Luc Turpin

1- Odds are not very good indeed! even for finding remnants of low life forms. 2- If we find intelligence all over in nature, this would also be a key sign of wherein lies mind. Just helping us understand us would be, well, helpful too.

Maybe data and observation will determine if a useful dichotomy is there or not! Brain is part of the body, definitely; where is mind is the main issues that we need to address; It has the potential to change our understanding of our place in the universe; are we mere accidents of nature or active partners in the cosmic dance. Finding life elswhere in the universe, without it either being brought to or coming from earth, would begin to help us also resolve the enigma. Hard to understand should not stop us from trying.

To me, life around us does not always follow a logical path, hence the need to make sense of it. As for the before and after void, I like your use of the word "apparent", as we really do not know. However, if mind is within brain, then there isnothing waiting for us afterward. If mind acts upon brain, then, maybe.

Yes, if life has no meaning, then we are left with making our own sense of, and emphasise rationality and logic in doing so! .....our own sense of it, and emphasize........

Please expand! Within the context of nature-meaning of existence please.

You have greatly contributed to my understanding of the big-bang; thanks +1

I have been reading and re-reading this thread trying to understand what happened near the big-bang and still cannot wrap my head around it! Can someone describe to me, based on observation and best model so far, what we think occurred at or near the big-bang? Is there an analogy that can help explain what took place? Desperately seeking understanding!

To whom may help me understand. Why are hard-sciences and mathematics so much part of the existence of some as to become their life meaning?

Yep, a matter of experience and perspective, and, no, fortunate or unfortunate that it din't happen to me. Again, a matter of perspective

Me, not worth much! A personal judgement. Also, an expression frequently used when we are unsatisfied with the turn of events. You got to admit that this could all be much better. With less pain and sorrow and grief and war and illness and death. Even the possibility of actualizing notions of a "Brave new world", would be sufficient for many of us, and make it easier to accept. Just living a peaceful existence with an expiry date, would be fine by me. Living for eternity is a very long time to live, unless time and space do not really exist elsewhere, if elsewhere exists. All of this talk and my ego is still in the way, so I may not know really much about the meaning of existence.

Great! We do whatever is necessary to extract as much as we can out of this life situation. We all idealize a world with more purpose, but it is what it is, not what it should be.

1- Got me again! But, learned or cared without knowing is still caring and learning, Do it not? 2- Thinking only about it without caring, does it make it purposeful? I guess not! 3- Absolutely.

1- You are correct, I took Merleau-Ponty's and mentally "pasted-on" basal cognition onto it. Indication of how mind sometime works. Merleau also made the step easy to take. 2- Need not necessarily be realizable to be considered a purpose of existence. Aspiration-idealization pushes us onward while all of it being futile or not. 3- Even cells learn; reptiles show a sense of caring. Ants sacrifice themselves for the better of the community. Some plant cells do the same. Matter of form and degree of love-learn.

We exist to love and learn; silly isn’t it, but it is. I am sure that I will get no post traffic out of this one! Lot’s more uplifting than Monty Python’s version of it. Think about it before discarding it as senseless. Thinkers are light on one and heavy on the other. Also, brain creates mind or mind uses brain and cells to express itself? One is a majority while the other a very minority view in the field of consciousness.

Those that aspire to this "Brave new world" have purpose and meaning in their lives. Also, mistics say that true meaning in life is only found when the ego is no longer standing in the way.

Missed a great opportunity of shutting up and not saying anything.

1- Hard thing to do to listen, properly and honesly to the answer; got a long ways before I get there 2- Wisdom coming from dirmreepr; I am still a student, not a teacher! 3- Again, long road ahead of me!

According to the hologramic theory of mind, memory dims, but does not disapear - one of many theories of mind And according to basal cognition, all cells communicate, but the bulk of the work sitll remains with neurons i Guess. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/ I would venture a guess and say that emotions do affect our consciousness. 1- "Merleau-Ponty emphasized the body as the primary site of knowing the world, a corrective to the long philosophical tradition of placing consciousness as the source of knowledge" - where did I go wrong in my understanding? And your interpretation of it seems to me to be correct. 2- Yep! Genady, Geordief- INow - good start to a very long overdue discussion on consciousness. To infinity and beyond. Open rather than closed system. You will be eating for a long-long time.

+1 Body instead of consciousness as source of knowledge - interesting. Based on the interpretation of some newer evidence, I would rather say "body as a source of consciousness." Perceived body and perceived world could not be disentangled from each other - very interesting. Context, interelationship... all of this matters to fully understand. Guess you will have to eat the room as well as the elephant; and the building containing the room; and the world containing the building.

Got that! still working on building my foundation. The good part is that I am trying to come at it with an open perspective, allowing evidence to guide me. I am especially on the lookout for anomalies in data. Yes, yes and yes, I also have my own biases at play. You are right! Saying so, because one says so, does not make it necessarily so. However, one needs to constantly question the status quo as no one knows when the next period of revolutionary science will occur. Thomas "Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.[2]" From Wiki I figure that I have a one in a thousand chance of boasting that I told you so on mind.

1- Good one; got to think again. 2- Helpful, thanks. 3- Some neuroscientists and me!

Cute! Reading more Kafka, Camus, Dawkins and Freud proscribed; psilocybin prescribed!😇 Some newer data-observation points do not tightly align with it being solely about self-replicating DNA. So, what do we do about it? Ignore it? Let data help us understand life, not judgement calls. Without subjective introspection of any kind, science becomes merely a bean counting, stamp collection and material comfort endeavour. And not reflect the reality of this world, especially the subjective one.

It matters. We do. So, let's stop ignoring, circumventing, disparaging or comparing it to "pseudo science, quasi scientific speculations, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies". Some of it is, but not all of it. We are smart enough to know the difference without having to throw the baby with the bath water. And let's not collectively freak out when Deepak or God is mentioned, or if it might bring into question a pillar of science. Is it hard to study? Yes. Is it difficult to measure? Yes. Is it subjective? Yes, but not all of it. Is it a random occurrence? Yes, but is it still? Does it need God to work? Not necessarily. Do we need a lot of evidence before accepting some of it? Yes. The elephant is growing. Having difficulty following you, but got this one. Correction - So, let's stop ignoring, circumventing, disparaging or comparing it to "pseudo science, quasi scientific speculations, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies" everytime we study it.

Unsatisfactory Why do we exist - this could all have been unanimated without existence. Just molecules bumping by accident into each other. Sorry for the bother, but it is not! There’s that silly thing called existence which is strongly corelated with being conscious of existence. So, why is it there? Why can we ask the question “why”? Claiming “selection” is avoiding a discussion on the fundamental nature of existence. And where did it come from? On this, don't get me going by telling me that it is an emergent property of matter, because this is a big cop-out for, we don’t know! These questions are all valid for the asking, with or without God being summoned. or even bother existing - if it is all for nothing, why do you wake up in the morning and do what you do? The elephant is still standing.

No less trainable, but I do ask why? I am an eternal optimist still in seach of it, with the impression that I will be disapointed Not special nor spiritual, but mind does not work like we think.