Scientific Approaches To The Meaning of Life

Where scientists and philosophers converge on the quest for the meaning of life is an assumption that the mechanics of life (i.e., the universe) are determinable, thus the meaning of life may eventually be derived through our understanding of the mechanics of the universe in which we live, including the mechanics of the human body.

There are, however, strictly speaking, no scientific views on the meaning of biological life other than its observable biological function: to continue. In this regard, science simply addresses quantitative questions such as: "What does it do?", "By what means?", and "To what extent?", rather than the "For what purpose?".


[edit] Science and the five questions
But, like philosophy, science doesn't rest when it comes to asking and answering questions, and scientists have tackled each of the five interpretations of the meaning of life question head-on, attempting to answer each from the perspective of what exists, or in relation to the human being (for which science itself serves), offering empirical answers from relevant scientific fields...


[edit] What is the origin of life?
Thus, the question "What is the origin of life?" is answered in the sciences in the areas of abiogenesis (for the origins of biological life) and cosmogeny (for the origins of the universe). Both of these areas are quite hypothetical, cosmogeny because no existing physical model can accurately describe the very early universe (the instant of the Big Bang), and abiogeneis because the environment of the young earth is not known, and because the conditions and chemical processes that may have taken billions of years to produce life cannot (as of yet) be reproduced in a laboratory.

However, general consensus is that an early protein replicator was formed by the gradual build up of amino acids in the oceans, and then proceeded to dominate the primeval soup, occasionally mutating into a more (or less) successful form. Eventually a primitive cell was formed, and life continued to evolve by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Based on these or similar theories, some philosophers say that because life was entirely coincidental, one cannot expect life to have any meaning at all, other than its own self-perpetuation — reproduction.


[edit] What is the nature of life (and of the universe in which we live)?
Toward answering "What is the nature of life (and of the universe in which we live)?", scientists have proposed various theories or worldviews over the centuries, including the heliocentric view by Copernicus and Galileo, through the mechanistic clockwork universe of René Descartes and Isaac Newton, to Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, to the Quantum Mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrödinger in an effort to understand the universe in which we live.

Meanwhile, countless scientists in the biological and medical fields have dissected the human body to its very smallest components to acquire an understanding of the nature of biological life, to determine what makes us tick. Near the end of the 20th century, equipped with insights from the gene-centered view of evolution, biologists began to suggest that in so far as there may be a primary function to life, it is the survival of genes. In this approach, success isn't measured in terms of the survival of species, but one level deeper, in terms of the successful replication of genes over the eons, from one species to the next, and so on.

It has been stated that as we progress and age, our body stays affloat while the hyphy movement carries on. The Federation and Mr. Mac Dre, himself, act a fool and the bay mimics attitudes expressed by these pgmy gods, ignorant to the fact that they will oneday perish at the wrath.


[edit] What is the significance of life?
The question "What is the significance of life?" has turned philosophers toward the study of significance itself and how it is derived and presented (see semiotics). The question has also been extensively explored by those who attempt to explain the relationship of life to its environment (the universe), and vice versa. Thus, from a scientific point of view, the significance of life is what it is, what it does, and what mechanisms are behind it. In psychology and biology, it is evident significance only exists within human and animal minds; significance is subjective and is an emotional function of brains, making it impossible to exist outside of people's thoughts and feelings.


[edit] Scientific analysis of teleology
One very promising idea about the purpose of life probably arose many years ago (it's a common statement that "biology debunked teleology a century ago"), although it has been further popularized recently. This "debunking" is said to have coincided with or resulted from advances in biological knowledge such as the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (i.e. the creation of the theory of natural selection). It is not unlikely however, that it was philosophized long before that teleology (perceived meaning or purpose) is an illusion that has no bearing on reality and that ultimately there is no objective purpose to anything.

The proposition follows basically like this: setting goals and finding potential goals in physical objects and abstract ideas is an instinct deeply seated in the primate mind, as it was a characteristic fashioned by natural selection; part of the evolution of humanity's ancestors. This instinct, which is the search for purpose (or "meaning") is often known as teleology. We, as human beings, are all innately teleological thinkers. Teleological thinking is useful in the natural (and modern) world, making it a favorable trait for species to have. However, when we use this instinct when thinking philosophically about life, the universe, and everything, it misfires and we come up with an unsolvable conundrum - one which doesn't really exist in the first place. Teleological instincts apply well to physical objects such as food (purpose: to eat) but fail when they are attempted to be applied to the more abstract, like subjective experience. The failure of teleology can be demonstrated not just with abstract concepts, but objects that serve no known utility to human beings. What, for example, is the purpose of an asteroid floating around light years outside of this galaxy? We can objectively explain the cause of things like space rocks, but we must conclude, if we are to embrace teleological thinking, that either a) far away asteroids have no purpose or b) purpose doesn't exist in objective reality.

The argument about teleological thinking as a result of natural selection is put forward in various books and articles. The best-selling author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins puts forward the explanation in his Discovery Science video The Big Question: why are we here?.

This explanation of our famous (or infamous) teleological conundrum is to many the most probable, satisfying, and ultimate answer we have attained for the problem of the meaning of life, especially since it is falsifiable and can be backed up with specific scientific evidence, such as neurological research, while it is already supported by general scientific evidence, such as the evidence for evolution.