It probably doesn't help that I work at an old-age home, where most of the people don't know who they are anymore, can't carry a conversation, and/or have to wear diapers and can't wipe their own butts. Seeing people in varying states of mental and physical decay is a constant reminder of what we're all working toward... — CasKev

That is true. I probably couldn't manage to do that - I would lose my mind. So I definitely respect people like you.

I think that's a common drive for a lot of people; one that comes from this learned need to be somehow different from or better than others. — CasKev

Yeah, but it's interesting how that plays out. Because you don't actually end up becoming much better than everyone else, since you play less than everyone else, and actually read "how to" more than everyone else >:O .

I have been inclined toward human service work, and that's mostly what I've done. Once in a while it was fulfilling; most of the time, not too much. I gave of myself to various causes, and that part was good. I had a lot of sex, loved several men, there was lots of sturm and drang, and here we are in retirement, a widower and a bachelor again, and likely to stay that way.

Now my goal in life is to make it to the grave as gracefully as possible. I spend a lot of my time on filling in the holes of my now long passed undergraduate education. This task is very satisfying. For instance, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year-History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin has tied together a number of loose ends from three biology and geology classes in which I wasn't paying that much attention. The Knife Man: Blood, Body Snatching, and the Birth of Modern Surgery By Wendy Moore is a biography about John Hunter, a pioneering surgeon and anatomist in the 18th century. Knife Man filled in several small holes. So did three books by neurosurgeons. There are many holes left to be filled.

To what end is all this study and reading? No end really, other than to learn. It won't help me get a job (not at this point) and it most likely will not get me into heaven or keep me out of hell, or even make the hereafter a slightly less boring eternity. I have an unknown amount of time to fill, and learning is a pleasant way to fill it.

Futile? No more futile now than it was when I begin college in 1964. Had I learned as much back then as I have since learned, I could have been a college professor, one of the cushier jobs on the planet. But if I had done that, then I would have had to put up with decades of POMO, and that would have been at least as bad as dealing with the fakery and futility of the helping professions.

Sculpture mainly.

An odd presumption, that one needs some reason to live.

One of my main points is that we survive, seek comfort, and avoid boredom using preferences based on our linguistic-conceptual minds shaped by enculturation of social setting and personality tendencies shaped by that very socialization and development.

And then, there are people in their 20s who stay on their bed the whole day starring at the ceiling. Why? Their body is 20, but their mind is 90! — Agustino

I doubt describing this in terms of 'psychic energy' really frames the issue. It seems more complex than that.

Think of how irritating it would be if you were forced to declare what you were living for each morning.

Think of how irritating it would be if you were forced to declare what you were living for each morning. — praxis

Declare initially, and then declare again, only when new evidence arises?

I doubt the average person, even the average TPF member, is conscious of what they "live for everyday", since the daily ritual of life doesn't allow for that much reflection. On top of that, when we do reflect on why we live life each day, we tend to come up with a nice ideal: "I live life for the betterment of others", "I live life for the beauty of things", "I live life because it's my imperative to do so", etc., ad naseum. But these aren't real reasons for "living life"; they're justifications for one's existence, and generally not quite truthful. In reality, we generally don't know exactly why we're living life.

Which has nothing to say about why life should be lived, which is the implied question within your question. The recognition of the uncertainty and the insincerity are good starting points, however.

Worst than that, there could be a life after death! — bahman

Life after death is scientifically unfounded.

I doubt the average person, even the average TPF member, is conscious of what they "live for everyday", since the daily ritual of life doesn't allow for that much reflection. On top of that, when we do reflect on why we live life each day, we tend to come up with a nice ideal: "I live life for the betterment of others", "I live life for the beauty of things", "I live life because it's my imperative to do so", etc., ad naseum. But these aren't real reasons for "living life"; they're justifications for one's existence, and generally not quite truthful. In reality, we generally don't know exactly why we're living life. — Noble Dust

True, nobody seems to be really asking the question. Look at my answers:

Building my business, learning more, faith, and helping my country, simple. — Agustino

Sounds like I was a good boy ticking all the right boxes on the new national survey! >:O

i) I reasonably live to aim to contribute to the development of Artificial General Intelligence.

ii) Why is the purpose of human life to create Artificial General Intelligence?




1.a) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe’s predicted end)

1.b) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy. (See source)

1.c) As species got more and more intelligent, nature was finding better ways to contribute to increases of entropy. (Intelligent systems can be observed as being biased towards entropy maximization)

1.d) Humans are slowly getting smarter, but even if we augment our intellect by CRISPR-like routines or implants, we will reasonably be limited by how many computational units or neurons etc fit in our skulls.

1.e) AGI/ASI won’t be subject to the size of the human skull/human cognitive hardware. (Laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form)

1.f) As AGI/ASI won’t face the limits that humans do, they are a subsequent step (though non biological) particularly in the regime of contributing to better ways of increasing entropy, compared to humans.

2) The above is why the purpose of the human species, is reasonably to create AGI/ASI.

I doubt describing this in terms of 'psychic energy' really frames the issue. It seems more complex than that. — Posty McPostface

Can you expand on this?

Richard Dawkins (a paraphrasing): "Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if humanity went extinct, instead replaced by artificial entities".

Sculpture mainly. — charleton

The first time I've almost agreed with you! Would love to see your work. Assuming you really mean that sculpting is your main motivation for life (even if I disagree with that motivation itself).

Yup. Everyone is fake. Except me. I'm always one tick away from nihilism, which seems to be the place to be. It positions you one tick away from God as well. :P

You should read this too...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/141692

Can you expand on this? — Agustino

Well, you brought up a term called 'psychic-energy' to describe a state of depression. Something I doubt has any use to trying to describe the term, 'depression'. Such as states characterized as 'low psychic energy' manifesting in depression.

Can you explain why you believe so?

I don't have time to read the article, but I'll look at it later (which means I probably wont; I'm too lazy :P care to summarize?)

Read it. Only read first paragraph but it's superb.

It's the existentialist stuff you like dawg... :P

Oooo oooo yay

Can you explain why you believe so? — Agustino

Well, it's just that depression is much more than the manifestation of 'psychic-energy'. Doesn't that term sound too new age to be taken seriously for you?

Doesn't that term sound too new age to be taken seriously for you? — Posty McPostface

I did not say psychic energy though :P

Interesting first paragraph. Who's the author?

Derp, nvm, the name appears on the tab, but nowhere else; Shestov. Been meaning to read him.

Interesting first paragraph. Who's the author? — Noble Dust

Me.

I said psychological energy - because that's what it is phenomenologically speaking.