Not really. All that science is concerned with is trying to understand the universe, which means coming up with theories that successfully predict phenomena and maybe even illuminate new ones. I don't think many scientists will say they have the "truth" of something or that they've discovered an absolute reality. History is pretty good at making people who claim the end of knowledge or that they've got the "ultimate truth or reality" look rather silly. Right?
How do you do this? First of all, prepare that there is possibly going to be some trial and error. Prepare that it is going to take effort and knowledge to become accustumed to this sort of introspection and to make it efficient. Secondly, here's a suggestion that might work for you or not, as you might have to figure out your own way. However, it is general enough, so it might work anyway. The basic structire is Perceive - Analyze - Solve. Perceive: We'll be making a mindmap. Take a blank A4 piece of writing paper (or bigger), and write "What is real?" in the middle. Underneath, write "What's in it for me?" Then think of everything that comes up in your mind in relation to this question and its subquestion. Write those things in brief on the branches of the mindmap, or into the bubbles (whichever you prefer). You are brainstorming, so don't seek to make the mindmap to look aesthetically pleasing, and don't censor yourself, write down everything. After you feel you've written out everything, put the paper away and pick it up tomorrow. Look through it, and add anything new that you might think of. Repeat this for a few days. Analyze: Then take each individual entry of the mindmap and analyze it: You can do this in the form of a list or another mindmap. Put each individual entry on a separate sheet of paper. At this stage, in order to analyze those entries, I find that good questions to ask oneself are "Is this always true? Are there exceptions to it?", "Do I really want this? Do I really value this?", "Exactly of what importance is this to me?" Take a few days to complete this. Solve: The issues and dilemmas that have come up in your analysis are probably ethical, and concern your goals and values in life. Find solutions and ways to implement those solutions in your everyday life. Return to your analysis and refine it as time goes by and as you make progress or get stuck. Granted, this might look rather tedious and time- and energy-consuming. But personally, I have found this to be a good and efficient way to get in touch with my innermost fears and desires and to do something about them. If you have the desire to understand this matter, then there is obviously something personal in it for you, either directly or indirectly. You said earlier - "I want to be convinced of either possibility." You might want to ask yourself why you want to be convinced of this, what would be in it for you to have this conviction.
Just as a creative exercise try coming up with a version of it. Or several. If you don't want to, fine. Or if you really 'can't', well what can be done. But I think you probably can take some steps in that direction. They don't have to be perfect and unassailable, but perhaps, at least for you the process and what you find would be new.
Information. Is existence the joke or are the values being used to judge existence the 'joke'? Meaning is the relationship between two or more variables. It is quite objective. Correct.
1. The Contemplative Life. You know Plato's old line, "An unexamined life is not worth living." If you have read this far you carry his contemplative streak. You ask the big questions. You ask why. Good on ya, as they say down under. 2. The Active Life. A given. We can't think if we don't move and put some oxygen in our brains. Besides, life is meant to be lived. 3. The Fatalistic Life. We tend to think of fatalists as pessimists who assume they have no free will, no control over their lives. Everything is written in the stars--or someplace. But Aristotle has a different take. To him, a fatalist is resigned to the facts of life. He accepts the fact has he no control over the weather, his president, or his hard drive. This acceptance makes for a good life. When the fatalist loses his job, his car, his key to the club, he doesn't mourn. He says, "I gave it back." He recognizes the transitory nature of everything. Some of us have to get really old to get to that point. I met a woman at a writers' conference who had just moved out of a fourteen room mansion into a two bedroom condo. "I gave it all back," she said. It is a good life when we accept what is inevitable. You know your car is going to die someday, among other beloved flora and fauna. 4. The Hedonistic Life. Delicious sounding, isn't it? Slightly naughty. You thought a hedonist was an irresponsible, party-till-I-die kind of person, I bet. Not according to Aristotle. Hedonism implies desire. Desire implies want--unsatisfied want. That's no fun. According to Aristotle, a true hedonist trods a narrow path between the pain of unsatisfied pleasure and pleasure. He's not going to pine over the Queen of Sheba when he can have the Queen of Next Door. He leads a peaceful life, getting his pleasure in protected context. 5. The heroic and saintly life. If you find joy in helping others you know you are no better than the sloths you grew up with. You know what sustains you and it is beautiful and you don't deserve the accolades people throw at you. It's your good life. You don't expect anyone else to get the same pleasure out of it that you do. Sister Theresa never thought of herself as a saint. She just thought she was living a good life. The firefighters in every city do not think of themselves as heroes. When one dies trying to save a life, he probably thinks, "Damn, I goofed," not "They'll bury me a hero." http://www.more-selfesteem.com/philosophy_article.htm
Yea, but science is striving to describe absolute reality as best as it can. Whether thats in the minds of the scientists or not. How can that not be so ?
I appreciate the work you put into this Green Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But my questions were purely theoretical, nothing to with feelings or life values or any of that. However, your method will not reveal any truth only what may be best for any one person, me in this case. There is nothing 'in it' for me, there no fear or desire about either for either possibility to be true. I realize that the reality of either possibility will not have the slightest impact on everyday life. I guess I'm just curious and think I have touched on something most people cannot see or don't want to see... I want to be convinced because I apparently can't work it out myself.. there are too many loose ends.. and I can't even name those.
I'm sorry but my mind just shorts out when trying to contemplate 'objective meaning', isn't it a direct contradiction ? Please make me see how you see it.. give me insight in your thoughts about this.
Information must then be absolute, it has no meaning in itself. Meaning is the relationship between two or more variables. It is quite objective. Meaning is subjective, the relationship is objective. What we make of the relationship is what constitutes meaning.
Kind of like "shit happens".. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It think of myself more as being a realist though. Thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So what are your thoughts on absolute reality ? Or objective reality as I like to call it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know about *must*... but you might be right. Sure it does. As long as there are two or more units of information, you have meaning. Meaning itself is quite objective. For example, people will invariably ask "what is the meaning of life?" and the correct objective answer is "anything that life can have a relationship with."; however, when people are asking this question they are often really asking "What is important to me? / What makes me feel good? / What do I want?". When / if they find an answer they associate that answer to the wrong question (the meaning of life one) and think its objective while you recognize it as subjective.
Don't you agree that something can have meaning to one person while it has no meaning, or an entirely different meaning, to another person ? This holds true for all 'meanings', therefor meaning must be subjective.. agree ? The question "what is the meaning of life?" to me asks what the higher purpose of life is, why life is here and what it's goal is. Surely the answer to all those questions is negative. You say that as long as there are two or more units of information you have meaning. How come ? The only way you get meaning is when you approach the relationship from a subjective point of view. Surely you have a different view on this, can you give an example ?
I know that people can utterly misinterpret meaning or approximate it but not hit on the head. It would show that the interpretation of meaning can be subjective and the meaning itself remains quite obejctive). As you can see, the question "what is the meaning of life" is already a different question for you as well. Let me address some of them. Q: what the higher purpose of life? A: What's a 'higher' purpose and what's a 'lower' purpose? Q: why life is here? A: High amounts of energy often result in work. On Earth, that work combined with processes in reality to persist resulted in life. Q: what it's goal is? A: To persist. For the questions that were answerable, they don't appear to be negative. Meaning is quite literally the relationship between two or more variables. Think of it as an identity: Meaning = relationship between two or more variables In other words it is not seperate from the relationship... it IS the relationship. Of course the relationship itself is the interaction of difference and a minimal of two units are required for an interaction. Lets examine the question of "what is the meaning of a single nose hair?". There are billions of relationships a nose hair has with reality (from the subatomic to the macro level); however, I'll just list a few that you might recognize: * Nose hairs are rooted in the skin (relationship with skin). * Nose hairs reduce irritants from being inhaled (relationship with irritants). * Nose hairs reduce micro-organisms from being inhaled (relationship with micro-organisms). * Nose hairs predominantly are angled towards the nostrils (relationship with nostrils). * Nose hairs are often distributed across the circumference of a nostril (another relationship with nostrils). Now a person can misinterpret the meaning of nose hairs and think they are divine omens from the lord.
You hold a vastly different definition of meaning than I do.. To me meaning is heavily related to the act of attributing value. Also, nose hairs only have meaning to a particular thing or things. Your nose hairs have no meaning at all to this rock right outside my window.
This is whats real: http://documentaryvideos.org/who-killed-john-oneil/ Your brain just can't believe that the world is naturally this way, we do live in an illusion, created by careless greedy people at the top, who think they are gods.
lol sometimes I just appreciate the comedic simple responce that ends an otherwise endless question. In regards to "what is real?" well that is relative.....and from my experience, anything that is relative is infinate.....and thus no conclusion or universal understanding can be met. Reality is in fact relative and the proof is the various "realities" people live...... there is NO UNIVERSAL REALITY.......our mind warps reality and only what is in our mind is real. Now if somehow by some phenomena.....ie: "mind control" was able to make everyone think the same......then and only then could a universal reality be met and conclusions about reality could be made. my thoughts anyhow.
I know. I use the definition used by scientists. For alot of people that is the case. I think many children (especially those exposed to theism) are trained to think that way. Of course they do. For example, nose hairs have a gravitational relationship with the rock right outside your window.
