Consensus.

To start off, I need consensus. My starting point is that we all accept the discovery that we are results of an evolutionary process. More apt: there was life before humankind came into being. This is what I need you to accept, face value, from here I go on.

Accepting that life evolved over a long time, and accepting that we humans are a recent member of life’s species, you now have two choices; either you accept the commonly accepted scientific explanation of genetic  evolution, inheritance with ever so much change mixed in because this process is blind and has no purpose. And then there is this other notion; life has meaning, life has purpose, life is valuable. Why is it that this second notion spans all times, all regions and all ethnicities? Because there is a silent ‘my’ before all these convictions. How do you live when you don’t have meaning, don’t have purpose and you’re not valuable?

All religions, philosophies, ideologies are  our trying to answer the most important question: why am I here? The fact that we relate and depend on our neighbours morphed the question into; why are we here?

So, we have the scientific atheist view of a purposeless process of ‘survival of the fittest’ or an unfathomable range of religious and philosophical thought, trying to make sense of our life’s, give it meaning and valuable, or not.

Is life as in evolution a blind force, purposeless or is there meaning and purpose to be found at the centre of our existence?

Of course there is.

To accredit evolution with human values as blind, purposelessness is a compete misdirection when we are being introduced to the atheist explanation of life and evolution. You won’t find these values of blind and purposelessness ever again, it’s all about ‘surviving’. 

It’s all about surviving. Survival of the species, the fittest, it even penetrates our human experience on more than one level. For us surviving means many things; survive in business, in arts, faith..etc. But try and find a definition of the word and you’ll find there is none, really, Google it. Except of course the philosophical tautology; To remain alive.  

What does it mean, to remain alive? This actually is the real 64 thousand dollar question. And I will answer it.

I don’t need religion, no ideology or philosopher. I only need the self-ignored paradox of no purpose what’s whoever against there explanation of evolution where they defend another purpose;  survival! Which would make a nice scientific equation; to survive = meaningless. Of course for each and every one of us it isn’t.

When we accept that surviving is the one and only purpose of life, the question becomes more visible. If life is an intelligent agency with an obvious goal to survive, then we’re not here by accident. Like the camouflage of the leopard and the sonar driven bats, we too are here for a reason., that reason is for life to survive. But what is it we were evolved for? What is our special feature that might help life to survive indefinitely? What is it that life experienced and threatened her existence that we were a necessity for her to create? Exactly, God.

God is the almighty one. God proofed to be more powerful than life. God is the universe and the he judges us and more than once punished us. God is not something you can adapt to in the normal way, God comes suddenly and from beyond our direct environment. God is the universe that created life. God giveth and taketh away.

So the answer is simple; we’re here because life knows that we’re living on an unstable planet and to survive we need to leave our nest eventually. That’s why we were created and that’s why the most important scientist of today says exactly that; Stephen Hawkins. He just doesn’t know that it was all intended.

Lets answer some more questions. For life to survive indefinitely, human kind is the only species that ventured beyond this planet. We know since the early seventy’s that life had some disastrous experiences long before humankind came into being.  The cometh strike 65 million years ago and the end Permian extinction of 250 million years ago (years are human values). Conclusion: the planet almost killed us and later on the universe tried the same.  To survive we need to adapt to the universe and be able to leave the nest, earth. That’s where love comes in, or more accurately; do not do to another what you do not want another to do to you. This adage we find in all cultures through all times, but almost never practiced fully.

So what are we? We’re not the end station, that’s for sure. Sacrificing for the other is a rare feature within human life, but it is well admired. We are the intermediary species of life’s search for survival. Our (western) notion of freedom omits  the obvious; to stay alive you need to do stuff. It’s the stuff all life does to stay alive. That’s when we encounter our life-forces.

They say that if fish were philosophical they would discover the water they live in lastly. They are right. We too discover our core motivations when all else has been scrutinized.  And how embarrassing; we too saw nothing where all of it gathers. What do we do that all other life forms from day one did?

It’s not reproducing as western common believe states, of course it’s not, it’s feeding!

The purpose of life is to keep on living, survive. To survive life needs food, when fed she’ll reproduce.

Now the life force: why does life eat? If she doesn’t she’ll experience pain, hunger. Pain, hunger is the first motivator that made life eat. Hunger is pain, but pain isn’t our motivator to eat, it’s lust. Pleasure comes before the pain. When you do not eat yo9u get peckish, you’d like this or that to eat, but when you fail to eat for long enough, this puckishness will turn into hunger, pain, Then you do not care about what you eat as long as you’ve got food.

Pain and pleasure lie at the core of life’s consciousness. We’re just made in her image, to do battle with God and each other to accelerate our knowledge of where we are and how to survive. None of us are in expendable all of us are sacrificed.    

There was no way of knowing why we were here before the mid-seventies of last century. The discovery of mass-extinctions in life’s history was the first explanation of the universal end-times within most religions. Armageddon is what it is, you’ve seen the movie!  Life’s gonna tackle that!

The idea of death doesn’t make sense according to this theory of survival. Why do we die? We don’t.

Ever seen the birth of a lizard in the wild?  An ancient species alive long before us humans. It knows, reacts and acts with full knowledge from the moment it hatches. That’s original life. It isn’t bourn like we are born, clueless. It’s fully equipped and ready to go. It can even play dead when a predator comes near.

To be created in her image and in the image of God we were deprived of eternal life. For the first time a life form contemplated death. Life created the first philosophical life form.

So here you are, not the conclusion but a steppingstone. You are forgiven for all you’ve done that transgresses the  goal to survive. You won’t be punished for your sins.

Can you forgive yourself?

  

love thy neighbour...

Who or what is your neighbour or who or what is the other when we say; do unto others what you want others to do unto you, or when we say; love your neighbour as yourself.

The other, or neighbour is the one with the same needs you have. That’s all there is to it.

and there is this difference between wanting and needing something, go figure it out...

Bahá'í Faith:"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. 1


Brahmanism:
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "


Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18


Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6.


Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4


Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110


Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517


Islam:
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3


Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33


Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 
###########################################

Now internalize it!

Do not make others feel like you wouldn’t want others to make you feel.

Don not create feelings in others that you do not want others to create in you.  
Don’t make me feel stuff you wouldn’t want me to make you feel.
Don’t  create suffering for the other, because you don’t want others to create your suffering.
I hate it when they do that to me, so I won’t do it to others.
Why would I do that to him, when I would abhor it if he does that to me.

 Neurobiological theories

Based on discoveries made through neural mapping of the limbic system, the neurobiological explanation of human emotion is that emotion is a pleasant or unpleasant mental state

 

Many pleasurable experiences are associated with satisfying basic biological drives, such as eating, exercise or sex.

Biology, neurology, psychology

Pain and pleasure, in the broad sense of these words, are respectively the negative and positive affects, or hedonic tones, or valences that psychologists often identify as basic in our emotional lives.^[15] The evolutionary role of physical and mental suffering, through natural selection, is primordial: it warns of threats, motivates coping (fight or flight, escapism), and reinforces negatively certain behaviors (see punishment, aversives). Despite its initial disrupting nature, suffering contributes to the organization of meaning in an individual's world and psyche. In turn, meaning determines how individuals or societies experience and deal with suffering.

“where is the hunger, the pain we all feel when we cannot feed ourselves... (m42tijn)”

Hunger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the social condition. For the physical sensation, see Hunger (motivational state). For other uses, see Hunger (disambiguation).

Hunger is the most commonly used term to describe the social condition of people who frequently experience the physical sensation of desiring food.

“fuck you! We all frequently desire food, that’s how McDonalds got so big. It aching for food, suffering old-school, hunger, pain. Not desire. Fool.(m42tijn)”

Historical views of pain

Two near contemporaries in the 18th and 19th centuries, Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Sade had very different views on these matters. Bentham saw pain and pleasure as objective phenomena, and defined utilitarianism on that principle. However the Marquis de Sade offered a wholly different view - which is that pain itself has an ethics, and that pursuit of pain, or imposing it, may be just as useful and just as pleasurable, and that this indeed is the purpose of the state - to indulge the desire to inflict pain in revenge, for instance, via the law (in his time most punishment was in fact the dealing out of pain). The 19th century view in Europe was that Bentham's view had to be promoted, de Sade's (which it found painful) suppressed so intensely that it - as de Sade predicted - became a pleasure in itself to indulge. The Victorian culture is often cited as the best example of this hypocrisy.

The philosopher Nietzsche experienced long bouts of illness and pain in his life, and wrote much about the meaning of pain as it relates to the meaning of life in general. Among his more famous quotes, are ones specifically related to pain:

"Did you ever say yes to a pleasure?

Oh my friends, then you also said yes to all pain.

All things are linked, entwined, in love with one another."

"What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

The most fit creature would be the one whose pains are well balanced. Those pains which mean certain death when ignored will become the most powerfully felt. The relative intensities of pain, then, may resemble the relative importance of that risk to our ancestors (lack of food, too much cold, or serious injuries are felt as agony, whereas minor damage is felt as mere discomfort).

The Seven Human Needs are:

1. The Need for Security
2. The Need for Excitement and Creativity
3. The Need for Individual Strength
4. The Need for Love and Relationships
5. The Need for Expression and Contribution
6. The Need for Wisdom and Growth
7. The Need for Spirituality

No food we need, nah…fools!

In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia".^[1]

^{first quallia = hunger}

Eating is the ingestion of food to provide for all organism their nutritional needs, particularly for energy and growth. Animals and other heterotrophs must eat in order to survive: carnivores eat other animals, herbivores eat plants, omnivores consume a mixture of both plant and animal matter, and detritivores eat detritus. Fungi digest organic matter outside of their bodies as opposed to animals that digest their food inside their bodies. Eating is an activity of daily living.

Four Fs (evolution)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (February 2009)

In evolutionary biology, people often speak of the four Fs which are said to be the four basic drives or mind states that animals (including humans) are evolutionarily adapted to be good at^{[citation needed]}: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and reproduction. The last of these is not literally an F word, of course, and is a tongue-in-cheek reference to fornication or "fucking".

‘Drives or mind states’… please elaborate. In fear I fight or flee, it’ll hurt when I don’t eat. Pleasure I find when I act to ensure survival. (42)

To propose a purpose...

The purpose in life has different explanations from different life stances. It may differ substantially within the communities of each life stance, but the examples below are the purposes that are generally accepted as the main for each life stance.

Life stance	Main purpose
Buddhism	To help sentient beings end their suffering (see The Four Noble Truths) with Karma and Dharma methods.
Christianity	Love God, Love others. The Great Comission
Hinduism	To worship work (Karma) according to law (Dharma) without any thought of result, as said in the Bhagavad Gita.
Humanism	To promote human flourishing.
Islam	The Arabic word Islam means peace, submission and obedience to God's will.
Judaism	To serve God[9] and to prepare for the world to come[10] ("Olam Haba").[11]
Postmodernism	To create complex structures and interactions with purpose of joy and understanding.

Life...

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not,^[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.^[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.^[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.
In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

On the origin of Life...

Theory of Chemical Evolution

Back to Top
This theory is also known as Materialistic Theory or Physico-chemical Theory. According this theory, Origin of life on earth is the result of a slow and gradual process of chemical evolution that probably occurred about 3.8 billion years ago. This theory was proposed independently by two scientists - A.I.Oparin, a Russian scientist in 1923 and J.B.S Haldane, an English scientist, in 1928.

According to this theory,

• Spontaneous generation of life, under the present environmental conditions is not possible.

• Earth's surface and atmosphere during the first billion years of existence, were radically different from that of today's conditions.

• The primitive earth's atmosphere was a reducing type of atmosphere and not oxidising type.

• The first life arose from a collection of chemical substances through a progressive series of chemical reactions.

• Solar radiation, heat radiated by earth and lighting must have been the chief energy source for these chemical reactions.

This theory still reigns within western secular scientific thought. Within it we immediately find ideological paradox. The first of the four 'rules' is a denial of an old Greek philosophy where life continually emenates from 'dead matter'.

Theory of Spontaneous Generation

This theory assumed that living organisms could arise suddenly and spontaneously from any kind of non-living matter. One of the firm believers in spontaneous generation was Aristotle, the Greek philosopher (384-322 BC).

He believed that dead leaves falling from a tree into a pond would transform into fishes and those falling on soil would transform into worms and insects. He also held that some insects develop from morning dew and rotting manure. Egyptians believed that mud of the Nile river could spontaneously give rise to many forms of life. The idea of spontaneous generation was popular almost till seventeenth century. Many scientists like Descartes, Galileo and Helmont supported this idea. In fact, Von Helmont went to the extent stating that he had prepared a 'soup' from which he could spontaneously generate rats! The 'soup' consisted of a dirty cloth soaked in water with a handful of wheat grains. Helmont stated that if human sweat is added as an 'active principle' to this, in just 17 days, it could generate rats!
The theory of Spontaneous Generation was disproved in the course of time due to the experiment conducted by Fransisco Redi, (1665), Spallanzani (1765) and later by Louis Pasteur (1864) in his famous Swan neck experiment. This theory was disapproved, as scientists gave definite proof that life comes from pre-existing life.

This denial makes sense when it is stated as I just did, as an attack on this old Greek assumption. But they did not state it like that, and the results reverbarate to this day. It resulted in what some like to call the paradox or religion within science; the concept of 'something from nothing'.

To pursue scientific truths we require proof, seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these findings to make useful predictions. These scientific predictions are based on 'something from something'. This excludes the notion of 'something from nothing' as real, thus falsifialble. The religious paradox the secular scientific atheist lives in is its own explanation of how our universe began. The Big Bang theory in itself is the ultimate story of creation arising from nothing.

So it is with the origin of life, todays secular scientific thought will dismiss Aristotles theory with contempt , just to replace it with exactely the same theory, only reduced to 'one single critical moment' and 'just the right conditions' for Life to 'spontaneously generate' out of non-living matter.