We're just cells.

Remove all ads!

And that's what I call 'misunderstanding'.

And although The Matrix trilogy's last two parts weren't that good, they still had an important point: The question in the film 'What is the Matrix?' wasn't about what's really real and what's unreal, but what should we do in certain situations. The Matrix is a matrix of choices, like in the classical prisoner's dilemma.

Point being, it doesn't matter what's real or not, but what choices we make in given certain situations. Of course one could ignore these situations claiming that all possible choices in certain situations are absurd since none of it's really real and abstain. But I think that it's better to live a good life, and that in order to live a good life one does not need any knowledge from any world beyond, and in fact there is no world beyond at all which couldn't be understood as the product of placing too much value for allegorical thinking and conclusions derived from such faulty logic.

 

Iku, I agree. I was just offering PLato's point, since I'm revising Plato atm.

The whole point of it is to live a good life, but how can you define a 'good'life?

 

I'd like to think that since everthing is connected, we should try to work together for a goal that benefits everything. Everything that matches the definition of life, at least. Any action that increases life is good and any action that decreases life, especially sentient life is bad.

Might be kind of utilitarian, but this view fits with my studies of biology.

Life in it self is precious. If there were no life at all, there would be no thinking. Being and life might be understood as the same thing. I think that Plato might agree with (edit the fact that being precedes and is required, or is the essential part even for the idea of good.

edit: Oh yeah and good life is living together in harmony, giving others the space required to live, to know one's rightful place, to give one's fullest effort when it is needed and to make together something greater than we all singularily are (like SP, for instance), pretty much like cells...

[ May 22, 2006, 14:27: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

Intersting that you call it a philosophy DJ. I always considered Taoism to be more of a religion than philosophy, although I do see how it connects to both topics.

 

In my understanding, taoism can be followed as both a philosophy and/or a religion. Those who follow taoism as a religion tend to worship Laozi as a godhead, in the same way that christians worship Jesus-he came, he preached a new and radical way to live your life, and now we should strive to be like him. Those who follow taoism as a philosophy view it as a new way to look at life and at the world and then, with that new world view, a new way to ultimately live your life. I don't feel that it's a religion for me because I feel that there is no central god figure to worship, and that it's a view of the world that helped me see clearly. Several things help with this-first, Laozi may not have written the text that is attributed to him (and possibly may not have existed at all) and the Tao Te Ching may have been written by a small group of taoists; second, the Tao Te Ching never makes any mention at any point of it being a religion that has a god figure to follow, and I don't feel the need to create a god figure just so that I 'feel' like I'm worshipping something; and finally, I'm really tired, in a personal sense, of religions. I think philosophies are a nice fresh breath of air. And as a bonus-the religious sides and philosophical sides of taoism don't have any long standing, potentially bloody warfare emminent just because one side views things as slightly different from the other. It's brilliant!

 

@ Daie and Sir Farivald:

No need to write an essay on it - but ... well, why do you believe that? What evidence have you found to support your belief, if any...?

 

Well my friend... I believe it, with all of my heart. I believe it for many reasons, and I shall list some. People, humans, are so extremely complex - not just physically, but emotionally, mentally and indeed spiritually. If we evolved as a collection of cells acting in a certain way, then why is it very few of us act/react to things in the same way? Surely our evolved cells would be programmed to react to everything in the exact same manner, if all we were were a collection of cells trying to survive?

Another reason - our conscience, the way humanity, through history, has seen so many examples of self-sacrifice, chosen poverty for spiritual reasons, chosen abstinence for the same. If we were but a collection of cells, these things no one would do. The cells would not destroy themselves to save others, they would not starve themselves if they could help it. They certainly would not resist passing on their seed and reproducing.

We know that our bodies require all of those things - hence why abstinent people struggle, those who have chosen poverty may have lapses in willpower, and it takes a very special person to be able to sacrifice their own lives for others.

I believe it is the spirit that guides these selfless actions - an essence of being that know deep down, even in those who don't believe, that there is something more beyond this physical existence, something deeper and infinetely more special. The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. Our body is our shell for one incarnation of existence, in order for the spirit to learn or merely exist in another way - after this mortal experience, the spirit moves on. Whether to heaven, another body, valhalla or faerun, who knows? My absolute certain belief, though, is that it does; death is not the end, for who we are lives on beyond this collection of cells - useful vessel that it is, for only a short time.

 

Surely not! For if it were so, then our existence would be very short indeed! To say such a thing is self-contradictory, since in order to survive anything alive needs different strategies. When different enough strategies to survive within a single organism aren't possible because of limited space for information, then different strategies between organisms that are close relatives are in order for these organisms to survive as species.

Luckily we humans have brains, which gives us a huge amount of differing survival strategies. One survival strategy for us as species is that some members sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the others. Such behaviour is extremely common with other species with social behaviour.

This, of course does not exclude the possibility for a spirit, soul, or what have you.

 

I think I've found (what I feel to be) a satisfactory answer.

Basically, it's that we're just a clump of cells, but the whole is more than the sum of it's parts. Each cell has it's own rudimentary conciousness, but taking millions of them and linking them together creates something much, much greater. So, really, each individual is legion within themselves.

"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many."

Man, I love that quote.

 

MM is a demon?

Surely a concept like collective conciousness is a better way of explaining than using a quote from a demon?

Aiky, I shall explain my thinking, but a bit later. I'm tired now.

 

Very briefly: I think of it this way -- cells and molecules are what we are made of, in the sense that no one ever defines oneself as a clump of fat here and a mass of bones here. Of course, this doesn't separate us now from the animals, plants, fungi, and on a more fundamental level, from a shoe or from a phone book. If you want to speak in terms of what we're made of, there is (scientifically speaking) no animating force or Divine Fire that animates human beings.

However, we are conscious, and it's just my opinion that since we are conscious, we can make things revolve around us, think things subjectively, and view the world in such a way that transcends a mere mass of atoms.

I am not saying, however, that cells are conscious. Your blood cells are not conscious. A blade of grass is not conscious. Rather, a staggeringly complex system of certain cells gives rise to consciousness in a certain way.

 

A depressing thought. I'd hate death to be the end, it'd make life a bit pointless...

 

Well it stands to reason, if we are merely an implementation of the scientific system, then determinalism, by the very essence of existing in an entirely causal system, is by the very nature of the universe, true. Since we have no freedom, you should take comfort in the knowledge, you have aboslutely no ability to control anything. Nothing's at stake her, if life is meaningless, it doesn't matter because there isn't a damn thing you can do anyway. Just sit back and enjoy the show, you're bound to anyway. Every action you take is the result of an external cause, freedom is merely an illusion. But if life is meaningless, then freedom is too, so you've really lost nothing save responsibility.

 

Like an ant colony!

So we have collection of molecules (protein) -> collection of proteins (cell) -> collection of cells (tissue) -> collection of tissue (people) -> collection of people (tribe) -> collection of tribes (civilisation) -> collection of civilisations (etc, etc, etc)

So we ourselves are just small cells in a larger picture. MAybe we can all combine and form Voltron or something.

 

Well, it kind of is, really.

 

Hey, no it isn't! The meaning of life is life itself. Namely reproduction. And this doesn't mean just the reproduction of our genes, but reproduction of our ideas as well! Live long and combine your bodies and minds to create new invigorating people and ideas!

And if you don't want to, then just sit back, enjoy the ride if you can, but let those who want to make a new, interesting and possibly better world to go on with our merry carne-val. Maybe you can remind us every now and then of our responsabilities to one another and to the future generations..

 

I think it's the exact opposite. This is your one shot, better make the most of it.

Of course, sometimes I feel it *is* all rather pointless, but it's for different reasons - it's the lack of happiness and fulfillment rather than the lack of a "purpose."

I don't believe in this "soul" stuff. All we have, ultimately, is the brain. So yeah, we're just cells.

 

HELL YES.

 

This arguement comes up against a wall. Which ideas do we reproduce? Should Mein Kampf be required reading for all of humanity? Is vivisection a good idea? Genetic Engineering?

I'd go with a much simpler idea. Here comes my philosophy:

Have fun, and leave the world a better place then you found it.

Before anyone leaps with with the 'I like killing people, so can I have fun too?' arguement, see the second clause.

 

We reproduce ideas every single times we say anything. The best ideas live on, only to be multiplied and modified every time a discussion or a single statement takes place. If you absolutely don't like it, keep your ideas to yourself. Ideas evolve quite the same way as living organisms, they are selected by the current environment. It's not indiscriminate, since we can make up our minds on which ideas we like or dislike. We can select the ideas which are most useful for everyone, and ideas in Mein Kampf can hardly be considered useful in increasing overall happiness, or to lead into good results.

We are not just cells, we're made up of ideas and thoughts as well. Only way to fight this is not to pass anything on.