Let us be clear though, when I write 'science' I mean POPULAR science. I'm not going to even attempt to delve into the world of real science, which might require me to know something about test tubes, the periodic table of the elements and patience.
And so to Wikipedia, the lazy girl's library. A quick aside on Wikipedia - I know it's sometimes incorrect and that people who think they are awfully clever have gotten away with inserting false entries, which went undetected for months, but when you have neither the vocabulary nor the mental framework necessary to begin researching a new subject, in my opinion, Wikipedia is a fantastic place to start.
I've been finding it hard to separate in my mind the idea of searching for the purpose of existence and that of searching for the secret to happiness. Wikipedia confirms that I am not alone in having difficulties with this by beginning the science section within the meaning of life, with a discussion of the work of positive psychologists and humanist psychologists. Both groups have studied the behaviours that lead to life satisfaction.
It is certainly tempting to assume that a happy life is a meaningful life and perhaps this is the case, but is it not also possible that one could lead a miserable, disgruntled, thoroughly unsatisfactory but ultimately meaningful life? And I know that this probably isn't very 'science' of me, but who declares a life meaningful? Do you have to be aware of your life's 'meaningfulness' yourself, or is the purpose evident in the impact of your life upon others?
A guy who goes and sits under a tree for seven years contemplating the meaning of existence may have climbed to the top of Maslow's hierarchy, but what about a woman who is grumpy when she has PMS, spends far too much money on shoes, doesn't make much effort to make friends within her local community but paints a masterpiece that brings joy and previously undreamt of enlightenment to following generations? Or who sends money to an orphanage and puts six kids through college who would otherwise not have had this opportunity? Or who brings up two children of her own? Surely her efforts count for something, even if she is a nasty piece of work when someone else gets the last pair of Bertie strappy sandals that are on sale.
However, there is something to be learnt from the idea that engaging in activities, utilizing our strengths or investing in something larger than ourselves may give us a greater sense of satisfaction with our lives. Our lives may be very meaningful to someone else and we might never know, but if we only get one shot at this thing called life, doesn't it make sense that we should enjoy ourselves and feel good about ourselves while we're here? I think so, and if making certain changes might help that along I don't see anything wrong with going about making those changes in an active, deliberate fashion.
Let's now get down to some more sciencey science: neuroscience gives us an incredible insight into how our behaviours may be influenced by the pursuit of pleasure. Neuroscientists have taught us that if life is all about the search for rewards, our actions can be predicted quite accurately. We might each think that we know our own minds but those minds react very similarly to certain stimuli in particular situations. Is that all it's about? Are we here to look for the next chocolate biscuit and sunshine holiday? I'd like to think that we're more complex beings than that.
The problem of consciousness has stumped scientists for generations. Some neuroscientists believe that consciousness can be explained by studying the neurons within the brain. Other researchers have suggested that consciousness is a more difficult problem than this. Andrei Linde has suggested that consciousness may have its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, which would mean that our perceptions may be as real as (or even more real than) our microwave. (There is no spoon?)
Biologists focus on the need of humans to procreate in order to guarantee the survival of our genes. Certainly, the drive to have sex is strong and its impact upon many of the decisions that we make throughout our lives cannot be underestimated BUT (there's always a but) flaws on genes are passed on to the next generation along with all the best characteristics and some people are created in such a way that they cannot procreate, ie. there's got to be more to this one shot at existence than the popping of sprogs.
The biological explanation is one see-saw that has swung acutely in favour of nature over nurture. I'm more willing to accept that our primary function may be to pass on our genes and/or skills and knowledge. Progress is a product of collective knowledge and collective understanding rather than evolution alone. Unless useful skills are passed on (including the ability to socialise and care for one and other) life may continue, but in what form?
I am somewhat suprised to discover by means of this Wikipedia entry that defining life remains a challenge. This seems like something so basic that we should all know it, but I did not know that the essence of life remains undefined. There is something wonderful in knowing that science cannot come to agreement in defining even this most basic understanding of being - who's to say what life is?
It is next the turn of the physicists, who still can't agree how it all began. Despite all the experiments that threatened to open a black hole under Geneva, they can only describe the universe from 10-43 after the big bang. Thinking about the big bang has always made me feel a bit nauseous when I begin to consider this: there was a big bang and since then all matter has been expanding outwards - but what is it expanding into? I try to visualise this, taking into account that what I think of as 'nothing' is in fact 'something' and then, oww my head hurts! And the pain only intensifies when I read that it has been suggested that we are living in just one portion of a multiverse. And I've only just got over the idea that Pluto is no longer considered a planet.
I will leave you today with a quote from Wikipedia that made me realise that although they may be very meaningful and wonderful, our short lives are tiny pin prick holes on a giant map of eternity, and that makes me want to speak in a deep and booming voice alla the intro to Star Wars, or Star Trek (or was it Space Balls?): biological life will eventually become unsustainable, be it through a Big Freeze, Big Rip, or Big Crunch. It would seem that the only way to survive indefinitely would be by directing the flow of energy on a cosmic scale and altering the fate of the universe.
(Wow, altering the fate of the universe, that sounds great. I want to do that.)
No comments:
Post a Comment