Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

your conclusion that life is the source of meaning is false. Minds recognise patterns whether or not mind is the source of those patterns.

as an alternative, describe how meaning comes about. Reread what I have stated, point out as clearly and briefly as possible the process you would put in place as the correct theory.

Did I not just do that ? With what I thought was admirable brevity

[popeye1945]

your conclusion that life is the source of meaning is false. Minds recognise patterns whether or not mind is the source of those patterns.

as an alternative, describe how meaning comes about. Reread what I have stated, point out as clearly and briefly as possible the process you would put in place as the correct theory.

Did I not just do that ? With what I thought was admirable brevity

Not so admirable brevity---lol!! Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The evolution, if you like, of meaning is the sensing of the alterations made by the physical world to the standing state of one's biology; this is experience, biological experience, and with biological understanding and judgment arises meaning, which belongs solely to the subject organism and never to the object. You do not experience what is out there, you experience how what is out there alters/changes your biology. Meanings are biological experience, understanding, and judgment. After this formation of meanings, the organism projects its meanings onto a meaningless world, for meanings are biologically processed and the only source of meanings in the world. As an organism, you create your apparent reality out of your experiences, understandings, and judgments. You are a creator, the agent of meaning in the world.

[Good_Egg]

There is some truth there, but your description is incomplete. In two ways.

First, consider a successful communication. You speak or write a few words, and I understand. I get your meaning. My biological ear and biological brain and the biological nerve channels between act to reconstruct the meaning that originated in your head. I decrypt the meaning encoded in your utterance.

Of course, the process is subject to error; miscommunication abounds. But the point remains. If I claimed authorship of (and resulting credit for) your communicated insight, you might rightly have a grievance against me.

And if we once agree that in a speaker/listener situation, the listener's action is not an original creation of meaning but rather an (accurate or otherwise) discovery of meaning encoded in their sensory input. Then in a situation where there is only one agent, perceiving their surrounding environment, can we not say the same ? That they again do not create meaning, but rather discover and decrypt it ? Like a detective extracting clues from an inspection of the scene of the crime ?

Secondly, in your insistence on biology rather than psychology, you seem to neglect Mind and attribute all the work to Brain.

I don't want to commit to a position on how far Artificial Intelligence should be considered to be truly Mind. But to the extent that AI deals with meaning at all, it is the software not the hardware that does so.

[popeye1945]

We already have morality without God, biology/life/organism is the measure and the meaning of all things. Logically, it follows that morality, being a meaning, has its source in human biology or the human organism. Morality, too, can be seen in the communities of all or most organisms. Belief in the supernatural is due to intellectual limitations. The logical foundation of any system of human morality is humanity itself, its survival, and well-being. Morality, like all creations that are not of the natural physical world, is a biological extension of the human spirit. If understood properly, it comes back to itself

[LuckyR]

We already have morality without God, biology/life/organism is the measure and the meaning of all things. Logically, it follows that morality, being a meaning, has its source in human biology or the human organism. Morality, too, can be seen in the communities of all or most organisms. Belief in the supernatural is due to intellectual limitations. The logical foundation of any system of human morality is humanity itself, its survival, and well-being. Morality, like all creations that are not of the natural physical world, is a biological extension of the human spirit. If understood properly, it comes back to itself

Well there's morality and then there's Morality. The former being the (subjective) product of an individual's set of moral codes and the latter is the (ever elusive) objective Morality that is commonly spoken of, yet never actually seen.

[Gertie]

Chasing rational and objective Morality is a red herring imo.  A category error.  We're not dealing with Physics here.


Morality isn't fundamentally about Reason or identifying Objects.  It's about notions like Value, Thriving, Meaning and Mattering.  Attributes of Subjects - consciously experiencing critters.  


Our wellbeing is meaningful to us.   We Subjects have a Quality of Life which matters to us, and we consciously  experience the consequences of our own and others' actions.  And that's the appropriate way to make sense of the concept of  Oughts, what they're  for.  Striving towards improving our well being.


Once you establish this foundation you can then use facts and reason  as tools to try to navigate your way towards being a morally better person, if you choose.  

[popeye1945]

We already have morality without God, biology/life/organism is the measure and the meaning of all things. Logically, it follows that morality, being a meaning, has its source in human biology or the human organism. Morality, too, can be seen in the communities of all or most organisms. Belief in the supernatural is due to intellectual limitations. The logical foundation of any system of human morality is humanity itself, its survival, and well-being. Morality, like all creations that are not of the natural physical world, is a biological extension of the human spirit. If understood properly, it comes back to itself

Well, there's morality and then there's Morality. The former is the (subjective) product of an individual's set of moral codes, and the latter is the (ever elusive) objective Morality that is commonly spoken of, yet never actually seen.

That is because there is no such thing as objective reality; apparent reality is a projected biological readout, and we can never escape said subjectivity. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The source of any meaning whatsoever is biology. Morality, being a meaning, implies it is biological. Anything that is not of a concrete physical nature is a biological extension. The physical world in the absence of biological consciousness is meaningless in the only way we can know it subjectively.

[popeye1945]

There is some truth there, but your description is incomplete. In two ways.

First, consider a successful communication. You speak or write a few words, and I understand. I get your meaning. My biological ear and biological brain and the biological nerve channels between act to reconstruct the meaning that originated in your head. I decrypt the meaning encoded in your utterance.

Of course, the process is subject to error; miscommunication abounds. But the point remains. If I claimed authorship of (and resulting credit for) your communicated insight, you might rightly have a grievance against me.

And if we once agree that in a speaker/listener situation, the listener's action is not an original creation of meaning but rather an (accurate or otherwise) discovery of meaning encoded in their sensory input. Then in a situation where there is only one agent, perceiving their surrounding environment, can we not say the same ? That they again do not create meaning, but rather discover and decrypt it ? Like a detective extracting clues from an inspection of the scene of the crime ?

Secondly, in your insistence on biology rather than psychology, you seem to neglect Mind and attribute all the work to Brain.

I don't want to commit to a position on how far Artificial Intelligence should be considered to be truly Mind. But to the extent that AI deals with meaning at all, it is the software not the hardware that does so.

Good Egg,
That is an interesting post. What you speak of is a secondary source of information, and it is dependent on one's confidence in the source. It should always be considered tentative information until one's own experience establishes its authority. When I speak of biology, psychology is a biological aspect. Truth, information is true to the individual if it is experience, and truth by a secondary source or a collective of individuals is agreement. One steers one's ship in this world. Your outer world, your everyday reality, is bodily experiences of the changes the outer world effects on the standing state of your biology. You are the centre of your own universe.

[popeye1945]

Chasing rational and objective Morality is a red herring imo.  A category error.  We're not dealing with Physics here.


Morality isn't fundamentally about Reason or identifying Objects.  It's about notions like Value, Thriving, Meaning and Mattering.  Attributes of Subjects - consciously experiencing critters.  


Our wellbeing is meaningful to us.   We Subjects have a Quality of Life which matters to us, and we consciously  experience the consequences of our own and others' actions.  And that's the appropriate way to make sense of the concept of  Oughts, what they're  for.  Striving towards improving our well being.


Once you establish this foundation you can then use facts and reason  as tools to try to navigate your way towards being a morally better person, if you choose.  

The only rational foundation of a system of human morality is the biological subject itself, as the source of all meaning in this world, its survival, and well-being are self-interested morality, the only morality.

[Gertie]

Chasing rational and objective Morality is a red herring imo.  A category error.  We're not dealing with Physics here.


Morality isn't fundamentally about Reason or identifying Objects.  It's about notions like Value, Thriving, Meaning and Mattering.  Attributes of Subjects - consciously experiencing critters.  


Our wellbeing is meaningful to us.   We Subjects have a Quality of Life which matters to us, and we consciously  experience the consequences of our own and others' actions.  And that's the appropriate way to make sense of the concept of  Oughts, what they're  for.  Striving towards improving our well being.


Once you establish this foundation you can then use facts and reason  as tools to try to navigate your way towards being a morally better person, if you choose.  

The only rational foundation of a system of human morality is the biological subject itself, as the source of all meaning in this world, its survival, and well-being are self-interested morality, the only morality.

Goldberg would say that at its heart, this is what she calls 'The Mattering Instinct', it's intrinsic to being an experiencing human, rather than something we reason to. I tend to agree -

''We can’t pursue our lives without thinking that our lives matter—though one has to be careful here to distinguish the relevant sense of “matter." Simply to take actions on the basis of desires is to act as if your life matters. It’s inconceivable to pursue a human life without these kinds of presumptions—that your own life matters to some extent. Clinical depression is when you are convinced that you don’t and will never matter. That’s a pathological attitude, and it highlights, by its pathology, the way in which the mattering instinct normally functions. To be a fully functioning, non-depressed person is to live and to act, to take it for granted that you can act on your own behalf, pursue your goals and projects. And that we have a right to be treated in accord with our own commitment to our lives mattering. We quite naturally flare up into outrage and indignation when others act in violation of the presumption grounding the pursuance of our lives. So this is what I mean by the mattering instinct, that commitment to one’s own life that is inseparable from pursuing a coherent human life.''. [The Edge]

I'd say it's a fact of the matter that humans are this way, we just do it without much thinking, and the evolutionary benefits are obvious.

But I'd agree with Hume that it takes an extra step to get from the Is fact of the matter, to a prescriptive moral Ought or Duty.

And that step lies in recognising that others have a similar stake in their own wellbeing too. And acting in ways which take that into consideration. So I Ought not harm you, because your wellbeing matters to you. And vice-versa.

[popeye1945]

Chasing rational and objective Morality is a red herring imo.  A category error.  We're not dealing with Physics here.


Morality isn't fundamentally about Reason or identifying Objects.  It's about notions like Value, Thriving, Meaning and Mattering.  Attributes of Subjects - consciously experiencing critters.  


Our wellbeing is meaningful to us.   We Subjects have a Quality of Life which matters to us, and we consciously  experience the consequences of our own and others' actions.  And that's the appropriate way to make sense of the concept of  Oughts, what they're  for.  Striving towards improving our well being.


Once you establish this foundation you can then use facts and reason  as tools to try to navigate your way towards being a morally better person, if you choose.  

The only rational foundation of a system of human morality is the biological subject itself, as the source of all meaning in this world, its survival, and well-being are self-interested morality, the only morality.

Goldberg would say that at its heart, this is what she calls 'The Mattering Instinct', it's intrinsic to being an experiencing human, rather than something we reason to. I tend to agree -

''We can’t pursue our lives without thinking that our lives matter—though one has to be careful here to distinguish the relevant sense of “matter." Simply to take actions on the basis of desires is to act as if your life matters. It’s inconceivable to pursue a human life without these kinds of presumptions—that your own life matters to some extent. Clinical depression is when you are convinced that you don’t and will never matter. That’s a pathological attitude, and it highlights, by its pathology, the way in which the mattering instinct normally functions. To be a fully functioning, non-depressed person is to live and to act, to take it for granted that you can act on your own behalf, pursue your goals and projects. And that we have a right to be treated in accord with our own commitment to our lives mattering. We quite naturally flare up into outrage and indignation when others act in violation of the presumption grounding the pursuance of our lives. So this is what I mean by the mattering instinct, that commitment to one’s own life that is inseparable from pursuing a coherent human life.''. [The Edge]

I'd say it's a fact of the matter that humans are this way, we just do it without much thinking, and the evolutionary benefits are obvious.

But I'd agree with Hume that it takes an extra step to get from the Is fact of the matter, to a prescriptive moral Ought or Duty.

And that step lies in recognising that others have a similar stake in their own wellbeing too. And acting in ways which take that into consideration. So I Ought not harm you, because your wellbeing matters to you. And vice-versa.

Life mattering to itself is indeed instinctual, because the first principle of life is self-survival and procreation, neither of which is willed by the organism but is the will of the species. This organic directive is common to all living things. The principles of life seem to be a commonality to all life forms, not surprisingly, as we are all distantly related; in other words, they are our relatives. This life mattering to itself is common to all life, and doing well in life is a basic life instinct to survive and procreate. Life lives upon life, symbolically, the snake consuming its tail. We care about one another because we recognize ourselves in the selves of others of our kind, through which compassion arises, and this makes the formation of societies possible. It is a form of the expansion of the concept of the self and is in the organism's self-interest. This is true of other organisms as well.

[Good_Egg]

I'd agree with Hume that it takes an extra step to get from the Is fact of the matter, to a prescriptive moral Ought or Duty.

And that step lies in recognising that others have a similar stake in their own wellbeing too. And acting in ways which take that into consideration. So I Ought not harm you, because your wellbeing matters to you. And vice-versa.

The set of things that matter to us - that we are emotionally invested in - is wider than our own wellbeing. People are willing to endure a measure of suffering for a cause that they believe in.

If what matters to people is the basis of morality, then do I not have as much of a moral duty to my neighbour's favourite cause as I do to his wellbeing ?

Which gets problematic when two of my neighbours are invested in opposing causes ?

So I don't think it makes sense to use subjective mattering as the basis for a morality focussed on objective wellbeing.

I think what your final para is appealing to is a notion of symmetry. That one's own self and one's neighbour have some sort of Cosmic Equality.

A religious person would say that we're all equal in the sight or mind of God. Atheists find it rather harder to express what sort of existence such equality has.

Of course, it ties in with the Golden Rule.

Seems like the question is whether such Cosmic Equality is necessary and sufficient ?