I remember my English teacher making some remarks about an article that mentioned virgin conception, and hence cloning. He felt that the word "create" as in "man can now create another being" was used inappropritately. He felt that the word create refers to making something out of nothing, but man merely took something and modified/copied it, hence it cannot be said that man created a life. So I thought: can man create anything? Then it occured to me that the only thing that man can create is thoughts.
Imagination is a creation in itself. One creates something out of nothing. Yet some would say, isn't what we imagine merely a response to our surroundings? I think this is true. A person in different environments would imagine different things in response to his surroundings. So perhaps imagination itself is not even a creation of mankind.
What would a person who is unable to observe anything think? What were we thinking when we were in the womb, not sensing anything? Were we even thinking? If imagination and thought are merely processes in response to sensory inputs, then it does not seem wrong to say that a person who cannot feel, see, hear, taste or smell cannot think.
If a person cannot think in the modes of sensory inputs that he has never encountered, can he imagine them? Can a blind person(since birth) imagine colour? Can a deaf person(since birth) imagine sound? Sometimes I wonder if a person who is blind and deaf since birth dream in Braille(if he has learnt it).
And now it has occured to me that if I say that I am an idiot right here and I tell people to read my blog, they would probably only notice it if they read carefully. And I do wonder why did I start out this paragraph in the first place? Well, perhaps the reason why I even wanted to write this whole thing in the first place is probably to attract attention. If I did not want to, why did I not write it in a diary? It seems to me that all of each person's actions are based purely for the sake of happiness. And I am rather happy I wrote this paragraph and from here onwards I will try as much as possible to stay on track. But I shall end this paragraph in such a way that this paragraph becomes very long and nobody even wants to read it judging from the last sentence in the paragraph. So you see, despite all our understanding of the world and our beliefs in the ability to understand much of the things happening in the universe, it appears that man would somehow be unable to create anything on his own. He himself is controlled by the laws of nature, and the law of nature defines how he think. The input and process are both not entities that are noble or exclusive to humans. We feel that humans are better or a higher being compared to other animals because we can think. But since the ability to think is nothing exclusive, therefore there is no reason to believe in the sacracy of the lives of man.
What is the meaning of life? I think that this is a rather interesting question. We must first start off with "meaning". Are we thinking about definitions or objectives? It seems that people are more concerned with the second one(unless we are discussing about euthanasia or abortion, but I am not). To approach a problem about objectives, it seems difficult. According to the theory of evolution, life was formed, not made or modified for a purpose, so one cannot say why(In fact if you read my previous entries I have reasoned that there isn't a real reason for anything that people do). However, if we think about the problem as to why it is still here, then there is something we can deal with. One cannot say why an iron ore was here in the first place. But one can ask why an iron ore is here: something moved it here, or it was here all along.
So why is life still here? It is probably because a coincidence created a self propagating and reproductive mechanism. Therefore it is still here. And those mechanisms that propagate better are found in more places and exist in greater numbers. From such, it seems to me that there is nothing noble or sacred about this mechanism. Indeed, death is not easily reversible, but there is nothing that states that it is not possible. It is the technical details that are hard. Life is just like any mechanism. A mechanism does not need a purpose. One does not need a purpose for life to live. One with a life just lives, just like a toaster toasts, like a drill drills. Once this is sorted out, the meaning of life can be anything. However, by coincidence we are beings that are equipped to survive. Some of the equipments are the instinct to avoid wrongdoing to another person as far as possible, the instinct to eat, drink and breathe, the instinct to avoid danger, and the instinct to stay within a group.
So in a sense we have these instincts because if we did not, we would not be here. Simple as that. There is no reason why we are here other than coincidence.
However all I have stated above are mere theories. The theory of evolution is currently under attack (but I still do not see any fatal inductive arguments against it). Whether life was created or not we still do not know. However, the principle of evolution remains clear: it is possible. Many computer simulations have showed so. The walking mechanism in "Shrek" the movie is said to be made using the principle of evolution. Of course creation is possible, but scientists don't like it because it is useless. Creationism has not helped mankind one bit, but the principle and theory of evolution has been a great help to the progress of man. And if there is no evidence against it they don't really care as long as it is useful. (In most areas of physics they don't care if F=ma is true, it is very useful, so they use it)
So let us for once assume that creationism is the way. But does that prove anything? God created mankind. Period. Now from here I do not see any premise-conclusion link between faith and creation. I can try to stick in a premise here though,
Premise: God created Man.
Hidden premise: Man/A being must have faith in whoever created it/him.
Conclusion: Man must have faith in God.
The hidden premise fails the criteria for premise in a premise-conclusion argument, which states that each premise must be true. So, even if God created man, it does not mean that we must have faith. If He created us so that we have faith in Him, why is it not an instinct?
Clearly not. So actually, there are many problems in our lives that do not need to be solved. You can give any answer, as long as it is logical nobody can say it is wrong (just like 0/0 can have any value and you cannot show that it is wrong). No wonder nobody really cares about the meaning of life. There is no real meaning of life that can be proven to be true and unquestioned. Well unless you put it this way,
Premise one: Your purpose of life is to ph34r m3.
Premise two: Premise one is true.
Conclusion: Your purpose of life is to ph43r m3.
Then again there is nothing to show that premise two is true.
Sometimes the trouble lies in the fact that some of the premises are not to be questioned,
Premise one: Premise two is false.
Premise two: Premise one is false.
Conclusion: paradox.
So, since your instinct is to be happy, and it is within our ability to plan for eventual happiness, try to be happy! You don't need a reason to do anything.
