Allright you nihilist bastards. I got somethin forya. I think you're wrong by the definition of subjectivity.

Why doesn't thought matter? Please, so I might refute you.. tell me why my existence is meaningless. I contend that my existence is the only thing that IS fundamentally meaningfull, due the fact that it is the only thing in the universe (besides the other self aware existences) that can actually create meaning.

There's my premise. Let's rumble. :D

Why doesn't thought matter?

Marxism (a thought) mattered (it shook the world (for more than 10 days))

tell me why my existence is meaningless.

Because you are not a communist.

I contend that my existence is the only thing that IS fundamentally meaningfull, due the fact that it is the only thing in the universe (besides the other self aware existences) that can actually create meaning.

You seem to stick to the idea that things get their meaning from your understanding them, but it is the other way round.

Originally posted by ProCop
You seem to stick to the idea that things get their meaning from your understanding them, but it is the other way round.

Yes I do. I think you're stuck on semantics. You are likely not using the word "meaning" in the same sense that I am. It's probably more appropriate though, that we discuss the issue in the other thread? Eh, if you wanna hash it out here that's fine.

Quick point: Stuff definately exists regardless of my ability to apply meaning to it. That stuff is meaningLESS to me because it is not part of my consciousness. It's simple. I'm a little perplexed as to why you insist that is incorrect. If you have a valid point, I can't see it. I do appreciate your efforts though, if you can figure out how to pound your point into my thick skull I'll welcome it... but I thought you gave up (in the other thread).

Quick point: Stuff definately exists regardless of my ability to apply meaning to it. That stuff is meaningLESS to me because it is not part of my consciousness. It's simple. I'm a little perplexed as to why you insist that is incorrect. If you have a valid point, I can't see it. I do appreciate your efforts though, if you can figure out how to pound your point into my thick skull I'll welcome it... but I thought you gave up (in the other thread).

I've read in a paper recently about a test made in Russia with very young mammals. They put baby pigs, dogs, cats, and what ever young annimals with young babies in the rain and watched them what they would do in the "unpleasant" condition. All annimals moved (rolled) themselves after some time into a dry place. Except the babies. The scientists concluded that babies were the most stupid young mammals from the sample. They were wrong. It may be that the babies didn't move out of the rain because they didn't understand the "concept of raining" or weather. Therefore it didn't have a meaning for them(=didn't exist) so they decidedt o stay put. The other mammals accepted the fact that there is a world independent of their understanding of its meaning, and rolled for cover.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Allright you nihilist bastards. I got somethin forya. I think you're wrong by the definition of subjectivity.

Why doesn't thought matter? Please, so I might refute you.. tell me why my existence is meaningless. I contend that my existence is the only thing that IS fundamentally meaningfull, due the fact that it is the only thing in the universe (besides the other self aware existences) that can actually create meaning.

There's my premise. Let's rumble. :D

Very well, sir en garde

Your very codification "meaning", is in fact , entirely subjective...
"Thought" matters no more than any other process taking place within the Universe coincidentally.
All component parts of the Universe are, in fact, variform manifestations of the same essential phenomenon, which we have labelled "energy" and/or "matter". That one particular coincidental arrangement of this composition should suppose itself to be the wellspring of definition and description of the whole is comparable to a single grain of sand declaring that it is the sole reason for the existence of the beach as well as the ocean.

Why is existence "meaningless"?
Because"meaning" itself does not exist beyond the three-odd pounds of electro-chemically active fat housed in the human cranium.
(Surely this shoddy amalgamation of disparate apparatus and discordant processes cannot be supposed to be more than another of what it would term "curiosities" inherent in so complex a system as the Universe.)
"Meaning" is based on the premise that human codification results in the reality conforming to the description.
Consider:
Is there any actual significance whatever to the fact that certain arrangements of molecules will reflect energy of a certain wavelength, and thus appear to us as what we call "color"?
That another comprises what we call "air", or "water"?
Is it anything more than coincidence that, here in the Universe there is such & such a density of "matter"; there one finds so & so many "galaxies", "stars", "Planets", & whatnot?
Would these processes have not proceeded apace regardless of the fact of the existence of "humanity"?

Why is it a "tragedy" when one life ends when all life ends... When all is, in the end, forgotten?
What objective "significance" exists without such as the "human mind" to codify events and circumstances?

Prevailing theories on the ongoing process that is the Universe profess the ultimate end of what we term "existence" by virtue of the cessation of conditions conducive to the presence and or formation of what we term "matter".
Hence, no conceivable result of human existance can endure.
No"meaning" attributed to anything can be validated...
;)

There's my premise.But the premise seems a mere fiction.

About the only thing you can prove to yourself is that you are perceiving each moment. You cannot prove that you exist, nor that I exist. You merely accept that you do because the definition of the word exist includes the fact that something must exist to define it, ad nauseam.

Religions, for instance, are bulwarks against nihilism. Without a presumption of purpose or meaning, life itself becomes a rather silly exercise in futility. What does any of it matter, and why?

(Damn you, now I need to smoke a bowl ....)

After rejecting God I found myself in the not-entirely-unique position of having to rebuild my justifications from the ground up. Nowhere could I find an objective reality to stake those justifications on. After a long and painfully slow learning process, I finally figured out that religions are so classified because of their common traits, though at heart just about everybody is religious.

I say that because, at our core, most people maintain a few presumptions to guard against nihilism. People are generally afraid of it; I find it annoying because many people seem to justify nihilism by their actions. But accepting that there is no known purpose, that there is no absolute individual truth--these ideas help make life infinitely more amusing in the face of human frailty.

To wit: While the politics of the day have changed their appearance somewhat more than I would have estimated in January, 1993, as Clinton was sworn in, I think that part of my just-shy-of-violent reaction to politikAmerika is part of my personal evolution post-nihilism. Unfortunately, the shennanigans seem even more pointless to me than they would have ten years ago. But I should have been able to follow them up to this point at least; something else makes me intolerant, and that's the awareness that on a certain level it's all for naught. The human imagination is huge, man; there is a reason we wonder about how we fit into the grander scheme of the Universe. The objective reality, however, is quite nihilistic in the "European" sense: European Nihilism thus articulates a distrust with REASON and because of which it is termed postmodern, modernism being identified with reason and rationalism. The philosophy of nihilism distrusts all claims of truths purportedly arrived at logically and rationally and seeks to show all such truths such as God and soul, are in fact subjective values and no less ?errors? than any other human beliefs or opinions.

"Nihilistic thought seeks to show that metaphysical ?truths? simply express the subjective values of a given individual or social group, not the immutable, unchanging essence of either the divine, human or natural world." (Saivism and Western Nihilism (http://members.tripod.com/~MsSubashiniK/sivaalayam/journ2_7.htm))° ° Note: I'm just now reading through that article; the web is wonderful in that it can provide you with just the sequence of words you're looking for, such as the above quotation. However, I've no clue what the rest of that article is about, and offer the link (A) for citation credit, and (B) for contextual reference, in case the specific points of the quotation are in doubt; I make no claim for the Saivist part of the article.

There is a point to be picked with the notion of erroneous. But we might look at a theoretic condition by which humanity operates in the Universe as efficiently and harmoniously as it can; a natural accompaniment to the Universe, and not a gawking oddity. Whatever makes humanity prosper to its most efficient potentials in terms of life and the Universe itself--in other words, an abstract potential--can be said to be "correct", and all else can be said to be erroneous.

Enter for comparative point a religion, any religion. A religion asserts what is correct. Now, a seeming reality in my experience is that people seem to think that people are imperfect. Logically, it seems unwise to trust on faith an imperfect institution's advocacy of a perfect condition. More appropriate, it seems, would be to carry a consciousness of the abstract potentials of humanity and seek "right" or "proper" as a goal, not bear it as a standard.

But aside from that minor hitch, a should-be condition absolutely dripping with a priori, I'm left wondering what about life is so absolutely set in stone as to not be nihilistic?

Left rejecting the religious presumptions of cause, I found myself with an empty hand. No matter which direction I turned, whether it was a religion, a philosophy, or even a mere idea, I absolutely required basic presumptions before I could step out of the mire. Is it a shortcoming of mine? Against what objective standard do we measure?

Existence itself is only meaningless in the sense that there is no known meaning or purpose for it. That is not to make it meaningless in the sense of being worthless, but by what objective standard do we measure worth?

My own presumptions have to do with humanity on the level of the species itself, and I intentionally keep them undefined. Where many people perceive an event and interpret in terms most directly related to themselves, I see the relationship to the self as inevitable and spend my efforts examining the larger picture, seeking trends or patterns that might lend certain advantages. I don't care how pissed off I should have been as an individual when the towers came down. Even at that time I was thinking in terms of what it meant to the nation, the world, and, consequently, humanity.

And that tendency is a direct result of my devices against absolute nihilism. But come on, let's be honest here--what else do we really have? The self? It's a valuable thing, but how often is the self wrong?

I make a joke sometimes about the time a ghost picked my pocket. What actually happened is that (in sobriety) we managed to spook ourselves badly enough to bolt, and I dropped my keys somewhere in waist-high grass, panicking, and simply using the spare key in order to get the hell out of there.

The essential question, I suppose, would be: Is it more likely that the moon shifted 180 degrees in the sky over the course of two minutes, or did my mind trick me?

The toughest skeptic I knew fled the Devil House when I was 19. Is there really a menacing presence out there, or did we simply do a good enough job of softening him that his objectivity failed him? That man was frightened. Of what nobody can tell you, but we've all felt it. Is it real? I can think of twenty people that I've met who know of and believe in the Devil House, and all of them claim to have been there. The place scares the hell out of me, but I also know that the only thing that ever legitimately threatened me out there was most likely wolves. I don't want to think of what it would have been otherwise, because wolves is the pleasant option.

But you and I and every rational person knows that a ghost did not pick my pocket, that the moon did not move 180 degrees in two minutes, and that there is nothing but folklore left at the Devil House.

Well ... I mean, come on. We "know", but we don't know.

And that's the problem with the self. The self is fundmentally meaningful because the self is all a person really has. But that doesn't change the fact that inasmuch as any person relates to the Universe around him at all, there is no objective reality.

Or so says my two cents.

"Up above these ghetto streets
In penthouse suites they sit and stare
(Lonely people (http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?id=91165), lonely people!)
They smile and say they're fine
But behind their eyes they just don't care

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Man, I had a badass response like halfway finished last night as my stupid neighborhood lost power. Argh. Oh, and great post! Welcome aboard, nice brain you've got there!

Originally posted by Killjoy
Very well, sir en garde

Your very codification "meaning", is in fact , entirely subjective...

IMO, that is entirely supportive of my point.
Originally posted by Killjoy

"Thought" matters no more than any other process taking place within the Universe coincidentally.

I think that's exactly wrong because "thought" (not necessarily "humans", for the record) is the only means by which the rest of the universe can be "appreciated". If there is no "thought", the universe is a meaningless mechanistic blob of nothingness. With thought, the universe is pink. No, it's the essence of algebra. No, it's 15. Pick your poison, but meaning cannot be established in the absence of thought..... to me, that MEANS something.. you see what I'm getting at?
Originally posted by Killjoy

All component parts of the Universe are, in fact, variform manifestations of the same essential phenomenon, which we have labelled "energy" and/or "matter".

Certainly, but one particular pattern or arrangement of said energy realizes itself and thusly the existence of other stuff ass well. (pardon, i just love to say "asswell", yes I'm sick) Given primary colors, an entire spectrum emerges. Given the "life force" (that which makes thing "alive"), appreciation emerges (along with a plethora of abstract notions). It is in fact, this particular arrangement of matter that allows the notion of "abstract" to exist in the first place.
Originally posted by Killjoy

That one particular coincidental arrangement of this composition should suppose itself to be the wellspring of definition and description of the whole is comparable to a single grain of sand declaring that it is the sole reason for the existence of the beach as well as the ocean.

No, it's like that grain of sand saying "hey, whoa... look at this beach? hey wait, this beach is on a planet... whoa.. the planet is in space...wtf?" The universe does not REQUIRE "conscious beings" to function for billions of years, yet it is exactly meaningless if there exist no such beings. Back to the statement of abstract from before.. "meaning" is an abstract. There is no "abstract" without "consciousness".
Originally posted by Killjoy

Why is existence "meaningless"?
Because"meaning" itself does not exist beyond the three-odd pounds of electro-chemically active fat housed in the human cranium.

Again I think this is completely supportive of my argument.
Originally posted by Killjoy

(Surely this shoddy amalgamation of disparate apparatus and discordant processes cannot be supposed to be more than another of what it would term "curiosities" inherent in so complex a system as the Universe.)

Well, it's the only "thing" that can recognize the complexity you mention. If not for that which you discount, you could not discount it.
Originally posted by Killjoy

"Meaning" is based on the premise that human codification results in the reality conforming to the description.
Consider:
Is there any actual significance whatever to the fact that certain arrangements of molecules will reflect energy of a certain
wavelength, and thus appear to us as what we call "color"?
That another comprises what we call "air", or "water"?
Is it anything more than coincidence that, here in the Universe there is such & such a density of "matter"; there one finds so & so many "galaxies", "stars", "Planets", & whatnot?
Would these processes have not proceeded apace regardless of the fact of the existence of "humanity"?

Yes. Significance is foremost subjective, thus as a "being" or whatever (getting sick of using consciousness) percieves one of the items you mentioned, significance is assigned. Further, there are interactions with perception that are significant. If a color-blind person dies from a collision with a green truck, a "secondary" significance is established. First, to the person who died, there is no apparent continued ability to perceive and classify and second, the other processes and people that depended on the person who died will be effected... thus secondary significance is established through detachment of association.
Originally posted by Killjoy

Why is it a "tragedy" when one life ends when all life ends... When all is, in the end, forgotten?

"tragedy" is established as described above. It does matter, until it doesn't any more. It's indicative of the arrow of time.
Originally posted by Killjoy

What objective "significance" exists without such as the "human mind" to codify events and circumstances?

Well, I'll leave it at "consciousness" due to zero knowledge regarding the existence of other "thinking beings" in the universe. "sginificance" is a subjective term by nature, so objective significance becomes an oxymoron?
Originally posted by Killjoy

Prevailing theories on the ongoing process that is the Universe profess the ultimate end of what we term "existence" by virtue of the cessation of conditions conducive to the presence and or formation of what we term "matter".

That doesn't discount that for a time, something mattered.
Originally posted by Killjoy

Hence, no conceivable result of human existance can endure.
No"meaning" attributed to anything can be validated...
;)

meaning can only be validated subjectively, and can be validated 100% in such a manner, though it is an important detail that meaning is, by the nature of time... dynamic. as you've noted... it doesn't have to be, but I'd add.. for now.. it IS.. hence the nullification of nihilism... at least for now. :D

to put it simply, if you wish to thinks of it as such, no *action* has meaning because over the course of enough time, history has shown that all action will be wiped from memory (think in terms of bilions of years).


Eventually the universe will die. so why try to make a better world? it will never get here. or if it does, it will just be destroyed in the end, either through heat death or a big crunch.

On the flip side of that, what is wrong with destruction? Yes, it causes suffering, but again, all actions will be erased by time. So by destroying, and expiriencing the destruction, you at least expirience something during the course of a pointless life.




I do not follow this philisophy, but that is my gist of it.

Originally posted by river-wind
to put it simply, if you wish to thinks of it as such, no *action* has meaning because over the course of enough time, history has shown that all action will be wiped from memory (think in terms of bilions of years).

Certainly, but why does that nullify the meaning that existed when it did?
Originally posted by river-wind

Eventually the universe will die. so why try to make a better world? it will never get here. or if it does, it will just be destroyed in the end, either through heat death or a big crunch.

Because we are... at least for now. You're talking about things billions and billions of years from now. What about today? Tomorrow? I know I sound like some kind of gay camp counselor, but regardless of my "sound", it's true. Do you have kids? You might want to make a better world for your kids or yourself, so that the time that you DO have, is as subjectively wonderful as possible.
Originally posted by river-wind

On the flip side of that, what is wrong with destruction? Yes, it causes suffering, but again, all actions will be erased by time. So by destroying, and expiriencing the destruction, you at least expirience something during the course of a pointless life.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call the at "the flip side", but anyway... your life is exactly as pointless as you think it is to you.. but oddly, you life has a point that exists outside of you in the minds of those who 'care' about you. "destruction" is not the only path to experiencing something.. that's just negative. you "experience" something by the not being dead. what you experience is exactly your choice... rather, how you interpret your perception is exactly your choice.
Originally posted by river-wind

I do not follow this philisophy, but that is my gist of it.
Man, what a bleak perspective. Are you a teenager? :P

Originally posted by tiassa
But the premise seems a mere fiction.

But how could it be fiction if you weren't perceiving it as such? It's funny that you apply meaning (as in, "that's fiction") at the same time that you say the meaning is meaningless. Hehe, maybe I just like to confuse myself. ;)
Originally posted by tiassa

About the only thing you can prove to yourself is that you are perceiving each moment. You cannot prove that you exist, nor that I exist. You merely accept that you do because the definition of the word exist includes the fact that something must exist to define it, ad nauseam.

Actually Tiassa, I don't. I accept it because I have faith in reason. Yes, faith. I believe "reason" is the path to "understanding" (because that's the reasonable thing to do). To me (and I realize I'm taking a shortcut, we can go into it if necessary), that is enough indicate that you exist. I'd say "the fact that you exist" is a reasonable statement. I cannot prove it, not do I hold it to be an absolute truth. I'm just "pretty damned sure" that you exist. I think that's reasonable… don't you? So in a sense you're correct… that I merely accept that you do, but not for the reasons you provided.
Originally posted by tiassa

Religions, for instance, are bulwarks against nihilism. Without a presumption of purpose or meaning, life itself becomes a rather silly exercise in futility. What does any of it matter, and why?

(Damn you, now I need to smoke a bowl ....)

I do what I can. :D
Originally posted by tiassa

After rejecting God I found myself in the not-entirely-unique position of having to rebuild my justifications from the ground up. Nowhere could I find an objective reality to stake those justifications on. After a long and painfully slow learning process, I finally figured out that religions are so classified because of their common traits, though at heart just about everybody is religious.

I’m not sure “religious” is the appropriate, but I follow you.
Originally posted by tiassa

I say that because, at our core, most people maintain a few presumptions to guard against nihilism. People are generally afraid of it; I find it annoying because many people seem to justify nihilism by their actions.

Well, most people are philosophers only in the utilitarian sense. “how can I get through the day and not die? Can I survive socially (from however I view what that means)”.
Originally posted by tiassa

But accepting that there is no known purpose, that there is no absolute individual truth--these ideas help make life infinitely more amusing in the face of human frailty.

Actually, I think there might be some objective individual truths, but they’re all like “once removed” or whatever. For instance, “the truth is that all truth is interpreted subjectively”. That kind of thing, that’s another thread though.
Originally posted by tiassa

But I should have been able to follow them up to this point at least; something else makes me intolerant, and that's the awareness that on a certain level it's all for naught.

That’s not true though, because just the idea of “naught” implies that someone abstracted it and thusly applied some sort of meaning to it, even if that meaning is naught. It’s not for naught if someone else thinks it isn’t, regardless that you may or may not.
Originally posted by tiassa

The human imagination is huge, man; there is a reason we wonder about how we fit into the grander scheme of the Universe.

Absolutely, but that is an entire thread right there (which is why I both love and hate debating you, it’s very stimulating but every sentence seem to open volumes of discussion, you bastard LOL ). I believe I understand why we wonder… I would say that basically its indicative of any substantial state of ‘awareness’ that can contemplate it’s history of input and abstracting and ponder potential stimulus.

Originally posted by tiassa

There is a point to be picked with the notion of erroneous. But we might look at a theoretic condition by which humanity operates in the Universe as efficiently and harmoniously as it can; a natural accompaniment to the Universe, and not a gawking oddity.

How is it that you take humanity to be separate from the universe? Are we not evidently the universe becoming aware of itself?
Originally posted by tiassa

Whatever makes humanity prosper to its most efficient potentials in terms of life and the Universe itself--in other words, an abstract potential--can be said to be "correct", and all else can be said to be erroneous.

That seems judgment seems to be erroneous to me. I might agree, but I’m not sure if it’s related to the discussion.
Originally posted by tiassa

Enter for comparative point a religion, any religion. A religion asserts what is correct. Now, a seeming reality in my experience is that people seem to think that people are imperfect. Logically, it seems unwise to trust on faith an imperfect institution's advocacy of a perfect condition. More appropriate, it seems, would be to carry a consciousness of the abstract potentials of humanity and seek "right" or "proper" as a goal, not bear it as a standard.

To do so would be to assert that you’ve reached the goal eh? I think it’s a bit more complicated (the dynamic) than you’re describing, but I understand the need for simplicity in such a complicated conversation.
Originally posted by tiassa

But aside from that minor hitch, a should-be condition absolutely dripping with a priori, I'm left wondering what about life is so absolutely set in stone as to not be nihilistic?

Well, you can choose nihilism as an attitude, but to do so is to discount all that is, has been.. and will be. I know that was and is… most likely IS, so it seems set in stone. Acceptance of nihilism is to discount the thought that reached it. That’s stoneworthy. :m:

I’d love to respond to the rest… but I feel I’ve made my point for now (and I'm perpetually short on time). I’m sure you’ll let me know if you disagree!

Originally posted by ProCop
I've read in a paper recently about a test made in Russia with very young mammals. They put baby pigs, dogs, cats, and what ever young annimals with young babies in the rain and watched them what they would do in the "unpleasant" condition. All annimals moved (rolled) themselves after some time into a dry place. Except the babies. The scientists concluded that babies were the most stupid young mammals from the sample. They were wrong. It may be that the babies didn't move out of the rain because they didn't understand the "concept of raining" or weather. Therefore it didn't have a meaning for them(=didn't exist) so they decidedt o stay put. The other mammals accepted the fact that there is a world independent of their understanding of its meaning, and rolled for cover.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but it still seems superfluous to me, since I'm not even remotely claiming that the universe doesn't exist or function fully without observation. My point is that without the observation, there is no point - by definition of a "point". The tree that fell in the forest DID make a sound, but that sound was meaningless unless it was observed. *shrug*

I swear I'm not trying to piss you off and I fully respect your intellect. It's just that thus far I'm unable to lend your point validity in the context I've established. It still seems that you're not quite getting the subtle meaning I'm trying to convey. Of course I acknowledge that I might be completely insane and I'm just making shit up. I really do mean well though, so please don't be too frustrated with my continued "nuh uh's" because I come by them earnestly. Maybe it's just my thick skull. *shrug*

I really do mean well though, so please don't be too frustrated with my continued "nuh uh's" because I come by them earnestly. Maybe it's just my thick skull. *shrug*

I am not frustrated at all. I participate only in threads which I find interesting. Finding a thread interesting doesn't mean I subscribe to the meaning it proposes. Comparing points of vieuw doesn't have to lead to a unified position. We both seem to have something in mind concerning consciuosness, meaning, - and the universe. Discussion is ongoing....

Originally posted by wesmorris
My point is that without the observation, there is no point - by definition of a "point". The tree that fell in the forest DID make a sound, but that sound was meaningless unless it was observed.

The sound is meaningless regardless of whether or not it is observed...
It is the thoroughly ingrained delusion of the observer to believe that he/she/it/they impart(s) some utterly illusory quality to events/phenomena which they are merely one more aspect of. The notion that some "entity", which is in essence no more than the "tree" it hears fall might make of that event something beyond mere happenstance. Ultimately no more than the countless moments which came before it, nor those to come after.
"Meaning" is merely an imaginary state of affairs the "observer" would impose upon actual circumstance.


Originally posted by wesmorris
"thought" (not necessarily "humans", for the record) is the only means by which the rest of the universe can be "appreciated". If there is no "thought", the universe is a meaningless mechanistic blob of nothingness. With thought, the universe is pink. No, it's the essence of algebra. No, it's 15. Pick your poison, but meaning cannot be established in the absence of thought..... to me, that MEANS something.. you see what I'm getting at?


"...meaningless mechanistic blob of nothingness..."
You started to grasp the essence of it. However, even with this "appreciation" , the universe is merely an ongoing process. Labels put on it, to which one may then presume it conforms are of no consequence whatever.
I understand the implication that thought and/or consciousness is the foundation of meaning by virtue of its essential nature in assertaining and defining it. However, I submit that the apprehension itself has no intrinsic value. The "belief" that it does is the reinforcement of illusion with illusion.
Even the assertion that there is no meaning to anything is... well, not to sound facetious, but... meaningless!
The presumption does not impact the process...


Originally posted by wesmorris
Yes. Significance is foremost subjective, thus as a "being" or whatever (getting sick of using consciousness) percieves one of the items you mentioned, significance is assigned. Further, there are interactions with perception that are significant. If a color-blind person dies from a collision with a green truck, a "secondary" significance is established. First, to the person who died, there is no apparent continued ability to perceive and classify and second, the other processes and people that depended on the person who died will be effected... thus secondary significance is established through detachment of association.


The "death" does not alter the amalgam of energy which we would call a "being" in a manner of any more significance in the ongoing process we would call "the Universe" than any other phenomenon occuring within it at any given moment. A description which includes the notion that the inter-relationships of these "beings" are somehow of other than thoroughly inconsequential nature may as well declare that one stone at the bottom of a cave is of some special significance to its neighbor.


Originally posted by wesmorris
The universe does not REQUIRE "conscious beings" to function for billions of years, yet it is exactly meaningless if there exist no such beings.


Exactly... However it remains meaningless even after the advent of such 'beings". They merely affix terminology... nomenclature... data comprehensible to a system. Nothing whatever is actually affected.



Originally posted by wesmorris
meaning can only be validated subjectively, and can be validated 100% in such a manner, though it is an important detail that meaning is, by the nature of time... dynamic. as you've noted... it doesn't have to be, but I'd add.. for now.. it IS.. hence the nullification of nihilism... at least for now

Tacit acceptance of unprovable categorization hardly appears "100% valid" . An "assumption" is possible within the realm of what we must term "thought", but it can only be termed valid, never proven.
The process of description is dynamic... As we presume a greater mastery over prevailing circumstances, further reinforcement of the illusion is required. A revised label refelects what we profess is a "greater understanding" of what is transpiring around us.
;)

"Acceptance of nihilism is to discount the thought that reached it."

You would classify that as a non-statement I suppose?

Of course not...
But I do "discount the thought that reached it", insofar as it is... well, like a tiny electric light being turned on and off at apparent random intervals. A pattern emerges from this apparent randomness, however, and about this all manner of hullabaloo is raised.
Question: has anything actually been revealed?

Originally posted by Killjoy
Of course not...
But I do "discount the thought that reached it", insofar as it is... well, like a tiny electric light being turned on and off at apparent random intervals. A pattern emerges from this apparent randomness, however, and about this all manner of hullabaloo is raised.
Question: has anything actually been revealed?

You say "revealed". Doesn't that imply "to whom?"?

EDIT: Further, aren't you being presumptuous concerning your "understanding of consciousness" when you liken it to "a little light". I just wonder if the time isn't as it seems exactly, or the same about "the abstract". I wonder if we aren't a directly embodiment of it that transcends time, but only in the "present" or "now". Regardless of my bullshit theories, you assert Occum's Razor to the demise of the validity with which you attempt to assert it - do you not?

Yes, revealed to "someone", of course.

I don't deny the "I" at all. Merely that "it" has blown its comparative significance (zero) out of proportion via the assumption that "I" (not me personally of course) am somehow "outside of" or "independent of" the stream of events occuring at any given time , and am thusly "qualified" to pass judgement upon it through description and categorization.

A direct embodiment of the abstract which transcends time

touche, sir! A fascinating concept!

I believe that the peculiar effect of an apparent perception of time as maleable is sufficient to prompt the conclusion that perhaps we exist somehow independent of the "governance" of a linear passage of time. Cultually imposed notions of how one should perceive oneself throughout the course of one's life might also affect one's perception of the passage of time.
Again, however, these facets of human behavior are merely trivialites equivqlent to... the particular shape of a stone... that the moon is airless... that the metal lead is grey...
They are merely subsequent details on a list which have been given illusory status by the "assumptions" of one of these details.


Hmmm.... Are you saying with that last comment that I am attempting to invalidate validity by declaring invalidity valid... but thereby invalidating it?

Originally posted by Killjoy
Yes, revealed to "someone", of course.

I don't deny the "I" at all. Merely that "it" has blown its comparative significance (zero) out of proportion via the assumption that "I" (not me personally of course) am somehow "outside of" or "independent of" the stream of events occuring at any given time , and am thusly "qualified" to pass judgement upon it through description and categorization.

I would assert that there is nothing of significance without observation... thusly the object capable of conceiving such significance is of GREAT significance in that it is the only means by which significance is created. (focus on the abstract, which does not exist (in a utilitarian manner) without some form consciousness)
Originally posted by Killjoy

A direct embodiment of the abstract which transcends time

touche, sir! A fascinating concept!

Why thank you. I've actually got a lot more on that whole thing, but I'm refuting nihilism here so I'll stay on topic.
Originally posted by Killjoy

I believe that the peculiar effect of an apparent perception of time as maleable is sufficient to prompt the conclusion that perhaps we exist somehow independent of the "governance" of a linear passage of time.

I think of it as a "bubble" in time sort of. But again, that's a different conversation.
Originally posted by Killjoy

Culturally imposed notions of how one should perceive oneself throughout the course of one's life might also affect one's perception of the passage of time.

Certainly.
Originally posted by Killjoy

Again, however, these facets of human behavior are merely trivialites equivqlent to... the particular shape of a stone... that the moon is airless... that the metal lead is grey...
They are merely subsequent details on a list which have been given illusory status by the "assumptions" of one of these details.

There I disagree wholly. They are exactly as "important" as an observer percieves, regardless of the validity of the perception. In other words, some people think baseball cards are important.
Originally posted by Killjoy

Hmmm.... Are you saying with that last comment that I am attempting to invalidate validity by declaring invalidity valid... but thereby invalidating it?

Well, actually I was saying that you seem to have applied Occum's Razor to the scenario, but with it you've destroyed itself. Acceptance of Nihilism nullifies all meaning right? (maybe I'm taking it too far) If there is no meaning, application of the razor is superfluous, as is everything else. Cold mechanistic nothingness is all there is, right? Eh.

I do think your invalidate/validity sentence had bearing on the argument... but to be honest every time I read it I think it means the opposite of the time that I read it before.. so I can't at the moment make a worthy comment. :D

I think that without consciousness (at at least the illusion there of because truly in that sense, what's the difference?) the universe is exactly nihilistic. Literally. Spectrums, change, all of it is exactly homogenously without meaning or significance of ANY KIND... from this, a universe WITH consciousness (any subjective experience) is exactly the opposite. Meaning only exists within the subjective (that doesn't mean that nothing HAPPENS, it just means that uh.. so what if it happened?) experience, by definition.

think that without consciousness (at at least the illusion there of because truly in that sense, what's the difference?) the universe is exactly nihilistic. Literally. Spectrums, change, all of it is exactly homogenously without meaning or significance of ANY KIND... from this, a universe WITH consciousness (any subjective experience) is exactly the opposite. Meaning only exists within the subjective (that doesn't mean that nothing HAPPENS, it just means that uh.. so what if it happened?) experience, by definition.

Imagine there are two universes - exactly the same. Some processes are going on in them (exactly the same). The only difference is that one is observed by a consciousness (which only observes it) and the other not. You propose that the second one is nihilistic. How come? (They are the same)

Originally posted by ProCop
Imagine there are two universes - exactly the same. Some processes are going on in them (exactly the same). The only difference is that one is observed by a consciousness (which only observes it) and the other not. You propose that the second one is nihilistic. How come? (They are the same)

Because one is a mechanistic vastness of nothingness... PURE nothingness... as it is by definition unknown and one "appears (insert descriptive noun here)". In both there is an abundance of activity, but in one of them, there is nothing to contemplate that activity.

Because one is a mechanistic vastness of nothingness... PURE nothingness... as it is by definition unknown and one "appears (insert descriptive noun here)". In both there is an abundance of activity, but in one of them, there is nothing to contemplate that activity.

One universe is "a mechanistic vastness of nothingness" while the other is "a mechanistic vastness of nothingness" observed. They are the same.

Lets put the clock in the first universe one hour forward. All what happens there will exactly the same happen one hour later in the observed universe. The unobserved universe will take on a role of "destiny" for the observed one (and the observer in it). Your destiny will then come from the "unobserved". The tree there falls on the place where you will stand in your universe on hour later. Does that not make the unobserved universe meaningfull (by proxy)?

Originally posted by ProCop
Does that not make the unobserved universe meaningfull (by proxy)?

How? Associated with the term "meaning", there is a "to whom", correct?

It is meaningfull in the scenario you set up, but if it actually happened, it would not be because it would be as if it never happened. Would it not also follow that the other universe would not exist (in a meaningfull way)? What "meaning" can it have if there is nothing there to concieve it?

I'm not saying it doesn't have a potential meaning.. or that it's not possible in a mechanistic sense, but it would be like the piston in my car... it has very little meaning to me until it's launched through the block, you know?

Maybe the key is something like: "how is something abstracted?" (since meaning is an abstract)

Originally posted by Killjoy
I don't deny the "I" at all.

Well, I'm not claiming to know how to take down my own argument, but I'd think that denial of "I" in this context would be the only route to get there wouldn't it? Otherwise how is my argument not air tight?

Maybe the key is something like: "how is something abstracted?" (since meaning is an abstract)

Yes. I think you got it right here. There is no abstraction made from the unobserved universe. But since (generaly) an abstraction is made in order to understand the abstracted it means that the observed universe is not observerd as such but as an abstraction (of the real thing). Now your point would be (rightly) that the abstracted (understood) universe has meaning (for you) while the unabstracted does not. I would differ with you on that, because both universes have meaning but one's meaning was not abstracted. Then the falling of the tree has meaning but it was not "abstracted". On other levels such position (if something is not abstracted the it has no meaning (is equal to nothingness)) would mean that things about which we don't have an abstraction do not exist (eg. gravity, God).

Originally posted by ProCop
I would differ with you on that, because both universes have meaning but one's meaning was not abstracted.

But does not meaning only come from abstraction? Is it not the very act of abstraction that literally initiates meaning? I'm saying that while the unobserved universe has potential meaning... it cannot by definition actually HAVE said meaning until it is abstracted. Meaning is almost the integral of abstraction (in math terms). In other words, meaning is only actualized through abstraction.

But does not meaning only come from abstraction?

I think the universe is basically multiple meaning object. Different observers have different abstractions of it (and themselves) e.g. a mouse and a cat. That a species (e.g. robots) have no abstraction of the universe does not mean that there isn't any. For the universe (and anything else for that matter) is significant that it is abstractable - a meaning can be abstracted from/of it. So the abstractability is the final clue. Everything is (at some level of inteligence) abstractable, can get a meaning.

Added: From this perspective we live each in our private abstraction of a "general" universe. If we die than our abstraction will lose its meaning. The universe does not depend on that abstraction, but that abstraction dependeds on the universe. If all abstractions die then the meaning of these abstractions will die too. The universe will not be more or less meaningful due to the dissappearance of all abstractions.

Originally posted by ProCop
I think the universe is basically multiple meaning object. Different observers have different abstractions of it (and themselves) e.g. a mouse and a cat.

Absolutely.
Originally posted by ProCop

That a species (e.g. robots) have no abstraction of the universe does not mean that there isn't any.

Okay, well robots as a species? Hehe, not yet. Oh, and technically the "abstraction" (as far as we know) exist only in the "minds" of those who abstract, at some general point in space in the universe.
Originally posted by ProCop

For the universe (and anything else for that matter) is significant that it is abstractable - a meaning can be abstracted from/of it.

Yes, however you must remember that you're usinng words that are subjective such as "significant". This implies a "to whom" which implies that it only exists as an abstraction... not as something before abstraction. This means that there is only potential significance.
Originally posted by ProCop

So the abstractability is the final clue. Everything is (at some level of inteligence) abstractable, can get a meaning.

I'm down with that.
Originally posted by ProCop

Added: From this perspective we live each in our private abstraction of a "general" universe.

Exactly. A few billion disjointed abstractions in a non-homogenous mixture of compliments and criticisms.
Originally posted by ProCop

If we die than our abstraction will lose its meaning.

That is a reasonable presumption.
Originally posted by ProCop

The universe does not depend on that abstraction, but that abstraction dependeds on the universe.

Hmm.. well, I don't know about that for sure. How do you know it doesn't "depend" on it in a way that you cannot currently fathom? I would say that since "consciousness" was "created" through the natural processes of the universe, it was supposed to have been, since it is. (via my theory of instant destiny (one something IS, it might as well have been meant to be right?)) This could imply that there is some sort of "purpose" or function that the 'universe' depends on. You could even say that since conscoiusness IS part of the universe... it depends on it as part of its system.. until it doesn't anymore (consciousness is extinquished altogether). *shrug* I realize that's kind of a bunch of crap, I'm just flailing to make a point about perspective.
Originally posted by ProCop

If all abstractions die then the meaning of these abstractions will die too.

Another reasonable presumption.
Originally posted by ProCop

The universe will not be more or less meaningful due to the dissappearance of all abstractions.

But that's exactly where you got it wrong. It is by definition not meaningfull if there is no meaning. Since meaning only exists as an abstraction.. the universe would be exactly meaningLESS without it. I think I see where you're getting hung up but it's very subtle. In the thought experiment in your head you retain the meaning in the universe I try to tell you is meaningless, thus you deny my point. You're right to do so in that sense... because the one in your head has meaning by the fact that it's in your head and we're talking about. What you seem to miss is that if you weren't there to talk about it.. THEN it wouldn't mean anything to you.. would it?

OK. Let's add the concept of correspondence. Meaning about the universe at least partially corresponds with the universe (in an abstraction). This abstraction mirrors it (in a way). Methaprorically you say if the universe is not mirrored it becomes meaningless. If the mirror is a part of this universe (or not) does not really matter. You say we see the universe through the mirror (of meaning). If the mirror brakes the universe disapear into nothingness. No. It dissapears from the mirror only. The universe only loses its correspondent image in the mirror. Thus there is the universe (existing on its own right under the natural laws) and there is a consciousness which reflects it. As I pointed out in my reaction in the opening of the thread you turn this concept arround and say "if there is no mirror in or around the universe, the universe loses its capacity to be reflected totaly". The universe CAN be reflected (has the capacity to) - mirror or no mirror.

Let's try it this way: You have a closed system. Inside it is X. The system cannot be observed, but it is true that there is nothing that can perform abstraction inside of it. No knowledge or information about it (the system) exists.

Tell me what meaning can X have?

Tell me what meaning can X have?

The only meaning of X (which I can fathom from your post) is just to exist and be beautiful. (Some Lucy may be prowling around)

But how could it be fiction if you weren't perceiving it as such?Fact and fiction are equally real, and only prioritized by practical application. Fact, generally, has more practical relevance; e.g. - It's a lovely daydream, to be sure, but it doesn't change the fact that you're about to slam into the back of the car in front of you. (George, George, George of the Jungle ....)

The point of that is merely to address that I don't quite get your point, but that it doesn't seem to matter, when treating a subject abstractly, whether one regards it as fact or fiction. Within the abstract, the idea exists as arguable fact.It's funny that you apply meaning (as in, "that's fiction") at the same time that you say the meaning is meaning less .Of course, insight is generally to be found in the next sentence or on the next page, or perhaps tomorrow or in the next lifetime, if there is any. But one must be practical at a certain point, it would seem. That is, the fundamental lack of meaning (as opposed to being fully meaningless - a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack) exists in a theoretic state that rarely, if ever, becomes fully practical.

Here I might invoke religion, as a reference point. Let us examine a monotheistic notion: that God created the Universe to a specific purpose of Will. Such a notion provides a convenient and myopic answer to questions concerning the meaning or purpose of life. A comparison of religions at a sociological, anthropological, historical, and even zoological level will show that religious myths address issues contemporary to their foundings. There is an inescapable "dating" of stories that occurs in the telling.

The Matrix was allegedly a philosophical flick; in fact, the sequel seems to be acknowledging it in the pre-release press. But it was late last year before I came across someone who could tell me what that philosophy was, and it was asserted to be a restatement of The Cave. In that sense, The Matrix and The Cave are the "same story". Yet the "same story" that comes from you or I hopping online and reading an English translation of the classic text is one that is intrinsically dated. (Note: I just ... didn't like The Matrix. Let that explain whatever it will or won't.)

Now, to the modern realist (not in the artistic sense, but in a practical description), The Bible is just downright inaccurate. On the one hand, it alleges physical impossibility. To the other, justifying those impossibilities undermines the very notion of reality. To me, the Biblical God as taught me through various Christian notions ends up being a play for market-share among other deities. (The whole thing looks to me like it was built as an afterthought; someone had a good idea, someone else tacked God onto it, skeptics asked questions, and silly answers like, "God is omnipotent and transcends space and time" held together the bus like chewing gum.)

Now, what I'm after with that is that there's a whole lot of baggage attached to a simple assertion of meaning in life. Furthermore, examining the various theistic/atheistic disputes in and of themselves, as well as sectarian dichotomies (step out of "the system" and examine it as much as a whole entity as you can manage), we see all philosophy and all faith wind down to the simple point that there is o definitive anchor in the Universe for the thinking creature. Everything is relative.

It was easy enough, when I subscribed to various deities, to point toward nobility and valor and kindness and the general idea of good or virtuous. Without them ... well, I'm without them. It's not like I gave them up for something else that would replace them. It's not like the mythical a priori were traded out.

One of the reasons I get along so well with neo-Paganism is that my last religion fell somewhere within its mystical (as opposed to practical) dominion; in an all-too-touching mother-myth, it is fair to say that the Goddess was not offended when it came about that she was no longer capable of providing. The religion did not seem offended that I outgrew it. There might be some seed of fundamental myth in there, but I doubt it.

However, no paradigm suffices for me. There is no objective anchor in the Universe. There is no single fact to hang one's hopes upon that is not anchored to fiction. While practically speaking, you or I could agree that our individual selves exist - that is, I know I exist, and you know you exist - that's all there is to it, and that makes objectivity difficult since the observational result cannot be independently validated.

I've never answered Descartes. I don't care to for the simple fact that I don't think it would help any. Reality is real enough, and that's that.

But the fundamental abstractions of meaning and purpose do affect reality regardless of paradigm or label. For the homosexual in Oregon, the answers found by thousands of Oregon Christians regarding meaning and purpose landed everybody and their sex partner on the ballot for nearly ten years. More applicably, what of the answers held by Israeli Jews, the answers held by Palestinian Muslims, and the practical ramifications of each? What role will the fundamental answers to meaning and purpose held by those in power play in the nuclear destruction of part of India or Pakistan, should it go that far? What role have those fundamental answers played in bringing the situation to this point?

What role do your own considerations of fundamental issues (or lack of consideration, for some, who claim not to worry about such things) play in your practical behavior?

It's all rhetoric, of course. If there is a link between presupposition and masturbatory habits ... quite obviously we don't need to discuss that detail here. (There is no good joke that goes here, so ... yeah.)

Meaning is meaningless in a certain practical sense best defined by contrast. There is a lack of meaning; rather, a lack of an anchor upon which one might use reason to understand meaning or purpose in life. Without that anchor, any construction resolving issues of meaning or purpose rests on an a priori foundation in a somewhat Hegelian sense.

Okay, digression time. I was actually thumbing through my copy of Philosophy of History to give a nitpickingly fine reference for the Hegelian sense of a priori, but I'm distracted and amazed by the things I highlighted in yellow ... ten years ago, I think. (Expletive) balderdash! At any rate, I come across the following paragraph from Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History:. . . . Anaxagoras was the first to say that nous--understanding in general, or Reason--rules the world. By this he did not mean an intelligence as self-conscious reason, or a mind as such. We must take care to differentiate nous and "mind" from one another. The movement of the solar system follows immutable laws. The laws are its Reason. But neither the sun, nor the planets that revolve around it according to these laws, have any consciousness of them."Incidentally, I found my note on Hegel ... but the footnote points me to Kant, so I'll stop there with the digression.

Practically speaking, we define our meaning and purpose based on the world around us. Camus' celebrated Sisyphus, waken, eat quickly, shower, bus to work, lunch at noon, bus home, supper in the evening, go to bed, Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday ....

But without an anchor to say, "This is truth," it's all self-contained, self-supporting, circular. It's why people invent gods, and as the wool-carder knew, you come to the same conclusions that way, too. ("Ana al-haqq." (http://www.thelemicknights.org/ootmc/mansur/mansur.html))

Practically speaking,meaning and purpose are defined by circumstance and interpretation of influence. That none of those influences have any objective anchor is where the abstract rudely enters reality.Hehe, maybe I just like to confuse myself. I like to confuse you more ...I accept it because I have faith in reason. Yes, faith. I believe "reason" is the path to "understanding" (because that's the reasonable thing to do). Microcosmic juxtaposition: Catholic theology is excruciatingly detailed and quite reasonable; that reasonability, however, hinges on whether or not you accept the presuppositions that God exists, that Jesus is His only begotten Son, &c., &c.

Again, we see the practical: We respond to circumstance because that is what living organisms do.

But all of your reason and understanding relies on presuppositions that may seem perfectly reasonable.

Where the abstractions affect the living decisions of reality - again, that is where seemingly trivial details of paradigm become exceptionally important.To me (and I realize I'm taking a shortcut, we can go into it if necessary), that is enough indicate that you exist. I'd say "the fact that you exist" is a reasonable statement. I cannot prove it, not do I hold it to be an absolute truth. As an operating truth of practical reality, I agree that it is reasonable to assert existence.

But if we consider any ideological dispute - almost any dispute, really - there comes a point when we examine the basis of each side of the dispute. Such as it is, we can only judge which argument bears greater merit; we cannot say, outside of the practical (defined and limited by circumstance) which is right.

The death penalty is a good example: All other political and vital points set aside for the moment, who is to say that the psychopathic killers, when you get down to it, are actually wrong? It is only on a number of conventions subscribed to by social-cooperative animals that we discourage killing within the herd. The "alien anthropologist" might note some hyper-algorithmic trend that explains why psychopaths exist among humans and why they kill who they kill, and it may be shown, given enough time and perspective, that the specific disruptions to the gene pool actually aid the human endeavor. It might be that in executing murderers, we're short-changing the species.

And that sets up another good example. I'm one who believes that species generally act inherently in favor of the general species. I have seen videotape (I can't afford weeks in the field; besides, I dropped out of college ....) of individual animals sacrificing themselves for the collective; I have also seen individuality in the form of a chimp committing slow suicide. Go figure.

And that's one of my presuppositions. To me, to act in favor of the collective - e.g. the human species - is the basis of right (moral propriety). It seems perfectly reasonable to me, and is the basis of my pacifism, my take on theism, my take on human relationships, my take on education, my take on politics; it is the basis of my idealism, and as close to any objective anchor as I have because it is observable elsewhere in nature. But it seems, in an agnostic age, that this observation equals suggestion at best, and not fact, and I can live with that.

But within my vision of reality, it is perfectly reasonable (in both senses, pertaining to decency and logic) to choose in favor of the collective and to examine issues in terms that transcend any one person's natural capabilities to act. This is an important point: In terms that transcend any one person's natural capabilities to act.

In another topic, in which you pointed me back to this one (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=342587#post342587), you mentioned of an issue related to "world peace" that, "I do believe it IS long-term? but under significantly different conditions (which are quite possible)."

We're in agreement there, but where it becomes relevant here is that sometimes a long-term proposition inherently transcends any one person's natural capability to act. And where, above, you note to RiverWind in your "gay camp counselor" moment the idea of a better world for tomorrow ....

Well, rhetorically, the question of why care about a better tomorrow comes to mind. I'm willing to bet the answer has at its base a presupposition. But more importantly, those are the kinds of ideas that I construct as a bulwark against nihilism. I can't have an objective anchor, but like I noted with species above, I can get real close. I believe in the better tomorrow because I believe it's part of what human beings do.

The idea of a better tomorrow may very well be an evolutionary symptom. Part of our unique human hardwiring.

All of these ideas exist inside themselves; they seem quite reasonable according to the logical schemes I apply. But the cornerstone presuppositions can always be called into doubt.

You can almost cut and stitch sails with parts of my logical structure, but none of it will make the boat leap from the water and ride the wind to Cathuria. I can't do that without - and how's this for a countervalent metaphor - an objective anchor.

Digressive note: I frequently joke that I am the anti-prophet; every once in a while I'm prone to predictions that are more outrageous than my usual fare; "We'll be broke and at war within a year," I said on the day Bush was inaugurated. I was joking. That kind of thing. I am the anti-prophet, so to speak. If you know what to listen for, you can predict the future by expecting a certain perverse twist on what I say. At any rate, do you think I achieved the anti-pun? (I am the Duck of Truth!)

(Ever hear Grandaddy (http://lyricsheaven.topcities.com/survey_d_k_bestanden/Grandaddy.htm)? Between that and my psycho cats, thought is getting tough.)

At any rate, I've gone so far out of order now that . . . I'll leave you with this cryptic note:Whose flavor? The common flavor. (What are the most common conventional virtues?)

Adrift again 2,000 man
You lost your maps,
You lost the plans
Did you hear them yell,
"Land damn it land"?
You say you can't
Well I hope you can
I hope you can
How's it goin 2,000 man?
Welcome back to
Solid ground my friend
I heard all your controls
Were jammed
Well it's just nice
To have you back again ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Your not meaningless for evolutionary purpose.

Originally posted by Killjoy
Very well, sir en garde

Your very codification "meaning", is in fact , entirely subjective...
"Thought" matters no more than any other process taking place within the Universe coincidentally.
All component parts of the Universe are, in fact, variform manifestations of the same essential phenomenon, which we have labelled "energy" and/or "matter". That one particular coincidental arrangement of this composition should suppose itself to be the wellspring of definition and description of the whole is comparable to a single grain of sand declaring that it is the sole reason for the existence of the beach as well as the ocean.

Why is existence "meaningless"?
Because"meaning" itself does not exist beyond the three-odd pounds of electro-chemically active fat housed in the human cranium.
(Surely this shoddy amalgamation of disparate apparatus and discordant processes cannot be supposed to be more than another of what it would term "curiosities" inherent in so complex a system as the Universe.)
"Meaning" is based on the premise that human codification results in the reality conforming to the description.
Consider:
Is there any actual significance whatever to the fact that certain arrangements of molecules will reflect energy of a certain wavelength, and thus appear to us as what we call "color"?
That another comprises what we call "air", or "water"?
Is it anything more than coincidence that, here in the Universe there is such & such a density of "matter"; there one finds so & so many "galaxies", "stars", "Planets", & whatnot?
Would these processes have not proceeded apace regardless of the fact of the existence of "humanity"?

Why is it a "tragedy" when one life ends when all life ends... When all is, in the end, forgotten?
What objective "significance" exists without such as the "human mind" to codify events and circumstances?

Prevailing theories on the ongoing process that is the Universe profess the ultimate end of what we term "existence" by virtue of the cessation of conditions conducive to the presence and or formation of what we term "matter".
Hence, no conceivable result of human existance can endure.
No"meaning" attributed to anything can be validated...
;) you pretty much summed it up in your last sentence...nothing can be validated....espeacialy your arguement. NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN...seems to be your underlying premise..but if you cant be certain of anything,..then you cant be certain that nothing can be certain. and if you are certain that certainty isnt possible then..CERTAINTY IS POSSIBLE! thanks for thinking though. and there is a difference between matter and consciousness..we act in the face of alternatives to what we haold as value. meaning ones own life and survival.matter doesnt. that is the significance

Originally posted by moementum7
you pretty much summed it up in your last sentence...nothing can be validated....espeacialy your arguement. NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN...seems to be your underlying premise..but if you cant be certain of anything,..then you cant be certain that nothing can be certain. and if you are certain that certainty isnt possible then..CERTAINTY IS POSSIBLE! thanks for thinking though. and there is a difference between matter and consciousness..we act in the face of alternatives to what we haold as value. meaning ones own life and survival.matter doesnt. that is the significance oh yeah ...look into self esteem..then you might understand your own significance:o

Originally posted by wesmorris
Allright you nihilist bastards. I got somethin forya. I think you're wrong by the definition of subjectivity.

Why doesn't thought matter? Please, so I might refute you.. tell me why my existence is meaningless. I contend that my existence is the only thing that IS fundamentally meaningfull, due the fact that it is the only thing in the universe (besides the other self aware existences) that can actually create meaning.

There's my premise. Let's rumble. :D hey morris, your on the right track. unfortunately your questioning will only invite haters of life.myself excluded.do not listen or argue with any one who cannot say that they love life and are proud of that fact.i want to live should be the valiant cry of any man who exists.and this is theyre right.haters of life are becoming more and more prevailant.but if you want to save your self some time, and are a lover of life ,truth and knowledge,then do not engage in silly cripe with anyone who cannot say they love theyre own existence.EVERY MAN HAS THE POSSIBILITY FOR GREATNESS.never stray brotha. i enjoy most of your comments:cool:

Originally posted by moementum7
you pretty much summed it up in your last sentence...nothing can be validated....espeacialy your arguement. NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN...seems to be your underlying premise..but if you cant be certain of anything,..then you cant be certain that nothing can be certain. and if you are certain that certainty isnt possible then..CERTAINTY IS POSSIBLE! thanks for thinking though. and there is a difference between matter and consciousness..we act in the face of alternatives to what we haold as value. meaning ones own life and survival.matter doesnt. that is the significance

Nor can the argument for meaning be validated!
My contention is that meaning itself is irrelevant even to the striving for "more" and "better" life. It is merely one more aspect of the whole.
Matter and consciousness may exhibit different properties, but its like saying "Apples vs Oranges" (or maybe Apples vs a flashlight beam)
All things human have evolved out of the requirements of a physical system.
The system has no choice but to respond in some way to those needs. That "creativity" or "consciousness" has woven an intricate tapestry of "culture" and "society" and "religeon" and "cosmology" in order to facilitate this is merely an aspect of the system at work.
We define it as "special" because we see no evidence of it elsewhere.

Originally posted by Killjoy
Nor can the argument for meaning be validated!
My contention is that meaning itself is irrelevant even to the striving for "more" and "better" life. It is merely one more aspect of the whole.
Matter and consciousness may exhibit different properties, but its like saying "Apples vs Oranges" (or maybe Apples vs a flashlight beam)
All things human have evolved out of the requirements of a physical system.
The system has no choice but to respond in some way to those needs. That "creativity" or "consciousness" has woven an intricate tapestry of "culture" and "society" and "religeon" and "cosmology" in order to facilitate this is merely an aspect of the system at work.
We define it as "special" because we see no evidence of it elsewhere. it comes down to a basic choice..to live or not to live. apples oranges and beams of light do not have this choice.or animals.they are all programmed to survive.matter is not, yes it follows the laws of its nature with its make up of atoms and such that make it uniquly what it is. only humans can consciously decide to live or die. like blowing themselves away with a shot gun.as men we use our minds to make choices based on values we have accepted, rational or unrational, and make choices based on the alternatives.meaning can be validated in the statement...I CHOOSE LIFE.AND I WISH TO LIVE. AND I AM PROUD OF THAT FACT.

Originally posted by moementum7
hey morris, your on the right track. unfortunately your questioning will only invite haters of life.myself excluded.do not listen or argue with any one who cannot say that they love life and are proud of that fact.i want to live should be the valiant cry of any man who exists.and this is theyre right.haters of life are becoming more and more prevailant.but if you want to save your self some time, and are a lover of life ,truth and knowledge,then do not engage in silly cripe with anyone who cannot say they love theyre own existence.EVERY MAN HAS THE POSSIBILITY FOR GREATNESS.never stray brotha. i enjoy most of your comments:cool: I HAVE JUST REALIZED THAT YOU ENJOY ENGAGING IN REFUTATION......REFUTE ON MY BROTHA:D

Originally posted by Killjoy
My contention is that meaning itself is irrelevant even to the striving for "more" and "better" life. It is merely one more aspect of the whole.

Have I not properly and wholly refuted this contention? If not, please enlighten me as to where I've failed.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Have I not properly and wholly refuted this contention? If not, please enlighten me as to where I've failed. the battle of ignorance continues eh morris:o

Originally posted by moementum7
the battle of ignorance continues eh morris:o

I'm not sure if it's ignorance, attitude, perspective or what. I'm just battling an idea that people seem to accept. I think the idea, while interesting... is wrong and I think I can prove it (somewhat in the classical sense of a proof, but not exactly, because I'm not sure what to disprove. It seems to me that nihilists say: Infinity = 0 or something. Seems self-evident to me and I'm trying to communicate why. *shrug*)

I should probably start another thread for this but I was just thinking: I assert "it is reasonable to have faith in reason" is tautological. Thoughts?

(using THIS definition of tautological: "true by virtue of its logical form alone" from http://www.m-w.com)

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'm not sure if it's ignorance, attitude, perspective or what. I'm just battling an idea that people seem to accept. I think the idea, while interesting... is wrong and I think I can prove it (somewhat in the classical sense of a proof, but not exactly, because I'm not sure what to disprove. It seems to me that nihilists say: Infinity = 0 or something. Seems self-evident to me and I'm trying to communicate why. *shrug*) A simple statement i generally like to make in defence of certainty, which tends to go on alot in theses forums is this. If its impossible for anyone or anything to be certain, then you cant be certain that nothing can be certain.therefore certainty IS possible. just a simple statement but can generaly clear the air pretty quickly if need be. Refute on my brotha :cool:

Originally posted by moementum7
A simple statement i generally like to make in defence of certainty, which tends to go on alot in theses forums is this.

So you're a net philosophy veteran? This is really the only board I post on (I check out philosophyforums.com every once in a while), so I wouldn't know what tends to go on a lot in other forums.
Originally posted by moementum7

If its impossible for anyone or anything to be certain, then you cant be certain that nothing can be certain.therefore certainty IS possible.

At the core of any chain of reason must be a tautological statement "faith in reason is reasonable". Thus it is subjectively validated and linear progression of thought can be established.

The thing is from an epistemological perspective I think pure agnosticism (all knowledge is tentative) is the only path to truth (odd that the objective truths seem to come in the form "the truth is subjective", as paradox is somewhat disconcerting) My point regarding this is that since the only way to validate reason and logic is ultimately through faith, that faith is implicitely reasonable... as such, it is appropriate that "faith in reason" is the path through which a reasonable philosophy is constructed. *shrug* Some crap like that.
Originally posted by moementum7

just a simple statement but can generaly clear the air pretty quickly if need be. Refute on my brotha :cool:

Yeah, I have no choice but to refute (at least regarding this topic). For at this time, it is my function. I hope I'm functioning well.

(also, thank you for your encouragement)

Originally posted by wesmorris
Certainly, but why does that nullify the meaning that existed when it did?
I would say no. When in the moment, the moment is important. given enough time, the moment is irrelevent, but I'm not currently in the point of "given enough time". I am now, now. so, for me, now is the most important thing imaginable. but as I said, I don't subscribe to Nihilism.


Because we are... at least for now. You're talking about things billions and billions of years from now. What about today? Tomorrow? I know I sound like some kind of gay camp counselor, but regardless of my "sound", it's true. Do you have kids? You might want to make a better world for your kids or yourself, so that the time that you DO have, is as subjectively wonderful as possible.

right, but from the standpoint of someone who feels that *now* is a crappy time, this logic doesn't work. If you are depressed because in your view now really sucks, and so you look around for a better time frame, you tend to find infinity, in which no is of no consequence.


Well, I wouldn't exactly call the at "the flip side", but anyway... your life is exactly as pointless as you think it is to you.. but oddly, you life has a point that exists outside of you in the minds of those who 'care' about you. "destruction" is not the only path to experiencing something.. that's just negative. you "experience" something by the not being dead. what you experience is exactly your choice... rather, how you interpret your perception is exactly your choice.

yeah, "on the flip side doesn't really fit there...oops.

I talked about destruction specifically because that tends to be the route that many nihilists go, IME. I think it's because the expirience assosiated with destruction tends to be more powerful (immediatly more powerful. other methods to expirience life demand patience, but are more powerful overall, IME)

you last sentance is exactly the argument against nihilsm- that because the world come in through your selses, and is interpreted by your mind, you have a chance to take control of that proccess, as you might learn to controll your heartbeat. In taking control, you can make your interpretation of a situation more happy or sad, depending on what's useful. With that level of control comes a comfort that you are "in control" of that which is around you. It's not true, but it gives you a perspective which shows you more about how the world works. At least for me it did. Then worrying about losing control becomes a worthless waste of energy, so you let it go. :D


Man, what a bleak perspective. Are you a teenager? :P

no, but I was a teenager at one point :)

Originally posted by moementum7
A simple statement i generally like to make in defence of certainty, which tends to go on alot in theses forums is this. If its impossible for anyone or anything to be certain, then you cant be certain that nothing can be certain.therefore certainty IS possible. just a simple statement but can generaly clear the air pretty quickly if need be. Refute on my brotha :cool:
I don't think this is quite logical. Let's look at it more closely:

"One hundred percent certainty is not possible." This statement can be taken multiple ways. The first is equivalent to, "I am one hundred percent certain that certainty is not possible," which is obviously contradictory. However, to argue against this is usually straw man, because obviously any rational person will intend it the second way, as, "I am not one hundred percent certain about anything, and by inductive extension, I do not believe myself or anyone to be able to be one hundred percent certain about anything."

Just like, "Nothing is absolute," doesn't mean, "It is absolute that there are no absolutes." It means, "My world view does not include absolutes."

originally posted by tiassa
Microcosmic juxtaposition: Catholic theology is excruciatingly detailed and quite reasonable; that reasonability, however, hinges on whether or not you accept the presuppositions that God exists, that Jesus is His only begotten Son, &c., &c.

But any presupposition regarding fundamental questions should be done only as an absolute necessity. It is only excusable in the case of acceptance of reason and logic as a means by which to gain valid understanding of the universe. When posed with questions regarding facts about the "objective universe", how can one logically validate any assumptions? It's acceptable to make them for the purposes of a theory, but validation of the theory requires justification of all assumptions. I don't think it's possible to reasonably justify the existitance of 'god' and the jesus thing in order validate the assumptions of an experiment to confirm the existence of god eh? A bit circular? I would further contend that catholic theology is likely quite inconsistent with itself (but cannot back that up with evidence, I've merely seen others present it), and thusly unreasonable. It could be considered unreasonable as well in other manners given the assumptions you offer. Eh, shit I'm just rambling. Seemed like I had a point when I started. :D

But any presupposition regarding fundamental questions should be done only as an absolute necessity. Nonetheless, living necessity does exist. Something about your statement rings as incorrect, but I think I've got it ninety degrees askew in my perspective. The thing is that everybody has cause.

I know many a decent Catholic. In fact, for the most part, if you're anything like me, the majority of Catholics you know do not, generally, pose any threat to daily functionality in your life. In fact, I think Catholics right now are more dangerous to their own flock than anyone else.

Yet there does come the exceptional day when some problematic functional issue arises that has much to do with the presuppositions. And how we deal with those presuppositions affects judgment and action in the sphere accepted as reality.

Look at the Iraqi Bush War: I found myself in an interesting situation with people like Robert Byrd, the Chinese government, and even distasteful factions of social movements within the Islamic world when opposing the war. The functional result is, to a certain degree, the same--we opposed American invasive action in Iraq.

But what about the presuppositions? A glance around Sciforums shows that the anti-war movement comes in many flavors; we even have our "meet you in the streets" anti-American faction, and though I support any legitimate assembly of people in the streets to advocate what is right and proper, I assure you that I bear fundamental presuppositions that disagree with many of that faction both at Sciforums and in the world beyond.

Or, to wit: While I agree that American political behavior is disagreeable and even menacing, I disagree with many of the international anti-American wing that it's worth killing over.

And many of them would tell me that petrol and Eddie Bauer aren't worth the misery they invite, and while Eddie Bauer may or may not have undertaken more respectable practices than exploiting child labor (I haven't paid attention; there's a Maoist insurgency afoot in Nepal, and I see cause/effect) the petrol issues still haven't been resolved. Are these things worth the conditions they bring?

The answer to that seems perfectly reasonable to just about anyone willing to assert an actual final answer, but the terms of the answer depend entirely on the presuppositions. As long as the "answer" stays general enough, convention can be found, but the practical difficulty of any "answer" or "solution" to a problem of people comes in consideration of presuppositions.

My "solution" to the world's problems involves, as a symptom, a turning of the world's economy on its ear. This inherently clashes with other people's presuppositions of what is necessary and right, but people never quite know what to say when the turning involves taking no money away from anyone. Yet their presuppositions compel them to continue to seek disagreement with the idea.

It goes like this:

- When you wake up tomorrow, you will have an additional million dollars in your bank account. Every person in the world is entitled to this privilege.
- Where does the money come from? Who cares? Nobody, and I mean nobody can tell me the actual value of a dollar and exactly how that number is decided. Money has finally become a complete conventional fiction, so there's no reason whatsoever that we cannot "invent" money out of thin air. It's just a "small matter" of "getting everybody on board". But we can do anything we want in such terms, as human beings, by convention.
- One objection seems to be that prices would shift to reflect the new economy, but this is part of the convention ... one must choose to raise prices. The way I look at it, it becomes a simple question of whether the important issue is wealth and means itself, or a comparative wealth. Is it that Joe Richman has $100m and wakes up tomorrow with $101? Or is it that Joe Richman has $100m and you or I have $0m, and tomorrow he will only be 101 times as wealthy as you or I instead of 200 or 400, or whatever that number works out to be?

But it is a fantasy utopia, and it is built upon a number of heavy ifs. But to me it seems perfectly reasonable. Just as many Americans seem to think, If only they thought like Americans, they would understand how it is our system comes to be the best shot we've got. Likewise, if people just thought like me, they would understand the degree of convention to which I speak, in which enough reasonably well-educated people exist on the planet to pull something like this off and sell it to the dolts. It relies on the presuppositions of the nobility of human values. It relies on presuppositions of intelligence enough to understand one's "role" within the New Utopia. It relies entirely on presupposition. You're welcome to object to any part of the scheme, but that's part of the point: if only you shared the same presuppositions I operate and think by, you would see how this idea is flawless in its potential while recognizing its impracticality.

I'll take a note from you: It seemed like I had a point when I started.

But I'm sure the point had something to do with the idea that we must continually examine issues in the context of very fundamental issues in order to make the translation from theoretic potential to practical reality.

(And no, I don't care if my ideas transcend generations; if some fanatics and their holy texts can set the course of humanity for nearly millennia, then I can do my part to fix the damage .... Oh, and the idea that "damage" has been done--that's a presupposition, too, you know. Or, at least, it's rooted in one. And that presupposition presupposes an anchor of sorts upon which progress can be measured.)It is only excusable in the case of acceptance of reason and logic as a means by which to gain valid understanding of the universe. When posed with questions regarding facts about the "objective universe", how can one logically validate any assumptions? Well, at that degree, I simply acknowledge that you don't validate any assumptions.

In terms of the self and others, it seems useful to introduce a certain idea. Remember that human beings, individually, are finite creatures, and even collectively they still are finite. A digressive note simply says that once a species spreads out enough in the Universe that a single cataclysm short of the End of All Things cannot destroy it entirely, it can said to be potentially infinite. It's a condition of perspective, and, yes, presupposition, but many people have less difficulty swallowing George Peppard and Jon-Boy Walton in Battle Beyond the Stars (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080421) (which title also describes the cast) than they do considering the potential future of their own species in terms of when today is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. (I always thought that was part of the appeal of speculative fiction in the first place ....)It's acceptable to make them for the purposes of a theory, but validation of the theory requires justification of all assumptions. I am, in fact, a living testament to the problem with applying that idea to practical living. There is a Chinese proverb that states, "When in doubt of what to do next, do nothing." In a land where time is money, such an idea gets thrown out with the bathwater. But if you take a simple principle such as "harm none"--hardly realistic, is it?--and consider its implications .... One of the reasons I dropped out of college was that everything and everyone was asking me to put aside the "important" things in life. After a while, the emptiness of existing for the benefit of other things gets to you, y'know? But what does it mean to live for oneself? There's six billion and counting variations on that theme.

And hence the quest for self is born in this one. I can't say why I'm almost (ha!) neurotically driven to seek understanding of the ineffable conditions of life; perhaps it is stubborn refusal to believe that anything can escape me that easily.

But all of this--and I do mean all of this--is driven by various presuppositions. If it had never occurred to me to start thinking for myself, who knows what I might have been? Life might look just about the same, to be honest, though I doubt anyone here would ever have heard from me, and I might have the comfort of greater executive control over my own futility, but juxtaposed to the whole of existence, what comfort would that be? Without it, I understand how some could see it as a profitable comfort, but it doesn't mesh with my presuppositions.

And the interaction between presupposition and reality is immense.

Practically speaking: Yes, it is acceptable to employ presuppositions for the purposes (&c., &c.) ....

But the presuppositions are important to me because it's the difference between four cops doing their job and the murder of a black man, for instance. Who's to say the Three-Fifths Rule was wrong? It's merely a presupposition based on other presuppositions that leads me to believe that all people are equal before the law (of society or civilization).I don't think it's possible to reasonably justify the existitance of 'god' and the jesus thing in order validate the assumptions of an experiment to confirm the existence of god eh But that's the nature of presuppositions.

Now the original reason for the microcosmic juxtaposition is that while I might to some degree of responsibility assert that you seem to have certain issues in better orders than Catholics, you might still be wrong in two senses:

(1) Presuppositions might lead you to assign a different value to an event than I would; in such cases I might disagree or I might be wowed by a hitherto-unrecognized point of consideration
(2) There are many things you can do with eggs, flour, butter, &c., but only a few combinations and procedures will make you a cake. Likewise, there are many things you can do in Life .... Short of perfection, I think we all are wrong to at certain degree. But what is the actual recipe of the Universe, and what does it all equal? If the rock below had not eroded just so, the large rock balanced atop it could not have remained. Even if the "meaning of life" is something as simple as Life Is, there still exists within that paradigm a certain structural truth: Life is. That is, Life should not be Not. To that end, there are certain things one can do that are "wrong". Blowing up the planet before we've colonized the sector, for instance.

And everybody--I reiterate this especially--everybody is wrong to a certain degree.

(For instance, and it's not just the bong rip talking, "Dance Hall Days" by Wang Chung is just a little too good of a song right now for me to trust any of my presuppositions entirely. Always question authority. Like the online lyrics for the song; I don't trust them. They're wrong, but I can't quite prove it until I get hold of the dudes who wrote it, you know? And that's just too much of an effort for it. But damn, this digression might make sense. I doubt it.)

But none of us are perfect. Catholic theology is generally tight and well-structured within its imperfect presuppositions.

The comparative point is that none of us are perfect. I would further contend that catholic theology is likely quite inconsistent with itself (but cannot back that up with evidence, I've merely seen others present it), and thusly unreasonable Well, yeah, there's different schools of thought, but even I, one of Christianity's most unforgiving critics, find a certain amount of solidity in the tales that one can extract from the record. A lot of times you were right because you were Catholic and Not Dead. But seriously, imagine a bunch of priests becoming increasingly paranoid (from that foundation?) and getting sick and tired of answering every nitpicking question about life, the Universe, and everything. After a while, it just gets too hard to keep up with what's been written before. Furthermore, historical transitions within the Catholic paradigm point more toward the dynamic nature of religion; it must attempt to address contemporary needs; sometimes needs change altogether. Yes it's true, legendary Caligulan orgies probably weren't the best idea for sanitary reasons, but Puritanism in the United States got so severe that people felt sinful for natural body functions. The needs of the many can be twisted and bizarre.It could be considered unreasonable as well in other manners given the assumptions you offer. Anything is reasonable.

Hypothetical: Wesmorris walks into a bar. After a couple of drinks he's talking to a lovely young woman who magically appeared on the barstool next to him. Now, and rhetorically, we might consider what happens next.

I'm sure you've at least had occasion to observe those brutes of men who make even other men shudder at the thought of heterosexuality. In my T&A drinking days, I saw a certain look and heard a certain tone of voice over and over and over again. It was perfectly reasonable for this poor SOB to assume that he was going to score with the dancer he's sweet-talking.

You can see it in just about any meat-market bar. Who cares if it's a meat market? You and I both know, for instance, that there's any number of perfectly reasonable reasons why we can't assume she's out for a lay. Now, maybe if we were in Manchester ....

But presuppositions will affect and sometimes even guide your actions.

And when the justification for human behavior evaporates ... well, the gods must be crazy .... Eh, shit I'm just rambling. You're rambling? You are rambling?

Now ... let me get this straight ... you are rambling? Have you noticed how I fill my evenings lately?

Don't'cha worry 'bout rambling. As you can see, the biggest danger of you rambling is that I'll ramble back.

And my ramble is bigger ... er ... uh ... yeah.

Something like that.Seemed like I had a point when I started. Ironic, isn't it ...?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

why is a a vast space space of energy, light and matter anymore complex and thus more meaningful than the mush of fat that is my brain?

why is a a vast space space of energy, light and matter anymore complex and thus more meaningful than the mush of fat that is my brain?A very interesting question, and of course I'm presuming your meaning but I do think I've got it.

At first consideration I would offer the following:

- The vast space of energy, light, and matter (e.g. Universe) is more important than the mass of cells called your brain simply because the Universe is the vast space in which your minute (compared to the Universe and without any aspersion toward intellect) brain exists. The condition of the Universe profoundly affects the condition of your brain; it cannot yet be said to be the other way around.

I don't think, by this interpretation, that Universe is necessarily any more complex than brain, except when we compare the totality of one brain versus the entirety of the Universe as an idea to be understood by another brain.

Hence I run into a stumbling point at the notion of "thus more meaningful". However, in practical considerations, the brain is quite important. It's merely a matter of priorities for the individual. One can either question the basis of their values as they question all authority, or not as they don't.

The best way to look at that would be to put, for instance, me in a room with a French or Chinese or Russian politician. All of us agree on a certain point: The Iraqi Bush War was wrong. We all have different reasons. Of course, I can hop on the Chinese bandwagon, but I have a superstitious distrust of the last great pseudo-Communist holdout. My only problems with the French are that they are the French, and for some reason I have a strange set of cultural prejudices concerning the French that never have made any sense, but have never warranted practical consideration until, oh, the Iraqi Bush War. The Russians? I don't distrust the Russians because they were our Cold War enemy; in that issue I still wonder why the US started it. But as their merit for influence sinks, the Russians continue to exert certain influence; I saw a description of the current G8 meeting: the seven richest nations in the world, plus Russia. To me, Russian political ideals still seek to hold an influence which Russia no longer merits. Their finances are a mess. Their motives, like the French, are at least as impure as the Americans'. But we all agree that the Iraqi Bush War is wrong.

But if I don't question the reasons for that conclusion ... well ...?

In addition to questioning "their" motives, I must also question my own distrusts. The Universe is only important here because it cannot be understood. The foundation of my motives, while hopefully more subtle, are no more firm within reality than a Christian, militant extremist Muslim, or D&D romantic.

Everything must be questioned, because the Universe cannot, at present, be known in its entirety. The factors affecting human outcomes cannot be fully documented. Every seeming reality of human recognition is up for grabs here. Some will settle out in fine fashion. Others won't. Of course, that's the reason for faith.

Of course, this ramble is subject to any number of contextual errors in the interpretation of its source of inspiration. Let me know how badly I've missed, FountainHead.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

What in the name of ten million devils does "The Iraqi Bush War" have to do with this subject?

To the Fount:
The Universe isn't any more meaningful than the contents of your noggin!
It is at bottom exactly the same
If you like, you may insert all sorts of "descriptive" terms like "light", "energy", "matter", and "fat", but all of it is comprised of the same essential "material", "stuff", "whatever".
Conversely, of course, the contents of your noggin are as meaningless as the rest of the junk cluttering up the Void!

Originally posted by Killjoy
Conversely, of course, the contents of your noggin are as meaningless as the rest of the junk cluttering up the Void!

I hate to keep doing this, but you say it like you're so convinced but you're missing something. Without the "to whom" that sentence makes no sense. Meaning is implicit and exclusive to a perspective. Without one, how can anything matter?

I know I sound like a broken record, but it's relevant.

What in the name of ten million devils does "The Iraqi Bush War" have to do with this subject?I'm tempted to say that if you can't figure it out, there's no point in wasting an explanation on you.

However, the explanation is rather short: It's part of an analogy.

If you would like me to review the analogy, let me know. I need to know what's confusing you before I can help you understand.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by ProCop
The other mammals accepted the fact that there is a world independent of their understanding of its meaning, and rolled for cover.

Then how is it that the bus which one is not aware of can still run a person over? Why is it that the sniper which one is unaware of is more likely to shoot a person who is unaware of the gun pointed at his head or the round which he is not aware of in the gun's chamber?

Despite your awareness of one thing or another, things still do exist, to say that this is otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantum (I don't know about it, therefor it does not exist).

Originally posted by river-wind
When in the moment, the moment is important.

When is it any other time than right now?

Originally posted by wesmorris
The universe does not REQUIRE "conscious beings" to function for billions of years, yet it is exactly meaningless if there exist no such beings. Back to the statement of abstract from before.. "meaning" is an abstract. There is no "abstract" without "consciousness".

Exactly, and as such, "meaning" as you define it (and which may more accurately be defined as "value") is nothing but an arbitrary attribute which we, as sentient beings, assign to the objective world around it (or the objective world as we are able to perceive it, that is). As such "meaning" is "meaningless", in the context of objectivity. Just try to keep in mind that values which you assign to things have no objective meaning, instead they have only contextual importance, I.e. food is good because it's pleasurable to eat, and keeps me alive, or pornography is good because it makes me horny, and I really like that. Meaning exists only within personal context, not as a true entity in and of itself.

Originally posted by wesmorris
When is it any other time than right now?

How about. . . wait for it. . . right now! Oh, wait, no, never mind.

Originally posted by Mystech
Exactly, and as such, "meaning" as you define it (and which may more accurately be defined as "value")

Value, that's fine I suppose, but they are basically synonymous in the context of Nihilism.
Originally posted by Mystech

is nothing but an arbitrary attribute which we, as sentient beings, assign to the objective world around it (or the objective world as we are able to perceive it, that is).

I'd hardly call it "arbitrary". It may be arbitrary compared to "nothing" but what isn't? The meaning or value of what a human experiences in the moment is a continuation of an extremely intricate interaction which was initiated at the conception of the human in question. Don't you think that's more substantial and "meaningful" (be def) than something which is 'arbitrary'?
Originally posted by Mystech

As such "meaning" is "meaningless", in the context of objectivity.

I see your point, but I have no clue how something can be "in the context of objectivity" in other than an "abstract manner" which leads me in a nice little circle back to value or meaning. *shrug*
Originally posted by Mystech

Just try to keep in mind that values which you assign to things have no objective meaning, instead they have only contextual importance, I.e. food is good because it's pleasurable to eat, and keeps me alive, or pornography is good because it makes me horny, and I really like that. Meaning exists only within personal context, not as a true entity in and of itself.

I guess maybe the entire point is that without the "personal context", context does not exist... you know what I mean? "context" is a purely abstract term wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by Mystech
How about. . . wait for it. . . right now! Oh, wait, no, never mind.

no it's NOW.. damnit! not yet.. okay. now. not then, NOW. right. :D (pardon, it's simply too difficult to resist)

Originally posted by wesmorris

I know I sound like a broken record, but it's relevant.

I know... I do too.
But it's irrelevant
:D

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm tempted to say that if you can't figure it out, there's no point in wasting an explanation on you.

However, the explanation is rather short: It's part of an analogy.

If you would like me to review the analogy, let me know. I need to know what's confusing you before I can help you understand.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I know, I know...

It just sounded like some kind of wacky excuse to put some kind of political tirade in here...
It reminded me of those nutty movies from back in the '70s about the "Nazca Lines", where they would ramble on as in:
The Nazca Lines are an ancient alien spaceport... Because Sasquatch walks upright in spite of his hairy arse...
The Nazca Lines... Because nobody can say for sure there is no Loch Ness Monster...
The Nazca Lines... What about those Yeti tracks?
The Nazca Lines... "Stone Blocks" on the seabed = Atlantis?
The Nazca Lines... Did Atlantean Yetis transport Loch Ness Monsters to Earth in droves and then crash their ship at Area51? Whereupon they degenerated into Sasquatches in horror at the thought that they had left humanity all sorts of neat playthings like Stonehenge and the Pyramids?!?!?!

SORRY! HYPERBOLE!!! SORRY!!!

Originally posted by Killjoy
I know... I do too.
But it's irrelevant
:D

Exactly. ;)

tiassa....u did not miss

for the rest

picture an ocean the size of the earth; in it lies, for the sake of re-enforcement, a 286 microprocessor (it has H20 on it, afterall its submerged in water). When viewing the sea from a wider perpective (if that makes any sense), the chip is merely a dot in an otherwise uniform dispersion of H20. So we merely have H20 which is pretty "simple". Afterall we only have two freaking elements and nothing else. Now lets zoom in on the microprocessor-- we see that it is indeed complex. The 286 is more "complex" than H20; afterall besides H20, it contains silicons, logic, etc.

In order words, if my thoughts are "merely" electrical signals, and thus less complex than the universe, then what is the universe but a composition of the very same electrical signals-- as my brain is part of the universe, and matter--which my brain is also composed of? everything, except nothing(but nothing is nothing rights? :bugeye: ) is infinitely "simple" and "complex." The refutation/support of ideology on such basis is "mere" sematics.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
picture an ocean the size of the earth; in it lies, for the sake of re-enforcement, a 286 microprocessor (it has H20 on it, afterall its submerged in water). When viewing the sea from a wider perpective (if that makes any sense), the chip is merely a dot in an otherwis