VincentRJ

9 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Corruption is something that can affect science - in my opinion mainly on the deniers side e.g. affects of smoking, warming, etc - but it happens across the board in all facets of life where there is a buck to be made.

 

I'm not sure it's mainly on the deniers' side, unless you are combining the term 'denial' with 'skepticism'.

Skepticism, perhaps due to a sense of the irrationality of an argument, or the presence of counteracting evidence which casts doubt on the truth of an argument, is the most fundamental aspect of scientific enquiry. Without it, there would be no scientific progress.

The behaviour of certain scientists who were earning a living in the tobacco industry, is an illuminating example of the bias that can result when earning a living might be in conflict with a 'potential' scientific truth which is still in the process of investigation, and which could destroy one's career if eventually proven to be correct.

The choice would be to either resign immediately and look for another job, perhaps despite having an expensive mortgage to pay on a house and having a wife and 5 young children to support, or to continue working in the tobacco industry and attempt to downplay the significance of smoking on lung cancer, hoping that the evidence for a significant risk will never become conclusive.

However, this problem is faced by many scientists in various industries, including the IPCC. Which is more important, complete scientific integrity and honesty, or earning a living?
 

2 hours ago, Thunglom said:

It's a classic sign of the ignorant to dismiss evidence that shows them to be wrong. A combination of ccognitive dissonance. or cognitive measiliness

Read these

 = https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

 

Excellent point, but it doesn't apply to me, because I used to accept the alarm about human-caused climate change when the issue first became prominent in the media, a few decades ago, and when I was frequently listening to media interviews of certain famous scientists, such as James Lovelock who were explaining the potential problem of rising CO2 levels.

I was rather puzzled at the time why governments were not taking more immediate action, such as providing more assistance to the development of electric vehicles, and setting a moratorium on the manufacture of ICE vehicles, which the UK has now done decades later.

However, because I have a curious and questioning mind, as well as a good understanding of the 'methodology of science', I began searching the internet, and Google Scholar, for answers to issues and facts that were never mentioned in the media and during the interviews of climate scientists.

It soon became very apparent that there was an obvious bias in the media when reporting the issue of climate science, and/or interviewing scientists on the issue of climate change. Their purpose seemed to be to remove all doubts by excluding the reporting of any contradictory studies, exaggerating the potential harmful effects of rising CO2 levels, and completely ignoring the beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere, which clearly helps to green the planet.

In other words, I changed my mind as a result of my own enquiries into the issue, instead of just accepting what is reported in the media, such as the frequent report of a 97% consensus that rising CO2 levels will produce catastrophic changes in climate.

As Yellowtail suggested, perhaps you could provide some details about the scientific process that arrived at that 97% figure.
 

4 hours ago, Thunglom said:

You are showing a very limited knowledge of stats and how they and science works - you seem to rely on limited information that is carry-picked to support your own assumptions.

 

We all rely upon limited information. There are no exceptions, hence my humorous comment about God.

The amount of published, peer-reviewed information on climate related matters, including the geological history of past climate changes, evidence from proxy records such as tree rings, sediment analysis, ice cores, and the massive amount of modern data from from temperature readings, satellites, and sea buoys, is far too great for any person to read in a whole lifetime.

If you are unable to see the political bias in the climate-change mantra, and the economic biases of those employed by government-funded organizations which were created because of a perceived alarm about human-caused climate change, then I can't help you.
 

It's so sad that governments seem unable to learn from history. Cambodia is one of the few countries that has a recent history, just a few centuries ago, of a total collapse of a great and magnificent civilization caused mainly by natural climate change.

Around the same time that the Medieval Warm Period in Europe was transitioning to the Little Ice Age, the great Khmer civilization was experiencing 'unprecedented' droughts and floods. For several decades, the monsoons never arrived, and masses of people began leaving the area in order to survive, including members of the 'upper class'.

When the droughts were followed by unprecedented flooding, yet more people fled to other parts of Cambodia, probably Phnom Penh. There's archaeological evidence that those who remained tried to control the flooding by dismantling certain temples in order to use the stone blocks to construct more dams.

It was then the Thais invaded, which was the final nail in the coffin.

The message here is that governments should prepare for a repetition of abrupt changes in climate that have occurred in the past, instead of fooling the population that any changes in climate are due to CO2 emissions, and that such changes can be prevented by reducing CO2 emissions. ????

3 hours ago, Thunglom said:

Oh I see and ALL the world's scientists missed this but you didn't?

Wow! You know what ALL the world's scientists think! Amazing! You must be like some sort of God. ????

5 hours ago, Jillie Norman said:

Global warming is really happening and we have to something or this planet is doomed. I watched a news recently where it snowed in Brazil.

There's a lot of confusion about climate change. If a particular region experiences the highest temperature in 100 years or the highest flood level in 100 years, then the media will tend to describe such events as evidence of human-caused climate change. However, using such logic provides the opposite result. If there was an equal or even more severe weather event 100 years ago, before CO2 rises were significant and when the world population was much lower, then that implies the recent, extreme weather event could be entirely natural.

The last Ice Age, or Glacial Maximum, occurred around 20,000 years ago when sea levels are estimated to have been 120 to 130 metres lower than today. The Australian continent is estimated to have been about 1/3rd larger in size, as a result, and the Aboriginals were able to walk across the Bas Strait from mainland Australia to Tasmania. No canoes required.

To make the math simpler, lets use the estimate of a 120 metres lower sea level. 120 metres is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000, and one gets an average rise in sea levels of 6 mm per year over 20,000 years.

Of course, during that period there will have been many centuries when sea level rises were far greater than 6 mm per year, and other centuries when it was less, and significantly falling.

Let's consider the current sea level rise during the past century. It's estimated to have been, on average, about 2 mm per year, and in recent decades as high as 3 mm per year. Wow! How alarming! ????

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Somehow today i understand very well what you are saying, but, even more, i have to praise your intellectual honesty. 

 

..Especially when you say that the distinction between hypothesis and theory may be blurred. 

Without going too much in detail, can we also agree that a hypothesis may be sold as a theory to the public, or even worse, as a fact ?

Absolutely! This is a very common political practice. It's a major problem for humanity in general. Economics and 'power over others', tend to rule, and probably always have throughout human history.

Scientific investigation has moved towards an economic industry, with large groups of scientists engaging in work as a necessary job to support themselves and their family. The great scientists of the past, such as Galileo, Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, were self-funded and were motivated by curiosity.

However, nowadays, most research organizations have to be funded by government grants or some type of 'foundation' which has an economic interest in the outcome of the research. This introduces a bias.
 

On 8/20/2021 at 9:47 AM, mauGR1 said:

 As for the evolution theory, it's still evolving, and surely something in it makes sense.

Personally,  i think that a science which bases its "truths" on false premises is flawed from the beginning...

 

All science is evolving. That's the nature of scientific enquiry. Science is never 'truly' settled. There's always something that needs modifying to some degree, and sometimes a theory which has been generally accepted for decades or even centuries is completely overturned as new evidence come to light, often through new technology.

However, before that new evidence can change an accepted theory, it has to meet the fundamental requirements of the 'methodology of science', which involves repeated, controlled experiments that produce consistent results.
The scientific process begins with a 'hypothesis', which is an imaginative idea used to explain an observed phenomenon or phenomena, followed by controlled experiments to test the validity of the hypothesis.

Sometimes the issue is so complicated with so many uncontrollable variables that it's impossible to validate a particular hypothesis using the 'methodology of science'.
An interesting example is the hypothesis that all matter consists of invisibly small particles called atoms. As far as we know from history, this hypothesis was first proposed by Democritus in Greece, and Acharya Kannada in India, around the same time, about 2,500 years ago, but of course, during those times there was no possibility of confirming the hypothesis. The hypothesis hung around for about 2,000 years before the existence of the atom began to be verified. 

Without a process of sound verification, or the application of the 'methodology of modern science', hypotheses can be endlessly discussed, with all sorts of divergent, opposing views. Even Democritus' hypothesis about the atom was rejected by Aristotle. The early Greek philosophers tried to understand the nature of the world through reason and logic, but not through experiment and observation. 

"Personally,  i think that a science which bases its "truths" on false premises is flawed from the beginning..."

At least we agree on that point. The purpose of the 'methodology of science' is to avoid, as best we can, basing so-called truths on false premises. When the methodology of repeated testing under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time, cannot be conducted because of the complexity and/or chaotic nature of the situation, or because of the limitations of our current instruments, the honest scientist will admit the uncertainty.

Unfortunately, whilst the fundamental principles of scientific enquiry require that the investigating scientist be unbiased, honest and objective, many scientists are also 'flawed' human beings with personal interests driven by a desire for wealth, fame, acceptance by their immediate community, promotion in their job, and so on.

".. thinking that consciousness, faith, compassion, imagination etc. originated from a bang coming from nowhere in a place which didn't exist, is at least as ludicrous as believing in Santa Claus. "

Absolutely! I agree once again. Only those who have little understanding of science, tend to think that. The 'Big Bang' is not a scientific word, but a common-word analogy. A 'singularity' is not 'nothing'. It's a very tiny point, in terms of volume, but has infinite mass.

The problem here is that we live within a very narrow spectrum of conditions, so our analogies and personal understanding are usually based upon those very narrow experiences within our environment.

For example, consider the temperature range that scientists have observed. Life on Earth exists within a very narrow range of temperatures. Absolute zero is -273.15 degrees Centigrade, which is zero degrees Kelvin. Each degree of Kelvin is equal to one degree on the Centigrade scale, except Kelvin starts at 'absolute' zero, whereas zero on the Centigrade scale is the freezing point of water.

The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C, which is a long way from -273 C. The highest natural temperature ever recorded on Earth is around 57 degrees C. However, the hottest temperature ever measured with our sophisticated instrument, such as the Large Hadron Collider in CERN, is about 5.5 trillion degrees C.

How does 5.5 trillion degrees compare with our personal experiences? Even molten metals that are heated to produce a gas, are only a few thousand degrees.
A similar situation applies to our personal experience of the weight or mass of objects. A block of polystyrene foam is extremely light compared with a block of lead occupying the same space. But that difference in mass is very narrow compared with the differences that science has observed in the universe. Consider the mass of a Black Hole.

However, I must emphasize the point that, because science is an ongoing process, there is sometimes no clear or precise distinction between Hypothesis and Theory. There are often just degrees of certainty that something is correct, ranging from 'very high' to 'very low'. We can't be certain that the Big Bang hypothesis is correct. It's just the best (or at least one of the best) scientific explanations we currently have.

Hope I have clarified everything for you, so no need to meditate 12 hours a day for ten years. ????
 

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh, so if i read your article, and i don't appreciate it, it would mean i have a low IQ... how nice of you ????

I wrote 'probably', which means I'm not certain. ????

"Yes, I know what placebo is, i consider any placebo effect case to be a miracle."

But not as great a miracle as a modern drug which has proven to be, during its development, more effective than a placebo. Right?

"Actually i consider life itself a miracle."

I would agree, depending on your definition of the word 'miracle'. If you mean, 'A wonderful, strange or marvelous thing', which is one definition of miracle, then I agree.

However, if you define miracle as 'An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin', then I would disagree. The theory of evolution is the best explanation for life, and as we continue with the genetic coding of various forms of life, and discover that we share a certain percentage of our genes with every other creature, and even with plants, then the theory of Evolution is strengthened. The following link provides a simple summary of the situation.

"Research shows that 99.9 percent of the genetic information in DNA is common to all human beings. The remaining 0.01 percent is responsible for differences in hair, eye and skin color, height and propensity to certain diseases. Scientists believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, which means that humans also share DNA sequencing with all other living organisms. Humans share DNA with creatures closer in the evolutionary line and with common ancestors to a greater extent than with those further removed. Top on the list are the great apes, while lesser apes, monkeys and prosimians are a little further removed. Other mammals are further still, followed by insects, plants and more rudimentary life forms."
 

https://sciencing.com/what-is-the-haploid-diploid-cell-number-for-a-monkey-12732203.html
 

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

This concept has been debated a few times.

while i don't know if Jesus really did the miracles in the narrative, I'm convinced that miracles don't happen on demand from humans, but they happen when the spirit decides to show up.

Many ill people go to Lourdes,  but a very tiny minority get healed.

If this leaves someone unsatisfied,  well, I'm so sorry but that's it ????

As I've mentioned before in this long thread, 'so-called' or 'apparent' miracles have happened frequently throughout human history. In science, it's a concept known as 'the placebo effect'. You must have heard of it. ????

There's a perfect example in the New Testament. The incident occurred while Jesus was traveling to Jairus' house, amid a large crowd, according to Mark.

A woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.

You can describe that as a miracle, or a placebo effect. The efficacy of all newly developed drugs have to be compared with a placebo before they can be approved, using a double-blind test where neither the doctor nor the patient knows whether it is the new drug or a placebo that is being administered. If the drug, on average, produces better results than the placebo, then it's approved, provided there are no 'known' harmful side effects at the time, although such side-effects can often occur many years later, which is a major problem of artificially created drugs.

The following linked article provides lots of details and a good overview of the placebo effect, but you probably need an IQ of at least 100 to understand and appreciate it. ????
 

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/7/15792188/placebo-effect-explained
 

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

If you doubt that it is possible to be one with everything, sit down, look inside and find out by yourself if it's true or not.
Saying it's not possible without even trying, is completely worthless.

Oh! I see! You mean 'one with everything inside yourself'? I thought you meant 'one with everything in the universe', which you obviously can't possibly know about. I hope you are not implying that spirituality travels much faster than the speed of light and that you are able to feel at one with a galaxy that is 13 billion light years away from Earth. ????

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

What imho you fail to understand is that the experience of oneness is beyond logic,  that's why it's so amazing and so difficult to describe. 

Yet, i can easily predict that, if you are so lucky to experience it, you'll also try to explain it, to yourself and others,  in logical terms. 

Not true.. There are many concepts that are beyond logic which I understand and accept are illogical and irrational. Poetry is often beyond logic, for example, but one can still appreciate the nice feeling it produces, and perhaps the imaginative stimulation, as one can when watching an entertaining movie.

I can also imagine how puzzling our environment, such as the night sky, and the rising and setting of the sun, must have been to our ancient ancestors, say 50,000 to 5,000 years ago, not to mention volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, thunder and lightning, and devastating winds and rain.
The history of mankind has been an attempt to understand the causes of such events, which used to have a severe impact on their survival, and still does, because we are entrenched in fixed locations like cities, and are economically restricted in freely changing our locations, as many animals do to avoid harmful, temporary conditions. 

All the explanations of our ancient ancestors, which usually included various types of Gods, have been proved by modern science to be either wrong and fanciful, or not yet substantiated.

We all have personal experiences which might be difficult to describe, hence the great number of novels, poetry and movies. However, being unable to distinguish between fact and fiction can have disastrous results. ????
 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

So do I as a non-atheist or non-skeptic, and I think I made that abundantly clear in this thread. 

The question is, how far will you go questioning the explanation of what reality is? 

Will you still accept that consciousness is a byproduct of the physical brain because someone told you, or will you try to find out by yourself? 

It's all good and well to like this sutta, but it should be backed up by actions. That's the whole point.

I already have an explanation of what reality is. It's combination of human characteristics, (that is, our qualities of perception and thought as a species), and our environment (inner and outer) which we observe and perceive using those qualities of perception.

As I've mentioned before, if one separates the observed from the observer, there's nothing to be observed. One cannot observe consciousness as a separate entity, because consciousness is always required to observe, experience, and think about anything and everything.
What we can observe, using modern technology, are certain activities in parts of the brain that are always associated with consciousness, and the inactivity in those same areas of the brain when we observe that a person is unconscious.

Whilst an individual, during introspective meditation, might achieve a state of awareness without any thoughts arising, that is not a state of 'understanding the nature of consciousness'. It's just a state of awareness with no thoughts. Such awareness with no thoughts might result in an extraordinary sense of peace and calm. However, to then describe that experience as a 'oneness with God' is not only pure speculation and hypothesis, from a scientific perspective, but terribly imprecise without a clear definition of God.

If you describe God as 'everything that exists', then an experience of a 'oneness with everything' is just an illusory experience which you find impossible to describe meaningfully and rationally. Do you feel a oneness with a Black Hole, an exploding star, the scientifically hypothesized Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and a oneness with the billions of different species of insects and microbes in the soil? ????

A mere handful of soil can contain a greater number of microbes than the entire human population on our planet. Do you feel a oneness with all those microbes that you can't possible be aware of personally, unless you are a microbiologist with sophisticated instruments? ????

22 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Do you really believe that Buddha said those exact words, accurately translated from Sanskrit or Hindi, when the scriptures were not even existing, or confined to a small elite of Brahmins.  

.. or perhaps you justt like the thought expressed.. 

Which is a paradox btw...

And do you think that adding one of the several artistic renditions of the Buddha ( I suppose he's Sakhiamuni Buddha) makes it more credible?

Imho, "question everything " sums it up pretty nicely.

 

I suspect this is an interpretation of the ideas expressed in the Kalama Sutta which addresses the doubts that a group of villagers had about the various religious ideas which were prevalent in those times.

The Kalamas were inhabitants of the town of Kessaputa. They had experienced, before the Buddha arrived, numerous monks, brahmans, and ascetic wanderers, passing through their village and teaching their own doctrine whilst reviling and despising the doctrines of others.
As a result, the villagers were confused and uncertain about which 'teaching' they should follow, or accept as true. When the Buddha arrived at their village, the Kalamas explained their situation and their doubts.

The Buddha's response, known as the Kalama Sutta, is found in the Pali Canon. The following article goes into detail.

"The instruction of the Kalamas (Kalama Sutta) is justly famous for its encouragement of free inquiry; the spirit of the sutta signifies a teaching that is exempt from fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance."
 

The criterion for acceptance
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

Everything that we experience, talk about, or think about has to be first interpreted during the process of 'awareness' or 'consciousness', although often very basic interpretations appears to be instantaneous because they are embedded in our subconscious. An example would be 'seeing a very small house in the landscape'. We don't have to ponder and wonder whether or not the house is a 'Doll's House' because it is so small. We automatically understand that it appears very small because of it's distance from us, which is something all children learn at an early age.

Even if writing had existed during the times of the Buddha, and his teachings had been written down, there would still be problems of modern interpretation, especially considering the abstract nature of the subject.
The Kalama Sutta has different, modern interpretations. It doesn't seem to be a popular sutta within the traditional Buddhist religion, which is understandable because the sutta is advising those who have doubts, not to automatically accept what is written in the scriptures, nor accept what a particular, so-called 'authority' claims to be true.

It's the type of sutta that mostly appeals to atheists, skeptics, and those who attach great importance to the rigorous process of the 'Methodology of Science'. Those who criticize the sutta claim that it encourages people to believe whatever they like, which I think is a wrong interpretation. In my view, the Kalama Sutta encourages people to 'think for themselves', to question 'so-called authorities', and to also consider their own biases which have influenced their current views.

I consider the Kalama Sutta, as interpreted in modern English, to be one of the wisest of the Buddha's teachings, regardless of whether or not the Buddha actually taught that precise message as translated.

The main obstacle in trying to understand the full nature of consciousness is the fact that all our understanding of anything and everything is totally dependent on our consciousness.

For example, a meditator can be conscious of the thoughts and experiences that arise in his mind as he sits down peacefully, but he cannot be aware of his faculty of awareness or consciousness. If he claims to be aware only of his consciousness, then one would have to ask what faculty of awareness enables him to be aware of his awareness. Another level of consciousness, perhaps?

In other words, there can be no 'awareness of only awareness'. There is always 'something else' required for awareness or consciousness to exist, that is, some perception or feeling either related to what's outside of oneself or what's inside of oneself.

Another way of putting it is, if one separates the observer from the observed, there's nothing that is observed. 
 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

There is a subtle difference even between 'drive' and 'motive'.

However, reproduction is a 'drive', but 'purpose ' can overcome the 'drive' if there's a 'motive'.. 

As an example, i may have a 'drive' to drink 1 more beer, but if my 'purpose' is to have longer life, 'purpose' will be at odds with 'drive'.

Sometimes 'purpose ' will win, sometimes it will be defeated by 'drive'.

There are subtle differences between all words, especially 'common' words in everyday language. I'm trying to get behind those differences to identify a fundamental force behind all purposes.

Why, for example, would you have a 'purpose' to have a longer life? My answer would be, because that is the nature of all life, to survive and reproduce. You have a 'drive' to live a longer life which is embedded in your nature.

Of course, all creatures frequently make mistakes. You drink beer because it makes you feel better or more relaxed, and if there's an attractive lady nearby, an extra beer could encourage you to have sex and procreate. ????

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

There's a difference between "being driven " and "having a purpose ".

Do i really need to explain it to you ?

Well, no, pls try to find out by yourself ????

There are differences between every single thing that exists. Even atoms are different from each other, but things that are different often have fundamental qualities that are the same, or at least similar.

What you need to explain is how there can be a purpose without a 'drive' or 'motive' behind it. Perhaps you can give some examples. ????

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

In fact i was talking about existence in general, including basic elements, minerals,  plants and animals, while the quote I added refers to human existence. 

In that case, there are trillions upon trillions of answers. If you were to ask what is the purpose of just one type of atom, such as Carbon, there'd be millions of answers. You'd have to explore all the many different chemicals that include Carbon as an essential element, and explore their numerous, essential benefits for specific outcomes.

For example, Carbon is essential for all types of life. No Carbon = No Life. However, the Carbon atoms are attached to many other atoms in different ways and quantities, and the resulting molecules have different purposes.

A very basic example is Carbon Dioxide, which consists of one Carbon atom joined to two Oxygen atoms. This molecule is essential for all plant growth. If there was no Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, there'd be no plants, no forests, no animals, no biodiversity. What a terrible pollutant is CO2. ????

"Imho, reproduction and the drive to reproduce should be included into "mere existence ", but humans are obviously not satisfied with just existing, and that's the most striking difference between us and all the other forms of life."

Are you not aware that all species fight and compete, not only for survival, but to reproduce? Do you think that cuddly creatures like Koala Bears are satisfied with 'mere existence'? If so, why do male Koala Bears sometimes fight to the death with another male in order to mate with a female, as do so many other species?

Some animals are able to organize themselves into tribes or societies. Jane Goodall was one of the first to observe a tribe of Chimpanzees marching through a forest to attack another group that would have been competing for food resources, thus demolishing the then-accepted idea that humans were the only species that conducted group warfare.

There is a deep, embedded instinct in all animals to reproduce, and they will fight to the death to expand their territory and eliminate competitors for resources. Even though humans have much more complex societies than any other species, we are still driven by that basic instinct to reproduce.

Of course that instinct in humans often expresses itself as a striving for wealth and power which might appear to be disassociated from the sexual drive, but don't kid yourself. ????

"So, no, I would not consider reproduction as the purpose of existence, but just a way for existence to renew and evolve itself."

Just a way? What do you mean? Is there another way? Surely it's the only way. It's the most fundamental characteristic that defines life and is shared by all life forms. Even if you are infertile, your health is dependent upon trillions of bacteria in your gut, which reproduce continually as they help digest your food. Without them you'd soon die.
 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I was asking, a couple of days ago, a question about the purpose of existence. 

It seems a relevant question to me, but apparently it's not relevant for many, or perhaps,  some think there's no purpose at all.

So, i just came across this quote, which i find, if not fully satisfying, at least worth of some attention:

"The sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere existence ".

 

I presume the question was about the purpose of the existence of life. Is this correct?

If so, the answer seems obvious to me. The most fundamental quality of all forms of life, from the most primitive bacteria and plants to the most advanced hominoids, is the motive, or driving force, to reproduce. Without that purpose, there could be no life.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all creatures will attempt to reproduce at all times, regardless of the conditions. Marsupials in Australia will tend to shut down their reproductive system when conditions are too dry to breed successfully, and reboot it when conditions improve.

Humans, with their greater capacity for language and abstract thought, can make decisions to refrain from reproduction for all sorts of reasons, but every creature's existence is dependent upon their parents not refraining from reproduction.
 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's only for the terminally ill it's still not going to help a lot of people that have had enough of this <deleted> world. They will still have to do things that might not work, or only injure. It's not that easy to kill oneself without the correct drugs.

Of course, legalized euthanasia is only for the terminally ill. If one is just fed up with life, there are lots of remedies involving changes to one's lifestyle. Such changes could include a healthy diet, lots of exercise, engaging in meditation practices, participating in community organizations and charity organizations, and so on.

One could even try becoming a Buddhist monk, or convert to Christianity and dwell upon thoughts of the wonderful life one will eventually have in Heaven. ????
 

First, I offer my condolences to Skeptic7 for the loss of his loved one.

I consider myself an atheist, in the sense of having a 'lack of belief' in any God, rather than a 'belief in the lack of' any God. The latter definition is expressed in many dictionaries, causing some confusion. I don't consider atheism as a 'belief', but rather a 'lack of belief', in Theism.

The only concern I have about dying is the 'potential', extreme, discomfort and/or pain, that I might experience prior to my endless sleep. Fortunately, Australia is moving towards the legalization of Euthanasia, so that concern is now greatly diminished.

I have no good reason to suppose that death is any more than going to sleep, without dreaming, and never waking up.

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Are you still climbing mirrors ?

So, if meditation is so dangerous,  would you suggest people to get drunk and drive faster instead ?

Or perhaps sit and watch the TV until they become totally obtuse ?

I guess that you can find plenty of scientific studies which show how dangerous life is, according to that logic, we'd all better kill ourselves. 

I wrote; "I imagine the majority of participants do experience an improvement in their well-being, and I was quite surprised when I first came across reports of the negative effects (of meditation), a few years ago."

And you respond; "So, if meditation is so dangerous,  would you suggest people to get drunk and drive faster instead? "

Sorry! I can't follow your reasoning. There are both positive and negative effects of many types of activities and situations, and we should not ignore the negative effects. In some situations, many people even ignore the positive effects and dwell only on the negative effects, such as the negative effects of human-caused CO2 emissions on the climate, ignoring the positive effects of enhanced plant growth, the 'greening' of the planet, and that a generally warmer environment is better for civilization than a generally colder environment.

Oops! Hope I'm not off-topic. ????

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

How exactly do you expect me to define (=confine into words) something that is eternal and that no language can come even close to describe (apart from music perhaps)? 

You've just defined God in words, 'as something that is eternal', and then contradicted yourself by stating that no language can come even close to describe God. ????

9 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Moreover, meditation is supposed to improve one's well being, so it would be wrong to blame meditation in case of mental problems, which are going to surface anyway, with or without meditation. 

I understand quite well that meditation is supposed to improve one's well-being. Why would anyone do it if this was not the purpose?

I imagine the majority of participants do experience an improvement in their well-being, and I was quite surprised when I first came across reports of the negative effects, a few years ago.

The impression I now get from recent searches on the internet is that these negative effects are under-reported and are also not confined to those with a history of mental problems.

The following study, published quite recently in August 2020, addresses the uncertainty and the likely under-reporting,

"Meditation techniques are widely used as therapy and wellbeing practices, but there are growing concerns about its potential for harm. The aim of the present study is to systematically review 'meditation adverse events' (MAEs), investigating its major clinical categories and its prevalence."
 

"In conclusion, this first systematic review of 'meditation adverse events' covering almost 5 decades of studies has found a wide range of potential negative symptoms. The ethical obligation to do no harm urges clinicians and researchers to promote practices of active monitoring of MAEs. Given the popularity of meditation practices, further research into this area should become a priority."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acps.13225

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm sure you will agree here, the effects of each of these substances vary widely one from another. In that sense, comparing mushrooms or LSD to alcohol and opiates is rather silly. 

Wow! How do you know that the effects of each of those substances vary widely if you don't compare them? ????

The experiences will vary widely, not only because of the differences in the nature of the drugs, but also the differences in the nature of the individual taking the drugs.

For example, not all people who take LSD will imagine they can fly, and jump off a cliff or tall building to their death. But some do.