Discussion The point of life.

[Deleted member 2206]

Talking from any perspective, really, it's just about keeping a biochemical equilibrium imo.
From a physiological standpoint we only really exist to survive long enough to pass on our genetics; that's not a purpose, just an adaptation.
In order to ensure maximal satisfaction we must leverage the innate biochemical reward system of our brains such as triggering a sustainable feedback loop of GABA, Norepinephrine, you get the point. The absence of neurotransmitter equilibrium, such as a lack of Serotonin, can cause a sense of loss and impression of an unfulfilling life, which is the only thing that prompts us to pursue spiritual and emotional fulfilment - an adaptation that no doubt would've been instrumental in creating a tribal society with strong familial bonds and advanced goals, thus protecting a genetic line far more efficiently. If you do things that are good for survival, your brain rewards you because the un-rewarded would've lacked the motivation to persist and their genetics would not reach this point in time.

It's just an arms race for genetic supremacy, because the urge to proliferate must be strong to ensure the survival of a genetic line, which itself is a self-fulfilling urge. It exists for no other reason than being hard-baked into our psyche through billions of years of reinforcement learning.

So objectively, life has no meaning at all.
Subjectively, however, everybody's meaning of life without fail is the pursuit of a sustainable neurotransmitter feedback loop wherein they are drip-fed a jubilating stream of happy chemicals; which itself relies on the bells and whistles that their environment and the environments eons ago crafted for them. I.e those who gained a boost of dopamine/serotonin from pattern-seeking behaviour may have been able to spot edible berries more easily; spot predators and organize shelter better - and thus the love for 'art' is born; brains incentivized to pattern seek, seek more patterns with more stimulation, until the very act of pattern-seeking becomes an abstraction with little function or meaning behind it. 'You find your own meaning in art', no you do not, it's learned pattern-seeking behaviour making you lick up crumbs of dopamine baked in from archaic behavioural patterns, and neurotransmitter equilibrium is meaning. LITERALLY EVERYTHING STEMS FROM THIS.

You like pets? You're hard-wired into giving neotenous creatures your resources and attention to proliferate the next generation of genes.
You like art? You're hard-wired into getting a dopamine boost through pattern-seeking so you don't get poisoned by berries allowing you to survive long enough to mate, proliferate genes.
You like reading or philosophy or science? The novelty-seeking neurotransmitter circuits of humans act as a mechanism to accrue information as a resource for mating opportunities, proliferate genes. Your perceived enhanced understanding of the world is a self-soothing action intended to make you feel like you have adequate resources for mating opportunities.
You find this assertion disgusting, life must have meaning beyond breeding? Breeding is not a meaning but a process of elimination. Our entire bodies, thoughts, interests, likes, dislikes, they all correspond to a specially-cultivated feedback loop to survive and eventually breed. Not because of any meaning, but because if at any point our genetics deviated from something that wasn't 100% focused on survival and breeding those genetics would not breed, would not survive; would not persist to this point in time. The meaning of life is not even sex or procreation, there is NO meaning.

This could certainly be an answer to the Fermi Paradox with two scenarios:
(1) A sufficiently intelligent species would either willingly kill itself or recede into a hyper-real virtual reality to truly avoid the great malady of meaningless suffering and give everyone their own happy endings. Ideally this would be done in a fugue state wherein the people themselves do not recognize that the world they're in is simulated, because if they understood they were in a simulation they would lose their sense of agency and go crazy. This could tie into quantum immortality - people all the time die around you and yet you, yourself persist because you are the only non-simulated being and your existence is the whole point of the simulation.

(2) A species only focused on expansionism would be so occupied with self-preservation instincts that they end up destroying themselves in a big ball of nukes or don't come anywhere close to interstellar travel due to lack of higher reasoning required to understand the meaninglessness of their fleshy desires.

Ramble over. Saying all of this, do you believe your life has meaning? I cannot disprove metaphysical theories and it's possible that my thoughts have tangled up to generate what amounts to a bunch of nonsensical waffle - if that is the case I implore you to riposte my claims in good faith. Perhaps the Archons have baked this mindset into me to maximize the amount of low-wavelength suffering they can squeeze out, but I am having a hard time believing there is worth or meaning in basically anything.

 

[Deleted member 2195]

I'm religiouscel so the meaning of life for me is to do good and go to heaven

 

[Isle of Sippy]

You're writing what I believe but my low-IQ brain prevents me from expressing

 

[Enju]

This life has no meaning because this world is hell that we were bound to for unknown reason

 

[c-barreda]

The meaning of life is to suck it up

 

[Deleted member 2286]

Biological reductionism. I like it, but it lacks.

 

[Deleted member 2206]

Biological reductionism. I like it, but it lacks.

What would you add to it?

 

[Deleted member 2206]

Could of just said the point of human existence is to reproduce and that would of worked

I said that reproduction was pointless as it's just a self-fulfilling urge. I don't think it's the point of human existence at all. We only reproduce because our ancestors passed down the urge to, there is no other meaning to it.

 

[ZZebra786]

I said that reproduction was pointless as it's just a self-fulfilling urge. I don't think it's the point of human existence at all. We only reproduce because our ancestors passed down the urge to, there is no other meaning to it.

All animals procreate you retard that’s the point of existence. Your some fagget coping with garbage nonsense because you can’t get laid and nobody wants to reproduce with you

 

[Deleted member 2206]

All animals procreate you retard that’s the point of existence. Your some fagget coping with garbage nonsense because you can’t get laid and nobody wants to reproduce with you

If animals didn't reproduce they wouldn't exist now; procreation is not the point of existence but a process of elimination. The only animals that exist now are ones that developed the urge to reproduce - the urge itself is meaningless.

 

[AccurateDud]

This is an interesting thought, although I will say as human beings we are realistically made into this world for a purpose. The meaning of life for me is to find my purpose in life, what do I strive to be? Will I achieve it? We are also animals in a sense meaning we have to keep our species alive to secure our spot as successors in the world we were given. Also words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words.

 

[MelaninQueen]

TL;DR: we're NPCs/robots programmed to satisfy our own chemical needs.

if hunger < empty_stomach { 1000x more nested conditionals }

If you have anhedonia, your life becomes meaningless no matter how you try "fixing" yourself.

 

[fries]

“Libtards placating niggers is the Fermi paradox, in HitlerWonWorld we'd already have Black Sun flags in Alpha Centauri...”

 

[WestEuropoor]

Talking from any perspective, really, it's just about keeping a biochemical equilibrium imo.
From a physiological standpoint we only really exist to survive long enough to pass on our genetics; that's not a purpose, just an adaptation.
In order to ensure maximal satisfaction we must leverage the innate biochemical reward system of our brains such as triggering a sustainable feedback loop of GABA, Norepinephrine, you get the point. The absence of neurotransmitter equilibrium, such as a lack of Serotonin, can cause a sense of loss and impression of an unfulfilling life, which is the only thing that prompts us to pursue spiritual and emotional fulfilment - an adaptation that no doubt would've been instrumental in creating a tribal society with strong familial bonds and advanced goals, thus protecting a genetic line far more efficiently. If you do things that are good for survival, your brain rewards you because the un-rewarded would've lacked the motivation to persist and their genetics would not reach this point in time.

It's just an arms race for genetic supremacy, because the urge to proliferate must be strong to ensure the survival of a genetic line, which itself is a self-fulfilling urge. It exists for no other reason than being hard-baked into our psyche through billions of years of reinforcement learning.

So objectively, life has no meaning at all.
Subjectively, however, everybody's meaning of life without fail is the pursuit of a sustainable neurotransmitter feedback loop wherein they are drip-fed a jubilating stream of happy chemicals; which itself relies on the bells and whistles that their environment and the environments eons ago crafted for them. I.e those who gained a boost of dopamine/serotonin from pattern-seeking behaviour may have been able to spot edible berries more easily; spot predators and organize shelter better - and thus the love for 'art' is born; brains incentivized to pattern seek, seek more patterns with more stimulation, until the very act of pattern-seeking becomes an abstraction with little function or meaning behind it. 'You find your own meaning in art', no you do not, it's learned pattern-seeking behaviour making you lick up crumbs of dopamine baked in from archaic behavioural patterns, and neurotransmitter equilibrium is meaning. LITERALLY EVERYTHING STEMS FROM THIS.

You like pets? You're hard-wired into giving neotenous creatures your resources and attention to proliferate the next generation of genes.
You like art? You're hard-wired into getting a dopamine boost through pattern-seeking so you don't get poisoned by berries allowing you to survive long enough to mate, proliferate genes.
You like reading or philosophy or science? The novelty-seeking neurotransmitter circuits of humans act as a mechanism to accrue information as a resource for mating opportunities, proliferate genes. Your perceived enhanced understanding of the world is a self-soothing action intended to make you feel like you have adequate resources for mating opportunities.
You find this assertion disgusting, life must have meaning beyond breeding? Breeding is not a meaning but a process of elimination. Our entire bodies, thoughts, interests, likes, dislikes, they all correspond to a specially-cultivated feedback loop to survive and eventually breed. Not because of any meaning, but because if at any point our genetics deviated from something that wasn't 100% focused on survival and breeding those genetics would not breed, would not survive; would not persist to this point in time. The meaning of life is not even sex or procreation, there is NO meaning.

This could certainly be an answer to the Fermi Paradox with two scenarios:
(1) A sufficiently intelligent species would either willingly kill itself or recede into a hyper-real virtual reality to truly avoid the great malady of meaningless suffering and give everyone their own happy endings. Ideally this would be done in a fugue state wherein the people themselves do not recognize that the world they're in is simulated, because if they understood they were in a simulation they would lose their sense of agency and go crazy. This could tie into quantum immortality - people all the time die around you and yet you, yourself persist because you are the only non-simulated being and your existence is the whole point of the simulation.

(2) A species only focused on expansionism would be so occupied with self-preservation instincts that they end up destroying themselves in a big ball of nukes or don't come anywhere close to interstellar travel due to lack of higher reasoning required to understand the meaninglessness of their fleshy desires.

Ramble over. Saying all of this, do you believe your life has meaning? I cannot disprove metaphysical theories and it's possible that my thoughts have tangled up to generate what amounts to a bunch of nonsensical waffle - if that is the case I implore you to riposte my claims in good faith. Perhaps the Archons have baked this mindset into me to maximize the amount of low-wavelength suffering they can squeeze out, but I am having a hard time believing there is worth or meaning in basically anything.

I love your IQ :3

 

[Deleted member 2206]

I love your IQ :3

I love pretending to sound smart on the internet for fake dopamine points

 

[uglyboi1]

MY only meaning of life was to play games and chase as any quick thrills as possible like a nignog but sadly I cannot even do that anymore so drugs it is. There is no point at all for me now, I am castrated by opioids and unable to vidya game, so better to just LDAR rotmax.

 

[uglyboi1]

The meaning of life as an incel is to work and pay taxes to pay for chad and stacy's children so more chad and stacies can be produced kek

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

I recall someone pointing out the conditions to sustain oxidation (fire) actually need to meet a really specific list of requirements in order to be carried out. And fire was essential for the development of civilization on this planet, using this admittingly very tiny sample size of one to add a disclaimer since this would be the underlying assumption I hold true for the rest of this post, if sophont alien life was to arise elsewhere and advance to the point of being able to communicate with us, they would've also relied on fire in their evolutionary history.
If the Earth had a different atmospheric makeup (less oxygen for example), then this form of combustion wouldn't be possible. And an Earth like atmospheric composition is rather rare judging by our current sample size of the known planets/moons in the Solar System and the scant few exoplanets we can detect an atmosphere for. You need biology like microbiota and flora to maintain a stable level of oxygen in the air because it normally gets sequestered in rocks and dissolved in water otherwise. And evolving life itself is a tricky process with numerous complex complicated steps in convoluted sequences. Abiogenesis itself can happen multiple times given a long enough timespan with a reducing atmosphere and primordial soup of organic molecules in shallow seas akin to the ancient Earth. If you roll the dice enough times for millions and billions of years you're bound to hit a lucky streak that could result in the right combination of conditions for the formation of self replicating molecules that were the precursors to genetic information like RNA/DNA necessary for life in this RNA world. Meaning microbial life might not be that uncommon relatively speaking. But complex life is much more rare due to necessitating extra steps to evolve more ancillary biological processes and functions. And proliferating sentient life itself would be even rarer as the additional steps lower the probability even further.
At this point there are still hurdles remaining for any sentient beings to advance culturally and technologically, sometimes just by sheer fluke and bad luck. For example dolphins are severely held back by being aquatic mammals where fire is much more difficult to be harnessed despite their formidable intelligence. On land, oxidation was far simpler to facilitate with no such barriers. But as I mentioned far above, it's not guaranteed that the atmospheric conditions needed for combustion are a constant for every world in the universe. Some sapient species might be stuck in a more primitive rudimentary phase due to evolving on worlds where conditions were less conducive to fire and by extension future industrial progression. In this case, the great filter means that while might be a comparatively large number of extraterrestrials with intelligence on par with humans, they still wouldn't be able to form complex technologically advanced industrialized societies like us. Especially not to point where they can send messages out in space to convey messages to us via radio waves or other some means of information transfer. The solution to the Fermi paradox might involve part of the answer being that there are other sophonts like us but too many of them are held back by the material conditions of their planet to be able to develop ways to talk to us, rendering the impression that there's a cosmic silence and we're alone in the universe. It's not that there aren't other entities to talk and they don't exist in this universe, it's merely just that there are others present but they don't have the means to let us know they exist as a consequence of the cards they were dealt with, so we take their inability to talk to us as a sign nobody is there to listen to us.

 

[Deleted member 2206]

I recall someone pointing out the conditions to sustain oxidation (fire) actually need to meet a really specific list of requirements in order to be carried out. And fire was essential for the development of civilization on this planet, using this admittingly very tiny sample size of one, if sophont alien life was to arise elsewhere and advance to the point of being able to communicate with us, they would've also relied on fire in their evolutionary history.
If the Earth had a different atmospheric makeup (less oxygen for example), then this form of combustion wouldn't be possible. And an Earth like atmospheric composition is rather rare judging by our current sample size of the known planets/moons in the Solar System and the scant few exoplanets we can detect an atmosphere for. You need biology like microbiota and flora to maintain a stable level of oxygen in the air because it normally gets sequestered in rocks and dissolved in water otherwise. And evolving life itself is a tricky process with numerous complex complicated steps in convoluted sequences. Abiogenesis itself can happen multiple times given a long enough timespan with a reducing atmosphere and primordial soup of organic molecules in shallow seas akin to the ancient Eart, if you roll the dice enough times for millions and billions of years you're bound to hit a lucky streak that could result in the right combination of conditions for the formation of self replicating molecules that were the precursors to genetic information like RNA/DNA necessary for life in this RNA world. Meaning microbial life might not be that uncommon relatively speaking. But complex life is much more rare due to necessitating extra steps to evolve more ancillary biological processes and functions. And proliferating sentient life itself would be even rarer as the additional steps lower the probability even further.
At this point there are still hurdles remaining for any sentient beings to advance culturally and technologically, sometimes just by sheer fluke and bad luck. For example dolphins are severely held back by being aquatic mammals where fire is much more difficult to be harnessed despite their formidable intelligence. On land, oxidation was far simpler to facilitate with no such barriers. But as I mentioned far above, it's not guaranteed that the atmospheric conditions needed for combustion are a constant for every world in the universe. Some sapient species might be stuck in a more primitive rudimentary phase due to evolving on worlds where conditions were less conducive to fire and by extension future industrial progression. In this case, the great filter means that while might be a comparatively large number of extraterrestrials with intelligence on par with humans, they still wouldn't be able to form complex technologically advanced industrialized societies like us. Especially not to point where they can send messages out in space to convey messages to us via radio waves or other some means of information transfer. The solution to the Fermi paradox might involve part of the answer being that there are other sophonts like us but too many of them are held back by the material conditions of their planet to be able to develop ways to talk to us, rendering the impression that there's a cosmic silence and we're alone in the universe. It's not that there aren't other entities to talk and they don't exist in this universe, it's merely just that there are others present but they don't have the means to let us know they exist as a consequence of the cards they were dealt with, so we take their inability to talk to us as a sign nobody is there to listen to us.

Great response. I agree, I think there are a vast amount of great filters that might make life hard to arise or observe in the universe. I guess it's quite dizzying to think about, the rarity of our circumstances are truly astronomical. One must question whether it's truly a coincidence

 

[404Errorcel]

There is no meaning to life if there was meaning to life then that would make us special but nothing makes anyone special not even animals. We're no different then lions, bears, and sharks that are trying to survive in the wilderness we just managed to make it more comfortable for ourselves. Instead of hunting for food like we did ages ago we hunt for money. If we had meaning to life then there would need to be meaning for the lions or bears aswell.

 

[Massimo]

None of these "answers" made me satisfied with why I or anything else exists.

 

[Lain]

We're like a computer program, we're deterministic creatures with a code (our DNA) running on through the environment (our PC). If we knew all of the variables, the future would be perfectly predictable and perfectly miserable provided we don't genetically modify ourselves.

I read a book some time ago by Stephen Webb, he goes over around 100 solutions to the fermi paradox. There's a long list of filters that can stack on top with each other, there's also a lot of counterarguments, that say aliens should be here because of so and so reasons. I can't begin to predict the thought process of an alien, I can't even predict what humanity will look like in 100 years with any solid accuracy.

I don't think there's any innate meaning. I've wrote similar posts to yours, some might call it biological reductionism but the more I learn about biology and behavior, the more I realize how utterly deterministic we are. It almost feels unreal to experience any emotion on the spectrum since I know it's only there for a brief moment because of a couple of major variables that can easily be pinned down.

I've donated sperm in the past because I felt as if it was a type of goal in life I had to accomplish. Not much changed and I'm full of desires like always, with genome editing, people will soon be able to splice my genome if they'd like and make 10,000 children without me involved. Does it become less meaningful if my DNA is still pushed forward? What about when my offspring edit out a lot of my genome in their offspring, leading them to not even share any parts of my DNA?

The fact we can induce states of consciousness (sleepy, awe, energetic, etc) with a molecule we make that binds to a receptor and gives the same response each time is somewhat despairing. I'd like to be a free agent with meaning but everywhere I search there is no lasting meaning, no lasting anything. The only honest solution is to accept there isn't one and live on despite the absurdity of the situation.

It's hard to accept that because from the get go in Western countries we're told in innumerable ways that we're free agents that mould our lives and that heaven is the end goal and in the meanwhile we've got some career and relations goals before we kick the bucket. Everyone reinforces these thoughts, we reinforce it subconsciously as well. If someone spites us, we do rarely think of their current biological state, we tend to feel negative towards them and people they should've controlled themselves better.

I've heard Buddhist monks that people would consider enlightened don't blame or praise people, maybe because they realize both praise and blame are never fitting for any given situation, there is only what there is. I'm rambling half asleep, I actually wanted to post a thread similar since I was feeling a little down (dopamine + opioid receptor down regulation temporarily). Good thread

 

[Lain]

This channel and playlist is what made me want to learn about all of the filters, there's so many and I've read too many arguments for and against to come up with an answer. Aliens with a completely different atmosphere, based off other elements. Maybe some aliens live in near complete harmony and expanding wasn't necessary past a certain point. Maybe they're trapped under the ice of their home planet. Maybe they don't live on planets anymore and live in hyper efficient storage mediums in the middle of nowhere and have zero desire to be found.

You can find reasons for and against most of the solutions. The one I liked the most is that distance is so unbelievably hard to traverse in space, so we're far away from any aliens with primitive equipment to scout them out in a meaningful manner.

There have been a lot of strange anomalies that scientists don't understand and can't give an definitive explanation for just yet, like repeating gamma ray bursts or weird constant dimmings of suns in far off areas and plenty of other things.

 

[Lain]

Ending my rant, scientists believe there's a ninth planet in our solar system but we can't detect it because the main detection method is using light and it's very dark. How can we expect to find aliens if we can't find a something in our backyard?

 

[MelaninQueen]

Ending my rant, scientists believe there's a ninth planet in our solar system but we can't detect it because the main detection method is using light and it's very dark. How can we expect to find aliens if we can't find a something in our backyard?

I don't know, Lain. I'm too unintelligent to think about it.

 

[c-barreda]

Define meaning first, which in a epistemológic sense is intrinsecly subjective which make it different from any individual. So yes, everyone has a different meaning for life which is not the same as purpose which is objective but at the same time opposite so there is a grey zone.

 

[adversary]

 

[Deleted member 2206]

Define meaning first, which in a epistemológic sense is intrinsecly subjective which make it different from any individual. So yes, everyone has a different meaning for life which is not the same as purpose which is objective but at the same time opposite so there is a grey zone.

Every subjective meaning is based off of a hard biological framework. My point is meaning is just the pursuit of neurotransmitter equilibrium, only then can someone feel their life is 'meaningful'. All meaning 'is' is a well-calibrated brain.

 

[Friezacel]

Nihilism and determinism destroyed me

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Ending my rant, scientists believe there's a ninth planet in our solar system but we can't detect it because the main detection method is using light and it's very dark. How can we expect to find aliens if we can't find a something in our backyard?

Alien biosignatures can be detected mainly from the gases in the atmospheric makeup from what I gather. Some gases like Oxygen need to a biological source to constantly replenish their levels in an atmosphere. People thought Phosphine on Venus was a biosignature due to this reasoning. Technosignatures can only be found with more exact and precise instruments because signals like radio waves usually dissolve into the cosmic background radiation. We can also attempt to find alien megastructures like dyson spheres from direct observation of the stars themselves via occultations but it's also hard to determine if the signs of their presence can be explained with natural explanations like celestial objects behaving dynamically instead of artificial ones like alien constructs, so observers try to avoid conflating the two. A case of mistaken identity is sometimes the most obvious answer as Occam's razor applies, meaning that accidentally mistaking a naturally occurring phenomenon for an extraterrestrial creation is the solution with the least assumptions and thus the most likely and believable one to be true.

 

[Lain]

Alien biosignatures can be detected mainly from the gases in the atmospheric makeup from what I gather. Some gases like Oxygen need to a biological source to constantly replenish their levels in an atmosphere. People thought Phosphine on Venus was a biosignature due to this reasoning. Technosignatures can only be found with more exact and precise instruments because signals like radio waves usually dissolve into the cosmic background radiation. We can also attempt to find alien megastructures like dyson spheres from direct observation of the stars themselves via occultations but it's also hard to determine if the signs of their presence can be explained with natural explanations like celestial objects behaving dynamically instead of artificial ones like alien constructs, so observers try to avoid conflating the two. A case of mistaken identity is sometimes the most obvious answer as Occam's razor applies, meaning that accidentally mistaking a naturally occurring phenomenon for an extraterrestrial creation is the solution with the least assumptions and thus the most likely and believable one to be true.

Aliens might run off a different type of biology, they might not use radio waves, they might use something more effective than a Dyson sphere that we couldn't see, among other explanations. A highly advanced civilization might reason that it's in their best interest to not be overtly visible to the rest of the universe, we already think largely like this, the targeted radio signals we've sent have been very few and sent in specific directions highly unlikely to contain life, precisely because of the arguments surrounding alien life potentially being hostile.

There are methods that could find alien life but the ones we use have too much of a human bias in them. The point I was making with that post though is that we're not really all that advanced, we're missing out on basic information about things in our own solar system like additional planets, it's only natural that we aren't finding aliens. When technology advances more and we've got a solid grasp on our universe, i.e we've found and catalogued millions of planets and have detailed information on them, that's when we should really think about where aliens might be, we're just too primitive now for the question to have any true depth to it past contemplating it for fun.

Based Rance pfp, I've been going by Rance on MAL for the last decade so I'm a big fan.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Aliens might run off a different type of biology, they might not use radio waves, they might use something more effective than a Dyson sphere that we couldn't see, among other explanations. A highly advanced civilization might reason that it's in their best interest to not be overtly visible to the rest of the universe, we already think largely like this, the targeted radio signals we've sent have been very few and sent in specific directions highly unlikely to contain life, precisely because of the arguments surrounding alien life potentially being hostile.

There are methods that could find alien life but the ones we use have too much of a human bias in them. The point I was making with that post though is that we're not really all that advanced, we're missing out on basic information about things in our own solar system like additional planets, it's only natural that we aren't finding aliens. When technology advances more and we've got a solid grasp on our universe, i.e we've found and catalogued millions of planets and have detailed information on them, that's when we should really think about where aliens might be, we're just too primitive now for the question to have any true depth to it past contemplating it for fun.

Based Rance pfp, I've been going by Rance on MAL for the last decade so I'm a big fan.

I've heard about the possibility of more advanced means of communication which we haven't achieved yet as a species. The Dark Forest hypothesis is intriguing but I see it more like a neat thought experiment than an all encompassing and fitting explanation for the great silence that we apparently bare witness to. Our anthropocentric biases are built into the way we observe the universe and reality, us being the sole frame of reference for the anthropic principle leaves open a lot of blindspots which we aren't privy to or we just can't fully conceptualize or conceive of even if we knew.
Other complex biochemistries and foreign xenobiology that have no analogues on Earth have to be considered too. Simply as a result of Earth being the only dataset in our paltry sample size. our definition of what constitutes a living organism might be too narrow and not take into account the true scope of the variability in how life can develop and the diversity of the chemical building blocks it can utilize and chain together. We might not even able to recognize other exotic forms of life that rely on bizarre forms of corporeal existence or perhaps even baryonic states that appear preternatural and act more akin to supernatural phenomena to us. And vice versa, these other exotic forms of life would be incapable of realizing we're living beings too as we're just as exotically alien in our makeup and composition to them in return. Heck, since we're not even capable of interacting with exotic alien lifeforms at all in the first place, they might as well not exist to us.
I can envision aliens comprised and made of dark matter who go about their lives in what is effectively a parallel universe from ours, both of our realms which we inhabit hardly interacting with each other meaningfully, at least in ways that observable. Even if one side knew the other existed, communication would be nigh impossible with the vast gulf of difference between our contrasting biologies.
We're partial to perceiving and understanding only a tiny fraction of all the potential forms of life which can conceivably be generated and developed in this universe, and they happen to be types of life most similar to our own biochemistry. Goes without saying it's easier to know and comprehend someone else if you can relate to them because you experience the same/similar senses, stimuli and thought processes as them. And given the how huge our cosmology is and how many chances for life to arise independently with countless different diverse pathways for evolutionary pathways and a broad palette of biochemical makeups, humans would be hardpressed to be understand and relate to most other lifeforms if they are just too bizarrely strange for our highly specific mental faculties evolved for surviving life one particular planet (and by extension only best suited for understanding lifeforms native to that planet or similar to that planet's organisms), to wrap their brains around.

 

[Kitten]

Nyuu, if happy chemiccals makez brain go boom , boom = me happy! So, like, meaning is just yummy treatos and sunbeams , right?