Do you believe you're trivial? I seriously doubt that. You couldn't get out of bed in the morning if you'd really believed you're trivial.
There is no meaning to life
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: There is no meaning to life
The same reason that greater meanings of life are something other than the creation of individual microbes.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 5:47 pmBut this is suggesting that the meaning of life would be something other than the creation of an individual person. What reason is there to believe this?Greta wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 5:31 pm Yes, as per previous posts, we humans are simple beings, and the simplest of us are barely different to other primates. Just as we would not expect a chimp or a child to understand superannuation, we cannot expect humans at this stage to understand the meaning of life.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: There is no meaning to life
Do you believe that there are facts in the world that differ from truths in that they remain the same in time? And would that be the foundation for the idea that value is subjective?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 7:37 pmSo can you give an example of what, let's say, the floor in the room where you're accessing the Internet at the moment, values? (And how would you check what it values versus what it doesn't value?)arjand wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 6:52 pm Value can be found in the simplest pattern. The assumption that the laws of physics (Nature) are static and that facts can obtained on the basis of that foundation that differ from truths, is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism. Therefor, all what can be seen in the world is value.
When you would abolish the idea that facts remain the same in time (i.e. a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism), then, the simplest pattern will contain the essence of value which implies that the meaning of life (purpose) is something other than the creation of an individual person.
When one looks at valuing by an individual, one looks at a manifestation of the origin of valuing that by means of memory has accumulated to the complex meaning of value in the human sphere. The process itself originates from valuing and is so complex, that one is essentially submerged in a complex flow that developed in millions of years time and thereby can find sufficient satisfaction to simply jump in / hook right on, and consider "having a good time in life" as the meaning or purpose of life. What's going on on a deeper level was established in millions of years of time, so it will continue for a few millions years more, one could consider. So why care or question more deeply and worry?
Some people however, when questioning deeply, will find a difficulty that is summarized in the (presumably unanswer-ability of the) question "what is the meaning of life?".
My personal argument is that it may be essential that the question is addressed on a fundamental level (using professional philosophy) to achieve the capacity to guide humanity in an optimal way.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is no meaning to life
I don't believe that there are facts that remain "the same in time," no.
Facts are different than truths, though. Facts being states of affairs in general, truths being a property of (or more specifically a judgment about) propositions.
Value is subjective because value is something that persons do as a mental phenomenon. There's no evidence of value occurring elsewhere.And would that be the foundation for the idea that value is subjective?
Do you mean that one can make a value judgment about "the simplest pattern," or are you saying that things like "patterns" literally have value in them somehow?When you would abolish the idea that facts remain the same in time (i.e. a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism), then, the simplest pattern will contain the essence of value
Also, "essences" are mental phenomena as well. The "Essence of F," where F is some type/kind term (which can even be a particular at a particular time if one thinks of it as a unique type/kind), is what the person formulating the concept requires to name x an F.
In other words, people formulate concepts in response to things they experience/observe. They name those concepts F, G, etc. (F and G are just variables there.) With a concept, there will be some set of characteristics or properties that the person who formulated the concept requires or considers necessary in order for any x (any particular) to count as an F (in other words, for it to "fit the concept"). And usually there are "accidental" properties that any x can have that that are neither necessary to count as an F or that don't disqualify x to count as an F. All that "essences" amount to are the necessary properties for some individual to deem x an F.
So, for example, Joe experiences animals that he calls "dogs," and Joe formulates a concept of what dogs are. Of course, this will be influenced by other people and the way they use terms, etc., too, but Joe still needs to formulate his own concept (because concepts are mental phenomena that can't literally be shared among people, as no mental phenomena can be). In Joe's concept of "dog," a dog must be a domesticated carnivore of the family Canidae--that's correlated with the standard definition/concept, of course, but whether a dog has black or blonde fur--or any fur at all for that matter--is an accidental property. Neither black nor blonde fur are required for Joe to deem some x a "dog." But being an example of a domesticated carnivore of the family Canidae IS required. Thus "a domesticated carnivore of the family Canidae" is part of the "essence" of "dog" for Joe. Black fur is NOT part of the essence of "dog" for Joe, however. (It might be for someone else, though. Frank might refuse to call any x a "dog" if x does not have black fur, so black fur would be part of the essence of "dog" for Frank.)
It would if meaning (which I'm guessing you're associating with value here?--you switched from talking about value to talking about meaning) is literally in things like "patterns" (we'd have to define just what counts as a pattern or not outside of people interpreting things that way, but we can ignore that for now), but you've shown absolutely no evidence that meaning (or value) literally occurs in things like patterns. You're simply making the claim that it does. What is evidence that it does in the face of skepticism about the same?which implies that the meaning of life (purpose) is something other than the creation of an individual person.
If we're just saying that valuing things, as a brain/mental phenomenon, is something that is the result of a long chain of evolutionary steps, then sure. But what's the relevance of that?When one looks at valuing by an individual, one looks at a manifestation of the origin of valuing that by means of memory has accumulated to the complex meaning of value in the human sphere.
This statement appears to be rather nonsensical.The process itself originates from valuing
Just what are "levels" and what makes them "deep" or "shallow"?What's going on on a deeper level
There are no true/false correct/incorrect "optimal ways."My personal argument is that it may be essential that the question is addressed on a fundamental level (using professional philosophy) to achieve the capacity to guide humanity in an optimal way.
Do philosophy long enough, with enough skill, and you'll learn that.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is no meaning to life
But there's no reason to believe that. Anything that has a mind--so imagine that an individual microbe does--and thus counts as a person can (at least potentially) come up with a purpose/"meaning" of life, and can't get as much wrong, because there's nothing to get right. There's no objective meaning of life to match or fail to match. It would just be how that individual microbe thinks about things in terms of purpose/directedness/"meaning." Different persons (whatever creatures) will come up with different "meanings," but none of them are greater/lesser than others aside from in subjective assessments that also can not be correct or incorrect.Greta wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 7:32 pmThe same reason that greater meanings of life are something other than the creation of individual microbes.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 5:47 pm
But this is suggesting that the meaning of life would be something other than the creation of an individual person. What reason is there to believe this?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: There is no meaning to life
Read again. I'm obviously not talking about microbial meanings of life (an interpretation so odd that I could not possibly have anticipated it).Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 11:33 amBut there's no reason to believe that. Anything that has a mind--so imagine that an individual microbe does--and thus counts as a person can (at least potentially) come up with a purpose/"meaning" of life, and can't get as much wrong, because there's nothing to get right. There's no objective meaning of life to match or fail to match. It would just be how that individual microbe thinks about things in terms of purpose/directedness/"meaning." Different persons (whatever creatures) will come up with different "meanings," but none of them are greater/lesser than others aside from in subjective assessments that also can not be correct or incorrect.
We consist of microbial communities. That's what cells are - colonial microbes, whose integration and interdependency has become total. Now we are effectively becoming the microbes. That's evolution.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is no meaning to life
You're suggesting something like a communal mind? (And you're trying to connect that to evolution?)Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 4:46 pmRead again. I'm obviously not talking about microbial meanings of life (an interpretation so odd that I could not possibly have anticipated it).Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 11:33 am
But there's no reason to believe that. Anything that has a mind--so imagine that an individual microbe does--and thus counts as a person can (at least potentially) come up with a purpose/"meaning" of life, and can't get as much wrong, because there's nothing to get right. There's no objective meaning of life to match or fail to match. It would just be how that individual microbe thinks about things in terms of purpose/directedness/"meaning." Different persons (whatever creatures) will come up with different "meanings," but none of them are greater/lesser than others aside from in subjective assessments that also can not be correct or incorrect.
We consist of microbial communities. That's what cells are - colonial microbes, whose integration and interdependency has become total. Now we are effectively becoming the microbes. That's evolution.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: There is no meaning to life
Something like it, especially since the trend is towards greater conformity.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 6:12 pmYou're suggesting something like a communal mind? (And you're trying to connect that to evolution?)Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 4:46 pm
Read again. I'm obviously not talking about microbial meanings of life (an interpretation so odd that I could not possibly have anticipated it).
We consist of microbial communities. That's what cells are - colonial microbes, whose integration and interdependency has become total. Now we are effectively becoming the microbes. That's evolution.
Consider the degrees of integration that emerged in nature ... from individuals, to loose groups, to interdependent groups, to colonies, to multicellular organisms without nervous systems, to brainless organisms with nervous systems, to brained organisms. By the same token, individual humans, loose groups, tribes, colonies, cities, to connected cities, to nations whose conformity results in nationwide emotional affects to news items elsewhere, and so forth.
It seems unlikely (certainly an anthropocentric notion) that humans in the 21st century are the most sophisticated possible examples of sentience in evolution. Do you think that human geniuses today possess the greatest possible cognitive sophistication? That nothing could possibly evolve to be vastly more sophisticated?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is no meaning to life
So one, we'd have to well-define sophistication so that it would make sense to attempt to quantify it.Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 7:01 pmSomething like it, especially since the trend is towards greater conformity.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 6:12 pm
You're suggesting something like a communal mind? (And you're trying to connect that to evolution?)
Consider the degrees of integration that emerged in nature ... from individuals, to loose groups, to interdependent groups, to colonies, to multicellular organisms without nervous systems, to brainless organisms with nervous systems, to brained organisms. By the same token, individual humans, loose groups, tribes, colonies, cities, to connected cities, to nations whose conformity results in nationwide emotional affects to news items elsewhere, and so forth.
It seems unlikely (certainly an anthropocentric notion) that humans in the 21st century are the most sophisticated possible examples of sentience in evolution. Do you think that human geniuses today possess the greatest possible cognitive sophistication? That nothing could possibly evolve to be vastly more sophisticated?
Aside from that, ignoring that issue, suppose that there were something like a communal mind possible, or that we would arrive at a much more sophisticated mind. Why would the meaning of life that the communal or more sophisticated mind comes up with be any more right/correct than any other meaning of life that any other organism (capable of thought) comes up with?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: There is no meaning to life
There's nothing hard about "sophistication". An adult's mentality is more sophisticated than that of a small child.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 8:19 pmSo one, we'd have to well-define sophistication so that it would make sense to attempt to quantify it.Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 7:01 pm
Something like it, especially since the trend is towards greater conformity.
Consider the degrees of integration that emerged in nature ... from individuals, to loose groups, to interdependent groups, to colonies, to multicellular organisms without nervous systems, to brainless organisms with nervous systems, to brained organisms. By the same token, individual humans, loose groups, tribes, colonies, cities, to connected cities, to nations whose conformity results in nationwide emotional affects to news items elsewhere, and so forth.
It seems unlikely (certainly an anthropocentric notion) that humans in the 21st century are the most sophisticated possible examples of sentience in evolution. Do you think that human geniuses today possess the greatest possible cognitive sophistication? That nothing could possibly evolve to be vastly more sophisticated?
Aside from that, ignoring that issue, suppose that there were something like a communal mind possible, or that we would arrive at a much more sophisticated mind. Why would the meaning of life that the communal or more sophisticated mind comes up with be any more right/correct than any other meaning of life that any other organism (capable of thought) comes up with?
What is the meaning of life for a small child? It's akin to the meaning of life for many species, where life is about consumption, shelter and relationships.
It's not about a meaning of life being "correct". It's about depth of meaning. My point is more that shallowness reigns - for now. Humans do like to imagine that their conceptions will never be bettered, that no greater sophistication of perception or thought is possible. The attitude appears to have been common in just about every generation of humanity - this time we have reached our peak. Until next time.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is no meaning to life
Just claiming that an adult's mentality is more sophisticated than a child's does nothing to tell us just how we'd quantify this ("more" is a term of quantification, whether the quantification is exact/counted or not) or just what we'd be referring to in terms of objective properties in order to quantify it (and why those particular properties would matter versus others).Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 8:43 pmThere's nothing hard about "sophistication". An adult's mentality is more sophisticated than that of a small child.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 8:19 pm
So one, we'd have to well-define sophistication so that it would make sense to attempt to quantify it.
Aside from that, ignoring that issue, suppose that there were something like a communal mind possible, or that we would arrive at a much more sophisticated mind. Why would the meaning of life that the communal or more sophisticated mind comes up with be any more right/correct than any other meaning of life that any other organism (capable of thought) comes up with?
What is the meaning of life for a small child? It's akin to the meaning of life for many species, where life is about consumption, shelter and relationships.
It's not about a meaning of life being "correct". It's about depth of meaning. My point is more that shallowness reigns - for now. Humans do like to imagine that their conceptions will never be bettered, that no greater sophistication of perception or thought is possible. The attitude appears to have been common in just about every generation of humanity - this time we have reached our peak. Until next time.
Same thing for "deep" versus "shallow." Just what is that supposed to refer to, exactly, and why is it supposed to refer to that? Also, why would either deep or shallow be better than the other?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: There is no meaning to life
I said that adult minds are more sophisticated than those of small children. Nothing could be more obvious.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 10:50 amJust claiming that an adult's mentality is more sophisticated than a child's does nothing to tell us just how we'd quantify this ("more" is a term of quantification, whether the quantification is exact/counted or not) or just what we'd be referring to in terms of objective properties in order to quantify it (and why those particular properties would matter versus others).Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 8:43 pm
There's nothing hard about "sophistication". An adult's mentality is more sophisticated than that of a small child.
What is the meaning of life for a small child? It's akin to the meaning of life for many species, where life is about consumption, shelter and relationships.
It's not about a meaning of life being "correct". It's about depth of meaning. My point is more that shallowness reigns - for now. Humans do like to imagine that their conceptions will never be bettered, that no greater sophistication of perception or thought is possible. The attitude appears to have been common in just about every generation of humanity - this time we have reached our peak. Until next time.
Same thing for "deep" versus "shallow." Just what is that supposed to refer to, exactly, and why is it supposed to refer to that? Also, why would either deep or shallow be better than the other?
If you think that small children are just as sophisticated mentally as adults, despite lack of training or experience, then that is an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is no meaning to life
What we'd need to do first is sort out just what objective properties "sophisticated" is going to map to, and then figure out how we're going to quantify sophistication.Greta wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:27 pmI said that adult minds are more sophisticated than those of small children. Nothing could be more obvious.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 10:50 am
Just claiming that an adult's mentality is more sophisticated than a child's does nothing to tell us just how we'd quantify this ("more" is a term of quantification, whether the quantification is exact/counted or not) or just what we'd be referring to in terms of objective properties in order to quantify it (and why those particular properties would matter versus others).
Same thing for "deep" versus "shallow." Just what is that supposed to refer to, exactly, and why is it supposed to refer to that? Also, why would either deep or shallow be better than the other?
If you think that small children are just as sophisticated mentally as adults, despite lack of training or experience, then that is an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: There is no meaning to life
I no more need to prove the advance of sophistication than I need to point out that eukaryotes are more sophisticated than prokaryotes, that adults are more sophisticated than small children, that humans are more sophisticated than beetles. Evolution builds on itself. Even after mass extinctions, the complexity of old DNA remains in the survivors. There has not been a complete reset of life in the history of Earth, rather an increase in complexity and sophistication, with occasional interruptions (extinction events).Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:45 pmWhat we'd need to do first is sort out just what objective properties "sophisticated" is going to map to, and then figure out how we're going to quantify sophistication.Greta wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:27 pm
I said that adult minds are more sophisticated than those of small children. Nothing could be more obvious.
If you think that small children are just as sophisticated mentally as adults, despite lack of training or experience, then that is an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence.
If you think that this situation will change, and the march to greater sophistication has stopped, it is up to you to provide the evidence.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: There is no meaning to life
So let's review the approximate video of said events:Greta wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:27 pmI no more need to prove the advance of sophistication than I need to point out that eukaryotes are more sophisticated than prokaryotes, that adults are more sophisticated than small children, that humans are more sophisticated than beetles. Evolution builds on itself. Even after mass extinctions, the complexity of old DNA remains in the survivors. There has not been a complete reset of life in the history of Earth, rather an increase in complexity and sophistication, with occasional interruptions (extinction events).
If you think that this situation will change, and the march to greater sophistication has stopped, it is up to you to provide the evidence.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023