Your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

[Interesting Ian]

If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That might be true if you are relying on some sort of immaterial magical saving grace to give your life meaning. Of course, you have no evidence for this grace save your own desire for it to be so.

Meanwhile, I'm free to find spiritual pleasure in the beauty around me, my family and friends, the discoveries of science, literature and art, and the day I'm going to spend at the beach tomorrow. How wonderful of nature and my fellow humans to help me enjoy these simple pleasures. And how marvelous that I'm not enslaved to some cosmic meaning I couldn't even understand.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I'm free to find spiritual pleasure in the beauty around me, my family and friends, the discoveries of science, literature and art, and the day I'm going to spend at the beach tomorrow. [/B]

And a wasp enjoys buzzing around, admiring the scenery, and going places. So what?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

I have. Have you?

P.S. I try, as best I can, to preserve the life of wasps. While scary to some they are, in an overall fashion, beneficial to my best interests. At least as I see my interests.

[Beanbag]

You are nothing more than a fart in the maelstrom of the universe. You live on only in the effect that your existance had on those who survive you and the ideas and articles you have left behind. When these are gone, then you, truly, are gone.

I actually look forward almost fondly to the day I will die, because it means that all the noise and commotion that my life has become will finally grow still, and that I can finally disperse and cease to be. Am I afraid of death? No, call it concerned. But I draw strength from the fact that I have no memories, either frightening or comforting, from before I was born and my consciousness switched on. My only regrets will be for the people that I know who survive me, because my death will leave a Beanbag-shaped hole in their existance that they will have to deal with.

Deal with it, you say? No -- take comfort in it, knowing that the evils done by others can be remedied, and that the good done can survive the death of the originator.

Beanbag

[Z]

Big deal. You are an insignificant speck in an enormous universe. You're born, you die, your bones turn to dust, and the rest of reality really doesn't care that you were ever here.

So what's to deal with?

See, unlike Ian, who lives in terror of endless oblivion, most of us are quite comfortable with the idea. No eternal torment, no eternal awareness, no boredom to face or restrictive moral code to suffer under for eternity.

Sounds great to me! Enjoy this life, to the fullest, and make the world a better place for those who follow you. What more could you ask for?

Just goes to show how weak and pathetic Ian's mind really is.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thats perfect! I do not need any form of meaning in my life. Life is life, you know, something that is, for a while, and thats it. With Zen, I learned that I can see, I do not need to believe anything. Nothing. Nada.

Oh, and Im not a materialist! by any means! so, please stop this black/white absurd dichotomy of yours.

On the other hand, I pity you because this fear about your life being meaningless is what propels your desesperately nonsense regarding PSI and souls, and who knows what other inventions.

Now, I have a question for you, how does it feel to know that there are people who doesnt need any form of "supernatural" meaning in their lives, and yet they can be perfectly happy with it, just because they want?

Look at the answers above, who knows? you might learn something.

[Z]

If idealism is correct, next time you might be the wasp.

Something to think about, Ian.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

Just on the off chance that I had forgotten the meaning of "meaning", I looked it up in the Shorter OED. Apart from the obvious reference to the significance of verbal expressions, I was directed to intention and purpose. Since I am a person, I can have intentions and purposes. Since my life is neither a person nor anything like a person, it can't.
I suppose the same to be true of idealists and their lives.
As for your wasp, it must speak for itself. By micropsychokinesis, I expect. :)

Regards

[KelvinG]

Since wasps and humans are both the products of a long period of evolution where we both evolved from a common ancestor, why do we assume that we have more relevance and signifigance than this so called "lower life form."

I don't endow humans with great importance simply because I want it to be that way.
Interesting Ian, it's sounds like one of the main reasons for your strong rejection of materialism is that you don't like the implications of dying the same death as a wasp. Are you content with the idea that when a wasp dies, there is nothing left of him? No soul, no afterlife? And yet somehow us humans, borne from the same biological processes of a wasp or any of living thing, get special privileges?

Hmm, some of us homo sapiens certainly are an arrogant lot, aren't we.

[Stereolab]

I hate thinking about death.

I wouldn't say I'm "scared" of it, but I'm terribly uncomfortable with the idea. I love life; I love technology, music, video games, naked women, my car...

I love my cats too, but they'll likely die before I do.

I am single at the moment, but someday I'll probably have someone I love more than anything, and would never want our relationship to cease.

Sometimes I wish I did believe in God and stuff.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I hate thinking about death.

I wouldn't say I'm "scared" of it, but I'm terribly uncomfortable with the idea. I love life; I love technology, music, video games, naked women, my car...

I love my cats too, but they'll likely die before I do.

I am single at the moment, but someday I'll probably have someone I love more than anything, and would never want our relationship to cease.

Sometimes I wish I did believe in God and stuff.

I think you just summed up why most people do believe in God and stuff!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
And a wasp enjoys buzzing around, admiring the scenery, and going places. So what?
I can't speak for whether a wasp finds beauty and pleasure in the world.

Let's assume for a moment that your immaterial magical saving grace exists. Why does this give you meaning and purpose?

~~ Paul

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it. In your twisted way, this is probably a cry for help, right? You are a man dealing with a life that is totally an illusion - and likely has even less meaning than the life of a single substantial wasp.

You are afraid. But you must deal with it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.
You dont actually believe the words you're saying, do you? You just like the attention :)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I wish to recant. :) The meaning of life in the case of any human is 42, but less in the case of a wasp.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I think you just summed up why most people do believe in God and stuff!

Oh, I know I did.

It's just that, most atheists I know (and I am an agnostic, precariously close to atheist) claim to be completely okay with their belief that everything ends at death.

I can't relate to that. I really, really hate thinking about death. And I am currently a young man in good health. I can't even imagine what it will be like if I get old, and have more family, and more things to care about.

I want to know what the universe will be like a thousand years from now.

I want to know how long the human race lasts.

I want to see my mom again.

I know there's no point in bitching. I'm thankful for what I have, and what there is. But, I can't help but think that I'd be happier living my life awaiting heaven, even if such heaven doesn't exist.

The good news is, I'm not nearly as depressed as this post makes me sound.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And a wasp enjoys buzzing around, admiring the scenery, and going places. So what?

Can you please supply the evidence that a wasp 'enjoys' or 'admires' anything at all. You are assigning complex human emotions onto an otherwise emotionless insect (literally). I would not be surprised if everything a wasp does is in response to chemical stimuli -- making him a pure slave to his environment.

I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do. == HAL 9000

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Oh, I know I did.

It's just that, most atheists I know (and I am an agnostic, precariously close to atheist) claim to be completely okay with their belief that everything ends at death.

I can't relate to that. I really, really hate thinking about death. And I am currently a young man in good health. I can't even imagine what it will be like if I get old, and have more family, and more things to care about.

I want to know what the universe will be like a thousand years from now.

I want to know how long the human race lasts.

I want to see my mom again.

I know there's no point in bitching. I'm thankful for what I have, and what there is. But, I can't help but think that I'd be happier living my life awaiting heaven, even if such heaven doesn't exist.

The good news is, I'm not nearly as depressed as this post makes me sound.


Well, Hell's Bells...I plan on living forever, myself. I think I'm going to skip the whole 'death' thing. Sounds slightly unpleasant.

Call me in 40-50 years and i'll let you know how it's panning out...:D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beanbag
You are nothing more than a fart in the maelstrom of the universe.



You might be.

Hence your name perhaps?

[Atlas]

Do you fear to tell us where your subjective idealism takes you that saves you from the wasp's fate.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]Big deal. You are an insignificant speck in an enormous universe. You're born, you die, your bones turn to dust, and the rest of reality really doesn't care that you were ever here.

So what's to deal with?



Everything we have ever done. All our hopes. All our fears. All our desires. All our frustrations. All of this ultimately means nothing.

Not just on a personal level, but for all human beings -- indeed for all sentient life. Once the human race has gone, once all sentient life has gone in the entire Universe, never to arise again, then what was the point of it all?? Why none whatsoever!

We are all cast adrift on an ocean of meaninglessness but pretending otherwise.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Atlas
Do you fear to tell us where your subjective idealism takes you that saves you from the wasp's fate.

If the wasp is sentient then we are not saved from its fate. Nor do we need to be. Everything has an ultimate purpose and certainly all sentient beings have a purpose which they could not have if they simply ceased to exist for the rest of eternity at death.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If the wasp is sentient then we are not saved from its fate. Nor do we need to be. Everything has an ultimate purpose and certainly all sentient beings have a purpose which they could not have if they simply ceased to exist for the rest of eternity at death. This intrigues me. I hope you expand on it. The OP was was mean spirited unless it was designed to lead somewhere.

So where do you intend to lead us. You speak of a vague sense of purpose. But can you name that for us?

You statementEverything we have ever done. All our hopes. All our fears. All our desires. All our frustrations. All of this ultimately means nothing. aren't they pretty much tied to this life and the material satisfaction of the physical body. Even the hope to survive death is often that we'll get our bodies back. The Bible promised it and Jesus took his with him.

Tell me more.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen


On the other hand, I pity you because this fear about your life being meaningless is what propels your desesperately nonsense regarding PSI and souls, and who knows what other inventions.



That's a laugh isn't it. People are unable to defend their materialism or materialist based metaphysics (of which you are the latter if consciousness is a by-product of the brain), so they defend it by supposing, without any argumentation, that their position is the prima facie more reasonable one.

I've got news for you. It isn't.



Now, I have a question for you, how does it feel to know that there are people who doesnt need any form of "supernatural" meaning in their lives, and yet they can be perfectly happy with it, just because they want?



I have no idea what is meant by "supernatural" meaning, so I'll ignore that word. I don't really feel anything about it. It just speaks of the psychological ability of people to shield themselves from cold stark facts.



Look at the answers above, who knows? you might learn something.

I'll never learn anything from any of you lot. I haven't so far in about 13000 posts. I'm not expecting that to change.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If idealism is correct, next time you might be the wasp.

Something to think about, Ian.

I certainly don't go around deliberately killing them.

{shrugs}

Of course it seems that reincarnation would not be a pleasant propect. At least not unless we were to be born human beings in the west and born healthy and normal.

[Darat]

It always gives me pause to consider when someone (and I will name Interesting Ian) seemingly constantly decries the beliefs of others yet is never willing to put their beliefs up for consideration. It seems to me that they think if they can prove someone else’s beliefs are nothing more then faith it somehow validates their beliefs and faith.

Interesting Ian how about this for a challenge: Why don’t you spend some time making a post that explains what your beliefs are from their “first principles�? In other words an explanation of your beliefs that does not start with fallacious reasoning you seem to be always using which can be summed up as: “I’m right because materialism is wrong�.


PS I am not a materialist as Interesting Ian defines it and since I have no evidence for “meaning� (as Interesting Ian seems to be using the word) there is no rational reason for me to believe there is any meaning to the universe, never mind me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Since wasps and humans are both the products of a long period of evolution where we both evolved from a common ancestor, why do we assume that we have more relevance and signifigance than this so called "lower life form."

I don't endow humans with great importance simply because I want it to be that way.
Interesting Ian, it's sounds like one of the main reasons for your strong rejection of materialism is that you don't like the implications of dying the same death as a wasp. Are you content with the idea that when a wasp dies, there is nothing left of him? No soul, no afterlife? And yet somehow us humans, borne from the same biological processes of a wasp or any of living thing, get special privileges?

Hmm, some of us homo sapiens certainly are an arrogant lot, aren't we.

I do not believe a wasp has no meaning to its life. That's the position of most people on here, not mine. I was simply pointing out that you couldn't consider your life has any more meaning than a wasp's. Since you lot believe a wasp's life has no meaning, then neither does ours.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I hate thinking about death.

I wouldn't say I'm "scared" of it, but I'm terribly uncomfortable with the idea. I love life; I love technology, music, video games, naked women, my car...


Don't let it concern you:

a) You do not know that you will cease to exist when you die -- it might well be the start of an incredible unknown adventure. There is a huge amount of evidence suggesting this.

b) Even if you are right and do cease to exist, you need to bear in mind that death is not something you experience. It will be like before you were born, or indeed more or less like deep dreamless sleep.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Darat
It always gives me pause to consider when someone (and I will name Interesting Ian) seemingly constantly decries the beliefs of others yet is never willing to put their beliefs up for consideration. He isn't as self-assured as his facade implies. He seeks to shore up his feeling of righteousness by kicking the cane from under those he sees as feeble.

He has no light of mind to share. He seeks to expand the darkness.

Ian, prove me wrong - please. Tell us the purpose of it all. If their is no purpose to the thread, why should we entertain any vague notion of purpose you say we lack.

ETA: Well you softened your message for Stereolab. That's a start. Now please tell us more about our purpose. If we can't find it here, what makes you think an eternity will help?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Just thinking
[B]Can you please supply the evidence that a wasp 'enjoys' or 'admires' anything at all. You are assigning complex human emotions onto an otherwise emotionless insect (literally). I would not be surprised if everything a wasp does is in response to chemical stimuli -- making him a pure slave to his environment.


Well so are we according to the materialist -- everything we do, everything we are, is simply an expression of matter in motion. Thus since we enjoy doing things then with what good reson do you suppose a wasp doesn't? Although I accept it may not enjoy the scenery and buzzing around, neither of us can bring any evidence bearing on this question. But if the wasp is sentient, then it's a good bet it can have unpleasant experiences eg suffer pain, and by the same token have pleasurable experiences.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
We are all cast adrift on an ocean of meaninglessness but pretending otherwise.
And it is the act of pretending that creates the meaning.

I can pretend and create my own meaning, or I can sit back and hope I'll find the meaning later on.

~~ Paul

[Atlas]

More thoughts - sorry - I can't seem to stop.

What is the penalty for being wrong anyway? If you are wrong you go with the wasp same as us.

If we are wrong - we go with you. Right? What advantage is there in your philosophy? Pascal promised, at the very least, a life of joyful hope. That seems to escape you. You seem to take up the devil's duty and poke us with your pointy barbs. To what end?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
It always gives me pause to consider when someone (and I will name Interesting Ian) seemingly constantly decries the beliefs of others yet is never willing to put their beliefs up for consideration. It seems to me that they think if they can prove someone else’s beliefs are nothing more then faith it somehow validates their beliefs and faith.

Interesting Ian how about this for a challenge: Why don’t you spend some time making a post that explains what your beliefs are from their “first principles�? In other words an explanation of your beliefs that does not start with fallacious reasoning you seem to be always using which can be summed up as: “I’m right because materialism is wrong�.


But I don't have beliefs. Sure, I recognise that materialism or epiphenomenalism is wrong, but this doesn't mean to say that I have my own metaphysic all neatly worked out. I'm not as arrogant as the materialists to believe that we human beings have all the basic answers regarding the nature of the world and our role in it. I'm only human and I do not have the intelligence to provide all the answers. Look to those who have had mystical experiences to provide you with the answers.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Atlas
More thoughts - sorry - I can't seem to stop.

What is the penalty for being wrong anyway? If you are wrong you go with the wasp same as us.

If we are wrong - we go with you. Right? What advantage is there in your philosophy? Pascal promised, at the very least, a life of joyful hope. That seems to escape you. You seem to take up the devil's duty and poke us with your pointy barbs. To what end?

Well I don't mean to make people feel depressed. So if I've done that to anyone I'm sorry.

I poke those who advocate that life has no inherent meaning because people listen to them and start to believe them. Materialists advocate a pernicious philosophy which has led to momentous misery throughout the world. This is why I poke them with my pointy barbs.

I want people to understand what materialists are really saying. Not just a denial of a life after death, but that we are simply biological machines with no more freedom in our behaviour than a flowing river. That we have no self which exists second by second. That there is no meaning to their lives than what we ourselves give it.

I want people to understand that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose this despicable philosophy is true.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I don't have beliefs. Sure, I recognise that materialism or epiphenomenalism is wrong, but this doesn't mean to say that I have my own metaphysic all neatly worked out. I'm not as arrogant as the materialists to believe that we human beings have all the basic answers regarding the nature of the world and our role in it. I'm only human and I do not have the intelligence to provide all the answers. Look to those who have had mystical experiences to provide you with the answers. So, you're saying - "You're all wrong, but I've got nuthin."

What was all that crap about "purpose". If you don't know what the hell is happening, why so overbearing in your treatment of others?

ETA: You are every bit as arrogant as the most arrogant poster in the forum. It takes a bit of arrogance to deny what is apparent to all who read your threads.

Reread your OP.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Atlas
So, you're saying - "You're all wrong, but I've got nuthin."

What was all that crap about "purpose". If you don't know what the hell is happening, why so overbearing in your treatment of others?

Because they extinguish all hope.

[LibraryLady]

I want people to understand what materialists are [i]really saying. Not just a denial of a life after death, but that we are simply biological machines with no more freedom in our behaviour than a flowing river. That we have no self which exists second by second. That there is no meaning to their lives than what we ourselves give it.

[/B]

Are you saying that materialists do not believe in free will?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because they extinguish all hope. That's a gross misreading. The materialist allows for your separateness and independence of thought. No one is radio controlled by others.

It is non sensical for a subjective idealist to say that a materialist has extinguished his hope.

How can that be?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I want people to understand that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose this despicable philosophy is true.

Ian!

If you want to give us "hope," you need to explain why your philosophy includes any inherent meaning. The great Mind sounds at least as impersonal as the real world.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LibraryLady
Are you saying that materialists do not believe in free will?

Well that's the problem. They want to believe in free will but recognise there are immense problems.

They believe that our consciousness in and of itself cannot initiate any action in the world. All processes in the brain are a result of previous states of the brain plus input from the environment changing according to physical laws. There is no input from consciousness per se (in itself).

The only way they can believe in any free will is to suppose that a decision to act is literally identical to some physical process or processes in the brain.

This identity is a peculiar one though because it is unlike all other cases of identity. With all other cases of identity we always have ways of showing they are identical. But when we say some mental decision is identical to a series of neurons firing we cannot show this. All we could in principle show is that such a family of neurons firing is inevitably correlated with a particular mental event (eg a conscious decision). But correlation does not equate to identity.

Thus in short they cannot believe in free will. Nor can they believe in a self and many other things.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I want to know what the universe will be like a thousand years from now.Probably the act of observing will be around at that time, too. So no need to worry, just scratch that I. ;)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well I don't mean to make people feel depressed. So if I've done that to anyone I'm sorry.

I poke those who advocate that life has no inherent meaning because people listen to them and start to believe them. Materialists advocate a pernicious philosophy which has led to momentous misery throughout the world. This is why I poke them with my pointy barbs.

I want people to understand what materialists are really saying. Not just a denial of a life after death, but that we are simply biological machines with no more freedom in our behaviour than a flowing river. That we have no self which exists second by second. That there is no meaning to their lives than what we ourselves give it.

I want people to understand that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose this despicable philosophy is true. The reason some might suppose it is true is that it supports the real world of their senses.

The idealism of religious faith kept the masses in squalor. It didn't really impart meaning - although it did impart hope. But surely you don't wish to return to the Hobbesian nightmare so peoplehave purpose?

Idealism cannot have any more allure than materialism. It has been shown to be at least as "pernicious". Why aren't you a dualist. Can't you strip the ugly off both sides and take away the good. Assume that you are stuck in a material world but that with your soul you transcend it. That way you get the humanitarian sciences like medicine, you can appreciate the physical needs of the starving and you can be uplifted by the care and love you give to others.

Hey, what's not to like. Since you don't have the answers, why not live in the best of both worlds.

Isn't it obvious your philosophy is getting you no closer to a truth you can embrace. The only reason you hang with it seems to be that it is as far as you can get from materialism. But if it doesn't bring happiness, only hope, you may as well be in that Hobbesian nighmare.

Ian, don't pin your existence on purpose and hope and miss out on happiness and joy.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well so are we according to the materialist -- everything we do, everything we are, is simply an expression of matter in motion.

In no way to the same degree. We do not see wasps performing a variety of activities or personal interests as we see in humans -- they are very restricted in their behavior. You are removing layers upon layers of shades of grey and simply making the whole complex difference between us and wasps as nothing more than black and white -- if that. This is like removing the range of grades from a class of calculus students and replacing it with pass-fail, and then claiming that a pass grade is automatically the equivalent of one getting a 100.

Thus since we enjoy doing things then with what good reson do you suppose a wasp doesn't? Although I accept it may not enjoy the scenery and buzzing around, neither of us can bring any evidence bearing on this question.

The physical distinction between our brains, for one. There are regions in the human brain, which have been mapped as to their function(s) which the wasp simply doesn't have.


But if the wasp is sentient, then it's a good bet it can have unpleasant experiences eg suffer pain, and by the same token have pleasurable experiences.

That's an awfully big if -- are you betting the house on it? Lack of evidence against an argument is not evidence in favor of it. And as in my original question to you, I am still waiting for that evidence.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I poke those who advocate that life has no inherent meaning because people listen to them and start to believe them. Materialists advocate a pernicious philosophy which has led to momentous misery throughout the world. I'd like to revisit this. Can you describe what you mean by the momentous misery caused by materialists. To me, the worst you can say about materialism is that the box of popcorn it hands to you is one of emptiness. To attribute "perniciousness" to that is a misattribution. It actually encourages you to go forth and fill the box yourself from the beautiful natural world around you. Take your fill - find your bliss - pursue your happiness. The "perniciousness" I see is that materialism cautions you to enjoy your life and don't waste it. It is precious because it is all any of us get. I want people to understand what materialists are really saying. Not just a denial of a life after death, but that we are simply biological machines with no more freedom in our behaviour than a flowing river. That we have no self which exists second by second. That there is no meaning to their lives than what we ourselves give it.

I want people to understand that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose this despicable philosophy is true. I disagree with the "no more freedom" clause. I think it's ok to tell others what materialists are realy saying as long as you're telling it straight.

But so much of your posting is about a philosophy you admit leads nowhere near belief. You send us off to talk to mystics, as if one is as good as another.

Ian, the reason you cannot embrace materialism is that you live in your head. And the reason you cannot embrace a coherent belief is that you know that you don't get all the answers living in your own head.

This battle you wage with materialists... I shake my head saying... "Methinks he doth protest too much." It's not about materialists being wrong. It's about you not owning the truth. I said above you gain some kind of stature by kicking the cane from under those you find feeble.

Don't seek another's lie. Seek your own truth and light. That's where you'll find peace. And it's the peace and contentment within your soul that convince others that you have a light they don't.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well I don't mean to make people feel depressed. So if I've done that to anyone I'm sorry.

I poke those who advocate that life has no inherent meaning because people listen to them and start to believe them.
No inherent meaning, but how about this consideration: life has instrumental meaning.

As far as I know, materialists can still value things, such as having a job, starting a family, writing a book, giving to charity, certainly these things give life meaning? I think this is important, because nobody wants to live a life of nameless faceless existence, where they die having accomplished nothing - everybody wants to life to be significant (but of course, the things which make life significant may vary from person to person).

Also, being a non-materialist or a theist doesnt say much about the meaning of life either. For instance, the idea of an afterlife to a theist wouldnt have any meaning if the theist didnt value it.

Materialists advocate a pernicious philosophy which has led to momentous misery throughout the world. This is why I poke them with my pointy barbs.
And if the world were created by some kind of god where it had inherent meaning, how would this affect the misery in the world? It wouldnt if there is no reason to find the meaning ordained by God to be attractive. For instance, what if God were a true prick, who created the universe and earth filled with war and natural disasters because it amuses him?

I find an argument more persuasive: with the constant reminders that "God works in mysterious ways", it basically renders whatever inherent meaning is supposed to be conveyed in the universe ultimately unknowable. In this instance, what would be the difference between the world where there were no inherent meaning and no knowable inherent meaning? There isnt any, at least not one that would make a lick of difference to the theist and atheist.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not as arrogant as the materialists to believe that we human beings have all the basic answers regarding the nature of the world and our role in it.

Who are those "materialists"? Can we have some names?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't let it concern you:

a) You do not know that you will cease to exist when you die -- it might well be the start of an incredible unknown adventure. There is a huge amount of evidence suggesting this.

Agree in part. Yes, we really don´t know we´ll cease to exist when we die. I wish it would be the start of "an incredible unknown adventure".

But I disagree about the "huge amount of evidence" favorable to some sort of counsience continuity after death. Actually I think its the opposite.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
b) Even if you are right and do cease to exist, you need to bear in mind that death is not something you experience. It will be like before you were born, or indeed more or less like deep dreamless sleep.

Agreed. But we will experience the proccess of dying - what can be painfull. This is what really scares me. Death actually will be like a dream less sleep. With a last evil ironic touch: Maybe I´ll see a tunnell, relatives, etc. -hallucinations produced by my oxigen-deprived dying brain- and my last thoughts will be: "!WOW! Ian was right" . And then - POOF! Nothing more.

You know what?
Carpe diem.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here we are, attempting to explain that this "materialism," which few of us even hold, is not the horrific nightmare that Ian claims.

Screw that.

Tell us how immaterialism gives us hope.

~~ Paul

[jan]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

That’s why I try to avoid squashing wasps. The last time I did was in 1991, not last summer (I was with some mentally handicapped people, and was concerned that some of them might panic seeing the wasps, and therefore getting stung).

It’s completely different with deists though: after living a righteous life, they will directly go to heaven to enjoy an eternity of pleasure, which surely is the pinnacle of meaningfulness.

On second thought, given the number of species and the abundance of insects, and compared with how the mammals and especially the great apes do, it seems obvious that god, if she exists, is more interested in wasps than in humans. So perhaps I am mere decoration and will cease to exist after my death, while the wasp, as one of god’s beloved children, will enter eternity. Or, at least, be meaningful.

By the way, what exactly is the advantage of having meaning?

I'll never learn anything from any of you lot. I haven't so far in about 13000 posts. I'm not expecting that to change.

Everybody knows that.

[Z]

I'll never learn anything from any of you lot. I haven't so far in about 13000 posts. I'm not expecting that to change.

He actually said this? :dl:

OK, mods, suspend me if you want, but this is a prime example of exactly what a hyperstupid person is all about. Not only is Ian unlearned, uneducated, and foolish, he is willfully ignorant! He has as much admitted now that he doesn't want to learn anything.

Boy, I'm glad he's on ignore. Shame on you, jan, for quoting his nonsense! (Thanks)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not believe a wasp has no meaning to its life. That's the position of most people on here, not mine. I was simply pointing out that you couldn't consider your life has any more meaning than a wasp's. Since you lot believe a wasp's life has no meaning, then neither does ours.

I didn't say I didn't think a wasp has no meaning either. Do you think our lives our more meaningful than the wasp's?
I'm assuming you believe in a soul and life after death, hence your constant bashing of materialism.
What happens to a wasp when he dies? Does a wasp have a soul in the same way that humans do?

If "lower" life forms don't have the same post death privileges as us humans, can you explain at what point our evolutionary history we obtained these special privileges?

[jan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
If "lower" life forms don't have the same post death privileges as us humans, can you explain at what point our evolutionary history we obtained these special privileges?

(i) Wasps are a part of the material, that is, illusional world, that is, they are just figments of your imagination, so the question is moot.
(ii) Wasps go to heaven too (so what's about amino acids, I hear you asking...)
(iii) Every being with at least 23 pairs of chromosomes has an immortal souls (birds, humans, &c.). Beings with fewer number of chromosome pairs, like wasps, are mere automaton.
(iv) We don't know, but god has the answer.
(v) ...

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You do not know that you will cease to exist when you die -- it might well be the start of an incredible unknown adventure. There is a huge amount of evidence suggesting this.

b) Even if you are right and do cease to exist, you need to bear in mind that death is not something you experience. It will be like before you were born, or indeed more or less like deep dreamless sleep.


I didn't exist before I was born. How do I know? Simple -- no memories, no experience. When I die, that's what I'll go back to.

Huge amount of evidence? Anything I can hold, feel, or experience? Nah, thought so. Just the usual hopeful drivel.

The simple fact is that some people who know me will miss me after I'm dead, some people who know me won't miss me at all. The majority of the world won't care either way. I'm glad it's this way. I like not being the special lynch-pin that the world hangs upon.

Beanbag.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I don't have beliefs. Sure, I recognise that materialism or epiphenomenalism is wrong, but this doesn't mean to say that I have my own metaphysic all neatly worked out. I'm not as arrogant as the materialists to believe that we human beings have all the basic answers regarding the nature of the world and our role in it. I'm only human and I do not have the intelligence to provide all the answers. Look to those who have had mystical experiences to provide you with the answers.

How can you say you don’t have beliefs when you've stated this more then once?

Originally By Interesting Ian

...snip...

"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known :)

...snip...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well I don't mean to make people feel depressed. So if I've done that to anyone I'm sorry.

I poke those who advocate that life has no inherent meaning because people listen to them and start to believe them. Materialists advocate a pernicious philosophy which has led to momentous misery throughout the world. This is why I poke them with my pointy barbs.

...snip...


Any supporting evidence for "… Materialists advocate a pernicious philosophy which has led to momentous misery throughout the world …" assertion?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Once the human race has gone, once all sentient life has gone in the entire Universe, never to arise again, then what was the point of it all?? Why none whatsoever! Or to put it another way: "Now that dinosaurs are extinct, how big were they? Why, no size at all!"

[Kopji]

I dunno, the wasp I squished was king of all wasps. He had been sent to save the wasps from eternal doom. A special wasp, destined to be spoken of in hushed tones by baby wasps not yet born.

Hive Temples would be built in his name - The Great One: Buzz-a-a-Buzz the Wise.

Sadly, as he entered the great chamber to speak, a huge dark ship descended and landed on him with crushing force. He was no more. The one word written on the side strikes fear into our hearts even to this day - NIKE.

[H'ethetheth]

(1) This thread has no more meaning than the wasp you say I squished last summer.

(2) I don't care if life has no "inherent meaning"; I provide my own.

(3) This post is about fifty posts late.

Deal with it.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.
I don't have a problem with that at all.

Tell me, what meaning does life have under your philosophy?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Darat
How can you say you don’t have beliefs when you've stated this more then once? Ah well, if you read his posts carefully, you'll see that other people, in their arrogance, "believe" things. Whereas Interesting Ian, in his humility, has "always known" that he's right.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I want people to understand that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose this despicable philosophy is true.


With arguments form adverse consequences? No sorry - that does not work.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
With arguments form adverse consequences? No sorry - that does not work.



The adverse consequences do not make it false. The fact that it cannot accommodate consciousness makes it false.

Unless you're a non-reductive-materialist. But that can't distinguish itself from epiphenomenalism.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The adverse consequences do not make it false. The fact that it cannot accommodate consciousness makes it false.


But then you'd better argue that instead of pointing out that if meaterialism is true then people's lives being meaningless.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Unless you're a non-reductive-materialist. But that can't distinguish itself from epiphenomenalism.


I dunno. I am just me. :)

[Atlas]

Ian,

Do you think everybody who is not an Idealist is a materialist?

It seems to me also that religions are forms of Idealism that you eschew. The real question that you need an answer to has nothing to do with the labels you throw around. It's all about whether a person can accept that there is something of himself that survives the grave.

Your antagonism arises from your perspective on death. People who disagree with you live a pointless, hopeless existence that you worry will infect vulnerable minds.

You know that humans survive death and that somehow implies ultimate meaning. You do not know what ultimate meaning is. And you seem loathe to assign your antagonists to damnation. So it must seem to you that regardless of the Idea of the meaning and purpose of life all of us will share a common fate. You accept that your opponents also believe that we will share a common fate don't you? You would, however, rather not entertain the one we see.

Are my questions too personal? I like to know what is going on underneath the rhetoric. You've led me to make these assumptions. I just want to know if I'm assuming correctly.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
I dunno. I am just me. :)


Thank you, I couldn't have put it so succinctly.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nor can they believe in a self and many other things
If this is true it is ironic. It is the ultimate goal for most of the main religions to 'lose' or 'forsake' the 'self'. And here we have acheived it without any effort! We didn't have to starve ourselves or live in poverty or meditate constantly.

So we will all gain the ultimate reward that is doled out by whatever turns out to be the true faith.

Interesting Ian, on the other hand, you are apparently so wedded to the idea of a self that you want it to continue eternally. So you are destined for oblivion, hell or reincarnation as a bee.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Atlas
Ian,

Do you think everybody who is not an Idealist is a materialist?
....
I can't answer for II, but some form of dualism (interactive makes no sense; non-interactive can have no meaning wrt the 4-d spacetime you, I, & everything empirically objective appears to inhabit) is available.

If you, or anyone, could provide any alternative that does not collapse into one of the idealism-dualism-materialism choices, I'd like to find out about it. :)

[Robin]

Originally posted by hammegk
I can't answer for II, but some form of dualism (interactive makes no sense; non-interactive can have no meaning wrt the 4-d spacetime you, I, & everything empirically objective appears to inhabit) is available.

If you, or anyone, could provide any alternative that does not collapse into one of the idealism-dualism-materialism choices, I'd like to find out about it. :)
And they in turn collapse into each other, since we must presume there is some order underlying existence (the alternative is disorder or absolutely nothing). If it is order then presumably it could be described. And science has never claimed to have uncovered completely the order of the perceived universe, or even that there is only one type of order.

So really we all just exist in that interesting place called 'I don't know'.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Everything we have ever done. All our hopes. All our fears. All our desires. All our frustrations. All of this ultimately means nothing.

Yes, exactly! isnt that beautiful? the man and the rock means the same, so clear and pure and pristine, human myths worth nothing!


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not just on a personal level, but for all human beings -- indeed for all sentient life. Once the human race has gone, once all sentient life has gone in the entire Universe, never to arise again, then what was the point of it all?? Why none whatsoever!

There is no point at all! Cant you grasp why this is so magnificent?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We are all cast adrift on an ocean of meaninglessness but pretending otherwise.

You can pretend otherwise, as long as you want. Believe all that you want, just stop trying to convince others. There is no point and no need.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
which they could not have if they simply ceased to exist for the rest of eternity at death.

You just say it, everyone of us will soon cease to exist, and even your life has zero meaning. Deal with it! :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'll never learn anything from any of you lot. I haven't so far in about 13000 posts. I'm not expecting that to change.

Then do yourself a favor and please stop wasting our time. You will not make converts here, you will not make anyone change their mind. Everyone here believes that what you say is nonsense. Other than coming to learn something, sorry, but you have nothing to do here.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
a) You do not know that you will cease to exist when you die -- it might well be the start of an incredible unknown adventure. There is a huge amount of evidence suggesting this.

Evidence. Yeah, right. I repeat. I pity you. :rub:

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Look to those who have had mystical experiences to provide you with the answers.

Here I can talk, with authority.

Guess what. It is not what you expect, or want to believe. At all.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Atlas
Don't seek another's lie. Seek your own truth and light. That's where you'll find peace. And it's the peace and contentment within your soul that convince others that you have a light they don't.

Wise post.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by jan
(i) Wasps are a part of the material, that is, illusional world, that is, they are just figments of your imagination, so the question is moot.
(ii) Wasps go to heaven too (so what's about amino acids, I hear you asking...)
(iii) Every being with at least 23 pairs of chromosomes has an immortal souls (birds, humans, &c.). Beings with fewer number of chromosome pairs, like wasps, are mere automaton.
(iv) We don't know, but god has the answer.
(v) ...

Dont expect that much from him. Those are intelligent answers, maybe not good ones, but at least you can see there is some work behind. :p

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by hammegk
If you, or anyone, could provide any alternative that does not collapse into one of the idealism-dualism-materialism choices, I'd like to find out about it. :)

Every kind of philosophy collapses in itself. No amount of words are, or can be meaningful in an "absolute way" (whatever that means). Everything we say is limited by what we can understand, and this by the concepts we can draw, which are limited, poor, perspectival, in one word: human.

Robin said it right. We live in "I dont know". I love that answer.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Every kind of philosophy collapses in itself. No amount of words are, or can be meaningful in an "absolute way" (whatever that means). Everything we say is limited by what we can understand, and this by the concepts we can draw, which are limited, poor, perspectival, in one word: human.

Robin said it right. We live in "I dont know". I love that answer.

Perhaps I'm just stereotyping or being biased, but I find that believers are more apt to be uncomfortable with the "I don't know" scenario.
It's as if they feel to make such an admission would be conceding defeat to the non-believers. Which of course, it isn't. It's not a battle that's going to be definitely won on either side.

Just an observation.

[Robin]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Perhaps I'm just stereotyping or being biased, but I find that believers are more apt to be uncomfortable with the "I don't know" scenario.
It's as if they feel to make such an admission would be conceding defeat to the non-believers. Which of course, it isn't. It's not a battle that's going to be definitely won on either side.

Just an observation.
Very true - believers would like to think that 'I don't know' = God.

[Beckett]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer

I'm used to thinking that I'm no better than a bug someone purposely stepped on. This is why I'm reluctant to kill bugs, or anything for that matter.

I don't know if this response is at all relevant. I was just attracted by the title of this thread, which mirrored my above related philosophy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Everyone here believes that what you say is nonsense. Other than coming to learn something, sorry, but you have nothing to do here. [/B]

Nonsense. Not everyone believes that at all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Look to those who have had mystical experiences to provide you with the answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here I can talk, with authority.

Guess what. It is not what you expect, or want to believe. At all.

On the contrary. What they say exactly reflects my beliefs.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by KelvinG
[B]Perhaps I'm just stereotyping or being biased, but I find that believers are more apt to be uncomfortable with the "I don't know" scenario.



Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.

This is the whole point, namely their arrogance in thinking that their worldview is most definitely correct.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
On the contrary. What they say exactly reflects my beliefs.

That depends, you might be picking the nuts. I bet a "channeler" is a mystic to you? You still have lots, lots to learn. Being mystic is about to see what is beyond humans. And, again, it is not what you believe. AT ALL.

Your "reason" is your doom. You are as "correct" as any of your beloved materialists. This will hurt you when you finally understand. If you even get "there", this is.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.

This is the whole point, namely their arrogance in thinking that their worldview is most definitely correct.

:rolleyes: funny thing is that I cant think on a "materialist" being more arrogant than you!

NO IAN, you bet you know, you believe that you know better. Thats your doom. You are not a step closer to anything.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.

This is the whole point, namely their arrogance in thinking that their worldview is most definitely correct.

Can you point out some skeptics/materialists that think their worldview is most definitely correct.
I know I'm not one of them. Hec Ian, you could be totally correct. I don't think you are, but that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that you might be. How can I ever really know for sure.

So, since you've defended yourself as being open minded on this subject (unlike all the skeptics/materialists), I have but one question.
Is it possible that you are wrong and materialists are right?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Can you point out some skeptics/materialists that think their worldview is most definitely correct.
I know I'm not one of them. Hec Ian, you could be totally correct. I don't think you are, but that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that you might be. How can I ever really know for sure.

So, since you've defended yourself as being open minded on this subject (unlike all the skeptics/materialists), I have but one question.
Is it possible that you are wrong and materialists are right?

It's not possible that materialim is correct nor is it possible we do not have free will. Maybe that would just boil down to semantics though. For example even though we definitely have free will in that my mentality per se is causally efficacious, my bodily behaviour may still follow physical laws. I don't think those physical laws could be reduced to the arrangement and interactions of electrons and quarks constituting my body though.

It is possible that consciousness is a by-product of the brain. Alzheimers and the like tend to be emotional influential on this issue. It's all incredibly counter-intuitional though as well as being at odds with direct evidence for "life after death" and indirect evidence from psi.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... nor is it possible we do not have free will.

If you are free, you can choose to stop posting nonsense...

But you cant, ergo, you are not free. This proves it.

[P.S.A.]

*pops briefly in*

So this is what "Interesting" has been doing whilst I've been away; Mewling and sulking about "dealing with it" still, and still claiming life has no meaning for "materialists" because he wants to believe his own life has meaning, and because he doesn't like "materialists", that must mean their life has no meaning by contrast.... "I'm right and you are wrong, waaa, waaa, waaa!" he goes, and we all laugh at him further. The fact that "materialists" as he imagines them don't even exist is an added bonus.

This was the best bit;

For example even though we definitely have free will in that my mentality per se is causally efficacious, my bodily behaviour may still follow physical laws. I don't think those physical laws could be reduced to the arrangement and interactions of electrons and quarks constituting my body though.

How many times have people explained to him that this is actually close to their own views? It's certainly very close to my own.

Are you listening, Ian? That's actually close to my own views.. I agree, the body isn't governed by the micro laws of physics, but yet remains restrained by physics at some level all the same... your straw man "materialists" at the JREF don't exist.

Now stop with the desperate emotional need to claim that that the reason people disagree with you is because they are somehow different to you, and thus evil because you are good. Because it doesn't work. Our lives don't suddenly become empty and meaningless just because the only sense of worth you have in your own life is to believe in invisible powers and evil, materialistic people out to deny those powers exist. Nor do we believe a wasp doesn't count, or that cruelty to animals is acceptable. And no, I'm not going to let you forget that particular piece of slander, not just because it was offensive... but because it's not even vaguely close to the truth.

No Ian, it's entirely possible for an atheist, for even a sKeptic to find meaning in life, to find love and respect for all living things... And of course they do, or they wouldn't bother living, would they? The reason you can't see what that reason is, is because you don't want to see those reasons. You don't persuade us of your "goodness" when you'd sooner proclaim your own specialness, instead of listening to what anyone is actually saying; and then declaring, from nothing more than your own prejudicial "intuitition", what this means about other people's views and behaviour, just makes you look like an enormous git.

The fact that you don't feel yourself to be a git is irrelevant. When I've been drunk, I've believed myself to be all kinds of special too...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Did I miss it? Did Ian explain how hope is intrinsic to his metaphysic? I think I must have missed it. I'd hate to miss it.

~~ Paul

[Robin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.

This is the whole point, namely their arrogance in thinking that their worldview is most definitely correct.
Do you have any idea what trouble your argument must be in if you have to resort to outright lying like this?

[Soapy Sam]

Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.- II


But I don't have beliefs.-II

It's not possible that materialim is correct nor is it possible we do not have free will. Maybe that would just boil down to semantics though.-II

On the contrary. What they say exactly reflects my beliefs.-II



I suspect you are correct Ian. After 13,000 posts you have learned nothing.

[KelvinG]

So Ian, you said this in another post:

Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.

This is the whole point, namely their arrogance in thinking that their worldview is most definitely correct.

And then you immediately come back with:



It's not possible that materialim is correct nor is it possible we do not have free will. Maybe that would just boil down to semantics though.

wtf?

You just finished condemning skeptics/materialist for believing their worldview is most definitely correct (but failed to provide any examples of who you are talking about), and state that your worldview is definitely correct.

If you really have a "don't know" position as you claimed earlier, shouldn't you be saying "I don't know if it's possible that materialism is correct and that we don't have free will."
You seem pretty sure you have things all figured out.

edited to add: Soapy Sam pretty much just said the same thing in the post above me. I read it after I typed all this out.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Well that's funny since the "I don't know" is exactly my position where as all the skeptics/materialists hold the position that they do know.- II


But I don't have beliefs.-II

It's not possible that materialim is correct nor is it possible we do not have free will. Maybe that would just boil down to semantics though.-II

On the contrary. What they say exactly reflects my beliefs.-II



I suspect you are correct Ian. After 13,000 posts you have learned nothing.

The word "beliefs" is being used in differing contexts here. No beliefs as in a detailed metaphysic which I subscribe to. But I have beliefs in the sense I believe there's an ultimate purpose to life etc.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by KelvinG
[B]So Ian, you said this in another post:

[b]

And then you immediately come back with:




wtf?

You just finished condemning skeptics/materialist for believing their worldview is most definitely correct (but failed to provide any examples of who you are talking about), and state that your worldview is definitely correct.



I stated no such thing. I merely said materialism (by which I mean reductive materialism which is materialism proper) is definitely incorrect. Stating that is no more stating my worldview is correct than stating that an object cannot, from a phenomenological perspective, simultaneously be both a cube and a sphere is stating my worldview is correct.

[Ryokan]

"Life and love are life and love, a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets, and to drag in the idea of a point is to ruin everything. Live and let live, love and let love, flower and fade, and follow the natural curve, which flows on pointless."

— D.H. Lawrence

[Iacchus]

If there was no meaning in life, why do we feel the need to differentiate?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If there was no meaning in life, why do we feel the need to differentiate? So you don't pick the wrong sexual partner?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If there was no meaning in life, why do we feel the need to differentiate? Insects, lizards and spiders differentiate. Will they be with you in your life after death?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I stated no such thing. I merely said materialism (by which I mean reductive materialism which is materialism proper) is definitely incorrect. Stating that is no more stating my worldview is correct than stating that an object cannot, from a phenomenological perspective, simultaneously be both a cube and a sphere is stating my worldview is correct.

Ahhh, one can only nod and smile. Yes, of course you are correct Ian.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is possible that consciousness is a by-product of the brain. Alzheimers and the like tend to be emotional influential on this issue. It's all incredibly counter-intuitional though as well as being at odds with direct evidence for "life after death" and indirect evidence from psi.
Can you name one piece of direct evidence for life after death? Or one piece of indirect evidence from psi? If I could see any of this type of evidence that didn't fall to ash when you examined it more closely then I would certainly consider that the mind was more than a function of the brain.

But without such evidence it seems perfectly intuitive to me that the mind is simply what the brain does.

Immature people have immature minds
Damaged brains have damaged minds
Chemically altered brains have altered minds (not just perceptions)
Every time we observe a mind there is sure to be a brain associated with it.
There are instruments that can show brain activity correlating with mental activities
There has been no evidence of the mind ever existing independent of a brain.

Psi evidence or life after death evidence would certainly change my mind on this. I haven't seen any. (Unless you mean those mediums that communicate with spirits that can only talk on single letters - "I'm getting an H here, anybody know an H?")

[Robin]

But even if I had good evidence that the mind was something separate from the brain - I still fail to see how that somehow creates meaning in my life that is currently missing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Atlas
Insects, lizards and spiders differentiate. Will they be with you in your life after death? Yes, even pizza ... and beer and wine.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Robin
[B]Can you name one piece of direct evidence for life after death?



Deathbed visions.






But without such evidence it seems perfectly intuitive to me that the mind is simply what the brain does.



What the brain does is a physical process. There is absolutely no suggestion of any consciousness whatever physical process we have in mind.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

You are wrong.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By now Ian must have explained how an immaterialist view leads to hope and meaning. Could someone summarize his explanation, because I seemed to have missed it.

~~ Paul

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

I get what you are trying to say. I disagree completely, but the point you are trying to make is clear. But let me ask you this: Your implication is that one needs some sort of external validation for one's existence to make it meaningful. So your answer to that is to make up, essentially, a world of magical fairies in order to give your life legitimacy? How does an invented, imaginary magical world or an invented, imaginary God give a life legitimacy and value? And what grants the imaginary God or fairies legitimacy? Even if one were to assume God were real in any meaningful sense and we are able to assume legitimacy for our own existence by virtue of having been created by God - Why do you assume God himself has legitimacy? God bestows authenticity and significance to our lives. Who bestows those things to his?

[sackett]

One summer day, I was sitting under the cherry tree in my back garden. I noticed a spider descending from a branch, its thread just barely visible in the light coming through the leaves.

Suddenly a flying insect darted past me on the left and collided with the spider. The two creatures fell together into the grass. I was silly enough to think it was some sort of mid-air traffic accident; I thought, That must not happen very often. Then I recovered from that foolish thought and bent down to look into the grass where the spider and the insect had fallen.

There lay the head, thorax, and legs of the spider, motionless and almost certainly dead. There, already a few inches away and moving steadily toward some destination I couldn’t see, was the insect, a wasp. She was dragging the spider’s abdomen (the only really juicy part, of course), using her hind legs as claspers – claspers exactly shaped to the prey she had won. In the space of a few seconds, she had struck, stung, and immobilized the spider, fighting a death-struggle in the jungle of my lawn. She had bitten through the spider’s epigonium and now was taking away the part she needed. I don’t know what species of wasp she was – just conceivably, her species might be new to science, if I were a scientist – but probably she was going to dig a hole in the earth of my flower bed (how did she know a flower bed lay in that direction? was she born there herself and could find her way back using chemical clues? visual clues?), lay one or more eggs on the abdomen, and cover everything over. Then she would hunt again.

Like Bodhi Dharma with Ian, that spider hit me over the head with her Zen stick -- only better, because every instant of this experience was completely rational, explicable, and understandable. At the same time, my human consciousness had nothing at all to do with it.

Was that wasp doing something meaningful? Did she perhaps feel some tiny spark of satisfaction? Did that spider die for some purpose beyond herself? Irrelevant! Presumptuous, impudent, insolent, ignorant, and foolish to waste wind even asking!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by sackett
Was that wasp doing something meaningful? Did she perhaps feel some tiny spark of satisfaction? Did that spider die for some purpose beyond herself? Irrelevant! Presumptuous, impudent, insolent, ignorant, and foolish to waste wind even asking!

:th:

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
By now Ian must have explained how an immaterialist view leads to hope and meaning. Could someone summarize his explanation, because I seemed to have missed it.

~~ Paul I'm not sure if I completly understand it. But it sounds something like:

A:) You're all wrong and I know it.
B:) I'm probably right because I know you're all wrong.
C:) Deathbed visions of Hell and stuff are convincing.

So it gives him hope that he survives death for an eternity in hell, I guess.

I'm pretty sure he ain't seeing the big picture. Any "freed" consciousness should have a bigger vision of reality and should be able to communicate with it's "unfreed" loved ones.

The unfortunate reality is that souls are like bread. Life leavens and bakes the soul which if burned it's distributed as food among the demons and if baked to perfection is consumed by the Gods.

I think it's pretty obvious that idealists, like all humans, can be captured by wrongheaded ideas. There is nothing that suggests the "eternal" soul, even if it survives death, survives for much longer. If God is love why cut the bonds of love between "living" consciousnesses. The consciousness does not change by the death of the host, it merely becomes disembodied. Since the body and brain are not necessary to consciousness why do they stop communicating with their loved ones. I understand why the non-idealist believes his consciousness stops caring at death but I don't know why this is a source of hope to the idealist.

It just is.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Deathbed visions.
Well I don't buy deathbed visions as direct evidence, but you probably know that already. For a start the very fact that they are 'visions' makes them unlikely to be evidence of an afterlife. How could we see things after the eyes are dead?

But it really makes no difference. If there is no meaning in a finite life span I don't see how an eternity will help. You could just as easily have a meaningless eternity as a meaningless 65 odd years.
What the brain does is a physical process. There is absolutely no suggestion of any consciousness whatever physical process we have in mind.
Do you know everything there is to know about physical processes? No physicist has ever claimed to. What you mean is that there is no suggestion of any consciousness whatever other physical processes we have in mind. But we know of no other physical structure like a brain - it is unique. No surprise that it should have some properties that no other physical thing has.

The other thing is that it seems that the brain is likely necessary for consciousness even if consciousness is not an actual physical process in the brain. If consciousness is dependent on the physical development of the brain and monkeying with the brain affects consciousness so severely it seems likely that shutting down the brain and allowing it to decompose into it's parts would also shut down consciousness.

But even if the mind is not something the brain does, I still don't see how meaning is suddenly created by moving the mind elsewhere - what does location have to do with it? As long as there is some order underlying the processes of consciousness then philosophically it makes no difference whether they are the laws and dynamics of physics (whatever they turn out to be) or the laws and dynamics of some other thing.

The only other choice I can see is that there is an underlying disorder which is does not result free will either.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
If you are free, you can choose to stop posting nonsense...

But you cant, ergo, you are not free. This proves it.

Interesting Ian.

Done.

I proved that you are not free.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Atlas
I'm not sure if I completly understand it. But it sounds something like:

A:) You're all wrong and I know it.
B:) I'm probably right because I know you're all wrong.
C:) Deathbed visions of Hell and stuff are convincing.


Atlas, I believe Ian thinks like this:

D: Im definitely right because I know that you all are wrong. And PSI exists. And scientists are wrong. And materialists are wrong. And deathbead experiences are real. And I know.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

That's a "glass half empty" way of looking at things.

I would say that your life has no less meaning than the wasp you squished last summer.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Robin
How could we see things after the eyes are dead?


More to the point, how can we see things after the brain is dead?

(I realize it's a rhetorical question....)

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.

I have only one question for you, Ian, and I think it will clear that whole thought up immensely for you.

When you say "meaning"... whose? You seem to have this strange idea that everything in materialism must be objective... not so. Meaning is created by interaction between two things... something means something to somebody/thing. Minds create meaning through relational representation and abstraction... even the meaning of meaning (wrap your head around that ;-)).

Sunlight means cancer, burns, a tan, and vitamin D to me.
Sunlight means food to my tomato plant.
Sunlight means a great napping spot to my cats.

I dare say my life means more to me than a wasp's does, and I am sure in some sense that wasp's life means more to it (whatever rudimentary meaning it's representational brain can support) than I do. Conversely, that wasp *inherently* means less to itself than its hive. Humans seem to be divided on what means more... their life or the benefit of all humans (libertarian vs. collectivist).

If you really want to get to brass tacks, consider this: Given a matter replicator, I (G) make another me (G'). G still means more to G than G' does, even though they are, objectively speaking, identical. If it came down to me or him, G' has got to go ;-).

[Iacchus]

So, at what point did the Universe incorporate meaning -- as if to say it just instigated itself on the fly -- or, has "it" -- that which was pre-existent to the Big Bang as well -- always entailed meaning?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, at what point did the Universe incorporate meaning -- as if to say it just instigated itself on the fly -- or, has "it" -- that which was pre-existent to the Big Bang as well -- always entailed meaning?
Not exactly sure what you're saying.

But, I agree with Ian, neither life, the universe, nor anything has any inherent meaning according to materialism. In fact, I cant even imagine what it means for something to have "inherent meaning" in any metaphysic (not even theism).

Of course, Ian hasnt figured out yet that the universe has a great deal of instrumental meaning, and many people are very happy with it.

Originally posted by aggle-rhythm
More to the point, how can we see things after the brain is dead?
Ask Bill Frist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Not exactly sure what you're saying.

But, I agree with Ian, neither life, the universe, nor anything has any inherent meaning according to materialism. In fact, I cant even imagine what it means for something to have "inherent meaning" in any metaphysic (not even theism).

Of course, Ian hasnt figured out yet that the universe has a great deal of instrumental meaning, and many people are very happy with it. What is meaning without order? And where did the order to the Universe come from? If there is no inherent basis for it, then the word meaning is entirely "without" meaning. In which case maybe we all should just go back to sleep? ... ;)

[Iacchus]

Indeed, there must be something significant here, since the above was my 5300rd post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870970896#post1870970896). ;) Or, maybe the thing is wholly coincidental? ... Not so, if you believe in synchronicity ...

http://www.dionysus.org/images/5300.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870970896#post1870970896)

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." ~ Genesis 41:32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=41&version=9)

[aggle-rithm]

For the record, I would never squish a wasp.

I would also never use the word "squish" in a sentence, unless I absolutely had to.

When you crush a wasp, it releases chemicals that attract other wasps to sting you.

Therefore, I do the humane thing, and spray poison from a safe distance.

I do believe that my life has more meaning than that of those wasps. I contribute more entropy to the universe before breakfast than they do their whole lives.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, at what point did the Universe incorporate meaning -- as if to say it just instigated itself on the fly -- or, has "it" -- that which was pre-existent to the Big Bang as well -- always entailed meaning?

You are a bit confused. The universe is a thing, not a word. Words have meaning, things are or are not.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
For the record, I would never squish a wasp. I would ... ;) Dang White Anglo Saxon Protetants -- err, I mean WASPS (http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68) -- anyway!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
You are a bit confused. The universe is a thing, not a word. Words have meaning, things are or are not. What is a thing, unless it can be described (i.e., it's meaning) with words anyway?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is a thing, unless it can be described (i.e., it's meaning) with words anyway?

Whether you describe it or not it is still a "thing".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
Whether you describe it or not it is still a "thing". And yes, believe it or not, you're still trying to describe the meaning of "some" thing ... Even here! ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yes, believe it or not, you're still trying to describe the meaning of "some" thing ... Even here! ;)

No I'm not.

[alfaniner]

"Why is any object we don't understand always called a 'thing'?"

Dr. McCoy, Leonard H. -- Star Trek: The Motion Picture

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is a thing, unless it can be described (i.e., it's meaning) with words anyway?

Point is that, if we do not talk about it, or mention it, or think about it... it is meaningless to attribute it a meaning. Cant you see that?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Indeed, there must be something significant here, since the above was my 5300rd post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870970896#post1870970896). ;)
Congrats!

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Indeed, there must be something significant here, since the above was my 5300rd post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870970896#post1870970896). ;) Or, maybe the thing is wholly coincidental? ... Not so, if you believe in synchronicity ...


"The ruler of the universe likes round numbers. And for some reason, he uses a base-10 numbering system."

--Dogbert

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
No I'm not. Your words have no meaning then, without some "thing" to back them up.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
You are a bit confused. The universe is a thing, not a word. Words have meaning, things are or are not. Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Point is that, if we do not talk about it, or mention it, or think about it... it is meaningless to attribute it a meaning. Cant you see that?We are not separate from the Universe, we are a part of it. And if our part contains meaning, why shouldn't the rest?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Your words have no meaning then, without some "thing" to back them up. Not true in the slightest. Indeed, coming from you, more than a tad ironic.

Words have meaning according to their tacitly or expressly agreed-upon usage within a language community. They may be specific, concrete, vague, abstract, whatever is needed to communicate one's desires to another.

When words are used in a manner completely different from the rest of the language community, they cease to have meaning. As Tricky has pointed out, your use of the word "moment" is nearly exactly the opposite of what the rest of us mean. You have a different meaning of "evidence" than the rest of us, and as a result your claims of evidence are thoroughly meaningless to the rest of us who use the term in its agreed-upon manner.

There need not be a "thing" backing up a word to give it meaning. Meaning is use within a language community.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Point is that, if we do not talk about it, or mention it, or think about it... it is meaningless to attribute it a meaning. Cant you see that? And with all the things we don't understand in the Universe -- for example, if we didn't understand there was some hidden force operating behind all "things" -- would it still be the same Universe as we know it? Me thinks not. And, with their extensive knowledge of the human predicament, perhaps this is why the Greeks reserved a special place for any unknown God? ... i.e., why they were open to new ideas such as Christianity (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html).

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We are not separate from the Universe, we are a part of it. And if our part contains meaning, why shouldn't the rest? An eye is part of a body. So is a toe. If an eye contains photoreceptors, why shouldn't a toe?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We are not separate from the Universe, we are a part of it. And if our part contains meaning, why shouldn't the rest?

Because we attribute meaning by our use of words. Meaning is a human thing. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Not true in the slightest. Indeed, coming from you, more than a tad ironic. I see that we're speaking from the standpoint of absolutes again. Too bad.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I see that we're speaking from the standpoint of absolutes again. Too bad. You made an unqualified statement to Darat. You were wrong. I called you on it. There is no "we're speaking from..." about it.

Not that I expected you to admit it or apologize, but to try to evade in your typical manner...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Because we attribute meaning by our use of words. Meaning is a human thing. Nothing more, nothing less. Meaning is also a Universal thing. Nothing more, nothing less. If not, then why portray yours in absolute terms of as well?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Meaning is also a Universal thing. Nothing more, nothing less. If not, then why portray yours in absolute terms of as well? Do you even read what you write? How can you say "also", but then say "nothing more, nothing less"? You are internally inconsistent (again).

And will we once again wait in vain for you to supply any evidence, any support at all, for your assertions?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Congrats! Thanks, and did you get a chance to follow the link below? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus
And with all the things we don't understand in the Universe -- for example, if we didn't understand there was some hidden force operating behind all "things" -- would it still be the same Universe as we know it? Me thinks not. And, with their extensive knowledge of the human predicament, perhaps this is why the Greeks reserved a special place for any unknown God? ... i.e., why they were open to new ideas such as Christianity (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Do you even read what you write? How can you say "also", but then say "nothing more, nothing less"? You are internally inconsistent (again).

And will we once again wait in vain for you to supply any evidence, any support at all, for your assertions? The evidence? It's all in our heads. It always has, and always will be. Which is not to say we can't recognize something externally and ascribe meaning to it ... Or else what's the point of Science?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The evidence? It's all in our heads. It always has, and always will be. Which is not to say we can't recognize something externally and ascribe meaning to it ... Or else what's the point of Science? Thank you for illustrating what I said about the way you use the word "evidence". It saves me the trouble of linking another thread.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Thank you for illustrating what I said about the way you use the word "evidence". It saves me the trouble of linking another thread. Indeed, where is the evidence without "a mind" to witness it? I'm not saying it's not there of course but, that it's wholly contingent upon what we "see" in our minds. In other words "empirical evidence" will only take you so far. It won't take you into the mind which actually examines the evidence.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Pardon, just checking in to see if Ian has explained how the immaterial provides inherent purpose or meaning. Did I miss it?

~~ Paul

[Anders]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a materialist based metaphysic accurately characterises reality, then your life has no more meaning than the wasp you squished last Summer.

Deal with it.
Yeah, so bloody what!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Meaning is also a Universal thing.

Meaning is also a Universal thing...

Meaning, is also, a Universal Thing...

Nope. I have no idea on what you wanted to say. Attributing meaning is a language function. Language was invented by humans. Without them, it is meaningless to even try to talk about if "this" or "that".

Sorry Iacchus, but like Interesting Ian and Lifegazer... you are just trying to ascribe meaning to "the world" using severely limited concepts.

[jan]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Pardon, just checking in to see if Ian has explained how the immaterial provides inherent purpose or meaning. Did I miss it?

As soon as Ian explains how the immaterial provides inherent purpose or meaning, the dead will rise, the stars will fall from the sky, and one third of the sea will turn to blood.

So you don't have to worry that you might miss it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BTW Iacchus, talking about meaning... I wonder what does this means? because it have to mean something, I mean, it cant be just chance... look at the number of my reply to you... 1113, this is three ones and one three...

In a post about meaning!! It is simply Amazing, isn it?

As Lifegazer would say... this is profound

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jan said:
As soon as Ian explains how the immaterial provides inherent purpose or meaning, the dead will rise, the stars will fall from the sky, and one third of the sea will turn to blood.

So you don't have to worry that you might miss it.
Okay then, standing by . . .

~~ Paul

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Okay then, standing by . . .

~~ Paul Paul, you're too optimistic. Sit down.... Crack a brewski. This is gonna take awhile, I'm sure.

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Look to those who have had mystical experiences to provide you with the answers.Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Here I can talk, with authority.

Guess what. It is not what you expect, or want to believe. At all. Bodhi, just curious to know what we should expect. What are the realities of meditation and mysticism? Are they at all helpful or what?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by FreeChile
Bodhi, just curious to know what we should expect. What are the realities of meditation and mysticism? Are they at all helpful or what?

Well, I have said this in other threads. Mysticisim, contrary to the common expectation, has nothing to do with "immaterial realities". It deals only with reality, this reality. It doesnt give you "special powers" you will not talk to spirits, nor will have knowledge about the future, nor will enter in contact with "beings" of "other dimensions".

Meditation is a technique to focus your feelings and your thinking, something that is not common here in occident. Its a tool that lets you experience the world from a different perspective. Meditating, you can reach altered states of consciousness, some of them might be called "special" but are in no way (as I said before) supernatural or paranormal in any way. The sensation of "being" "here" and "now"is also boosted in an interesting way.

Enlightnment is just one of those states, but its a lot deeper (than other states) in the sense that it could be a permament shift in the point of view from where you see the world.

It shows you (or teach you) to respect life as it is, it helps you to see false beliefs as what they are, beliefs, with no "substance" on their own, so to speak.

There is a thread about Zen and Enlightment around here, in case you are interested.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by FreeChile
Bodhi, just curious to know what we should expect. What are the realities of meditation and mysticism? Are they at all helpful or what? If I might make light of your serious question...

Watch all the old episodes of Kung Fu. There is no better preparation if you wish to grow up to be a slow talking holy man.
Grasshopper, go out into the world and be like a sun and warm the earth.
---- Master Po to Quai Chang Cain (original Kung Fu TV show)

[Gestahl]

I just wanted to pop in and point out that any relational, abstractive system/process can create meaning. Sunlight means ATP to a plant whether the plant is "aware" of it or not.

Just as things can mean things subconciously that we are, by definition, not aware of. Conciousness is not required.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by jan
As soon as Ian explains how the immaterial provides inherent purpose or meaning, the dead will rise, the stars will fall from the sky, and one third of the sea will turn to blood.


...DOGS and cats, LIVING together -- MASS HYSTERIA!

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I just wanted to pop in and point out that any relational, abstractive system/process can create meaning. Sunlight means ATP to a plant whether the plant is "aware" of it or not.

Just as things can mean things subconciously that we are, by definition, not aware of. Conciousness is not required. This use of meaning is different from others that have been thrown on this thread. Some have meant significance, others purpose, others sameness, others definition. Yall gotta get together and come up with a consisent meaning of meaning.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by FreeChile
This use of meaning is different from others that have been thrown on this thread. Some have meant significance, others purpose, others sameness, others definition. Yall gotta get together and come up with a consisent meaning of meaning.

Which cannot be done using the English language, as meaning is the fundamental prerequisite concept to using it.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Gestahl
Which cannot be done using the English language, as meaning is the fundamental prerequisite concept to using it.

I think that defining consciousness is a very similar problem. You can't define it without invoking the thing you're trying to define, revealing a built-in tautology.

It's also similar in that the experience of meaning is different for different people, just as the experience of consciousness varies widely from one person to another. (It's not simply different meanings; it goes a lot deeper than that, I think. )