Talk:Meaning of life/Archive 1

message: I've added a comment pointing out that Arthur Dent could not have drawn "What do you get when you multiply six by nine" from a standard English Scrabble set as there are not enough letters (for example, there are only two Y's, and the sentence contains four).  However, this sentence (or any other English sentence, for that matter) is possible if each tile is returned to the bag after it has been drawn and noted.  Does anyone know if this is what Arthur Dent did, or did Douglas Adams use a bit of artistic licence here? — Paul G 16:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Dent's Scrabble letters

message: I included a 'see also' to 3 starting points in wikipedia. Each of these contains 'see also' connections to any other 'see also' that anyone could want. I would be against expanding the 'see also' beyond 3 entries Loxley 12:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppose someone was looking for an investigation of the question... 

message: I re-wrote the following paragraph to be less "sure of itself." That is, "science" doesn't 'tell' us this, but some theories 'suggest' it. I also updated the theory to cover some more recent theories regarding what the event was (i.e. a comet rather than lightning bolt?), and IMO improved the flow substantially. --Jacius 03:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Science tells us that life on earth was created by a lightning bolt that electrified a mix of molecules and turned them into a very primitive cell. This cell was capable of copying itself, and by that, life had started. The elements these molecules consisted of, (by us named "organic") are the only elements that could create such complex objects. Thus, life started with a coincidence, and also developed by coincidences, and it will continue this way, unless we fumble with genes too much. Since everything which has got to do with life is based on accidental circumstances, there is reason to believe that life has no reason at all, from a scientific point of view.
Science doesn't even suggest it; the notion that a lightning bolt (or comet?  good grief -- perhaps you're thinking of panspermia, which is a different hypothesis for the origin of life) could turn a mix of molecules into a cell is ludicrous; it took millions or billions of years from the time the first self-replicating molecule arose until the first cell developed.  And there's no reason to think that there was an "event" -- it was an ongoing process.  The language in the article is still ignorant nonsense that reduces our current scientific knowledge to something below the level found on a cereal box.  See the Origin of life article for a far more accurate discussion.  But really, none of this is relevant to "meaning", and it quite mixes up things that are orthogonal -- there are plenty of scientists who are religious and whose views on meaning and purpose run the spectrum; science itself is mute on such issues. -- 68.6.40.203 22:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 Mar 2005 edit 

message: For most people the Meaning of Life is fundamentally about 4 things: love, sex, money and happiness. Here's why:
* Love because, among other things, it drives parents to care for their children
* Sex because it drives us to spread our DNA and propagate the species.
* Money because so much of our time and energy is devoted to earning it or spending it.
* Happiness because even if you have love, sex and money, that doesn't necessarily make you happy. Happiness, spirituality and a sense of well being is something we all strive for. 
--Peter 02:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These may be what most people value (although I think that's a very truncated view), but value and meaning are two very different things, and neither have much to do with "life", per se.  The problem with "the meaning of life" is that it's a ludicrous grammatical construct, as ludicrous as "the meaning of height" or "the meaning of snow".  Words and sentences are the sorts of things that can have meaning; life, height, snow, and most other things are not. -- 68.6.40.203 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's about 4 things 

message: It's a dumb question because it lacks definition. If you're asking why you were called into existence, your parents just wanted to show each other a good time. If you're asking what you're expected to do while you're living, you should first ask who would care. Just relax, get naked once in a while, live a little. It isn't as difficult as some try to make it seem.
:To ask the meaning of something assumes it has meaning.  On the other hand, it could just be a cry for help to understand something.  An idiom for "I'm confused, somebody please sort this out for me."  24.18.171.99 05:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined question 

message: The meaning of life is growth.
Life is preservation of energy given off by the sun.
We're here becuase of complexity being a form of storage.
That complexity led to sentience.
Sentience is meaning.
Meaning is a bunch of patterns, which brain cells form to each other as we interact with our environment through our senses.
:The above offers three different claims as to what meaning is, none of which are correct.  The meaning of something is that which is signified by it.  But life is not a signifier, so the question is meaningless.  The above also makes several other erroneous claims; for instance, solar cells and cow dung preserve energy given off by the sun, but they aren't alive.  And complexity is not a form of storage; the complexity of something is usually defined in terms of the information required to describe it, which has nothing to do with solar energy. -- 68.6.40.203 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Explanation 

message: I question why 42 is listed under "Popular views".  One, it is listed already under "Humorous and miscellaneous views".  Two, it is only one man's POV (i.e. Douglas Adam's) and a joke at that (I agree it is quite funny). Three, if we are to list all significant numbers which individuals interpret as the meaning of life then the list would be endless; 2012, 33, 666 for instance are not listed. I have deleted the reference.  --nirvana2013 11:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  42 

message: The article is in desperate need of a thorough overhaul.  I've made a (largely negative, though including a copy-edit) start, but oh dear...  The section science was obscure, and anyway largely irrelevant.  The section on philosophy is almost as bad, covering some of the most important philosophers who actually wroote something interesting on the issue in a single sentence.  The section on religion is also thin, and the section on "spirituality" was three paragraphs devoted to popular writers of new-age/spiritualist books.  The section humour, though a bit bloated, is the fullest. I'll try to attract attention from other editors, and will (when I can) start work on the bits about which I'm knowledgeable: science, philosophy, and religion. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Attention" 

message: This article has been and is still getting plenty of attention.  One look at the history reveals that.  
As the interested editors become more familiar with this subject, the article continues to improve.  I believe it has been a learning experience for all of us.
Just because one opinionated viewer freaks out about what he sees is no reason to muck up the article with a useless template.  It detracts from the article.  I'm removing it.
I welcome recruiting efforts to bring more editors to this article.  But the article already does a pretty good job of that on its own.
24.18.171.99 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plenty of Attention 

message: Thx for the work on this good article. I made a couple easy edits to the science section, but IMO it needs an overhaul and i'm not the person to do it. The 1st par sounds like philosophers agree on mechanism, which isn't true. There are general flow/clarity problems about whether and how science addresses the m o l, and the 2nd par seems pretty contradictory to other par's. The 3rd paragraph ended in total confusion for me -- hope my change expresses the intended point. Perhaps par 4-7 could be much shorter, simply telling/linking what fields of science address what aspects of m o l questions. No need for (incomplete) lists of theories, as in par 5, which privileges physics. And i think the semiotics connection is too much of a stretch; lots of other areas (linguistics, neurology) address aspects of how we perceive our world and make 'meaning' of it in very general ways, but thats more than needs to be addressed in an article about the philosophical m o l. Hope that helps, "alyosha" 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science section needs attn 

message: nobody knows the meaning of life. I think there should be more emphasis on this.
:How do you know "nobody knows the meaning of life"?  --nirvana2013 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK, but there is no way of ascertaining if anyone knows the meaning of life.  So perhaps more could be made of the fact that some people believe there isn't one, and the related observation that there appears to be no objective criteria for discerning if anyone knows the meaning?  Or something ...  ;)  --Plumbago 12:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just silly. Everyone knows the meaning of life. Some people just don't know it. -Silence 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a minute! 

message: You wanna know the meaning of life? Just look it up at wikt:Life! lol<BR>
<BR>FLaRN2005 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary 

message: Hey all, interesting page. A bit busy, perhaps, but considering the SCOPE...anyway, I felt compelled to tinker a bit with esoteric/other, (the phrase "to have purpose" struck me as somehow, well, lacking) Having done this I went back to the first paragraph, as something there had caught my eye. It was the claim that "the vagueness of the query is inherent in the word meaning". It seems to me that the word is may be an equally, perhaps even more likely culprit for any vaguery (not to mention the definition of vaguery!). I thought about making a note, and linking it, but this required...finagling. (see talk:is) Now, having arranged for that, I came back and found the word in the next half-dozen or so questions in the paragraph, and, well, I think I can see why the page needs trimming. However, being a newbie I ain't about to hack up the intro, though I'm certain it needs clarification, so, little help? I am just curious, 'cause this may really be the first opportunity this world has had to conceivably come to an actual concensus on this subject, and I for one would love to see this article whittled down to one sentence,(Not likely, I know, but I for one also like to see ALL concepts whittled down to single statements, or aphorisms, if you will) and, well...I'm curious. Awaiting a reply, TLM posted 01/29/06
:I agree with you the dissection of the question does not really help the article.  It is very much a philosophers way of going about the meaning of a question or word (see the article truth, for example, and their 8 archive talk pages!!?).  Philosophers have been forcibly airing their complicated theories on truth for over 6,000 years and still have not got anywhere.  Anyway, one of the interpretations of the question "What is the meaning of life?" should be, as pointed out by FLaRN2005 above, what is the meaning of "life"? (i.e. wikt:Life).  I know this is simple and obvious, but we should cover this basic question in the article.  After all some things are alive (humans, plants, animals etc) and some are dead (a corpse, petroleum, rocks etc). With an afterlife, the explanation would have to go into greater depth. --nirvana2013 12:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a little help...? 

message: THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO BE A GOOD HUMBLE CATHOLIC AND MAKE SURE YOU ALL OTHER DENOMINATIONS AND RELIGIONS CAUSE THEY ARE WRONG AND BE GOOD AND KIND AND BELIEVE IN JESUS IVE BEEN A GOOD CATHOLIC GIRL FOR 17 YEARS AND THEN I FIND THIS PAGE QUESTIONING LIFE 
:If you are Catholic, which I doubt, you are not being the greatest advertisement for your faith.  But I suppose you never thought of that.  Here are some good promoters: Philip Berrigan, Dorothy Day and John Dear. --nirvana2013 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOD 

message: The following big section moved from the article for discussion:
:The designed Universe.
:Science has theorised ways in which the universe can generate all its complexity by pure accident, but since the odds against these accidents occurring are unbelievably huge, science has therefore revealed that there is an enormous probability that the universe is non- accidental. Or, simply put, science has shown overwhelming statistical evidence that the universe is designed. Because of this, scientists have conceded that there seems to be some sort of underlying order, meaning that there is a non-accidental system at work.  To take this further, once we accommodate the notion of some sort of non-accidental order we cannot escape applying rationality to that order and this leads to the conclusion of perfection. That is, if the universe is ordered it must be ordered for a purpose, and logically it must be perfectly capable of carrying out that purpose.
:We can’t have it both ways. Science’s methods have revealed that the probability that the universe is unfolding according to some underlying order or design is enormous. Once conceded, scientists must not avoid applying rationality to this order; the same rationality that exposed the order in the first place. Once we admit to order we are saying that the universe is non-accidental. So, boom! We have existence - ordered existence. A non-accidental system! Order can’t come about by accident; therefore it must have already been there. This order, which underlies all existence, cannot be flawed. Therefore this order must be perfectly capable of organising the universe. 
:This order also must have a reason for existing. It makes no sense at all to have an ordered system for no reason. If there is no reason or necessity for the order, we would have no order. Now if, for clarification, we call the reason for the order meaning, then we can see that that the universe is a system whose purpose is to fulfil that meaning. We should then be able to find the meaning through deduction by looking at what is going on in the universe, remembering that absolutely everything must be a part of the design, including us!
:Scientists and researchers who have admitted to the overwhelming evidence for a design have reasoned that the design seems to be geared around bringing consciousness into existence. And this makes sense, because if the living universe is to be fulfilled then it would need to be self-aware. To be properly aware of its Self, the universe would have to be an intimate part of its own awareness. In other words, to be self-aware is not the same as other aware beings gazing upon you. You must be that awareness. Therefore the Self of the universe must be the highly aware beings within the universe. Since we are self-aware, aware of the universe and aware that we are aware of it all we must be the Self of the universe, the self of existence. Since we are capable of knowing, feeling and understanding all of existence then we are the awareness of existence. Existence, therefore, must be two, because we are two distinct beings: male and female. This argument may seem circular, but it’s not; the argument has a source and a deduction. The source is the order that underlies all existence that logic tells us must be perfectly capable of organising the universe, and the deduction is that all that is around us must be the result of the design. 
:If we are the awareness of the Self of existence then the beings or source of this Self must be non-aware, or asleep The need of the two to awaken answers the endless regress question which asks that there be a reason for an ultimate being’s or a god’s existence. What’s more is that we know that this is a valid self-contained reason because it is also our own reason for existence. And this is the final confirmation: if the universe is capable of reflecting its meaning perfectly, then we should, as the consciousness of the universe, be the perfect reflection of this meaning, and we are.
:[P129 The Science of Soulmates, By William Henderson, Booksurge NewYork 2002]
Concerns:
# Assuming this is all a copy from that book, it seems a huge copy/paste and could (or should) be summarized, wikipedia is not normally a place for huge copy/pastes. It is capable of being summarized as "William Henderson the author of ___ gives his view as....."
# It seems either highly POV or simply mistaken. It states: "the odds against these accidents occurring are unbelievably huge, science has therefore revealed that there is an enormous probability that the universe is non-accidental... science has shown overwhelming statistical evidence that the universe is designed... scientists have conceded that there seems to be some sort of... non-accidental system at work... Once conceded, scientists must not avoid applying rationality to this order... A non-accidental system! Order can’t come about by accident... Existence, therefore, must be two, because we are two distinct beings: male and female..." As best I can tell this is not representative of the views of "sceince" or "most scientists" nor is there "generally accepted overwhelming statistical evidence", nor is it "mostly" interpreted this way. 
# Likewise the statements that assert order "cannot" come from chaos, what scientists "must not" do,  and that there must be "two" and so on, slip into personal belief of the editor or author and in this context probably misrepresent science and scientists' majority views.
# The section is too long a copy/paste to be apppropriate usage.
This section needs summarizing into an "Author X's view is", and reflect both views, that most of the above facts stated by the author are not representative in fact of science or scientists views, and are strongly contested by many. FT2 (Talk) 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "William Henderson" moved to talk page for discussion 

message: It seems that Bernard Haisch added a citation to his own book to this and many other articles.  See also 
*Stochastic electrodynamics
*Polarizable vacuum
*Zero-point energy
*Vacuum energy
for other edits apparently pushing the scientifically highly controversial POV of Haisch. ---CH 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haisch cite

message: You mention the appearance of 47 in Star Trek:
:This is an obvious reference to the "Star Trek" series where the number 47 is heavily featured (It does for example occur in every single episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation").
I did not know about this until I read your article. However, some sources suggest 47 did not begin to appear regularly in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" until season 4. See here: The 47s      --La Loir Noir 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 47 in Star Trek

message: A lateral view of the problem, 'The Meaning of Life', may result in the following explanation - Death. From a philosophical point of view, the end result - for which no alternative exists - of life is but death. Every person is born into this world, and will inevitably die irrespective of what life they lived; rich, poor, upper class, clever, disabled etc. There is only one constant in the existence of a human being.
The above paragraph is very poorly written, and under closer observation doesn't make much sense.  Here's my take on this hunk of text:
* First of all, the position isn't any more prevelant than those contained in the body of the article, and therefore it doesn't belong in the lead section of the page any more than any other position presented on the page.  If this philosophical musing is to be included, it should go in the Philosophical views section.
* How is it a lateral view, are we looking at it sideways?  That death goes hand-in-hand with, or is side-by-side with life is figurative poetry; it conveys no message, it's just art.  Death comes after life, and therefore is either behind it (because it follows it), or is in front of it (because if you are alive death is in the future, ahead of you, waiting), depending how you look at it.  But sideways?  (Shakes head slowly).
* The opening paragraph doesn't present the meaning of life as a problem, but as a question.  The paragraph above refers to it as a problem, but doesn't explain how it is a problem.  "Meaning of life" is just a phrase.  That we don't necessarily know what the meaning of life is, could be a problem, but the writer doesn't say this.  And if that's what the writer meant, then we're simply back to the question "What is the meaning of life?"  
*Then the writer poses death as the explanation, or answer?, to the problem/quesiton.  But there's no clarification as to which context of the question he is answering.  The queston itself is vague and subject to a number of interpretations (all of which are presented in the opening paragraph).    Which way is he interpretting it?
* He points out that from a philosophical point of view the end of life is death, and that no alternatives exist, framing life as invariable.  But life is variable, some lives are much longer than others, opening up an alternative to death:  death later instead of death now.
* Is death the only constant?  Isn't that "everyone lives" also a constant?  Even though people live differently, and for different lengths of time, the very fact that they all existed is the same for everyone.  Another constant.  Therefore, that "death is the only constant" is blatantly erroneous.
* The author doesn't explain how his observations constitute the meaning of life.  How can the mere end of something be the entire meaning of it?  He leaves this issue totally untouched.
* Just an important thing to note: Life at first was never meant for death. The bacteria and even some of the simplest animals you see in the world today are directly related to ancestors billions of years ago. These organisms are biologically immortal and so have never died. Most of them continue dividing and dividing over and over again. They can thus be said to be billions of years old, and have not yet died. It is only in the evolutionary chain of more complex plants and animals that death becomes present. Therefore it is not truly correct to say that the meaning of life is death.
Because the passage makes little if any sense, I'm for removing it altogether.  If it can be rewritten (or its source citation provided), then it should be moved to the Philosophical views section, since it poses itself as a philosophical point of view.  --Medulla oblongata 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved this paragraph from the talk page to here for discussion...

message: I moved the following extract here, because complete source information was not provided, and because I couldn't track down where it came from.  
----
What if human beings were simply animals? Then by observing other animals it might be possible to uncover meaning from their life patterns. Such as the requirement to ensure the survival of their particular species. An objective pursued through the unwitting deployment of individual variation and aptitude. In an endeavour to counter each threat to their collective existence. 
Such an observation might imply that the meaning of life is life itself, ensuring continuity toward attainment of an ultimate formation. In other words, the subconscious quest for an entity-form or organization, which no eventuality could annihilate. 
Yet surely, the meaning of human life could not be so rudimentary? Since humans and animals differ in a vast number of respects. For example, in the ability to exchange complex information. The examination of which quickly establishes, that no two of our kind experience the nature of shared existence in an identical fashion. However, unless reality can exist in multiple states simultaneously, the majority of such perceived variation must be introduced by individuals themselves. Currently, each feels confident in maintaining a belief, that their evaluation of life derives from personal experience of actual reality. That they are wholly justified, in claiming their assessment as correct while dismissing conflicting appraisals as incorrect. But how could such a massive contradiction be plausible? Perhaps, if not a single human being experienced true reality. 
Because everything that we term “experience” originates in an organ, totally encased within a sealed protective enclosure. Inside a detached device, remote from any form of tangible involvement with that which it purports to know intimately and comprehend effectively. Yet, any notion formed in isolation can be individual in nature and subjective in content. In effect then, any genuine similarity between an inner recreation of reality and the outer true reality, would be restricted. Limited to those portions of entire actual reality which our external sensory sensors were capable of accurately detecting, encoding, and re-transmitting. In addition to that dexterity which the brain would  need to apply in order to interpret these transformed signals. Utilising the utmost quality of memory-maintained comparative material, required to perform a necessarily precise interpolation. 
Regrettably, a lack of exactness in any of these sequential operations would tend toward the creation of erroneous conclusions.  Accordingly, all manner of illogical opinion, confused conviction, or fanciful explanation concerning anything, including the meaning of life, could then result.  Permitting, for instance, one to classify certain acts as either good or evil, the incontrovertible proof of a complex struggle between opposing supernatural forces. While also allowing another to categorize those same events, as the simple manifestation of diverse survival strategies.  Ultimately however, selection of any alternate, in preference to continuity of life as the primary objective of our kind, risks incurring a common fatal consequence. That our species will not endure for long enough, to discover which hypothesis if any was correct. (Condensed extract from a unified theory of human existence, omitting detailed analogies, examples, explanations, and reasoning.)
----
Before this can be reinserted into the article, we should determine its copyright status.  Also, it is a bit long.  Should it go in the article, or in an article of its own?  But first, we really need to resolve the copyright issue.  Does anybody know where this came from, who the original author is, when it was published, and when and by whom? --Medulla oblongata 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified Theory of Human Existence 

message: The mathematical approach involves formal methods of optimization whereby the probability of death is the determining factor of the cost function.  The optimization used for living organisms is the evolution strategy.  The desire to live is an inherent aspect of living, for if a species did not have the desire to live they would most likely be killed off by random natural events, and would thereby cease to live.  This results in all living organisms, that exist in a volatile region of space, having a strong desire to live.  Extending this logic can result in explaining the existence of intelligence, cooperative group working, relationships, and numerous other human emotions. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical Approach 

message: This reads like an essay, and if very hard to follow.  It even prompted someone to add a clean-up tag, which I highly agree with.  I don't think it fits in the article, at least not in this form.  --Chram 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is too complicated. The first sentence stumps me. What is the trial of unification? There's not a Wikipedia article on it. Yes, it does sound like an essay - like there was a fear of using past tense verbs. Also, I don't understand what spacetime has to do with the meaning of life. There does seem to be some good information in there though. For example, "People are inquisitive and unconsciously motivated to increase the knowledge and technological abilities. It enables them to develop…," and also "the ultimate goal of people is to…" That stuff sounds relavent to the meaning of life. Maybe it could be cleaned up.  Jecowa 07:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved this section from the article page to here for discussion 

message: I'm not really sure this page is encyclopedic, as it just enumerates different groups' views on the subject. Maybe sections in the articles on Atheism, Christianity, and the other groups that explain that group's viewpoint, as well as a section at life would be better.--Grand Slam 7 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this page belong? 

message: It isn't encyclopedic at all. The entire premise of the article is based on an extremely vague ponderance of a nature probably only common in the English language or the western world. It is a pointless mish-mash of popular views, completely NPOV, and not representing a world-wide perspective. It is too long and opinionated and should be split up into seperate articles or removed altogether. 
--Weldingfish 12:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At best, it seems to me that it needs to be entirely re-written - and probably included as a subarticle to Philosophy. It rambles, it's ill-organized, and it's extremely difficult to understand. As far as the definition of encyclopedia, try "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically". --MatthewDBA 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article even exist? 

message: there should be a section included on the singularitarian veiw (where the 'meaning of life' meand the supergoal). From theis article http://sysopmind.com/tmol-faq/tmol-faq.html. Basically it goes something like this: 
#We must assume there is a meaning of life (not to do so woul be self defeating - and in abscense of certainty it is illogical to go with a self defeating possbility(one that gives no information on 'good actions".
#We do not have enougth informaton to make a good guess at what it is yet.
#Assumeing there is a meaning of life(a supergoal) and we do not know it. it is logical that the interim meaning of life is to find the "meaning of life"(supergoal)
#The reason humans havn't found the meaning of life may be lack of inteligence or information. Therefore we should create superhuman inteligence(via enchancement, the singularity, AI etc) and more information (science). (Michael)
:: (Reply): Singularitarianism is a subcomponent of transhumanism, which is covered in the article.  The whole philosophy section had been blanked by someone, but I've restored it.       — The Transhumanist    15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singularitarian view of the meaning of life 

message: DimitriRU, your removal of the original science section lacks consensus.  If you'd like to remove large sections of an article, you should propose it on that article's talk page first, and express your reasons for desiring the removal.  Please refrain from blanking it again until consensus has been reached.  Personally, I'm against removing it, as it is geared towards beginners, whereas the Schrödinger stuff is quite advanced and may leave younger readers (or those new to philosophy and science) scratching their heads.  The passage also complements the article's lead section by treating each of the five questions presented there.  Note that I've left your additions in place, for the sake of more advanced readers. Please don't unilaterally chop articles down without prior discussion.  Keep in mind that other people on Wikipedia have put in a great deal of time and effort on the various articles here.  None of us like to see our work erased unless there is good reason to do so, determined by the wisdom of the community.      — The Transhumanist    11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section blanking lacks consensus 

message: If there is some commonly held joke or reference among philosophers please explain. Chivista 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of "42" as an meaning is from Adam's book 

message: A couple of criticisms:
This entire section, and much of the Schrodinger section as well, are lifted directly from a book by Erich Schneider.  There is a copyright notice on the page linked at the end of the Schneider section, so this appears to be a violation of copyright.  The section should probably be removed entirely, though I wanted to give people a chance to discuss that before doing it myself.
Also, assuming the section does stay, it comes across as unreasonably POV to me, particularly the first sentence.  "Linking our purposeful behavior to life's function as a gradient-reducing complex system is another move in the scientific tradition of increasing our knowledge while deflating our arrogance."  Whether or not "the scientific tradition" deflates human arrogance is a matter of opinion, not objective fact.  If the section stays, it needs to be reworded from an NPOV, not simply a direct quote from Schneider.
74.114.148.69 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Remove it!Migdejong 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that most people expect to see philosophy not creative musings merely; please justify why this "Eric Snyder" fits the category?  There are sections of pop culture as a concession to the popularity of the topic. :) Chivista 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section removed, for the reasons stated above. 74.114.148.69 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erich Schneider section 

message: Not really sure how to get rid of the "MEANING OF LIFE IS GLORIOUS COMRADE STALIN," which, while mildly amusing, doesn't belong here. --StarKruzr 10:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I find this article 'Meaningless'. It once again expounds the philosophical opinions of the many people who have pondered it. It should be renamed ‘Meaning of life philosophy’ or similar until an actual meaning is found.
I could add that the meaning of life is knowledge or the pursuit of knowledge. Be it for God or the endless universe that surrounds us. However this would indeed be yet another answer to an otherwise pointless question. The meaning of life is LIFE.
This site is, and should be based on facts or fiction. And be separated by some kind of mark identifying such.
It is clear that the meaning of life will not be answered any day soon.
Although I hasten to add that it may never be answered if we don't all put our heads together to expand our understanding of an infinite universe with endless possibilities as to what we are and why we may be here.
Beginner;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmcmaster (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of life 

message: Due to the apparently overwhelming "knowledge" of the MSN Messenger chat bot SmarterChild, its creators have claimed that the meaning of life is one of the most common requests from its users. The algorithm has since been tweaked so that instead of responding with a generic message, it replies with a humorous "ask Ken Ma" and a smiling emoticon. There has been speculation as to whether or not Ken Ma is a real person, whilst one common theory is that the name is an inside joke amongst the developers of the chat bot.
Nope, doesn't work.
blip: what's the meaning of life?
SmarterChild: GeekHelper can give you helpful computer tips and play fun games. Add GeekHelper as a buddy!
I don't know. What do you think?
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.252.73.101 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SmarterChild bot 

message: I added  to popular beliefs because it is in need of pruning. This section seems to be the beliefs of Wikipedia users, not the public.  Some truly are popular beliefs, but many ("...to be a magician"?  Where's that from?)  are not.  I suggest citations are added, and those without citations be deleted.P.L.A.R. 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Beliefs 

message: If anyone has a strong objection to the philosophical section of this page being used as the start of a new page, please express that objection and give reasons for it here. Anarchia 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New page - 'Meaning of life (philosophy)'

message: Hey, as a determinist, I think plot details are very relevant to the meaning of life. Jussen 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No spoiler warning because of plot details?

message: Items need to be referenced.  No prob.
But where will the items go once they're referenced?  Many seem to fall under more than one category, especially ethics and religion, with some items fitting both science and philosophy.  What would be done with those?   — The Transhumanist   19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can determine from the list in its last incarnation, this will not be a problem. It would lead to a couple of minor duplications of content, but the duplications would be explained/included for different reasons. Almost nothing on the list is included in any philosophical works on 'ethics and the meaning of life' that I have seen, and the few things that could be included under this heading would not seriously overlap with anything in the 'religion' section. Similarly, while philosophers should take some account of science in some approaches to understanding the meaning of life, the real overlap, that is the overlap in terms of use of content, is small.Anarchia 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we see what items can be sourced and which ones can't, we can take the list to the talk page and just talk about what section each one would fit into best --Laugh! 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repairing popular belief section 

message: I think this is one of the most significant articles on Wikipedia, and think it should be improved to featured article status.  But it doesn't have a hope of getting approved until all of its content is properly referenced.     — The Transhumanist    20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status 

message: I hope it's going well and everyone is agreed on the course of action. If I can be of further help (bearing in mind I know nothing about this topic!) please drop me a line at my talk page. --Dweller 16:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's life, man.  Everyone know something about it.  :-)  Mainly, we need help tracking down citations for the facts and claims included, especially in the life purposes list.     — The Transhumanist    00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The latest link put into this page  does not connect happiness and the meaning of life. I don't want to delete it without checking first what the link is supposed to be for. 
: That is correct.  It is there to verify that happiness is viewed as a life purpose.  The entire study is on the seeking of happiness.   — The Transhumanist   21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference does not show that happiness is viewed as a life purpose. Check it out again. Anarchia 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tip.  I'll check the libraries around here.   — The Transhumanist   21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I could only find "Meaning & Void".  Who is it by?   — The Transhumanist   00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - "Meaning and Void" is the right one, author: Klinger.
Some of the references that have been added into the article are problematic.
#What counts as a reliable source? If someone says something in a newspaper article, like 'the meaning of life is to survive', does this mean that 'some people say that the meaning of life is to survive'? Or do we want the article to reflect considered and peer reviewed attitudes and beliefs? It seems to me that in an encyclopedia the latter is appropriate. Anyone can go around asking their friends and neighbours what they think is the meaning of life - or read a few people's blogs.
#Some of the references do not support the claims that they are supposed to support. I am going to delete these soon. I will note in my edit summary that this is why I have acted as I did. Please check out the site before reinstating the deletion.
#Relatedly, some of the links in the 'See also' section are to self-published work. This seems inappropriate. Anarchia 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References need to about the meaning of life

message: Since the dispute has been resolved (thanks to Dweller), does anyone mind if I remove the mediation cabal tag from the top of this page?   — The Transhumanist   00:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with that. -=-Laugh! 05:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove mediation cabal tag? 

message: An obvious first step, is to replace all the citation tags with references.  Then the article will probably be ready for WP:PR.
I've gotten started on the life purposes section, as that was under dispute above, and to remain in the article it needs to be referenced    as per the solution arrived at above.  To find references, Google can be used to search for the entry plus "life purpose"; and/or the entry plus "meaning of life", and any other related phrases you can think of.  If you think of any other phrases that work, please report them here, so the rest of us can make use of them.   — The Transhumanist   00:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Did a fact tag storm blow through and flood this article?! For my part, I see that references aren't formatted. I'll start tomorrow in formatting the existing ones. I don't have time to track down references to replace the fact tags, but if someone else does, just place the url in brackets and I'll go through and format those as well. LaraLove 05:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reminder to myself, book titles which lack an article need to be pipelinked to Special:Booksources. Also need to check for author links and put dashes in ISBNs. Lara♥Love 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed. ~ Wikihermit 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So where does one look for sources? Bart133 (t) (c) 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of sources are you interested in looking for? There are books on the meaning of life in most libraries (in New ZEaland, anyway). There are occassional articles in philosophy and psychology journals. Give me an idea of what you want to find and I will help you find it. Anarchia 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status, here we come! 

message: How about converting these ref tags to section tags. What do ya think. This article is aesthetically absurd. That's right. You heard me ;) the_undertow talk 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We need those tags to know what needs sources or not. Anything without a reliable source is going to be removed beginning in August. --Laugh! 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are not telling us that because they have been sprinkled around haphazardly. The addition of a tag can be as flawed as any other edit. 1Z 11:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were 'sprinked' where people thought they were needed. --Laugh! 11:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: People can think incorrectly. These tags are not sacrosanct.1Z 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section does not reflect a sprinkle. It is simply a method of tagging each sentence at the end of said sentence. That could have easily been handled with a template. If everything is to be deleted in August, we are certainly not going to be left with much. the_undertow talk 18:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the fact tag explosion on this article is absurd. Every sentence in the article is really challenged? Lara♥Love 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. They tags are for the most part appropriate. (They might be reduced if the article adopted an historical or biographical structure, rather than the "subject" structure it has at present. That is, if you had a section or paragraph on each of the main contributors to thought on this topic, rather than one for science, one for philosophy, then you might be able to reduce the number of citations needed.) Banno 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we, huh, can we?