discussing the meaning of life & death

[Crunchy Cat]

? Ain't atoms sorta living?

Nope.

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

so in a way i do not die, an i sorta live forever?!?
What a mind "Sh"uck!

The only way you are you, is what you are now, and if you die, God forbid, you will only ever be you again, if you come back with the exact arrangement of atoms, specifically, the relation and "memory" of every molecule must be in tact. That's a modern definition of what was anciently called "the resurrection." It is the only afterlife model that is compatible with reality. Ghosting it, reincarnation, disembodied parts etc have no relevance.

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Nope.

Remember in early school how the teachers would have a number of pictures and get you to decide what was living and what was non-living?

Is it really so?

[Rav]

I don't think that would even be a matter of agency. The universe would literally need to be a distinct sapient life form.

Do you mean that the universe would need to be distinct from a human being in some sense? It is, in the same sense that you might say that the human body is distinct from just one of it's parts.

If agency is an inherent feature of this universe, and that agency is driving toward something, then there's purpose.

[Crunchy Cat]

Remember in early school how the teachers would have a number of pictures and get you to decide what was living and what was non-living?

Is it really so?

I have no such memory; however, I don't think I would have made the error of classifying atoms as living.

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you mean that the universe would need to be distinct from a human being in some sense? It is, in the same sense that you might say that the human body is distinct from just one of it's parts.

Close, I mean the universe would be a point/area of sapience distinct from all other points/areas of sapience.

If agency is an inherent feature of this universe, and that agency is driving toward something, then there's purpose.

And sapience. That cannot be escaped as long as you want to use the word "purpose".

[Gregg Schaffter]

Remember in early school how the teachers would have a number of pictures and get you to decide what was living and what was non-living?

Is it really so?

Which school did you go to? It must have been a very closed-minded school because no one could teach what is living and non-living unless they did it with science. With science, one could define what living and non-living is due to the current scientific definition of it, but any other way it is only a matter of opinion.

[Rav]

Close, I mean the universe would be a point/area of sapience distinct from all other points/areas of sapience.

And sapience. That cannot be escaped as long as you want to use the word "purpose".

Let's just start with this then. You clearly agree that if the universe is an entity that experiences and has knowledge of itself (as distinct in some sense from that of any individual being within it) that there can be purpose. The next consideration is how human-like this need necessarily be. My contention, again just for the sake of this hypothetical exercise, is that it need not be strictly human-like at all. This opens up a realm of possibilities that may seem entirely counter-intuitive to us. Somewhere within this scope is the sort of thing I am trying to get at.

[Crunchy Cat]

Let's just start with this then. You clearly agree that if the universe is an entity that experiences and has knowledge of itself (as distinct in some sense from that of any individual being within it) that there can be purpose.

Close. If the universe were a sapient entity capable of somewhat arbitrarily manipulating itself then it could define a purpose and assign it to anything within itself.

The next consideration is how human-like this need necessarily be.

I don't understand. What specific "need" do you mean?

My contention, again just for the sake of this hypothetical exercise, is that it need not be strictly human-like at all. This opens up a realm of possibilities that may seem entirely counter-intuitive to us. Somewhere within this scope is the sort of thing I am trying to get at.

See response above.

[Rav]

I don't understand. What specific "need" do you mean?

I'll rephrase: the next consideration is how human-like this necessarily has to be.

[Crunchy Cat]

I'll rephrase: the next consideration is how human-like this necessarily has to be.

If you mean how human-like does selecting and assigning purpose have to be then my answer is that humans (to my knowledge) are the only life forms we know of that select and assign purpose; therefore, the concept itself is based entirely on human behavior.

[lightgigantic]

Why? I haven't found a point or meaning and I'm not bothered by it in the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubgRsYJxHQk

[Rav]

If you mean how human-like does selecting and assigning purpose have to be then my answer is that humans (to my knowledge) are the only life forms we know of that select and assign purpose; therefore, the concept itself is based entirely on human behavior.

If that's an argument against the legitimacy of proposing that any agency that is not human-like isn't actually the sort of agency that can generate purpose, then it's also an argument against the existence of objective purpose in a universe that was created by a supernatural being, since qualities such as timelessness, omniscience and omnipotence characterize the domain of supernatural agency in a distinctly non-human way.

[Crunchy Cat]

If that's an argument against the legitimacy of proposing that any agency that is not human-like isn't actually the sort of agency that can generate purpose, then it's also an argument against the existence of objective purpose in a universe that was created by a supernatural being, since qualities such as timelessness, omniscience and omnipotence characterize the domain of supernatural agency in a distinctly non-human way.

Perhaps, although I am not sure if timelessness, omniscience, or omnipotence would prevent a life form from having human-compatible psychology. I am not sure there is any way to even resolve that without simply giving up any kind of relation to actual reality.

[Rav]

Perhaps, although I am not sure if timelessness, omniscience, or omnipotence would prevent a life form from having human-compatible psychology. I am not sure there is any way to even resolve that without simply giving up any kind of relation to actual reality.

I'm not really invested in it anyway. This was simply an exploration. I'm just sort of doing what Penrose was, which is to point in the general direction of some possible deeper substance to reality that might contextualize everything in some way, without actually being able to define, in any truly useful manner, what it might even look like.

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm not really invested in it anyway. This was simply an exploration. I'm just sort of doing what Penrose was, which is to point in the general direction of some possible deeper substance to reality that might contextualize everything in some way, without actually being able to define, in any truly useful manner, what it might even look like.

Speculation can have benefits but at some point you have to apply reality to it and see what happens (or doesn't happen).

[Rav]

Speculation can have benefits but at some point you have to apply reality to it and see what happens (or doesn't happen).

Bringing our modern conception of the scope and nature of reality to bear on speculative propositions that are not in direct conflict with it does not demonstrate that such propositions are false, only that they are not scientifically supportable (and may or may not become demonstrably false at some future point in time).

[Crunchy Cat]

Bringing our modern conception of the scope and nature of reality to bear on speculative propositions that are not in direct conflict with it does not demonstrate that such propositions are false, only that they are not scientifically supportable (and may or may not become demonstrably false at some future point in time).

It might be more interesting to look at why propositions like the one you came up with even occur.

[Rav]

It might be more interesting to look at why propositions like the one you came up with even occur.

Perhaps simply because like Penrose, some people suspect there really might be something much deeper about the nature of reality, and enjoy imagining what that something might be.

Certain individuals, of course, become easily enamoured with the first thing that makes any sort of sense, and adopt it as a world-view. Other people, like me, are able to entertain all manner of seemingly outlandish ideas without feeling compelled to embrace them, even if there's something satisfying about them. I'll flirt with them occasionally, like I've been doing here, but I'm quite securely grounded in rationalism. I don't believe that anything is true just because it makes you feel good, or makes sense of your existence, or dangles deeply desired outcomes in front of your face. That's why I'm an atheist.

In a nutshell, speculative metaphysics is just something I enjoy engaging in. A creative outlet of sorts. One of many.

Having said all that, in the context of this thread specifically, the proposition simply occurred as a direct result of a previous claim.

[Crunchy Cat]

Perhaps simply because like Penrose, some people suspect there really might be something much deeper about the nature of reality, and enjoy imagining what that something might be.

Certain individuals, of course, become easily enamoured with the first thing that makes any sort of sense, and adopt it as a world-view. Other people, like me, are able to entertain all manner of seemingly outlandish ideas without feeling compelled to embrace them, even if there's something satisfying about them. I'll flirt with them occasionally, like I've been doing here, but I'm quite securely grounded in rationalism. I don't believe that anything is true just because it makes you feel good, or makes sense of your existence, or dangles deeply desired outcomes in front of your face. That's why I'm an atheist.

In a nutshell, speculative metaphysics is just something I enjoy engaging in. A creative outlet of sorts. One of many.

Having said all that, in the context of this thread specifically, the proposition simply occurred as a direct result of a previous claim.

Most interesting. From a personal subjective experience, if you go for a while without engaging in speculative metaphysics, do you feel an increased urge to get engaged (like a buildup that needs to be released)?