h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: THE MEANING OF LIFE. Fact not opinion. - A2775251
Author: matmilne - U695660

It is the answer to Heidegger's ultimate question and the meaning of life. The real answer, this is not a piece of opinion, just logically constructed fact.

As a researcher, writing in an alternative area, I should first say that you have a right to post anything you like that falls within the rules (TOS) of the Guide. Still, once you posted, and with such a challenging, if inappropriate, title, you must realize that you have invited comment.

It’s hard to tell if you mean this entry in a humorous fashion, or actually believe the drivel. And, it’s the type of entry I would not have normally finished reading, if only because of the lack of capital letters, structure, grammar, etc. Certainly this would never be considered for the Edited Guide. This is why I wondered if it was meant to be simply ‘funny’ or ‘odd’. But, you asked that we ‘briefly forget all of your beliefs just for a few moments’, and so I finished it.

The initial problem I had was with the posting note. When I finished reading the entry, I couldn’t help but reflect that it was almost entirely opinion, and had absolutely no facts. Statements are not facts. Assertions are not facts. Logical constructions are not facts. A perfect chain of logic can still lead to an erroneous result. At one time it was ‘logical’ to assume that the Earth is flat, and to presume that it represented the center of the Universe.

On the entry itself
First: the title seems to have nothing to do with either Heidegger’s ‘question’, or the content of the entry. If you want to answer somebody’s question, it would be good and proper to include the question to which you are responding. Certainly Heidegger is known for positing more than a couple of philosophical questions, and none, of which I am aware, deals with the ‘meaning of life’, or the ultimate anything.

Second: I felt your tone was childish and ever so condescending, to say ‘I will go into quite a bit of detail so read slowly and carefully’ on an entry of something less than a thousand words. (“it took me a few minuites and i'm a genius.” Apparently, Geniuses cannot spell minutes, or find a Shift key.) The ‘slowly and carefully’ was only necessary because of its rambling, nonsensical nature.

Third: your suggestion that ‘The meaning of life for you so far is to carry out a series of events to get you to this point in time where you are reading this entry.’ is both sophomoric and largely irrelevant. The fact that ‘one thing will follow another’ does not imply that a particular event must follow a previous event. And, even if you believe in an absolutely mechanistic view of the universe, that does not constitute a ‘meaning of life’.

Fourth: If ‘the universe has already come and gone’, and we are just focused on a segment of its events, how would that explain that we all (to the best of our ability to determine) are focused on the same segments, at the same time? All history students in a class seem to be reading from the same book, whereas history has been re-written many times over during our brief appearance in the universe. It would seem that some would be reading a book without the last 50 years of history in it, and some would be reading a book with 150 more.

Fifth: This is obviously and argumentative piece. You are trying to convince an audience that your view is correct. But convincing takes proof, not mere assertion; especially since the logic you claimed is particularly weak. You cannot simply assert that ‘the above statement is correct’, you must provide proof; and you have not.

Sixth: And then your point on the predetermined nature of the universe. It sounds more like a plea that no one be held accountable for his or her actions, than it is a fact. Nice of you to pronounce absolution on all, but why don't you visit a couple of prisons and let them know you forgive them. Oh, and visit hospitals and tell the sick and injured that their suffering doesn't matter because they are what they were meant to be.

If all things are predetermined, and ‘you were meant to be you’ (which, by the way, I am disputing, despite the fact that you insist one cannot; for you also provide no argument that supports the statement's correctness), then there would be no ‘meaning of life’, ultimate or otherwise. There would be only a broad existence of which we perceive minute parts of at a time. No choices + no free will = no meaning + no reasons.

Finally, I am not offended by the entry. I am disappointed that it is so much less than I’d hoped it would be, and sad that there are people who might actually believe some of it; but I do not find anything offensive in it other than the smug tone of superiority with which you tinged it.

There is one point on which we agree, and that is how you feel about ‘small-minded people’ and what some of them are doing to others. But, if this piece is supposed to answer a question, you had better rephrase it; because this one answers nothing.
(I’ll resist adding that the above is an ‘indisputable fact’.)

You read all of it?

You've got a lot more patience than me

Noggin

well mr towel.
I had no idea what a caring person you are.
your apparent arrogane is un-missable.
If you could just read this all may become clearer.

Firstly, hospitals are not only full of sick patients. There are also many members of medical staff in such an establishment. Now don't you think that perhaps they are there to try and help these people? i.e. that is what they were meant to do?
I thought your argument on that point was a little one-sided.

So you want to believe that you have life! who doesn't? But what i am pointing out is your own belief in life. At the beginning of the article i asked you to remove your beliefs for just a moment, and yet did you cling on to your belief in life when you read the article?

Stuck? well i'll tell you this: you clung onto your belief that you make descisions i.e you are alive, because that is the human thing to do.
It was great to see this response, exactly what i was expecting. You're not the only one to make the simple mistakes that everyoune else makes.

good, now moving on.

"'The meaning of life for you so far is to carry out a series of events to get you to this point in time where you are reading this entry.’ is both sophomoric and largely irrelevant. The fact that ‘one thing will follow another’ does not imply that a particular event must follow a previous event."

quoted from your response.

Irrelevant? on the contrary. One way of describing a human life is "a series of events in between conception and death" Sorry to excrete on your flowers, but if you didn't carry out those events you wouldn't be reading this now. Is that not a fact Mr Towel?

(by the way i should have included a transcription book: An event is a small unit of time, the smallest possible.)

Here's another question for you. If the past was not there, would there be a present? If the present wasn't here would the future not be here ? (grammer correct since it is read through the passing of time.)

Next. ‘the universe has already come and gone’ was refferring to to the perception of time. I'll admit many things at once go through my head and i occasionally miss important pieces of the puzzle out in explenation. Heidegger's ultimate question was "why is there something rather than nothing?" and the answer is our peception of time. without it, we wouldn't have awareness. And that's a fact!

If you were outwith our universe's time frame, time in our universe would appear extreemly slow or extreemly fast. just for argument's sake you are percieving time extreemly fast. This means that in your time frame, our universe has already come and gone. "Woops, out of existance again," you might say. A statement both correct and incorrect.

The above means that the universe is pre-determined since it can be percieved in different time frames.
My point is, we are watching a movie that has already been filmed.
You, as a seperate entity do not exist, i'm affraid. The explenation i will now repeat just so we are clear.

Descisions are made based on how you feel at a given moment. This is caused by chemicals in your brain produced by cells, released by nerve impulses which are themselves controled by other impulses which are produced by cells and ultimately controlled by genes. Yes a person carries out an event but they were programmed to do so either by their inherited genes, or re-programmed cells (by external beliefs imposed on them.) An understanding of this is lacking in almost every human. which is why i said that the treatment of 'evil' people by some small-minded individuals is wrong.

If you said you were going to change the way you are, though you may think it, you did not choose to make that descision. That descision was made because a series of chemicals were in your brain at that point, released by nerve impulses from cells, produced by........i don't need to go on, do i?

Now comes the depressing bit.
This is a plea of sorts. I need everyone on the planet to at least realise the above has a lot of scientific proof, with the exploration of genetics we are realising that personality can be described as a series of mental conditions, the definition for a mental condition needs to be widened.
But you see that unfortunately all of this means when people get ill, they were meant to. Of course it matters. They are human beings and they are suffering. But that is why humans have developed medicine as a science, to help these unfortunate people either phsycologically or physically. That is why we need a good health service, and people who understand the situation. Proof for this argument is hireditary illnesses, i.e. genetic flaws.

lastly.
If you mean to do something, you have a reason for doing it. So meaning and reason are the same thing.
Millions of years ago the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The point of a few of those dinosaurs' lives was so that they could be dug up millions of years later, by humans. A whole new science and several successful action movies have been the result so far. Thus we see their lives had meaning. (a reason for them being when and where they were.)

for additional clarity, what happens at the end of your life? whatever happens, all the events before it were meant to happen in order for that outcome to be what it is.

Whatever will be, will be.

Matt

I'm not going to start getting involved in a debate/discussion/argument because I'm going away the day after tomorrow, so won't be around to actually say anything, but just for starters:

Surely, Mat, if these chains of logic provide indisputable, certain, obvious facts, then people would not need to put aside their beliefs? Would the very fact FordsTowel does not agree suggest there are a few jumps, or assumptions, in the piece?

Even if you think that's because (s)he simply isn't intelligent enough to grasp the undoubtable conclusions you reach, and the undoubtable processes by which you reached them (in which case (s)he's the same as me, and I suspect many others) then could you possibly amend the article to explain every step of logic (and preferably some of the science you claim is proving your every point) and get your message to more people?

Hi again:

Before I respond, I want to be sure to say that I have nothing against you as a person, or as a fellow researcher. I may resent your condescending attitude, and disagree with your 'facts'; but you, I can respect.

I was tempted to start 'Glad to see you found your shift key', but that would have been unnecessarily inflammatory. I was also tempted to start 'Apparently my arrogance isn't merely un-missable, but un-spellable'. In the spirit of the guide, and to promote clarity, I’ll try to respond as unemotionally as possible.

Firstly: Of course hospitals are not only full of sick patients; but I specifically mentioned ‘tell the sick and injured’, so that is a non-issue. The point was not at all one-sided.

Yes, you asked the readers to ignore their preconceptions, and I did; but surely we aren’t to do that forever!! You must have realized that once we finish reading, we will then think back to the sense of the piece and make our own decisions on the validity of your opinions. It’s called ‘critical thinking’, without which we find ourselves being misled by the people you complained about at the end of the opinion piece.

I was particularly struck by two things in your paragraph:
‘Stuck? well i'll tell you this: you clung onto your belief that you make decisions i.e you are alive, because that is the human thing to do. It was great to see this response, exactly what i was expecti’ng. You're not the only one to make the simple mistakes that everyone else makes.

1. If I am making decisions ‘because that is the human thing to do’, then you have lost your case through your own admission. If I am making decisions, then I AM responsible for my actions, and they are not predetermined.
2. There’s that arrogance again, when you say, ‘mistakes that EVERYONE ELSE makes’ (excluding you, of course).

Next:
‘Irrelevant? on the contrary. One way of describing a human life is "a series of events in between conception and death" Sorry to excrete on your flowers, but if you didn't carry out those events you wouldn't be reading this now. Is that not a fact Mr Towel?’

Your description, describing life, is accurate enough, but does not carry the demand that everything is predetermined;

Thank you for the following question, it is truly interesting.
‘Here's another question for you. If the past was not there, would there be a present? If the present wasn't here would the future not be here ? (grammer correct since it is read through the passing of time.)’

The question is interesting, even intriguing. It is also impossible to answer and irrelevant; but at least it’s interesting. If there is an answer to it, it would be ‘It depends on where you believe time comes from. If you believe in a god-creator, it would make no difference because he/she/it could start existence from any point they chose, and we would not be able to tell the difference’. So even then the question becomes irrelevant to our condition.

Thank you for clarifying which Heidegger question is involved ("why is there something rather than nothing?").

Unfortunately, your insistence that ‘and the answer is our peception of time. without it, we wouldn't have awareness. And that's a fact!’, is again, wrong. Well, not necessarily wrong as not necessarily a fact.

Allow me to explain (and please set aside your beliefs for this next paragraph, you are welcome to revisit it for critical thinking purposes afterwards).

Each of us, as far as we can tell, is an individual who lives 100% of our lives above our shoulders and between our ears (if, indeed, we have them). My concept of my brain, and your concept of yours, is based entirely on sensory inputs from other organs. Our lives, and our perception of time, are based on how our brains interpret those signals. So, the whole of your existence, or mine, could be nothing more than a series of signals sent to a disembodied brain ‘convincing’ it of its existence, its world, its universe, and its perception of time; and you would never be able to tell the difference (think Matrix). Therefore, it is impossible to say that anything is ‘fact’. Awareness ‘could be’ something imposed on one single ‘brain’.

As to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?", I’ll leave that to theoretical physicists who have a much greater understanding of it than I, or you.

The next bit is a bit muddled, so allow me to simply suggest an alternate explanation for time. Feel free to check out my entry, ‘Time – A Bi-Dimensional Direction’. Scientists have delved extensively into the subject and attributes of time and our perception to it; and they have not discovered anyone to have different perceptions of its passage, unless they were moving at different relative speeds.

You may perceive time as a pre-filmed picture. I don’t.

I understand that decisions are made through chemical and neural responses to stimuli and memory; but that only describes a small part of the process. I won’t try to give a biology lesson, or a physics refresher; but there is plenty of randomness involved that makes the end result much less predictable than the mechanistic and simplistic way that you view it. Genomes, too, are not entirely repeatable or predictable during mitosis. I’m afraid that there is a lack of understanding of this process in almost every human, but I have to include myself and yourself in those numbers.

On the next section, I’m sorry if it means you will have to be depressed, but you will never get ‘everyone on the planet’ to agree on anything. Pre-dispositions, based on genome, may well exist and probably do; but nurture has as much to do with emotional development, and probably more, than nature. A beaten child is much more likely to internalise the activity and become a child beater, regardless of their gene donors. This has been proven through identical twins that have grown up in different households. Some characteristics are identical, but many emotional responses are indicative of the homes in which they were raised.

Meaning and reason to not appear as synonyms in any thesaurus that I have available. There may be some definitions that come close to overlapping, but each has too many to say they are synonymous, unless you care to specify a definition that includes both. Saying they are the same thing does not mean they are. This is the main problem with all of your ‘facts’. You ask us to accept them as facts, merely on your assertion. You need to better state your case.

The dinosaur thing is another interesting point, but only a fact in your mind. Being dug up by humans was not necessarily the ‘point’ of their lives, but merely an unrelated, but tangential, happenstance related to their deaths. Where else else where the bones to go if no human ever existed? They would still have been there whether we were around to dig them up, or not.

I’m still not sure that there will have been any ‘reason’ for my existence at the end of my life, or any need for there to be one. I don’t think that anything had to be ‘meant to happen’ for me to have existed.

But, I do agree that ‘Whatever will be, will be’.

Live long and prosper,

I personally disagree with you. Interesting peice, once my eyes were adjusted to the quirky format. The reason that there is something instead of nothing is not something I would prefer to debate, I just like that there is. The reason that we are all here is to make more of us. Any meaning to life is up to the individual.

At least that's what I think.

Hi, Sneaky.

Give us a hint; with whom do you disagree.

As this is an AWW piece, it's fine with me. No need for it to be factual, balanced, or even fair; and I have no problem with it as a product of another researcher's brain (except for the lack of capital letters, the atrocious spelling, and virtually non-existent grammar; but, Matt may be writing on a blackbery, not have a spell-check program, and perhaps does not know English as a first language).

My only reason for bothering to comment at all, is that the author seemed to beg for it. That and the title not matching the content, as there is nothing here truly related to a 'meaning of life' (except his contention of non-meaning), and there is nothing here for which he supplys supportable, provable, 'facts'. But the piece, as an opinion piece, gives me no trouble at all.



PS: (S)he didn't exactly endear the piece when complaining about 42.

Hi FordsTowel, nice meeting you here once agian.

I disagree with the author. Mainly because it's just a rant, no fact or any logical arguement to support it (don't get me wrong, I like a good rant). Nice ideas, if you buy the whole pre-determination bit, but poorly argued. It could really be something with some effort (spell check, shift key, logic, that kind of thing), but as is...not really worth the effort. Maybe Matt would like to run this theory of his by the philosophers guild and see what they think of it all. They may be able to help him with those pesky bits of logic that seems to be missing from the piece. As this is in a workshop, he may consider trying to improve the peice.

By all means, Sneaky. That's what the workshops are for, and the main reason I respond to AWW pieces.

A researcher could argue that herbal medicine is great, or bunk; that gravitons exist, or do not; that the spider monkey is king of the jungle, for all it would matter.

Unless it gets posted to Peer Review, the only goal should be to point out writing weaknesses, inconsistencies, or falsehoods; or, 'Yikes' it if it is offensive.

I hope Matt keeps writing, and I hope he gets better at it. I don't mean that as an insult, just fact. I think everyone is capable of improvement, and we all start at different levels.

Okay, so you all seem to have a few problems with it.
confusing isn't it?. Didn't mean it that way, sorry.
N0 problem.

I'll try and explain the basics to help you to decript my awful jumble of an entry.

Forget about the existance part, and focus on the basics.

A life is made up of a series of events. These occur after birth and before death. So the point of these events must be to get that life from one point to the next.

Each one of these events is crucial to that person's existance in their life. This is known as keystone theorey. Take just one of those events away and that person would cease to exist.

Since those events affect other people, and if you can trace far enough, they become crucial to the entire universe's existance.

Since these events experienced by everything are the key to existance, then to carry them out must be the meaning of life. If you don't carry them out then you would cease to exist, indeed the whole universe would fall appart.

My point being that we are all linked to each other one way or another. Family history is such an example. many families indeed all families are linked to each other by one person or more, at some point in history. Afterall we all came from the same group of animals, from the same pool of life.

Now, all the animals and all the people have to carry out a series of events, i.e. they have to live their lives. Each event, no matter what it is, is neccessary.

In conclusion.

Your life is a series of events between creation and death. Those events must be carried out by you and you alone. That is the reason for you being here, that is the meaning for you and therefore that is the meaning of your life.

Does this make anything clearer?

So your arguement is, in essence, that the whole point of life, the whole shebang, is to die. Everything else is irrelevant? If so than I strongly disagree. I do not live just to die. I die so that I can live. I choose to make of my life what I can and for doing so I must die, that is the cost. The meaning of my life is what I choose to make it, for I am the only one that must live it. The only one that must look myself in the mirror each day, that must endure my dreams, my mistakes, my accomplishments. Saying that each event is merely the connector to the next until I die is to reduce all life to a mechanical process without any beauty in it at all, and I for one cannot believe that.

Or rather, as Metallica once sang, 'Life's for my own, to live my own way'.

Of course, you did make yourself clearer in your last post. Maybe you should incorperate that into your entry. Clean the thing up so there is less confusion right off the bat.

Hi again Matt, glad to see you're sticking around, with us!

We're not meaning to be mean, just asking for a bit of clarity.

Nothing in your entry was confusing; it was pretty easy to understand what you were saying, and what you meant. But, yes, I did have some problems with it.

Let me make it clear again that this is your entry, to do with as you please. You are not required to accept anyone else's opinion. Still, we presumed that you wanted to hear them.

Life is indeed a series of events, but I would contest that you have not shown that the 'Point' of life 'must be to get that life from one point to the next'. That's just what life is, moving through the points. It's more an effect of the passage of time than it is a meaning (at least in any sense of the word of which I am aware).

I also wonder about the meaning you ascribe to the term 'crucial to the entire universe's existence'. Surely you don't believe that if we had wiped ourselves out in a nuclear holocaust in the 1970's, that the rest of the universe would have taken any notice of it?

We are hardly central to the universe's existence as an entire planet, let alone individually.

The universe might be a different, mildly quieter place without us; so in that sense you might want to say it would be a 'different' universe; but I prefer to simply think that this universe would still be there, just a bit different for our absence.

'Since these events experienced by everything are the key to existance, then to carry them out must be the meaning of life. If you don't carry them out then you would cease to exist, indeed the whole universe would fall appart.'

This is the kind of statement that I would need some help with. You haven't yet shown that the events are key, you have just said they are; so there is no logic to the assumption that to do so constitutes a 'meaning of life', because the underlying assumption has not been proven. I can't imagine the universe falling apart if I either didn't carry them out or ceased to exist.

'My point being that we are all linked to each other one way or another. Family history is such an example. many families indeed all families are linked to each other by one person or more, at some point in history. Afterall we all came from the same group of animals, from the same pool of life.'

With this statement it appears that you are not really talking about universes or existence or meaning after all, but just the interconnectedness of the human family on our global human history. This alone might make a marvelous idea for an entry, if one such is not already in the Edited Guide.

'Your life is a series of events between creation and death. Those events must be carried out by you and you alone. That is the reason for you being here, that is the meaning for you and therefore that is the meaning of your life.'

This is a fine opinion to have, and interesting to suggest; but there is still no supportive evidence to claim that any of this is fact. It's not as if you could 'cease to exist', and show us that the universe would fall apart.

I'd be willing to concede that the theory contains something amounting to a 'meaning of life', even if that meaning consists of nothing but to 'keep doing what we do'; but would still suggest dropping the 'fact, not opinion' from the title.

Really, all that any of us have to offer is opinion. Some things may be more certain than others, but we have a long history of 'facts' that have turned out to be wrong.



Possible suggestions:
Drop the antagonistic, condescending, smarter-than-thou tone (never
. underestimate your audience).
Fix up the capitals, spelling, and grammar (shows respect for your
. audience).
Delete the unproven 'fact, not fiction' from the title (Makes you look less opinionated, and more conversational).
Discuss the interconnectedness as if you need us, because that
. is what can be inferred from the theory that all 'events'
. make a difference. (this appears to be the real thesis
. of the entry).

I hope I didn't sound mean in my last post. I was just expressing my opinion of the ideas. I like reading different views of things, it gives me something to think about that isn't preceded by a dollar sign. Mental excercize is neccisary to retain coherrant logic (at least as far as I use it).

Wow! I've read most of the backlog here, and the entry, and the debate makes very interesting reading. Philosophy is not my strong point, but I can still formulate my opinion on the matter. In the main, I think I agree with FordsTowel in that the content of the entry is not yet justified as being undoubtedly factual; I think it's a theory - and like all theories, it requires proof. But, also like all theories, it is valid that it should be considered.

I think that the idea of removing all of our previous beliefs before trying to comprehend it is a good idea. So I'm going to do that now and see if I arrive at any conclusion.

Right - so I am now believing in nothing until I have proven it as fact. So what can I say? Well, I'm trying to answer the question 'why is there something and not nothing?' so the first fact that I can put down as definite is that there is something and not nothing.

Fact #1: There is something; not nothing.

I think we can all agree that fact #1 is undoubtedly true. Now then, what is this something? We observe a universe around us that has specific properties, but how do I know that it isn't an illusion? Well, I don't. So I won't put down that the universe exists. Do I exist? What is the test for existence? I don't know, because I don't know whether standard tests for existence exist, and if I did, I wouldn't know whether they really existed, or whether they were an illusion.

Fine. So I have proved one thing, and I can't prove any more. Maybe that's just my ineptitude, but I am trying to be as open minded as possible.

Now I shall comment on the determinism theory. As far as I know from my speciality - theoretical physics - the jury is still out on determinism. A lot of people believe in it; a lot of people don't. As for me, I don't know. After all, I can't even prove that I exist, let alone whether I was meant to exist.

But I will say one thing about determinism (or rather, another thing)... And in hindsight I think the next two paragraphs are a load of complete, total and utter nonsense, but read them anyway and see if you can make any sense of it.

If you believe in determinism, mattmilne, and it is perfectly valid that you do and you are not alone, of course, then you believe that you were meant to write this entry about the meaning of life, and have this debate. You also believe that I was meant to reply with these exact words that I am replying with.

So you believe that you were meant to believe in determinism. But if determinism is incorrect, then you would believe that it was meant to be incorrect, which is logically impossible. If it was meant to be incorrect, then it would be correct, and so on...

I have a feeling that my logic is flawed somewhere there. But never mind.

Yes, I love debates like this and am looking forward to a response.

In fact, I've just read through what I've written, and I don't even think it was relevant. But I'll press Post Message anyway and see what happens. It is quite late after all, but I got a bit carried away with all this philosophical thinking.

Hi MM, sorry for this segue.

There is still one very minor and probably unimportant point that I had a problems with, come to think; why did you pick on poor 42?

42 does not necessarily reflect a 'meaning of life' type question. The computer 'Deep Thought', as I'm sure you know, was asked to compute 'The Answer' to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. The answer DT came up with being 42, of course.

As DT surmised, the problem that the readout scientists had with the answer was that they had never really stated the actual question. Surprisingly, 42 does turn out to be a valid answer, the promised 'simple answer', to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It's simply necessary to apply it to the right question, which I have.

I'm not saying that the answer is actually 42; but if one asks the right question, no matter what the numerical answer is, it supplies a simple answer to 'an' ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

But, as the mice observed, if one asks, 'What is the meaning of Life? 42!', it just doesn't work.

So, maybe you'd consider taking out the bit about 42.

with all due respect, 42, i know, has something to do with Hubble's constant. However, in the context of the programme it was used as a comical answer to a very complicated question.

What i mean to say is that here 'Deep thought' was the smartest computer to exist and yet, after a very long passage of time it came up with a practically meaningless answer. That's the joke! But it has NO basis in reality. 42 is a humorous response to an incredibly complex question far beyond a computer's limited intelligence, (non-IQ intelligence that is.)

So i might rephrase the comments but it still needs to be pointed out that this is indeed a theory, not unlike Darwain's theory on evolution.

Like that theory, some people will have the non-science intelligence to work it out from the jumble i have written, but i fear it may take me many years to come up with a fully-understandable theory.

And yes, i put this entry here so i could get as many opinions as possible, and help with sorting out the jumble.

Thanks.

About the idea that we are all here to procreate and each individual makes their own meaning of life, that does sound quite feasible and I think one of the best arguments yet, but doesn't there have to be some responsiblity in it somewhere? Otherwise hey you can breed and beat up your kids so long as you breed. And that's not fair. And what about saving the planet? Someone's gotta do it. I'll make a good attempt myself but I think it's gonna require a little more than just one person's effort.

Hey Sneaky,
Mental exercise is necessary to realise the full extent of my (in)sanity. Are you using all your potential?

Look folks.

If you are having trouble with it.

Tell me in specifics And i will try to explain this to you.

I do sympathise however, this entry is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm planning on writing a book about it.

Anyone know a good publisher?


Thought i was joking, didn't you.