I think it was Meister Eckhart who said something to the effect of: "One should live their life like a rose, which lives without a why."
The mind is always trying to assert some kind of meaning in the face of meaninglessness, and the meaning of life is one of those ineffable mysteries that will forever be questioned.
Speaking of flowers, the Buddha said the same thing in one of his sermons, something like: "What is the point of this flower? There is no point. It just is." I think the same can be said of us as well.
Nihilism undermines itself. If there is no point to anything, then there is no point to being nihilist. There isn't even a point to defending nihilism.
And surely, if nihilism isn't true, then there's no point to being nihilist or defending nihilism.
So in any case, there's no point to being nihilist. So don't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Nihilism undermines itself. If there is no point to anything, then there is no point to being nihilist. There isn't even a point to defending nihilism.
And surely, if nihilism isn't true, then there's no point to being nihilist or defending nihilism.
So in any case, there's no point to being nihilist. So don't.
Heh -- the Buddha and Eckhart were anything but nihilists. Neither am I.
Personally, I think pondering the question at hand is very useful for one's own personal spiritual growth, so I'm all for it.
From what I can gather we're all here to help each other out. If there is meaning to life, it's a personal meaning, and probably changes a lot for each of us as we go from birth to death.
Quote from "Spatula" »
Or maybe the mind is always doubting the reasons that are too simple or self-evident.
Indeed, our Big Brains are always getting us into trouble.
The devil said "Life is long, one should live as an infant coddled in its mother's arms." To which the Buddha replied "Life is short, one should live as if one's head were on fire."
Tell me again why this isn't just BS? What the hell does this mean and why does anyone buy it?
Philosophy isn't about saying things that look fancy. Just because you stay away from a posteriori data most of the time, doesn't mean you can abstract away to your heart's content. No, quite the opposite. You have to become much more rigorous. You have to be very logical, because logic is all you have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Tell me again why this isn't just BS? What the hell does this mean and why does anyone buy it?
It means, quite obviously, to live your life to the fullest while you are here.
Philosophy isn't about saying things that look fancy. Just because you stay away from a posteriori data most of the time, doesn't mean you can abstract away to your heart's content. No, quite the opposite. You have to become much more rigorous. You have to be very logical, because logic is all you have.
But then, the Buddha wasn't much of a philosopher.
It means, quite obviously, to live your life to the fullest while you are here.
But why the hell can't you just say that? And if you want to be illustrative, can't you pick something that's not utterly bogus? A dialogue between the Buddha and the Devil, where the Buddha offers advice that seems worse than the Devil's. . . is so God-damn contrived. . . . I just don't see how people have the patience for this crap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
But why the hell can't you just say that? And if you want to be illustrative, can't you pick something that's not utterly bogus? A dialogue between the Buddha and the Devil, where the Buddha offers advice that seems worse than the Devil's. . . is so God-damn contrived. . . . I just don't see how people have the patience for this crap.
Maybe 2500 years ago when the dialogue was probably written it wasn't so very contrived.
Reality >>>>> the English language. Somethings that might take a novel to disect in technical language can be expressed in a single picture or allegory.
This, incidentally, is one of the central premises of Zen Buddhism. "Direct pointing", rather than theory, is emphasized in training. Often, Zen students are not exposed to Buddhist teachings until late in their education. (Curiously enough, Zen writers have been amongst the most prolific in Buddhism.)
Some things you just can't say plainly, because they're deeper than words. Like life, I guess.
Spat's Buddha quote above is a fine example of that.
... AAAAAAAGGHHH!!! Damnit, you're doing it again.
"Reality >>>>> the English language. Somethings that might take a novel to disect in technical language can be expressed in a single picture or allegory." ~Spatula
Maybe so, but how do we know what we are saying? It doesn't help if we have this picture and everyone goes "wow, that really makes it clear." And then no two people actually have the same idea from this work of art.
Now, it would be good, if we had a science of art interpretation. ... again, something that could be done if cognitive science were to naturalize (see how very valuable it is and why I keep plugging for it here?). Think... instead of having to fumble in words *or* pictures... I could just connect you to a little box with a wire, that encodes exactly the idea I have, and then you'd have it too. Isn't that, amazing?
EDIT: Also, I want to say, this idea I like:
"Also, "contrived" things are usually things that are so profoundly true that they carry over the centuries. Despite being dismissed by each new generation of philosophers and idealogues for being "corny" or "cliche", until one day 20 years later they finally realize the full weight of that "corny" and "bogus" idiom, and they have to vainly try to explain it to the next generation of hot-headed egotists trying to carve out new and revolutionary ideas, much more profound than the antiquated truths of the past few millenia." ~Spatula
**End of Edit**
Oh, and you did ask me a direct question, Bardo, so I'll answer it: No, I haven't made the time to read any poetry since I escaped grade 10 English.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I'm seeing arguments against nihilism, but none of them are convincing as they argue the consequences only. Undesirable consequences do not falsify anything.
As far as I've ever found, there is no purpose or meaning, but this results only in indifference on my part. Whatever we do results in the same, so we may as well act as if it had any purpose we like as not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
I think this question is bias as it assumes that there has to be a meaning to life (whateva that may be.) However the more I ponder about such a meaning the less I think it could exist.
1. Meaning itself is reason, reasoning outside the realm of space and time really has no meaning. Meaning and reasoning are human terms and concepts. Without matter and time there can be no real basis for meaning.
2. Reasoning needs reason as a base every answer to a why question leads to another why question. If the meaning to life was to love then why should we love? Why should we pursue happiness? Why should we pursue heaven? Whats in heaven that’s really worth wild? Why do we seek pleasure?
This is where Nihilism comes and takes the cake. Since there can be no real reason for whatever we do or should do why do them in the first place? Life itself has no meaning therefore there’s no basis for anything at all. That’s Nihilism. Although Nihilism is self defeating, if nothing can be taken then Nihilism is no exception as well.
1. Meaning itself is reason, reasoning outside the realm of space and time really has no meaning. Meaning and reasoning are human terms and concepts. Without matter and time there can be no real basis for meaning.
I'm really not certain what your argument is here. The word "reason" has two very different meanings (at least!) that should not be equivocated between. Are you referring to "reason" as in "Sherlock Holmes had immense powers of reason" or "reason" as in "The reason Caligula went insane was probably a brain tumor"? And where do space and time come into the discussion?
2. Reasoning needs reason as a base every answer to a why question leads to another why question. If the meaning to life was to love then why should we love? Why should we pursue happiness? Why should we pursue heaven? Whats in heaven that’s really worth wild [sic]? Why do we seek pleasure?
Infinite regresses appear in a several places in metaphysics and epistemology. Regarding the question of how we can justify our knowledge if it's all founded on other knowledge we have, there is a widespread view called "foundationalism" that says certain premises are foundational, not known by virtue of other knowledge but in some other way. Is it completely out of the question that a sort of teleological foundationalism could be the case here? (Special bonus factoid: This is what medieval Christian metaphysicians believed. There's a lovely sort of symmetry here, in fact: God is the unmoved mover at the beginning of everything and the ultimate final cause at the end.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The meaning of life is a really personal question. It all depends upon what each soul believes in. If you believe in God, then the life's purpose is to live according to the guidelines laid out in the Bible and what Jesus taught for the sole purpose of entering into the Kingdom of God.
If you have religious beliefs, more than likely you believe something to the extent of the above.
If you do not believe in God, there are a lot of theories. My personal theory for myself is simply this:
Life is empty and meaningless.
Within this realm, I can create my own meaning of my life. Start with a blank slate, and create a purpose for myself. Living this way can be scary at times.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you choose the meaning of your life. I do not believe that there is simply one answer for each person. That would not be possible. Unless you care to argue that the purpose of everyone is to die, but I'm sure that has already been covered within the thread somewhere. However, this, also, is not a meaning of life, but just an eventual state; an inevitability (Mr. Anderson), if you will.
My theory goes along with something recently stated by blueconcept:
I think this question is bias as it assumes that there has to be a meaning to life (whateva that may be.) However the more I ponder about such a meaning the less I think it could exist.
My input, however shallow my understanding of an utterly profound topic.
There is no meaning of life. There is no greater purpose or unifying goal. In a hundred years, you and almost everyone you know now will be dead. In a thousand years, chances are your existence will have totally been forgotten. Eventually, whether by its own efforts or outside circumstances, humanity will cease to exist entirely. Attempting to answer such lofty philosophical questions is pointless, when you should be out enjoying your all-too-brief existence. People spend their lives in a variety of pursuits, most of which I find totally pointless considering my nihilistic opinions, so whatever kind of meaning or purpose you feel you have to attribute to your life to make it worth living, go ahead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself." - William Blake
Might you be a wee bit guilty of greedy reductionism?
If you're referring to why we exist, I don't believe so at all. If you're talking about why we have consciousness, etc. then the answer may be different.
You might say that knowledge in itself is only thought because of certain reactions in the brain, but I don't really buy that. If a chemical reaction is all we are, then why is there a drive to reproduce? what would be the use? I don't see hydrogen burning, forming water, and then wanting to form more water...
That's how bacteria and other simple life forms exist. Life (and memes) is just certain combinations of chemicals that have a tendency to propagate themselves. The ones who are most successful at doing so persist.
Life form that are less "Driven" to reproduce would die out naturally.
if that is so, then why do we want to know if there is anything else out there? because this has been one of the most frequently asked questions of humankind. Why would we want to know what the meaning of life is for that matter? why would we want to know anything at all? If we were just a chemical reaction, what is the purpose of knowledge in this reaction?
this has to do with the development of consciousness, which is tricky because we don't know what is conscious and what isn't. But consciousness certainly is a tool that was developed to promote survival and procreation.
The questions that follow are a side effect of developing consciousness.
this has to do with the development of consciousness, which is tricky because we don't know what is conscious and what isn't. But consciousness certainly is a tool that was developed to promote survival and procreation.
The questions that follow are a side effect of developing consciousness.
What does consciousness have to do with that? What do you think consciousness is?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
You have a point there. It is true that bacteria and memes reproduce in this way. My question wasn't so much about that. The important part was: what would be the use of such a reaction. Why do species want to propagate? Why do these bacteria strive to reproduce? I think that if someone ever finds a really statisfying answer to this, because I've never seen one, it might also lead to a better understanding of the meaning of life.
All I can say is that it comes from the underlying tautology here. Things that persist in this universe remain in existence. More persistent things exist longer, and less persistent things cease to exist. Then, as Sobek said in another thread,
Quote from Sobek »
survival is superior to destruction just by its very nature. Thats why it's called survival, because its persists under the rules of the universe.
What does consciousness have to do with that? What do you think consciousness is?
Consciousness, like eyesight or hearing, is a form of perception that allows organisms to process information about their environment. Think of it as a "flashlight" the brain has that illuminates the unknown.
Maybe that pointy thing could be used as a weapon!
Visual perception, complex categorization, the object-as-tool faculty, which is something over and above the faculty for planning (though it is obviously preceded by planning). Combining all the preceding, the ability to abstract the property "pointy" as being related to the tool-use of "poking/attacking" would be the final move here.
Maybe if I break this bone in half I can suck the marrow out to survive!
Visual perception, planning, memory (of bones and having marrow in them). Necessary to have that memory, is the ability to have representations of objects which can include mechanical/behavioural features; which is to say, features of the form "if [this] is done, then [object] will show [that] feature" (in mentalese) (Explanation: You don't see marrow in bones. But it's not even a superperceptual feature. It can be perceived if the right thing is done) (and you need this to have that memory, because that memory includes in it the notion that the marrow "can be reached" in the bone)
Maybe I can harness this bright hot painful thing!
Planning, visual perception, tactile perception, the faculty for investing in instrumental good (probably some amalgam of goal-orientation/planning, abstraction, and... ), sure let's throw self-awareness in here for good measure..., theory of mind (theory of mind is the faculty for thinking of other creatures as having minds. This requires self-awareness, to project unto other creatures, what you yourself have. Theory of mind enables you to plan that the "painful" tactile sensation, which is disturbing to your functioning, would be disturbing to other creatures also).
It occurs to me that the point at which one can represent instrumental good is about the part where the essence of douchebaggery enters into Humanity. With this, you can think of your own life as having some kind of continuity and richness you can add to, apart from any of the specific tasks you deal with in life. Without this, people couldn't have ambitions... they could just get really really good at doing cognitive tasks. With this, they can screw around with people because they can think "it'll help me in the long run/give me quick cash"
Maybe I can teach these skills to my descendants!
Self-awareness, abstraction of concept "skill", all the faculties that come with having "skills" (the behavioural repertoire, and the self-awareness of having that behavioural repertoire) (the behavioural repertoire would include all the intermodalities of perception, plus planning, memory - specifically procedural memory; learning; it would likely take pattern-recognition to develop a skill...)
EDIT: Oh yeah, the sort of knowledge for seeing that... humans .. reproduce... and have descendants... and so you will as well. Would require probably language for learning this from others... a lot of abstraction to really cogitate this as a pattern with implications.
The thought of providing for your descendants is instinctual and is an evolved trait.
Still no consciousness.
That kind of thing.
So I'm lost on what anything constant there was among these examples. Except visual perception and planning. Is that your "consciousness"?
Nihilism undermines itself. If there is no point to anything, then there is no point to being nihilist. There isn't even a point to defending nihilism.
And surely, if nihilism isn't true, then there's no point to being nihilist or defending nihilism.
So in any case, there's no point to being nihilist. So don't.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Heh -- the Buddha and Eckhart were anything but nihilists. Neither am I.
Personally, I think pondering the question at hand is very useful for one's own personal spiritual growth, so I'm all for it.
From what I can gather we're all here to help each other out. If there is meaning to life, it's a personal meaning, and probably changes a lot for each of us as we go from birth to death.
Indeed, our Big Brains are always getting us into trouble.
Tell me again why this isn't just BS? What the hell does this mean and why does anyone buy it?
Philosophy isn't about saying things that look fancy. Just because you stay away from a posteriori data most of the time, doesn't mean you can abstract away to your heart's content. No, quite the opposite. You have to become much more rigorous. You have to be very logical, because logic is all you have.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
It means, quite obviously, to live your life to the fullest while you are here.
But then, the Buddha wasn't much of a philosopher.
But why the hell can't you just say that? And if you want to be illustrative, can't you pick something that's not utterly bogus? A dialogue between the Buddha and the Devil, where the Buddha offers advice that seems worse than the Devil's. . . is so God-damn contrived. . . . I just don't see how people have the patience for this crap.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Maybe 2500 years ago when the dialogue was probably written it wasn't so very contrived.
'Ever read poetry?
The Wasteland?
Duino Elegies?
somewhere i have never travelled?
Bluebird?
Some things you just can't say plainly, because they're deeper than words. Like life, I guess.
Spat's Buddha quote above is a fine example of that.
This, incidentally, is one of the central premises of Zen Buddhism. "Direct pointing", rather than theory, is emphasized in training. Often, Zen students are not exposed to Buddhist teachings until late in their education. (Curiously enough, Zen writers have been amongst the most prolific in Buddhism.)
... AAAAAAAGGHHH!!! Damnit, you're doing it again.
"Reality >>>>> the English language. Somethings that might take a novel to disect in technical language can be expressed in a single picture or allegory." ~Spatula
Maybe so, but how do we know what we are saying? It doesn't help if we have this picture and everyone goes "wow, that really makes it clear." And then no two people actually have the same idea from this work of art.
Now, it would be good, if we had a science of art interpretation. ... again, something that could be done if cognitive science were to naturalize (see how very valuable it is and why I keep plugging for it here?). Think... instead of having to fumble in words *or* pictures... I could just connect you to a little box with a wire, that encodes exactly the idea I have, and then you'd have it too. Isn't that, amazing?
EDIT: Also, I want to say, this idea I like:
"Also, "contrived" things are usually things that are so profoundly true that they carry over the centuries. Despite being dismissed by each new generation of philosophers and idealogues for being "corny" or "cliche", until one day 20 years later they finally realize the full weight of that "corny" and "bogus" idiom, and they have to vainly try to explain it to the next generation of hot-headed egotists trying to carve out new and revolutionary ideas, much more profound than the antiquated truths of the past few millenia." ~Spatula
**End of Edit**
Oh, and you did ask me a direct question, Bardo, so I'll answer it: No, I haven't made the time to read any poetry since I escaped grade 10 English.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
As far as I've ever found, there is no purpose or meaning, but this results only in indifference on my part. Whatever we do results in the same, so we may as well act as if it had any purpose we like as not.
1. Meaning itself is reason, reasoning outside the realm of space and time really has no meaning. Meaning and reasoning are human terms and concepts. Without matter and time there can be no real basis for meaning.
2. Reasoning needs reason as a base every answer to a why question leads to another why question. If the meaning to life was to love then why should we love? Why should we pursue happiness? Why should we pursue heaven? Whats in heaven that’s really worth wild? Why do we seek pleasure?
This is where Nihilism comes and takes the cake. Since there can be no real reason for whatever we do or should do why do them in the first place? Life itself has no meaning therefore there’s no basis for anything at all. That’s Nihilism. Although Nihilism is self defeating, if nothing can be taken then Nihilism is no exception as well.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
I'm really not certain what your argument is here. The word "reason" has two very different meanings (at least!) that should not be equivocated between. Are you referring to "reason" as in "Sherlock Holmes had immense powers of reason" or "reason" as in "The reason Caligula went insane was probably a brain tumor"? And where do space and time come into the discussion?
Infinite regresses appear in a several places in metaphysics and epistemology. Regarding the question of how we can justify our knowledge if it's all founded on other knowledge we have, there is a widespread view called "foundationalism" that says certain premises are foundational, not known by virtue of other knowledge but in some other way. Is it completely out of the question that a sort of teleological foundationalism could be the case here? (Special bonus factoid: This is what medieval Christian metaphysicians believed. There's a lovely sort of symmetry here, in fact: God is the unmoved mover at the beginning of everything and the ultimate final cause at the end.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If you have religious beliefs, more than likely you believe something to the extent of the above.
If you do not believe in God, there are a lot of theories. My personal theory for myself is simply this:
Life is empty and meaningless.
Within this realm, I can create my own meaning of my life. Start with a blank slate, and create a purpose for myself. Living this way can be scary at times.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you choose the meaning of your life. I do not believe that there is simply one answer for each person. That would not be possible. Unless you care to argue that the purpose of everyone is to die, but I'm sure that has already been covered within the thread somewhere. However, this, also, is not a meaning of life, but just an eventual state; an inevitability (Mr. Anderson), if you will.
My theory goes along with something recently stated by blueconcept:
My input, however shallow my understanding of an utterly profound topic.
--cartman
"Leave the site in better shape than it was when you arrived."
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Might you be a wee bit guilty of greedy reductionism?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Stoned players can't attack, block, or play spells or abilities."
If you're referring to why we exist, I don't believe so at all. If you're talking about why we have consciousness, etc. then the answer may be different.
That's how bacteria and other simple life forms exist. Life (and memes) is just certain combinations of chemicals that have a tendency to propagate themselves. The ones who are most successful at doing so persist.
Life form that are less "Driven" to reproduce would die out naturally.
this has to do with the development of consciousness, which is tricky because we don't know what is conscious and what isn't. But consciousness certainly is a tool that was developed to promote survival and procreation.
The questions that follow are a side effect of developing consciousness.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
What does consciousness have to do with that? What do you think consciousness is?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
All I can say is that it comes from the underlying tautology here. Things that persist in this universe remain in existence. More persistent things exist longer, and less persistent things cease to exist. Then, as Sobek said in another thread,
Consciousness, like eyesight or hearing, is a form of perception that allows organisms to process information about their environment. Think of it as a "flashlight" the brain has that illuminates the unknown.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Information such as...?
What can consciousness qua consciousness do, that another aspect of brain could not?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Maybe if I break this bone in half I can suck the marrow out to survive!
Maybe I can harness this bright hot painful thing!
Maybe I can teach these skills to my descendants!
That kind of thing.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Visual perception, complex categorization, the object-as-tool faculty, which is something over and above the faculty for planning (though it is obviously preceded by planning). Combining all the preceding, the ability to abstract the property "pointy" as being related to the tool-use of "poking/attacking" would be the final move here.
Visual perception, planning, memory (of bones and having marrow in them). Necessary to have that memory, is the ability to have representations of objects which can include mechanical/behavioural features; which is to say, features of the form "if [this] is done, then [object] will show [that] feature" (in mentalese) (Explanation: You don't see marrow in bones. But it's not even a superperceptual feature. It can be perceived if the right thing is done) (and you need this to have that memory, because that memory includes in it the notion that the marrow "can be reached" in the bone)
Planning, visual perception, tactile perception, the faculty for investing in instrumental good (probably some amalgam of goal-orientation/planning, abstraction, and... ), sure let's throw self-awareness in here for good measure..., theory of mind (theory of mind is the faculty for thinking of other creatures as having minds. This requires self-awareness, to project unto other creatures, what you yourself have. Theory of mind enables you to plan that the "painful" tactile sensation, which is disturbing to your functioning, would be disturbing to other creatures also).
It occurs to me that the point at which one can represent instrumental good is about the part where the essence of douchebaggery enters into Humanity. With this, you can think of your own life as having some kind of continuity and richness you can add to, apart from any of the specific tasks you deal with in life. Without this, people couldn't have ambitions... they could just get really really good at doing cognitive tasks. With this, they can screw around with people because they can think "it'll help me in the long run/give me quick cash"
Self-awareness, abstraction of concept "skill", all the faculties that come with having "skills" (the behavioural repertoire, and the self-awareness of having that behavioural repertoire) (the behavioural repertoire would include all the intermodalities of perception, plus planning, memory - specifically procedural memory; learning; it would likely take pattern-recognition to develop a skill...)
EDIT: Oh yeah, the sort of knowledge for seeing that... humans .. reproduce... and have descendants... and so you will as well. Would require probably language for learning this from others... a lot of abstraction to really cogitate this as a pattern with implications.
The thought of providing for your descendants is instinctual and is an evolved trait.
Still no consciousness.
So I'm lost on what anything constant there was among these examples. Except visual perception and planning. Is that your "consciousness"?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Aurorasparrow, some background reading on the sort of issue you're facing: Zombies. Yes, zombies.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.