Instantaneous Existence

As any decent science student knows, there is a delay (though negligible) between the neurons firing across the synaptic gap and processing the information of said firing. Now consider the speed of light and the speed of sound. When one combines the miniscule neurological delays with the time it takes for the light rays to travel to the eyes or sound to the ears, the delay is perhaps doubled, though still microscopic.

I have reached a conclusion after toying with the concept of these delays: it is impossible for anyone or any living thing to exist instantly. Regardless of how quick someone's synapses are or how fast the speed of light is, it can never all occur at once. In other words, nobody has ever, is, or will ever live precisely in the moment of an event.

Think about it. When you look at a tree, you're not seeing it as it is now. You're seeing it as it was 0.000000000000000001 seconds ago. Though this is close to the moment you see it, it's not the instant you see it. You are never hearing a song at the part that it is currently at, you are hearing the part it was at 0.0000001 seconds ago.

With this conclusion, I would be willing to agree with Descartes in his assertion of mind-body dualism. When a man (or woman) thinks about what he will do in the next instant, he is taking into account all the aspects of his condition at the time he is experiencing. If he is not perceiving the instant he is actually in, then he cannot trust his senses to prove his existence in a moment. If he cannot trust his senses but he is still a thinking thing, then his mind is independent of his body.

This is not to say that you should not trust your senses from day to day; after all, they are all we have in the physical realm. However, be cautious. Xbox Live isn't the only thing that can lag...

Purpose?

Although it has no doubt been questioned before, I would like to ask it once more: What is the purpose of life?

As everyone says, money can't buy everything and I won't for a second entertain such a notion. However, the money fueling such materialistic pretenses can allegedly not buy happiness, but is this to say that happiness is our purpose?

For instance, I can purchase an Xbox 360 and thoroughly enjoy myself and have times of great fun. However, once I progress from my Xbox stage and have had my fun, what comes next? In this sense, happiness is like a drug. As it has been described by drug addicts, the purpose for continuing to use a drug is to chase the first high or to continue smoking is to feel the sense of relieved stress that they felt the first time they smoked. If this is the case with happiness, then happiness can't be that good of a thing.

I have many a-time pondered upon this topic considering perhaps the purpose may be companionship. However, such a source of pleasure is not stable enough to be our sole purpose of "existence" (if we exist, that is). Our friends and family can provide times of joy, as well as distress, so at the troughs of these waves of emotion, the fickleness of friendship is questionable.

So if happiness - comparable to a drug - and friendship - unstable as can be - are not our reasons for living, what is the reason?