Okay atheists, we need a meaning of life.

[Tiassa]

Voodoo Child: response and commentary

You've misconstrued my comment and understood exactly what it means at the same time.

My apologies, Vooodoo Child. I can't imagine why I didn't grasp that the first time.

Do you mean humanity as in homo sapiens or humanity as in self-aware, intelligent beings?

Show me another self-aware species that does what we do. The dolphins are cool, but they're smart enough to stay in the water, and thus we have not ever seen their version of New York City. Show me another species that catalogues its sciences for posterity, that progresses. Some people would like to point out the Greys and their marvelous saucers, but the fact is that we cannot demonstrate any reality pertaining to them. Humanity is the top of the evolutionary ladder in the known Universe until we can objectively prove otherwise.

It is hyper-militant materialism rather than atheism. The point, I think, was that if life decided to exist it has implications for determining our purpose. In deciding to exist there would be reasons justifying it. And through those reasons we might find purpose. We think that is a non-starter. Wouldn't the inability to communicate would be exacerbated by subjectivism? Do you mean that objectivism is another subjective viewpoint or that we are subjective in what we apply objectivity to?

First, you are exactly correct that I'm after the subjectivity of our objective application.

• I tend to see the communicative problem coming in the form of a lack of lexical sympathy. To put it another way, I know that militant materialists and atheists do read novels. But I can't imagine how. Do they argue in their minds with the author's expression in the same way? Or do they trust that any questions they have will be answered as they go through the story? Presently, the scene in my head is a less-than-kind parody. I mean, take Dickens: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It seems quite possible that one's first reaction to such a line would be to demand, "Who says?"

• In discussing the "behavior" of material objects, one is not necessarily incorrect. My OmniDictionary offers a Wordnet definition of behavior: the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances; "the behavior of small particles can be studied in experiments". In other words, it wasn't a problem that you were using the word "behavior", even if I apply militant-materialist sympathies.

• Of decide, it's largely a point more relevant to the point above about novels. It seems to me that if one is unwilling to communicate outside their chosen preference, they will never learn from that particular information. Furthermore, for an object to "decide" to do something does not necessarily imply consciousness, justification, or anything. It's a human expression that, in speech, indicates a certain lack of knowledge. I was in here and then I heard the crash. I don't know what happened. The vase just decided to break. You know, perhaps a heat-related expansion exacerbated a structual fault and the thing just couldn't hold together. Maybe a BB actually came in through the open window. Or, in the case of the origins of life on Earth .....

• I see your point about the exacerbation of communicative difficulties, but think of it this way: generally speaking it is the obligation of the party attempting to transmit a communication to make themselves understood. This is usually the case in, for instance, an abortion debate; the difference between accepting the necessity of abortion and the characterization that one is a sadist who likes to kill. You'll notice that the difference, when viewing the whole of the fight, is merely in each person's basic perspective. The anti-abortionist thinks of abortion as murder, and thus finds approval of murder in the pro-choice case. However, what none of them are discussing is why abortions seem necessary and what to do about the myriad social difficulties pertaining to reproduction that encourage people to choose abortion. As long as they refuse each other any sympathetic perception of one another's words, they won't communicate.

• In this case, the word "decide", which so many people seem to be hung up on, can easily be worked around.

In this case, I would encourage people to listen to themselves and those around them speak. And then I dare anyone to apply the same standard in their immediate communication as they do in this topic. I think under such circumstances, with vigilance, my point will demonstrate itself. Next family dinner, try it. Eventually, people stop talking at all. Worse yet, they might start behaving as Douglas Adams noted of Karafkoon, to babble incessantly about drivel in order to drown out the noise in the brain. On that note, take a look around at the pop culture. Or, worse yet, don't say a word at the next family gathering and listen to what people are saying. 95% of it is absolutely useless crap that feeds psychological and psychiatric needs. I just hit 29 and my mother still, when I see her, has trouble not relating to me stupid gossip about people I don't know. What do I care if whomever was in a car wreck? Oh, nobody was hurt? Mother, I don't know this person. Who the hell are you talking about. Oh. Okay. Well, that's too bad, then. What? Sure, I'd love to hear all about your discussion with your neighbor. Word for word. Yeah. Like what she said to the clerk at Nordstrom's when she had a headache and was on her way from the mall to see her doctor when she found the ice cream cone under the display rack and who cares how good the sale prices were? (This can be a conversation of approximately thirty minutes. I prefer silence to such inane crap.)

The only thing that separates consciousness from the rest of the universe is that consciousness. Consicousness ultimately ascribes meaning to itself. Unless it doesn't. Which is the question

Fair enough and I won't argue with the point directly. In that case, what does it matter how the first cells came together? "Decide" is a perfectly acceptable word until we learn the physical processes that make the event inevitable. Because it doesn't matter. The relevant consciousness of which we speak is such a clear minority on this planet that it would be foolish to extend that sense of decision beyond the immediate event.

Lamentation and other considerations

To be honest, Voodoo, I'm actually sorry I felt compelled to include you in that barb. But it was a matter of consistency for me. To be honest, it is becoming quite symptomatic in these forums for people to duck topics; it is symptomatic for people to refuse to answer the question, rewrite the issue, and then offer an answer that has little to do with the topic issue. Take a look around at the topics ... I'm not sure that in the Religion forum there's any reason for them. Nobody really seems to care. It all becomes bitching, grandstanding, and bullshit within the first five posts. I mean, the three of you I've picked out have, in fact, offered responses that are satisfactory to the progress of the topic, but in that light I still don't see why such nitpicking of terms is the first response. Like I said to the others, I don't see what's so hard about getting straight to the point. To be honest, it frequently looks like someone has nothing to say and is merely taking their personal shots.

I even would decry Dr Evyl's initial response as unncessary, except that I'm quite aware that the issue has been made necessary. Who says our lives must have meaning? It's a fair response to the question, all things considered. As Nebula addresses the atheists and the purpose of life, he runs a danger of demanding a cohesive and universal standard for atheists, and having such common ground has been determined to be a form of character assassination against atheism and atheists. That is, atheists of late at Sciforums have been refusing the notion that such abstract notions as the meaning of life have any acceptable purpose. After all, made the mistake of calling atheists objective, to which I received the classic, Who says? answer.

In light of Evyl's point, I find the "decide" issue to be exceptionally trivial.

As you note of yourself, it's not atheism for you in this case but militant materialism. As I have no standard to compare against, I have no expectations of what you might say, and cannot compare those words to prior standards. It's a new body of information.

But to be specific, I'm laughing because of my recent debates directly concerning atheism. Evyl's point is valid, especially considering Xev and Adam's acceptance of arbitrary presupposition among atheists, and the movement away from any collective identity. I would think that this point would be the more important one to nitpick, that Nebula has proposed a degree of standard which has already been deemed unacceptable. I find much interesting about the choice to hound the point about "decide" and applaud like a cheerleader instead of expanding on the point being applauded.

In other words, I would love to see a real discussion taking place. Christians, for instance, have been exceptionally frustrating to me in the past, but a few of them could put up challenging arguments, and, furthermore, when the Christians split hairs while ignoring relevant issues, I did in fact consider it an issue of integrity.

Sciforums is becoming less and less useful. One of the ways I think of it sometimes is to wonder what Porfiry's advertisers used to think. I mean, really, can you imagine paying for advertising and finding your ad tacked onto a ridiculous post. (I admit I can't remember when the ads went away, and will speculate it was early last year when the site presentation was overhauled.) But consider what would happen when you realized that you're advertising to people who appeared as idiotic as many of our posters have over the years. We had a big tantrum 'twixt ourselves last fall, and while well-argued topics were already a minority, we're seeing fewer and fewer of them as people turn to bashing one another for the sake of bashing. Even at the time that there were banner ads on this site, I'm not sure I would have wanted to advertise here because, while it has always been a cool site, the nature of the posters would have indicated that, as an advertiser, I was realistically targeting less than half the active posters and banking on the lurkers.

These days, I see topic headers that look interesting, and wonder where the rest of the topic is. Sure there's a topic post, but there's nothing really relevant to it. To wit: When Blonde Cupid and I dug in and went at each other in a thread on the Crucifixion, we were still hammering each other about the topic. But as I look around, I see most extended arguments are mostly grandstanding, one-liners, and useless crap that people could take out on each other via PM's or a chat box.

What is so hard about these topics? Porfiry, amid our blow-up last fall, noted that until there was a Bitterness & Vitriol forum, certain posts were unacceptable in any forum. I'm not implying that this or any other topic of late since my last go-round with KalvinB belongs in such a place, but rather that the general tone of the Religion, Ethics, and World Affairs forums indicate that a Rumpus Room might be necessary. Look over in the Free Thoughts forum; people are after one another in that forum.

I admit, Voodoo Child, that you are not the person who needs this little tantrum of mine. But it's long overdue in general, and I'm finding it more and more difficult to lock it down. I'll put together a topic on it as soon as I decide just how mean to be to other people and am satisfied with my projection of what that will accomplish. Some of my fellow posters with whom I have a more frequent posting relationship than you have, of late, asked in essence that they not be taken seriously or given the benefit of the presupposition of intelligence or integrity. There are some great discussions here that never happen because everyone seems busy trying to outshine one another on ego points.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Various points: back to the topic at hand

Raithere

As far as the "meaning of life" is concerned: Meaning indicates purpose or intent which indicate conscious direction. If life is a chance occurrence guided only by physical and biological principles the meaning of life doesn't exist in an objective sense. It's like asking, "What is the meaning of a snowflake?"

In practical terms, I would suggest the following:

• The objective meaning of life is the perpetuity of species. What we choose to do should, in terms of moral propriety, be that which is to the betterment of the species. To wit, human rights may actually weaken the human species, but martial tyranny will weaken it even more.

Perhaps, for instance, warfare is a biologically-determined necessity in active response to environmental conditions. Population control and genetic selection.

We opt out of such natural patterns; a forest fire is "good for the environment", but the catastrophic destruction of that many human beings is "tragic" or "outrageous". If life is a chance occurrence and guided by biological and physical necessity, then our purpose in life is the same as any other species: perpetuity.

Isn't there a spider that consumes its mate? Cannibalism? Sure, but it's a biological necessity. Or salmon ... salmon die in order to take a chance on reproducing. It's morbidly poetic to watch.

Voodoo Child

Nature doesn't always try to live. However, all the nature that didn't try to live isn't here. All the non-sustainable ecosystems died, all the plants that didn't photosynethese karked it.

Merely a comment: I've said before that nature isn't extraneous. To compress an extended illustration, consider the Universe as a computer and the laws of nature as its program. Nature, indeed, does not always try to live, though it might think it is. Rather, the program is attempting combination after combination of matter and energy; variations on the theme, so to speak. What remains in life are the programs which are capable of operating within the environment. It seems to speak toward natural selection and renders life an inevitability (e.g just another form of matter).. Nature cannot know which combinations will work, which chemical differences will produce an incompatible genetic strain. Imagine if you instructed a large computer (Universe) to produce lines of code (objects/events in the Universe) from a given library (laws of nature). Some of the code it produces will run within the operating system. Some of it will be jumble for the trash.

Such a situation, though, seems to lend toward Mr G's response that the meaning of life is to live. Being that life (when the code is successful) tends to work toward perpetuity of species, we can, reasonably I think, include such as a component of living.

And ... yeah. That's the compressed version.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[James R]

tiassa,

<i>• The objective meaning of life is the perpetuity of species. What we choose to do should, in terms of moral propriety, be that which is to the betterment of the species.</i>

I am interested in how you derive a moral obligation to perpetuate the human species. Where's does the moral imperative come from? Also, who is to say what is "better" for the species?

 

[Tyler]

"I am interested in how you derive a moral obligation to perpetuate the human species. Where's does the moral imperative come from? Also, who is to say what is "better" for the species?"

I don't think he did say there was a moral obligation to continue the species. It's just in our nature.

 

[Raithere]

Meaning and consciousness

Originally posted by tiassa
• The objective meaning of life is the perpetuity of species. What we choose to do should, in terms of moral propriety, be that which is to the betterment of the species.

Self-perpetuation is what life does. If this is the meaning of life then the individual need hold no loyalty to other members of the species except insofar as they assist the individual in propagating itself. In other words; the major tenets of my life should be to impregnate as many women as possible to insure the perpetuation of my genes and to hinder the survival of others (in regards to the competition for limited resources). Personally, I find this to be a rather immoral position.

I don't see self-perpetuation as the meaning to life. Once again, I will state my position that meaning requires consciousness for without consciousness there is no such thing as meaning, purpose or intent. Unless one allows for a creator of life, it has no objective meaning, it simply is. As the query was directed at atheists this is obviously not a valid answer for this topic. I still find that the meaning of life is subjective; it is what I dedicate my life to, the purpose of my life is defined by my conscious mind, the director of my actions and is therefore subjective.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Wow ... Okay, to take it one point at a time.

James R

I am interested in how you derive a moral obligation to perpetuate the human species. Where's does the moral imperative come from? Also, who is to say what is "better" for the species?

To break it into its three question marks.

• Specifically, morality derives from perpetuity of species. One may have a moral obligation toward the species, but I think the survival instinct is generally testament enough. Hell, we've even made suicide illegal, and in some places on earth, it's punishable by death. But seriously: why would anyone want to procreate? It can't possibly be out of love or anything silly like that (in general) since most pregnancies are either (A) unplanned, or (B) planned with little or no foresight--I can't think of one person I know who reproduced who was financially prepared for the obligation, at least. It's pretty symptomatic in the culture, yet we worry about the latchkey kids, complain about those that react poorly to neglect, and generally expect children to be miniature adults (except, of course, in sexuality or independent thought) so that the adults can carry on with the daily grind. Frankly, this is a bad situation, but it is the obligation (biological) of reproduction interfering with the personal need. Just as a for instance. Morally speaking, it would be better to be prepared economically to receive a child, in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary stress that th offspring endures as a result of the irresponsibility of the parents. However, the more important act is the addition of a new member of the species, and all else aside ....

Nor is it moral to spread disease intentionally, nor to kill people unless absolutely necessary; killing is wrong in general, but if you have a dysfunctional member of the species eliminating functional members, well, this circumstance cannot be permitted to continue; it's bad for the species.

Wars seem wrong, but like I noted, mass destruction within a species is often considered :good: Natural selection, or something. Of course, that's not quite war in the modern day, but still ...

But morality derives from species and its needs. I think it's evident anywhere else in life except among humanity, who has the ability to view such things subjectively.

• The moral imperative to act in the interests of the species seems quite inherent in nature. Put it this way: let's all--every one of us on the planet--drink some Jonestown-flavored Kool-Aid. No? Why not? Because it is stupid? Why is it stupid? And if you say anything about dying and the individual, I'll laugh my ass off.

• As to who says what's better--well, that's a good question, and the subject of much debate. But: conservative estimates say a nuclear war 'twixt India and Pakistan could kill 12 million. Hey, just like a forest fire, the destruction is good for the species through natural selection. Right, right? (You know, if a tree can't uproot itself and move out of the way of the fire, it's just not adapted enough. It was a weak member of the species for growing where a fire could cut it down, and yes, I'm being a little ridiculous with that; I'm trying to blur the line between human and "nature's" morality. Of course, the fallout from the nukes would be bad for the species, and I think any long-term damage one does (e.g. radiation) will be worse for the species than the Indians and the Pakistanis letting each other live. But it's not always so clear. Abortion--what's the priority there? To raise less or to raise less-developed human beings? That is, every child a wanted child? Is capitalism, in reducing humanity to resource assets, really what's best for human sustenance and advancement? Probably not. As long as we worry about getting money out of it, human progress will be slowed by such a gargantuan effort. Sure, we're finding cancer treatments and heart medications, but there is some evidence that the number of cancers and heart attacks the human species endures each year is directly connected to, well, Americans and the way we behave. That is, the apparent paramount of the species in terms of large-scale organization are also the least healthy.

I have no idea who says what is better for the species. It seems nobody does, since everyone in the west is stained by the pseudo-objectivist, not-quite-capitalist obsession with individualism we see in America. But in the end, I can't quite hand you the connection on a platter and say, "Here it is." It just seems that every day we have the choice to do what's best for the species, and every day we choose otherwise on behalf of the individual . While no part of this can necessarily be labeled immoral, I don't think the comparison would be that tough to pick up. But really ... as we think more and more of ourselves, the less and less satisfied we are with what humans create. And if we notice, people complain these days. A lot. It seems that everybody's got a morally-centered issue to pick with the world, and this is fine. But, as we might look to the US (such as I have) it is worth wondering, at least, whether or not our bent for individualism, in being contradictory in its needs to the advancement of species, is the source of our moral dissatisfaction.

Raithere

Self-perpetuation is what life does.

Exactly.

If this is the meaning of life then the individual need hold no loyalty to other members of the species except insofar as they assist the individual in propagating itself. In other words; the major tenets of my life should be to impregnate as many women as possible to insure the perpetuation of my genes and to hinder the survival of others (in regards to the competition for limited resources). Personally, I find this to be a rather immoral position.

And no wonder. In a limited community, such an action would weaken the gene pool. It is curious to me that, in consideration of the species, the first consequence is a consequence of "I". Therein lies the conflict.

Furthermore, being human beings, we have nasty issues of conscience and other such unpleasantries to deal with. That is, what we haven't really started to think about in these terms yet is how "screwed up" most people are. Or, to be fair, we can look at Americans and others where it is identifiable, and consider what we see in poor nations where such considerations are a little less bizarre and a little more natural. However, I don't think the starving girl in Somalia is quite as worried about seeing the new Julia Roberts film on her first date with the boy from down the street. In the end, though, we see such behavior as your proposal to be detrimental to the future offspring, and this is hideously immoral.

Just as a "for instance".

I don't see self-perpetuation as the meaning to life. Once again, I will state my position that meaning requires consciousness for without consciousness there is no such thing as meaning, purpose or intent.

Therefore, no organism without this specific consciousness has any purpose.

Ouch.

Tell that to wheat. Or the apple tree. I'm sure the E. coli would be appreciative, except that they have no known consciousness.

Unless one allows for a creator of life, it has no objective meaning, it simply is.

That's even more grim than Camus. You should be a French philosopher; you could set a new standard.

As the query was directed at atheists this is obviously not a valid answer for this topic

I agree; it eliminates any hope of a purpose for living and leaves the suffering and joys of life for naught.

I still find that the meaning of life is subjective; it is what I dedicate my life to, the purpose of my life is defined by my conscious mind, the director of my actions and is therefore subjective.

And that's both fine, and also symptomatic of the West. Me, me, me. There is no purpose to life but that which I decide.

I find that one worth a chuckle. I'm going to go have a cigarette and enjoy that chuckle.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

And no wonder. In a limited community, such an action would weaken the gene pool. It is curious to me that, in consideration of the species, the first consequence is a consequence of "I". Therein lies the conflict.

In the end, though, we see such behavior as your proposal to be detrimental to the future offspring, and this is hideously immoral.

The proposal I gave was what I see as the final result of your suggestion that the meaning of life is self propagation. To reiterate; the meaning of life as propagation reduces us to mere vehicles for our DNA. At this level, all that matters is that the particular genes are passed to the next generation.

What argument do you give that a group classification, such as by species, is somehow more valuable? Your suggestion that individually oriented survival vs group/species survival will weaken the gene pool is invalid. Most of the life on Earth competes in a "one on one" scenario… pure survival of the fittest. I suggest that the value you give to "survival of the species" is largely subjective.

Why, in a purely objective sense, is life valuable at all? We, as humans, have a strong tendency to give value to what we are: Alive, Human, Conscious, Intelligent, but objectively what is the value inherent in these things? There's nothing wrong with a subjective view or value as long as it doesn't deny an objective truth. But to assert that something inherently subjective is an objective reality is simply false.

How about a little thought experiment? Let's say that rocks are conscious. Rocks are not alive, they don't eat or fuck or propagate little baby rocks. They just sit there like… rocks and occasionally participate in an avalanche. Now then; What value does life have to a rock? What does propagation mean to a rock? If rocks have their own classification system where is the value in one classification vs another? Is quartz more important than diamond? What is the meaning of a rock?

Therefore, no organism without this specific consciousness has any purpose.

Without consciousness there can be no meaning, purpose, or intent. It's like looking for your shadow in a room void of light.

Tell that to wheat. Or the apple tree. I'm sure the E. coli would be appreciative, except that they have no known consciousness.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Perhaps the problem here lies in a misunderstanding of the words we are using:

meaning 1 a : to have in the mind as a purpose : INTEND <she means to win> -- sometimes used interjectionally with I, chiefly in informal speech for emphasis <he throws, I mean, hard> or to introduce a phrase restating the point of a preceding phrase <we try to answer what we can, but I mean we're not God -- Bobbie Ann Mason> b : to design for or destine to a specified purpose or future

purpose 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION b : RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION 2 : a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution

That's even more grim than Camus. You should be a French philosopher; you could set a new standard.

I don't find it so, at all. Why should an objective meaning be more fulfilling? Life has subjective meaning and relative meaning why should this be considered grim?

And that's both fine, and also symptomatic of the West. Me, me, me. There is no purpose to life but that which I decide.

You assume that when I give my life a subjective meaning that the meaning I give it must be egocentric. This is not the case. Since the determination is subjective I can make it whatever I want. If I define the meaning of my life to be "to care for others" then that's what it is.

Show me anyone who's purpose is not what they decide it to be. Even if you feel that God(s) have given your life meaning that decision is yours to make. You chose the meaning. Get it? It's subjective. It's not indelibly written in the structure of the Universe. If it were we wouldn't have a choice and the answer would be obvious.

I would posit that those who suggest that life, particularly human life, has some inherent, objective value are the ones crying "Me, me, me!" It's the plea of "I'm important" to an unhearing, uncaring universe. It's the cry of those who cannot find value in themselves and thus seek it beyond themselves. I'm not the center of the universe, it just looks that way from my point of view. The same goes for each of us.

~Raithere

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

tsk tsk

Note to Atheists: I just believe you guys are too pessimistic about the Universe, "having no meaning" - "it's just there" Hey this is just my opinion, but I believe you all are taking a HUGE gamble, I just hope you are not athiests because of how theists have been unkind, negative, stupid, naive, or plain retarded. People shouldn't change your belief for you, neither should a religion, you should find it in yourself - this is what I believe, so I'm not trying to convert you or anything!

 

[James R]

Hello The Chosen,

Welcome to sciforums.

What's the gamble for the atheists? Will God punish them if they don't believe in him? Is that the kind of God we'd want to worship?

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere: Umm ... yeah.

The proposal I gave was what I see as the final result of your suggestion that the meaning of life is self propagation.

Why do people seek to elevate the self in any given situation? The critical difference between what I have presented and your inaccurate summary is that I said the purpose was perpetuity of species. Not self-propagation. The two, while related, are still separate functions. Remove the self from it. The self is immaterial at this point to the issues we're dealing with.

To reiterate; the meaning of life as propagation reduces us to mere vehicles for our DNA. At this level, all that matters is that the particular genes are passed to the next generation.

So it is with nature. But then again, humans are artificial, aren't we?

Mere vehicles for DNA? Perhaps. It might also be said, in a less political consideration, to be the continuance of a balance of matter and energy in the Universe. This form of being is predisposed to attempting to maintain itself; the duty of the individual and the collective alike are to the species. Thus one need not breed like a rabbit in order to support the species. How does the old saying go? Women and children first. Why is this? Because the male is, quite frankly, irrelevant after his DNA contribution. Admittedly, we must necessarily maintain a diverse breeding stock, but reality dictates that children will breed in the future, and women can breed now, and it does the army of 10,000 men no good if they let the enemy slaughter the women and children because, well, "They haven't gotten to us, yet."

And there lies the difference between the species and the self. If it was propagating and perpetuating the self, then why not let the enemy slay the women and children? Why not leave them to drown on the sinking ship, since it's the men who make everything, anyway? Because it's better for the species if we sacrifice a few DNA delivery systems to protect the DNA carrier and creative structure.

What argument do you give that a group classification, such as by species, is somehow more valuable?

What's the difference in the implication of your death and that of the whole species dying? Easy enough to figure, I think.

Your suggestion that individually oriented survival vs group/species survival will weaken the gene pool is invalid. Most of the life on Earth competes in a "one on one" scenario… pure survival of the fittest.

Yes, that's why human offspring are utterly incapable of surviving from the moment they're born.

Try this: Look at the room you're in. Look at the computer you're typing into. Look at any school you go to, car you drive, gun you might own, your favorite shirt, the lawn mower, a hospital ... none of these things would be if humanity remained in an intraspecies "one-on-one" with itself. And, with none of those libraries to feed our minds, none of those universities to raise our thought, and no communal necessity beyond finding a mate and keeping him alive long enough to fertilize the egg, how much better off would humanity be than "the animals"?

The very society in which you exist is raised on behalf of the species. If it was raised for the individual, then which individual? After all, there's six billion of us, not one.

I suggest that the value you give to "survival of the species" is largely subjective

Only because it's more attractive to raise the self above the species. I'd say it's your problem, but it's ours, too. We share the world with you, you know. And it's nice to know that you consider yourself (for you are an individual) so important that the species should act to your (as an individual) benefit. Seriously, Raithere, do you see what you're pointing toward? Or is the elevation of the individual above the species something that's acceptable to you? Do you, then, only obey the laws so that society won't kill you?

Why, in a purely objective sense, is life valuable at all?

There is no purely objective sense.

We, as humans, have a strong tendency to give value to what we are: Alive, Human, Conscious, Intelligent, but objectively what is the value inherent in these things?

I'd tell you to ask a worm or a deer or a moth what's so inherently valuable that they just don't hop on the hook, bow to the slaughter, or fly into the light.

There's nothing wrong with a subjective view or value as long as it doesn't deny an objective truth. But to assert that something inherently subjective is an objective reality is simply false

Such as the "subjective" observation that no species is inherently programmed to destroy itself? To wipe itself from the face of the earth? What, when a species "evolves out", do you think it just lays down and dies? No, it fights on down to the last individual organism.

How about a little thought experiment? Let's say that rocks are conscious. Rocks are not alive, they don't eat or fuck or propagate little baby rocks. They just sit there like… rocks and occasionally participate in an avalanche. Now then; What value does life have to a rock? What does propagation mean to a rock? If rocks have their own classification system where is the value in one classification vs another? Is quartz more important than diamond? What is the meaning of a rock?

So rocks are conscious? Or not? Or what? So if the rocks are conscious and they don't do anything ...?

At any rate, I'm not sure it's important. I see, from your next point, where you're going with it.

Without consciousness there can be no meaning, purpose, or intent. It's like looking for your shadow in a room void of light.

It's a nice metaphor, but it doesn't quite work. Any room will have some light, just not visible. So the metaphor does work in that way; even if the purpose is intrinsically connected to us, we may not be equipped to see it.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

That E. coli have no purpose in the Universe? They would argue with that, had they the capacity.

Perhaps the problem here lies in a misunderstanding of the words we are using:

What an interesting point. I guess that explains why you're focusing so much on the self among hte species. Here, though, is my OmniDictionary offers:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Mean \Mean\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Meant; p. pr. & vb. n.
Meaning.] [OE. menen, AS. m[=ae]nan to recite, tell,
intend, wish; akin to OS. m[=e]nian to have in mind, mean, D.
meenen, G. meinen, OHG. meinan, Icel. meina, Sw. mena, Dan.
mene, and to E. mind. ?. See Mind, and cf. Moan.]
1. To have in the mind, as a purpose, intention, etc.; to
intend; to purpose; to design; as, what do you mean to do
?

What mean ye by this service ? --Ex. xii. 26.

Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto
good. --Gen. 1. 20.

I am not a Spaniard To say that it is yours and not
to mean it. --Longfellow.

2. To signify; to indicate; to import; to denote.

What mean these seven ewe lambs ? --Gen. xxi.
29.

Go ye, and learn what that me?neth. --Matt. ix.
13.

-----------------

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Meaning \Mean"ing\, n.
1. That which is meant or intended; intent; purpose; aim;
object; as, a mischievous meaning was apparent.

If there be any good meaning towards you. --Shak.

2. That which is signified, whether by act lanquage;
signification; sence; import; as, the meaning of a hint.

3. Sense; power of thinking. [R.] -- Mean"ing*less, a. --
Mean"ing*ly, adv.

-----------------

From WordNet (r) 1.7:

meaning
adj : rich in significance or implication; "a meaning look";
"pregnant with meaning" [syn: meaning(a), pregnant,
significant]
n 1: the message that is intended or expressed [syn: significance,
signification, import]
2: the idea that is intended; "What is the meaning of this
proverb?" [syn: substance]

If there's a problem with understanding, it's that I don't understand why every idea must be evaluated in terms of the self first, and measured on such subjective grounds. The objective transcends the subjective in its own right; it is well enough to say that one is right and to believe it, but to know--this is, of course, the difference between faith and knowledge.

Why do we search for the "meaning of life"? Mere comfort? Guidance? A cause or justification for the seemingly absurd phenomenon of self-awareness?

You assume that when I give my life a subjective meaning that the meaning I give it must be egocentric. This is not the case. Since the determination is subjective I can make it whatever I want. If I define the meaning of my life to be "to care for others" then that's what it is.

It's a nice out. I don't disagree with it, but I'm not going to leave it at that. "If I define the meaning of my life to be ...."

This is still the point. You can believe the meaning of your life to be whatever you wish it to be, but that belief has no bearing on any actual purpose in life.

One might, for instance, situationally determine the meaning of life to be to get home from the battlefield alive. Wonderful. I won't disagree. But that hardly speaks to why you're on the battlefield in the first place. That reason may or may not transcend your individual self. Leaving the determination of meaning so squarely within this egocentric frame of reference is where I note the "Me, Me, Me!"

It's not that I argue that a subjective purpose is wrong, e.g. to care for others. But that still leaves a lot of room to play. After all, what is it that parents tell their kids before they beat them? "I'm only doing this because I love you."

Show me anyone who's purpose is not what they decide it to be. Even if you feel that God(s) have given your life meaning that decision is yours to make. You chose the meaning. Get it? It's subjective. It's not indelibly written in the structure of the Universe. If it were we wouldn't have a choice and the answer would be obvious.

And that purpose matters not a whit to anyone but the individual.

Consider this:

What is the purpose of life?

or

What is the purpose of my life?

That's the nearest I can figure as to the disagreement. I charge egocentrism because we seem to be looking at the purpose in terms of the self; that is, what is any one person's idea of the meaning of life. At that point, I might as well knock on your door, hand you a Bible, and tell you the Good News.

I would posit that those who suggest that life, particularly human life, has some inherent, objective value are the ones crying "Me, me, me!" It's the plea of "I'm important" to an unhearing, uncaring universe. It's the cry of those who cannot find value in themselves and thus seek it beyond themselves. I'm not the center of the universe, it just looks that way from my point of view. The same goes for each of us.

How interesting that you would suggest the perpetuity of species being an egocentric cause.

That's what I find quite humorous about this selfishness. It will do anything to avoid viewing itself honestly. What, did it not occur to you that part of what you are arguing against is the assertion that the meaning of life is perpetuity of species? Apparently, that's selfish. Or is it just that everything we do is selfish, so that living and dying are evil, selfish acts?

The assumption that your own purpose in life is important to anyone but you reflects nothing of humanity itself.

As a parallel, consider what happens when people consider the effects of an idea. Let's try religion. We can say religion this and religion that. But each side of the argument has certain points. At the personal level, we might point out--as we do here at Sciforums--the behavioral effect and its direct results. Stories of hardship, of cruelty, of stupidity, &c. Yet, to the other, what does religion (as opposed to a religion or one person's religion? That is, what are the anthropological implications of religion? The sociological results? The broad picture? You know, that broader image you see when you stop insisting that everything look a certain way before you perceive it?

If we were referring to a meaning of life that centers around godly glory and heaven, then yes, I agree with you about the selfishness. But the fact that you have transmuted the idea of perpetuity of species into a cry of "I'm important" seems to indicate that you're not focused on the topic, but rather on other issues. What the hell about the process of nature is egocentric?

The same goes for each of us? Great, Raithere. Now, Is it that you don't find this egocentrism problematic? That is, do you approve of it? Or is it well enough to notice that it's there and go on behaving as always?

How, for instance, if one is viewing themselves as the center of the Universe ... well, put it this way:

• You have asserted that the meaning of life is determined by each person.
• I have asserted that there is a meaning of life which transcends the individual.

Just because it looks like you're the center of the Universe doesn't mean you are, and I don't understand why people can't examine any idea without first making themselves the center of the Universe.

Apparently the ones who want to view themselves as separate from nature are the knowledgeable ones? Those who see themselves as part of a living Universe, then, are merely begging their importance before an uncaring Universe?

Tell me, Raithere, how is trying to accept one's minute place in the Universe equal to crying "I'm important"? After all, what are the people who consider themselves separate from the rest of the Universe saying?

From the Primum Mobile to the solar system to the galaxy to the universe ... what next, the multiverse? Is any of it separate from any other? Sometimes it's a matter of definitions, as we see. I find it quite odd, though. When I called up the dictionary definition of meaning I saw your provided definition in addition to several others, among them definitions that don't rely so heavily on the individual. Did you miss them altogether or reject them because they messed up your point? I'm also curious why you provided the definition of a verb when we're discussing a noun.

Little things, I guess.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by James R
Hello The Chosen,

Welcome to sciforums.

What's the gamble for the atheists? Will God punish them if they don't believe in him? Is that the kind of God we'd want to worship?

Comment here

No it's not that God will punish them, that's sounds childish. Believe or you will be punished! Sounds like a scheme to appeal to emotional belief, nothing else. Just as how the puritans appealed to fear.

Religion is mostly "inserted human BS" if you know what i mean.

Comment on my thread. I don't believe anyone to be a "true atheist" which means believing no in possible creator and no meaning to life. Believing everything happens outta chance and luck. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Raithere]

Misconceptions

Originally posted by tiassa
Why do people seek to elevate the self in any given situation? The critical difference between what I have presented and your inaccurate summary is that I said the purpose was perpetuity of species.

I stand corrected; you did say perpetuity of the species. Elevation of the self, however, is not what I'm suggesting.

It might also be said, in a less political consideration, to be the continuance of a balance of matter and energy in the Universe.

I don't see that life has any significant effect on the balance of matter and energy in regards to the Universe. Perhaps, to some degree, on this planet.

This form of being is predisposed to attempting to maintain itself; the duty of the individual and the collective alike are to the species.

I still don't see from where you are drawing this mandate. If our duty is to our species alone then do we give no consideration to other species except as far as their survival affects our own? Do we owe nothing to the world at large or to the Universe?

And, with none of those libraries to feed our minds, none of those universities to raise our thought, and no communal necessity beyond finding a mate and keeping him alive long enough to fertilize the egg, how much better off would humanity be than "the animals"?

As I've suggested this value judgment you make is purely subjective (i.e. From your perspective as a human.) Why is human society with learning and human relations intrinsically and objectively better than that of, lets say, ants? Are ants unhappy? In addition, what do any of these things have to do with perpetuation of the species? As a species, we'd probably be much better off without knowledge and technology. Sure, our total population is higher because of technology but can you say we're more likely to survive; or are we more likely to extinguish ourselves?

The very society in which you exist is raised on behalf of the species.

No, society evolved because it existence improved the survival of the individuals that carried the traits necessary for society. If it didn't we wouldn't have it. View the difference between prey species and predator species. Predator species have much more limited social structures because it is not advantageous for there to be too many predators in one area (food-chain pyramid).

And it's nice to know that you consider yourself (for you are an individual) so important that the species should act to your (as an individual) benefit.

I don't.

Any room will have some light, just not visible.

I disagree. Both realistically and metaphorically. Without consciousness there are no questions.

That E. coli have no purpose in the Universe? They would argue with that, had they the capacity.

No they are not conscious and they were not created. Therefore they have no purpose except that which we, subjectively, ascribe to them. This is not to say they don't have a function or role. Purpose implies intent, which mandates consciousness.

If there's a problem with understanding, it's that I don't understand why every idea must be evaluated in terms of the self first, and measured on such subjective grounds.

I don't think every idea needs be evaluated upon subjective terms. The problem that I see is that, you seem to equate subjectivity with selfishness.

This is still the point. You can believe the meaning of your life to be whatever you wish it to be, but that belief has no bearing on any actual purpose in life.

Only as you have, subjectively, defined it. Until you can demonstrate an objective meaning to life I hold that your view is as subjective as any other.

Leaving the determination of meaning so squarely within this egocentric frame of reference is where I note the "Me, Me, Me!"

Once again, you equate subjectivity with egocentrism. I fail to see a necessary link.

It's not that I argue that a subjective purpose is wrong

Ah. I see the problem. You're confusing my statement is that the meaning of life is determined subjectively with the concept that the meaning must be subjectively oriented. Not the same thing at all. The purpose need not be subjective but the determination must.

That's what I find quite humorous about this selfishness. It will do anything to avoid viewing itself honestly.

Hardly. In fact I consider myself more honest than you because I, at least, admit that my valuation of the human species is due to my subjective opinion as a member of the species.

What, did it not occur to you that part of what you are arguing against is the assertion that the meaning of life is perpetuity of species? Apparently, that's selfish.

Definitely. As a human, I have a personal interest in the perpetuity of my species.

The assumption that your own purpose in life is important to anyone but you reflects nothing of humanity itself.

No one was asking about what's important to humanity. The question was; what is the meaning of life?

As a parallel, consider what happens when people consider the effects of an idea.

The truth of a proposition is not determined by the psychological or behavioral effect it has on those who believe in it.

But the fact that you have transmuted the idea of perpetuity of species into a cry of "I'm important" seems to indicate that you're not focused on the topic, but rather on other issues. What the hell about the process of nature is egocentric?

I'm loath to belabor the point but as a member of the species I find it quite egocentric. As I queried what value has life to a rock? Why is your perspective more important than that of the hypothetical conscious rock?

Now, Is it that you don't find this egocentrism problematic?

Sure I do. And I find your species centered egoism problematic as well. I might point to the industrial age as an example of what we do to the world when we think we're the only species of any importance.

Just because it looks like you're the center of the Universe doesn't mean you are, and I don't understand why people can't examine any idea without first making themselves the center of the Universe.

This was precisely the concept I was trying to convey.

~Raithere

 

[Adam]

Raithere & Tiassa:

This form of being is predisposed to attempting to maintain itself; the duty of the individual and the collective alike are to the species.

This and many other points in both your posts prior to this post can be answered with one search. Research Hamilton's Rule.

EDIT: In case you need a helpful hint... After researching Hamilton's idea, consider its implications for selfish and altruistic behaviour, for kin groups, for societies within humanity, and for humanity in general.

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere

Elevation of the self, however, is not what I'm suggesting.

Specifically, I was referring to the idea that the major tenets of my life should be to impregnate as many women as possible to insure the perpetuation of my genes. Your genes? Even in the abstract: no organism can be sure that it is the best genetic specimen. Certes there are indicators. But it might be that your primary contribution to the species is dying for its perpetuity. The ants go marching two by two, hurrah, hurrah ....

Um, that sort of thing.

On the other hand, the salmon ... the salmon are a perfect case to back your point. Each individual salmon works to reach the spawning ground, fertilizes, and then proceeds to die. A very utilitarian life cycle, but worth consideration.

But watch herd or other group animals, especially where there are lots of predatory cats. Big cats. When the cats are on the prowl, the group collects the young and protects them specifically. Who volunteers for the front line, anyway?

I don't see that life has any significant effect on the balance of matter and energy in regards to the Universe. Perhaps, to some degree, on this planet.

I suggest you're looking at it backwards: matter and energy affect life. Variation, differentiation ... we humans are merely one (general) balance of matter and energy in the Universe. A mere vehicle for DNA is merely attempting to perpetuate a specific balance of matter and energy in the Universe. It's one of the observable things that sets life apart from, say, stars.

Stars can be said to reproduce, but starbirth can occur by other processes, as well.

I still don't see from where you are drawing this mandate. If our duty is to our species alone then do we give no consideration to other species except as far as their survival affects our own? Do we owe nothing to the world at large or to the Universe?

If I say, "Excellent question," does that sound in any way condescending? I don't mean it to. It is, truly, a vital point you've hit.

First, I would say that we owe consideration to all other species because if there's one thing that humans are capable of learning from history, it's that we don't see the whole picture. We cannot, by sheer volume of data. In the case of salmon, for instance, we owe consideration because it directly goes toward our survival. Admittedly, the modern era avoids this with mass-produced grains and synthetic additives in cardboard boxes (just add water), but the modern era clouds much and shifts many priorities by its very nature. These are, after all, changing times. But what about the cattle? Can anyone tell me what would become of cattle if we turned them loose through the midwest? I'm not sure, after all the selective breeding we've done, that cattle could survive in the wild. It's interesting how humanity affects other species.

Secondly, I would think of what we owe to the world at large or the Universe at large in similar terms to, say, greed. And no, I'm not making my usual lectures about greed. But he who dies with the most wins, so to speak. What's wrong with this? What happens if you get it all before you die? If you have all the money, nobody can spend it, and it instantly becomes worthless. In the same sense, what happens when the only other species left alive are the ones we want to be alive? What does that condition buy us? I won't invoke the comet as a serious question, but yeah, what happens when cataclysm strikes and nature can't rebuild itself fast enough for our needs? Toward the insects ... wipe out something toward the bottom of the food chain and everything above it will suffer. Keep dumping into the oceans and eventually we'll crush the food chain. We can't kill nature, but we can hurt her bad enough to be of no use to us.

No, society evolved because it existence improved the survival of the individuals that carried the traits necessary for society. If it didn't we wouldn't have it. View the difference between prey species and predator species. Predator species have much more limited social structures because it is not advantageous for there to be too many predators in one area (food-chain pyramid).

Look at humans in society: we are dependent on tools. Our supremacy comes from organization and cooperative effort. Our ability to manipulate nature surpasses that of any known creature in the Universe. With the rise in life expectancy came a rise in population; the economic balance struck by society accommodates certain needs of animals so that we can devote less time to those needs. Such a condition has indisputably contributed and, it may be said with some safety, motivated the advancement of humanity.

Without society, humanity would be considerably less powerful, and would run a danger of becoming extinct. Reproduction and necessary education in the wild? Humanity has, for the most part of its existence, recognized the benefit of the collective. It has depended on that benefit for survival.

I don't.

Fair enough. I was jabbing at the one-on-one idea. Comparing the elevation of the individual or the species, what we find then is that the needs of the individual outweigh the needs of the species. Included in those individuals is you. And me, of course. But that's how I arrived at that jab.

I disagree. Both realistically and metaphorically. Without consciousness there are no questions.

On the realistic level: everything radiates.

On the metaphoric level, I think you're experiencing a conflict 'twixt the purpose itself and the perception of the purpose. The blind, unconscious E. coli do, in fact, have a purpose, whether they are aware of it or not. So does the apple tree. Meaning can exist regardless of consciousness. Purpose as well. Intent? Well, when I put that beside your selected definition of meaning, I think I see a further aspect of the conflict. Intent works well enough if there is a God, but we can leave that aside.

No they are not conscious and they were not created. Therefore they have no purpose except that which we, subjectively, ascribe to them. This is not to say they don't have a function or role. Purpose implies intent, which mandates consciousness.

Still insisting on that consciousness aspect, eh?

I thought we'd covered that with the dictionaries bit.

I don't think every idea needs be evaluated upon subjective terms. The problem that I see is that, you seem to equate subjectivity with selfishness.

Actually, what it is, Raithere, is that people tend to examine a subject and choose their definitions according to what empowers them the most. By seeking that specific position, people limit their perspectives. You showed me a dictionary definition that included consciousness, I showed you one without. I don't understand why our consent is necessary for a process to exist. It lends to the notion that we have some hand in determining our purpose for existing in the Universe in the first place, and that cannot be shown to be.

Only as you have, subjectively, defined it. Until you can demonstrate an objective meaning to life I hold that your view is as subjective as any other.

What criteria makes "perpetuity of species", an observable condition in nature, subjective? That I hold the opinion and you don't?

I think requiring consciousness before allowing something to have a purpose is a little subjective, but who's counting?

Once again, you equate subjectivity with egocentrism. I fail to see a necessary link.

It's a very simple idea: Are you talking about an abstract situation, or are you talking about yourself in an abstract situation?

Example:

• What is the meaning of life?
• What is the meaning of my life?

It also takes the form of considering what one does instead of the larger human condition.

It also takes the form of pretending that one can consent to existence. If you were a mango, you couldn't argue about why you exist. As a human being, you can argue about why you exist. But consenting to the purpose of your existing as a human being has no bearing whatsoever on what your actual purpose is. It wouldn't help the mango, either.

Ah. I see the problem. You're confusing my statement is that the meaning of life is determined subjectively with the concept that the meaning must be subjectively oriented. Not the same thing at all. The purpose need not be subjective but the determination must.

It's entirely possible. And I would hope it's that simple an issue. But I'm not convinced.

It is subjective to say that the purpose of life is living. And, certes, it is subjective to choose not to muck up the examination of the purpose with sentiment and consent, but I hardly find the criteria to be subjective. They look at as much life as possible in order to reach its conclusion. That the purpose of life is not so much living as it is the functions of living is certainly unromantic, boring, and serves none to elevate the self-esteem, but it is, in fact, the most direct possibility. It's the straightest line between A and B--the eating, sleeping, and shitting all leads to the reproducing.

Hardly. In fact I consider myself more honest than you because I, at least, admit that my valuation of the human species is due to my subjective opinion as a member of the species.

That was convincing.

Definitely. As a human, I have a personal interest in the perpetuity of my species.

Why?

No one was asking about what's important to humanity. The question was; what is the meaning of life?

Funny, I would have thought you would have been able to understand the connection between what's important to humanity and the argument I'm positing about perpetuity of species.

The truth of a proposition is not determined by the psychological or behavioral effect it has on those who believe in it.

I find that highly irrelevant.

I'm loath to belabor the point but as a member of the species I find it quite egocentric. As I queried what value has life to a rock? Why is your perspective more important than that of the hypothetical conscious rock?

Actually, I would find the perspective of a rock to be very valuable in such considerations.

Sure I do. And I find your species centered egoism problematic as well. I might point to the industrial age as an example of what we do to the world when we think we're the only species of any importance.

I find that retort inadequate and offensive.

A slight difference I would beg you to consider:

• what is good for the species
• thinking we're the only species of any importance

The presumptuous error in your perception of the argument tells me much.

Just because it looks like you're the center of the Universe doesn't mean you are, and I don't understand why people can't examine any idea without first making themselves the center of the Universe.

This was precisely the concept I was trying to convey.

I have included my own portion of the text you cited in order to ask a specific question: What about the idea that one can consent to the purpose of life conveys the related idea? That is, I don't understand how you can be attempting to convey that point by making any one individual self (not merely yours or mine) so important.

Life is a statistical rarity compared to the Universe, but so are stars. Life is merely another differentiation of the Universe. The purpose of the rock is because that's how the Universe came together. It does what it does, namely float and spin and spin about in ellipses until it smashes into something. It exists, kind of like "God is" or some similar extrapolation.

You'll know when I'm getting egocentric; then my "meaning of life" bit makes humanity the eyes and ears and voices of God.

We exist. What we do is reproduce and carry on the species. It isn't romantic, it isn't glamorous, it isn't particularly important. But it's what we do.

Or we could try explaining the purpose of carnivorous plants and their evolution in both scientific and metaphysical terms. At some point, we would stumble onto a valuable piece or two of abstract philosophy.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Re: Raithere

Originally posted by tiassa

But watch herd or other group animals, especially where there are lots of predatory cats. Big cats. When the cats are on the prowl, the group collects the young and protects them specifically. Who volunteers for the front line, anyway?

I'm not arguing against the fact that some members of some species of life act in an altruistic manner towards their species, just that you can define this as the "meaning of life".

A mere vehicle for DNA is merely attempting to perpetuate a specific balance of matter and energy in the Universe. It's one of the observable things that sets life apart from, say, stars.

Are you arguing the Gaia hypothesis here? I'm not sure I see the relevance to the topic.

If I say, "Excellent question," does that sound in any way condescending? I don't mean it to. It is, truly, a vital point you've hit.

No, it doesn't. I agree. Regardless whether it is the meaning of life or not, it is important.

First, I would say that we owe consideration to all other species because if there's one thing that humans are capable of learning from history, it's that we don't see the whole picture.

I'm in agreement here. Also consider the implications of Chaos Theory to the equation.

Without society, humanity would be considerably less powerful, and would run a danger of becoming extinct.

On the metaphoric level, I think you're experiencing a conflict 'twixt the purpose itself and the perception of the purpose.

Meaning can exist regardless of consciousness. Purpose as well.

Can you demonstrate meaning and purpose without consciousness of either the individual/species or the observer? In my understanding meaning and purpose imply language and intent respectively.

Still insisting on that consciousness aspect, eh?

Actually, yes. I still haven't seen a sufficient argument that meaning exists without consciousness.

I thought we'd covered that with the dictionaries bit.

All of your definitions included intent in the primary definition of the word. How can you have intent without consciousness?

Actually, what it is, Raithere, is that people tend to examine a subject and choose their definitions according to what empowers them the most. By seeking that specific position, people limit their perspectives.

Some people do this; I prefer to seek the word and definition that most accurately describes what it is I am trying to convey. When queried, I try to give further explanation.

You showed me a dictionary definition that included consciousness, I showed you one without.

Again, all of your definitions include intent in the primary definition. Demonstrate intent without consciousness.

I don't understand why our consent is necessary for a process to exist.

It isn't. But process does not equal meaning in any definition I've seen.

What criteria makes "perpetuity of species", an observable condition in nature, subjective? That I hold the opinion and you don't?

Nothing. I'm not arguing that it exists or that it might be a worthwhile goal; only that it is demonstrably and universally the meaning of life.

Are you talking about an abstract situation, or are you talking about yourself in an abstract situation?

The question was given in an abstract rather than a personal mode, I answered in the same mode.

What about the idea that one can consent to the purpose of life conveys the related idea? That is, I don't understand how you can be attempting to convey that point by making any one individual self (not merely yours or mine) so important.

I don't think the individual is particularly important. What I am saying is that the question and the answer to "what is the meaning of life?" both depend upon an individual consciousness's subjective judgment. It's a subjective question similar to "What's the most beautiful flower?" There is no single answer.

The purpose of the rock is because that's how the Universe came together.

This sentence make no sense to me, can you reword it or explain it?

We exist. What we do is reproduce and carry on the species. It isn't romantic, it isn't glamorous, it isn't particularly important. But it's what we do.

We do many things besides this. Why are these actions the meaning of life and not some other set of actions?

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere ... incomplete for now.

I'll get to the rest of it later, Raithere, as I'm due across town shortly, but:

On the metaphoric level, I think you're experiencing a conflict 'twixt the purpose itself and the perception of the purpose.

This from someone who advocates that the actual purpose or meaning of life is dependent on individual perception?

I just had to ask, man. And I would ask you to consider it in this sense:

• What is your your purpose in work?

That is, what is your purpose at work? To make money for yourself? Test that theory to its broadest limits and see what your employer has to say. This, of course, invites considerations of God by placing a conscious judge at the determination of purpose. This is not necessary. However, the perception that one goes to their job to make money is merely the aspect most relative to the individual. Your actual purpose, as determined by circumstances, might be quite different.

As I said, I must be on my way. I'll get to the rest of it later.

We do many things besides this. Why are these actions the meaning of life and not some other set of actions?

I'll note this right now because I can't resist.

Tell me, please, that the meaning of life is the manufacture of marshmallows, or running the 100m high hurdles in record time. Certes, we can do this, but it's hardly a purpose of life.

But rather than me giving you a limited few examples, I would propose that you suggest a few things that we do, and I'll see if I can tie those to the "meaning" that I've asserted.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Re: Raithere ... incomplete for now.

Originally posted by tiassa

On the metaphoric level, I think you're experiencing a conflict 'twixt the purpose itself and the perception of the purpose.

This from someone who advocates that the actual purpose or meaning of life is dependent on individual perception?

Actually, this is kind of funny. The quote is actually your comment that I failed to annotate properly.

What is your purpose in work?

To do my job to the best of my ability.

But rather than me giving you a limited few examples, I would propose that you suggest a few things that we do, and I'll see if I can tie those to the "meaning" that I've asserted.

Sure: art, music, evangelism, professional athletics, mountain climbing, and acting.

I must admit I'm quite curious as to what these things have to do with "the perpetuity of species".

~Raithere