such exhilarating lives. In the new reproductive era, emotional well-being and prodigious will-power alike can potentially be genetically hardwired as a precondition of mental health. "Authentic happiness" doesn't need to be strived for. Like a sense of meaning and purpose, it can be innate.

(Continued in next post)

[Tone]

Today, meanwhile, many people find it hard to get out of bed in the morning. Given the prevalence of chronic dysthymia, anhedonia and low-grade depression in even the "well" population at large, such inertia is scarcely surprising. Why bother to exert oneself if the payoff is so meagre? Depressive and unmotivated people are likely to find life "meaningless", "absurd", "futile". Nihilistic thoughts and angst-ridden mindsets are common. Feelings of inadequacy and failure can haunt the ostensibly successful. And the world is full of walking wounded whose spirit has been crushed.

Conversely (and for evolutionary reasons less commonly), hyperthymic or euphorically hypomanic people tend to find life intensely meaningful. A heightened sense of significance is part of the texture of their lives. If our happiness is taken care of - whether genetically, pharmacologically, or electrosurgically - then the meaning of life seems to take care of itself.

Depressives, philosophers and hard-nosed scientists may respond that "the meaning of life" is cognitively meaningless, a verbal placebo empty of propositional content. Happy and hypermotivated people, on the other hand, find the meaning of life self-intimating, written into the texture of the(ir) world.

Chronic apathy, weak will-power, depressive disorders, and the nastier poisonous modes of Darwinian consciousness can in principle be remedied by 1] drugs, 2] genes or 3] electrodes. These choices are not mutually exclusive. The abolitionist project and any post-Darwinian civilisation based on paradise-engineering could in theory take advantage of all three. But each option is still deeply controversial.

http://www.wireheading.com/hypermotivation.html

For further reading check out these sites:

The Hedonistic Imperative: a manifesto

http://hedweb.com

Select Writings by David Pearce:

http://www.universal-happiness.com

[Fluffz]

The meaning of life, therefore, can be simplified to one word, Wellness.

if that would be right, why have people we consider to have had great lifes worked against their wellness factor? for example Ghandi, Braveheart, Schindler or Jesus.

[ogron]

im going to cryogenically freeze myself then come back when i can have my own matrix.

MEANING OF LIFE = CREATING UNIVERSE INTO YOUR OWN IMAGE (my universe will be penis shaped)

ss will be lag free, $$

[NaiLed]

42

[Ewan]

Life is so unbalanced with those darn Xs though.

[PH]

42

Bahahaha, you are awesome.

[za gophar]

not to cloak people

[Riesen]

not to cloak people

Close, it's to outlaw the weasel in every way, to make it extinct, in game and in life.

[Edify]

No.

[jeem]

i hear that people who use big words are smart

[Torn Wing]

if that would be right, why have people we consider to have had great lifes worked against their wellness factor? for example Ghandi, Braveheart, Schindler or Jesus.

Somebody always has to be different you know.

[Squeezer]

humans have debated this for as long as language has existed, and I'm supposed to believe that I found the meaning of life on Trenchwars forums?

right.

[SpiderMage]

I see cloaked people....