"Everything is meaningless - like chasing the wind."

[Aikikai Novice]

So, what is it that gives your life meaning?

I mean, especially if you insist that you're an athiest and there's nothing "supernatural," or "metaphysical," or especially nothing "trancendant" or "divine."

It almost seems like a mental illness to me the way that some people try to justify to themselves why they put any given effort into any given part of their lives.

Like sometime back on this forum, someone posed the question of what kind of society there should be in the absence of trancendant moral absoultes governing our behavior (or something like that) and the response was something like, the kind that benefits our society...the kind observed in populations of monkeys.

An interesting response, since the obvious real answer is, "that's a completely meaningless question since we're all just figments of our imaginations, just clusters of matter undergoing complex chemical reactions with no real will or feeling."

There seems to be two camps of athiests - The first: "there is no 'God' or whatever, and everything is meaningless. Yeah, you're right. I know. It's meaningless." Some of these people become suicidal (makes sense to me), and some, bizarrely, choose to live anyway as though that is not the case and they just keep that little gem of info tucked away, off to the side, and they live trying to extract enjoyment out of their admittedly meaningless lives, ironically sorta' roughly equating "enjoyment" with "good." Or wallowing in dispair about how it sucks to exist. *shrug*

The second: "there is no 'God' or whatever, but there's meaning and importance in our lives or the universe anyway...somehow." Then usually followss some mind bending hash about some kind of intrinsic responsibility or uniqueness or trancendance we posess because we're "conscious" or for some other reason or what not.

Well, "meaning" is an intrinsically metaphysical idea, as it cannot be shown to be "real" using physics. Any assertion of meaning in existence, therefore, is trancendant of the "physical world" and might as well be equated to divinity.

For instance, if your world view is something like, "perception is your personal reality, and since perception is relative, reality then is also relative." This in no small way elevates each of us into gods, since we have the ability to create reality by existing.

Or another example: the idea that there's some way our society should be, that we somehow have the ability to recognize a "best" way of doing something, or that the concept of "benefiting" a person or society as a whole is in some way "good" or at least meaningfully desirable. This also elevates us to gods - giving us the ability to assign ethical imparatives.

So if you're an athiest who belives we're nothing but clumps of matter on a bigger clump going around a bigger clump etc., that we're just fluctuations in quantum probability, what drives you? To ANYTHING? Is it just your body seeking a chemical homeostasis? The universe ticking on by itself? And if it is, why do any of you give a second thought to matters of fairness, or suffering, or tollerance, or achievement?

And why are so many of you so unnecessarily antagonistic of those who have religious beliefs? It's all meaningless anyway.

[aikiMac]

Or another example: the idea that there's some way our society should be, that we somehow have the ability to recognize a "best" way of doing something, or that the concept of "benefiting" a person or society as a whole is in some way "good" or at least meaningfully desirable. This also elevates us to gods - giving us the ability to assign ethical imparatives.
Reminds me of this quote: "Ethicists disagree about almost everything, but they are unanimous on one thing: Humans have a problem. We are not where we ought to be in a moral sense. If we were doing everything right, there would be no need for ethics.”
Steve Wilkens, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics, page 23

See http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54987&
post 48, and then picking up again at 79

Some atheists have told me that there is no objective meaning to life, that the only meaning to life is that which you give it. Other atheists have denied that there is no objective meaning, but nonetheless admitted that the only meaning is that which you give it. :rolleyes: That latter view seems rather inconsistent to me.

[Socrastein]

Meaning and value cannot be objective. It's not simply the case that God doesn't exist, so unfortunately things aren't objective and all we have is subjective values. Rather, whether God exists or not, value statements are inherently subjective in that a value statement makes no sense without reference to a subject doing the valuing.

You can't speak of something being valuable if nobody values it. You can't speak of something being meaningful if nobody finds it so. These are subjective functions between a subject and an object.

Objective statements are statements that make/need no reference to a subject in order to be true/false or to make sense. Such as, light travels at 300,000 km/sec. The speed of electromagnetic energy in a vacuum has no relationship to a subject or subjects. The weight of a rock, the number of stars in a galaxy, the sum of 2 and 2, all of these things have truth values that needn't a subject for reference.

Subjective statements necessarily require a subject. Pizza is good, Bach sounds beautiful, sour kraut is gross, the Mona Lisa is inspiring, killing is bad, broken legs suck, etc. All of these statements must necessarily refer to a subject or subjects, either explicitly or tacitly, to have any meaning or truth value. They cannot be true or false, much less sensical, without reference to a subject.

Obviously, this isn't a topic specific to atheists. The subjective nature of value and meaning applies to all subjects, it doesn't matter what you believe about metaphysical beings.

Our lives are all valuable and meaningful for the same reason - because we, as subjects, subjectively place value and meaning on them. It makes no sense to say "X is valuable" unless there is a referenced subject who values X.

Aikikai, your analysis is flawed, you misunderstand the meaning and nature of subjectivity vs objectivity, and thus you draw inappropriate, nonsensical conclusions. When one better understands the ideas and terms at hand, the problem quite conveniently goes away on its own ;)

[Skrom]

i am an atheist, and i think life is completely meaningless. i think everything is completely meaningless, as a matter of fact. i don't think our lives can be given any meaning since anything we do is pointless in the end. just to clarify, i don't consider this to be a negative point of view.

as i see it, i have two options: live or die. for me, dying implies no longer existing, which is difficult for me to imagine and not very appealing. so that's the short answer right there, living beats dying :p
with that out of the way:

why do any of you give a second thought to matters of fairness, or suffering, or tollerance, or achievement?

because it comes naturally. i am human, after all. i'm not going to deny my own nature just because i think life is meaningless. because it is meaningless, there's no reason for me to live other than to enjoy myself, and trying to give up things i care about for no reason would be counter-productive to that goal.

i know that'll be misunderstood, so i'll clear it up a little. when i say "enjoy myself", i don't mean "go out and party every day and do drugs and call myself a hippie". that's too short-term. i do a lot of things i don't feel like doing or don't like doing so that when i'm on my deathbed i can look back on my life and feel like it was worthwhile.

i could write a whole lot more about this, but it's almost 4:30 in the morning, so i'm gonna give it a rest for now...

[Socrastein]

Skrom, I fear you also misunderstand the nature of subjectivity and how it relates to value and meaning. Obviously you value your life and to you personally its meaningful. Yet, you say that life is meaningless. This seems to be a contradiction, and I think it can only stem from your mistakenly treating meaning and value as though there were possibly objective functions.

If you value your life, your life is valuable. If you think your life is meaningful, it has meaning. There is no other manner in which this could be so, and thus, your life is as valuable and as meaningful as it could possibly be, in that it couldn't possibly achieve objective meaning, and it is so because you, as a subject, subjectively value it.

[Aegis]

So, what is it that gives your life meaning?

Life itself gives my life meaning. Sounds like a fairly simple dismissal of the rest of the post to be honest, but I'll go into a little more depth as required. However, for future reference, most atheists I know consider life itself to be a really good reason to keep on living, so you might not need to ask questions like this again.

I mean, especially if you insist that you're an athiest and there's nothing "supernatural," or "metaphysical," or especially nothing "trancendant" or "divine."

It almost seems like a mental illness to me the way that some people try to justify to themselves why they put any given effort into any given part of their lives.

Another bit of advice: in friendly discussion, opening up with a comment that justification of life for atheists seems like a mental illness isn't going to win you many friends! If you like to look at it that way, it's actually quite easy for the atheist to turn that right back at you and use essentially the same comments about religion being used as a justification for existance, which is why I prefer to just live and let live when it comes to faith.

Like sometime back on this forum, someone posed the question of what kind of society there should be in the absence of trancendant moral absoultes governing our behavior (or something like that) and the response was something like, the kind that benefits our society...the kind observed in populations of monkeys.

An interesting response, since the obvious real answer is, "that's a completely meaningless question since we're all just figments of our imaginations, just clusters of matter undergoing complex chemical reactions with no real will or feeling."

How many atheists actually think we're all figments of our imaginations? I certainly don't, nor does anyone I know. It's an interesting philosophical question (i.e. how could we tell the difference between being imaginary and being real), but I know no-one who genuinely believes it, atheist or otherwise.

There seems to be two camps of athiests - The first: "there is no 'God' or whatever, and everything is meaningless. Yeah, you're right. I know. It's meaningless." Some of these people become suicidal (makes sense to me), and some, bizarrely, choose to live anyway as though that is not the case and they just keep that little gem of info tucked away, off to the side, and they live trying to extract enjoyment out of their admittedly meaningless lives, ironically sorta' roughly equating "enjoyment" with "good." Or wallowing in dispair about how it sucks to exist. *shrug*

I don't believe in any higher meaning, but have never been suicidal. What you've totally missed here is that to someone who believes that life is all there is, with nothing following, life becomes precious. Probably more so to them than to people who believe that they're going somewhere better when they die. With only this existance to experience, everything we do becomes meaningful to ourselves, which is often all that's needed to give life itself meaning.

The second: "there is no 'God' or whatever, but there's meaning and importance in our lives or the universe anyway...somehow." Then usually followss some mind bending hash about some kind of intrinsic responsibility or uniqueness or trancendance we posess because we're "conscious" or for some other reason or what not.

Some atheists believe in fate, or in non-theistic life after death, but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule. My own experience tells me that more often than not, my last paragraph is more or less correct.

Well, "meaning" is an intrinsically metaphysical idea, as it cannot be shown to be "real" using physics. Any assertion of meaning in existence, therefore, is trancendant of the "physical world" and might as well be equated to divinity.

Not really. Meaning varies from person to person, and there's no real logical argument to assume that meaning and divinity are even related.

For instance, if your world view is something like, "perception is your personal reality, and since perception is relative, reality then is also relative." This in no small way elevates each of us into gods, since we have the ability to create reality by existing.

I've never heard anyone reasoning that before either... I'd hazard a guess that most atheists don't consider themselves to be gods since they don't believe in any gods ;)

Or another example: the idea that there's some way our society should be, that we somehow have the ability to recognize a "best" way of doing something, or that the concept of "benefiting" a person or society as a whole is in some way "good" or at least meaningfully desirable. This also elevates us to gods - giving us the ability to assign ethical imparatives.

Believing that something like the Golden Rule is a good foundation for society isn't trying to achieve divinity, it's merely stating that society will generally be happier if everyone considers whether someone else will want you to do something to them before you do it, and use that to influence your decisions. It's basically common sense rather than imposing "ethical imperatives" on others.

So if you're an athiest who belives we're nothing but clumps of matter on a bigger clump going around a bigger clump etc., that we're just fluctuations in quantum probability, what drives you? To ANYTHING? Is it just your body seeking a chemical homeostasis? The universe ticking on by itself? And if it is, why do any of you give a second thought to matters of fairness, or suffering, or tollerance, or achievement?

I consider these because I believe that everyone else has exactly the same as me: one shot at existance. With that in mind, I wouldn't want them to make my life a misery, so why should I make theirs one? Simple Golden Rule thoughts as far as I'm concerned.

And why are so many of you so unnecessarily antagonistic of those who have religious beliefs? It's all meaningless anyway.

Most atheists aren't deliberately antagonistic. I for one will only get into a debate about religion if I'm questioned as an atheist present at the time (like now) or if a religious proponent is trying to distort science that I understand in some way. A few atheists are extremely outspoken and will go out of their way to antagonise, but there are proportionally more christians/other theists who do the same from what I've seen over the years.

However, like I mentioned towards the start, you're likely to get quite a negative reaction from atheists if you mention things like "mental illness" about them in the opening paragraphs of a post like this ;)


By the way, atheists are subdivided into 2 groups: the ones who say "there is no god" (strong atheists) and those who say "I don't believe in any gods" (weak atheists). From experience I've found that the strong atheists tend to be much more outspoken and antagonistic towards theists than weak ones.

[xen]

Well, "meaning" is an intrinsically metaphysical idea, as it cannot be shown to be "real" using physics.

and yet physicists continue to rely upon their personal understanding of what things mean in order to proceed with their work.

'tis indeed a most perplexing mystery...

[Strafio]

What do we even mean when we say life has 'meaning'?

I think we usually feel life has a 'meaning' if we feel we're doing something useful.
So religious people have conviction in their beliefs and that gives their actions meaning.
Sometimes I'm into an interest/hobby and life is meaningful.
Other times I'm on auto pilot and life is meaningless. (this isn't a bad thing. Sometimes the meaningless life can feel 'comfortable' although sometimes it can leave you itching for something 'meaningful')

[Skrom]

Skrom, I fear you also misunderstand the nature of subjectivity and how it relates to value and meaning. Obviously you value your life and to you personally its meaningful. Yet, you say that life is meaningless. This seems to be a contradiction, and I think it can only stem from your mistakenly treating meaning and value as though there were possibly objective functions.

If you value your life, your life is valuable. If you think your life is meaningful, it has meaning. There is no other manner in which this could be so, and thus, your life is as valuable and as meaningful as it could possibly be, in that it couldn't possibly achieve objective meaning, and it is so because you, as a subject, subjectively value it.

i value my own life, but at the same time i recognize that i only value it because i'm human and that's what comes naturally to me (i guess you could call it doublethink :p ). like you said, it's subjective, and subjective doesn't matter once you're dead.

so what gives your life meaning when you're dead? nothing, because you're not there to give it meaning anymore. people who knew you will remember you and value your life, but only for so long. i fail to see why anyone's life matters at all if everything they've done is negated when they die.

[Topher]

Most atheists aren't deliberately antagonistic.
Right. Many times atheists are accused of being antagonistic, when they are not actually being so.

Both Socrastein and I have been accused of being rude for asking theists to prove their claims, or saying a claim is not rational or logical.

[Socrastein]

Both Socrastein and I have been accused of being rude for asking theists to prove their claims, or saying a claim is not rational or logical.

:cry: I feel your pain :cry:

[Strafio]

Both Socrastein and I have been accused of being rude for asking theists to prove their claims, or saying a claim is not rational or logical.
Naw...
Rude for calling people irrational...

Even if we get it wrong, we try to reason... :cry:



Having said that, maybe we just misunderstood what you meant by the word.
We assumed you meant irrational in the everyday use, which implies a complete lack of reasoning.
It's kind of different to the philosophical use, which just means imperfect reasoning. (nit picky difference, but it makes all the difference to someone's pride! :Angel:)

[aikiMac]

i fail to see why anyone's life matters at all if everything they've done is negated when they die.
^^^ Ya, what he said. That's the right answer. ^^^
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55044&page=2&pp=15

[WatchfulAbyss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skrom
i fail to see why anyone's life matters at all if everything they've done is negated when they die.

posted by
aikiMac
aikiMac^^^ Ya, what he said. That's the right answer. ^^^
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/fo...44&page=2&pp=15

Is this a bad thing?

[aikiMac]

Is this a bad thing?
To my way of thinking it's the only acceptible answer once one decides that there is no god of any sort. In that light, no, it's not a bad thing to me.

[Topher]

Life has meaning and value because we give it meaning and value.

Maybe people should read Socrastein's post again. He explains exactly why this is.

[WatchfulAbyss]

To my way of thinking it's the only acceptible answer once one decides that there is no god of any sort. In that light, no, it's not a bad thing to me.

Does this apply to life in general, or are we talking individuals???

[tekkengod]

1st i'd ask you to define "meaning" meaning, as in do i have an assigned "purpose" or role to play? no, so then yes i'd say if thats your definition then yes life is menaingless. no one has a set role in life. you can have a goal. thats different.

what makes me put forth effort? the fact that i have goals, and ideas and plans for the future. the fact that there are people in my life which i will have life long relationships with, knowing theres alot i haven't experianced yet too. so in short, cause i've got alot i want to do. and humor, nothing is so bad you can't laugh at it. i delight in other peoples suffering, not in a sadistic, physical way, but watching fat people try to fit into a booth a work, that makes me grin, listening to the local slut tell us what a good christian she is, not that puts a smile on my face, knowing that they have it worse than me as i point and laugh, now thats fun. i LOVE my job!
the better question would be how can theists be content going through life basing all their cute ideals and "superior morality" on the slim chance that their particular god exists, and on top of that actually give a damn? that would make me feel awful depressed.

and Socrastein's right, those people and plans have value because i assigned them as so.

[aikiMac]

Does this apply to life in general, or are we talking individuals???
Both.


and Socrastein's right, those people and plans have value because i assigned them as so.
Like I said, life's meaning is only subjective. You're a nihilist too. :)

[WatchfulAbyss]

Both.

Surely living is a goal, wouldn't that in of itself give it meaning, and down to the individual for the other. We all have things that make it meaningful on a individual level. I just don't see why it would, or how it even could be both. I mean, if this is not merely a test, don't you think that would give life a greater value, why can't life itself be the answer?

Importance falls under meaning, aswell as purpose, maybe there is no ultimate purpose, but, on atleast some levels, life has meaning. The fact that people find life important, should be enough to say that it has meaning.


I just don't understand this is all, if it were true and life really didn't have meaning, then why don't we treat it that way? ( Maybe someone should define meaning)

[WatchfulAbyss]

To be honest, I think this question sucks. :bang:

[aikiMac]

Surely living is a goal, wouldn't that in of itself give it meaning, and down to the individual for the other.
When you're dead it's all gone, and when those whom you've influenced are dead you're influence is gone too. Eventually we'll all be dead and everything will be gone. So --- there's no meaning, and no goals, beyond that which you choose for yourself. Hence, as far as I can tell, nihilism is the right answer.


We all have things that make it meaningful on a individual level.
Yep.


... why can't life itself be the answer?
Because when you're dead there will be absolutely nothing.


If for no other reason and for alot of reasons at the same time the fact that people find life important for whatever reason should be enough to give it meaning.
That's subjective meanings only. I acknowledge it.


I just don't understand this is all, if it were true, that life really didn't have meaning, then why don't we treat it that way? ( Maybe someone should define meaning)
I don't understand that either. Perhaps, as the sages said, we all have a God-shaped hole inside us.

[aikiMac]

To be honest, I think this question sucks. :bang:
We don't have to assume atheism. ;) :)

[WatchfulAbyss]

How about this, when we are all dead, you win, there will be no more meaning to life, untill then, life has meaning. (I mean come on, throw me a bone here, not to mention I got a dollar with your name all over it, so how about it, hu?)

[xen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skrom
i fail to see why anyone's life matters at all if everything they've done is negated when they die.

Originally Posted by Aikimac
^^^ Ya, what he said. That's the right answer. ^^^
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/fo...44&page=2&pp=15

but everything a person does isn't negated is it?

did 'e' cease to equal 'mc^2' when einstein died?

or did Van Gogh's 'sunflowers' wilt as he passed away?

thinking about the people from our own lives who are no longer with us...

the most obvious example...

...does the tireless work of our parents throughout our childhood evaporate when they leave us? or does it live on in every thought we have and every action we perform?

you want to find meaning in life?

just look at the face of someone you love and who loves you back and there is all the meaning you could ever need.

[WatchfulAbyss]

but everything a person does isn't negated is it?

did 'e' cease to equal 'mc^2' when einstein died?

or did Van Gogh's 'sunflowers' wilt as he passed away?

thinking about the people from our own lives who are no longer with us...

does the tireless work of our parents through our childhood evaporate when they leave us? or does in live in every thought we have and every action we perform?

you want to find meaning in life?

just look at the face of someone you love and who loves you back and there is all the meaning you could ever need.






They are talking on a large scale, in the end, and I do mean the very end, no more people. At that point, what did life matter??? I geuss, nothing.......... Makes sense......

[aikiMac]

How about this, when we are all dead, you win, there will be no more meaning to life, untill then, life has meaning. (I mean come on, throw me a bone here, not to mention I got a dollar with your name all over it, so how about it, hu?)
Sure. But what again is the meaning? ;)


They are talking on a large scale, in the end, and I do mean the very end, no more people. At that point, what did life matter??? I geuss, nothing.......... Makes sense......
You scare me when you agree with me. :D


does the tireless work of our parents throughout our childhood evaporate when they leave us? or does it live on in every thought we have and every action we perform?

you want to find meaning in life?

just look at the face of someone you love and who loves you back and there is all the meaning you could ever need.
Okay, but when we go down the family tree past your grandchildren, what then? I don't see anything lasting. I really don't. And if the meaning of life really is the look of love in the face of those alive now [I won't object if you say it is], does that not end when one or both of us dies ---> we're right back to the place I said, are we not?

[xen]

They are talking on a large scale, in the end, and I do mean the very end, no more people. At that point, what did life matter??? I geuss, nothing.......... Makes sense......

but that makes the assumption that there is an 'end' that will be reached.

it makes just as much sense to me to assume that there is no 'end'

and even if our species dies out, just as the dinosaurs did, can we say the dinosaurs were pointless?

no.

their past existence is linked to our present one through the fabric of our planets evolutionary history.

there is no reason to assume that our existence won't be of signifiacnce to the future long after we have become extinct.

and if we are going all the way out to some hypothetical universal demise, lets use logic again...

for it to end, it must have an existence in relation to something which contains it, something which provides the ground for the theatre of our universe to play out its past creation, current existence and future demise.

anything other view is a logical fallacy.

you can't draw a line around our universe and say it is 'a bubble of existence floating in a nothing'

you have just made the 'nothing' into 'something' because it has become the container for our universe.

once you define one thing as distinct from its surroundings, you implicity define the surroundings aswell.

and so we can continue ad infinitum, hiking in the high planes of thought, trying to nail the egg to the chicken (and wondering why the egg keeps breaking when we do ;) )

until we have thought out every logical possibility to explain the 'meaning of existence'

and at the end of it all, the only truth we can ever express as we sit on our mountain, high up in the stratosphere of philosphical thought, staring up into a star-filled sky, filling our vision with the last few billion years of stellar evolution is...

'i don't know, its all a mystery to me'

and so we do what every other person has done since we first started worrying about these things...

we leave our mountain and travel back home to our famililes...

and strangely, when we return to their company, we still 'don't know'...

...and yet, somehow, it all seems to make sense

;)

[aikiMac]

for it to end, it must have an existence in relation to something which contains it, something which provides the ground for the theatre of our universe to play out its past creation, current existence and future demise.

anything other view is a logical fallacy.
Oh, I don't know. I thought that astrophysicists had decided that the universe will end. Is this not what they decided?

And funk is okay. It's bebop jazz that sucks. (Sorry Charlie Parker.)

[WatchfulAbyss]

Sure. But what again is the meaning?

I geuss this means you don't want that dollar hu......

To be honest, I don't know. The only thing I can say for sure is that regardless of the outcome of this debate, I wont be out raping, murdering or maiming for fun. For whatever reason, I have respect for life, and I can't change that. Ultimate purpose makes no difference to me, we may not all agree on why life is important, but, I think most of us are glad to be here even for the short amount of time that we are. I mean lets say there is a god, what's the meaning of his life, there's no purpose for him other than what he gives it, maybe it's not really that important of a question. Maybe the best answers are the individual ones......

[WatchfulAbyss]

but that makes the assumption that there is an 'end' that will be reached.

it makes just as much sense to me to assume that there is no 'end'



and even if our species dies out, just as the dinosaurs did, can we say the dinosaurs were pointless?

no.

their past existence is linked to our present one through the fabric of our planets evolutionary history.

there is no reason to assume that our existence won't be of signifiacnce to the future long after we have become extinct.

and if we are going all the way out to some hypothetical universal demise, lets use logic again...

for it to end, it must have an existence in relation to something which contains it, something which provides the ground for the theatre of our universe to play out its past creation, current existence and future demise.

anything other view is a logical fallacy.

you can't draw a line around our universe and say it is 'a bubble of existence floating in a nothing'

you have just made the 'nothing' into 'something' because it has become the container for our universe.

once you define one thing as distinct from its surroundings, you implicity define the surroundings aswell.

and so we can continue ad infinitum, hiking in the high planes of thought, trying to nail the egg to the chicken (and wondering why the egg keeps breaking when we do )

until we have thought out every logical possibility to explain the 'meaning of existence'

and at the end of it all, the only truth we can ever express as we sit on our mountain, high up in the stratosphere of philosphical thought, staring up into a star-filled sky, filling our vision with the last few billion years of stellar evolution is...

'i don't know, its all a mystery to me'

and so we do what every other person has done since we first started worrying about these things...

we leave our mountain and travel back home to our famililes...

and strangely, when we return to their company, we still 'don't know'...

...and yet, somehow, it all seems to make sense



I enjoyed reading that.....

For me to take it to heart I have to assume your right, and I dont, I am sorry I just can't see there being no end at some point. In the case laid out in front of me, I think aiki is right......

[xen]

Okay, but when we go down the family tree past your grandchildren, what then? I don't see anything lasting. I really don't. And if the meaning of life really is the look of love in the face of those alive now [I won't object if you say it is], does that not end when one or both of us dies ---> we're right back to the place I said, are we not?

i don't think so.

life is just a journey and it invites us along for a short while.

'life' goes on.

who knows if 'life' is designed?

does it matter?

why worry about life being pointless because it lacks meaning because we can't see past our own death?

think instead of all the things in life we feel.

and think about how our choices all accumulate to guide the development of our future generations.

perhaps 'meaning' as a concept only has 'meaning' itself when taken in context with our desire to ascribe meaning to our perceptions.

put simply, if we weren't here, would there be no 'meaning' in the universe, because we wouldn't have been here to intend it into being?

but that is a blind alley.

we are here and we have been for many years now and we will be for many more to come.

jumping too far forwards or too far back takes us too far from our direct experience of life and so we end up swimming in thoughts which can't be grounded through our direct perceptions.

we go beyond our experience...

which is another way of saying that we just guess :D

we are here and a symptom of our 'hereness' is a need to have a sense of meaning that allows us to proceed.

philosophically, 'meaning' may evaporate when put under the microscope, but physically, 'meaning' is essential to our survival.

we need an inner sense of 'meaning' which correlates with the world around us to make decision-making possible. We need to be capable of ascribing meaning to chunks of sensory data we receive in order to prioritise the information we receive and act upon it in an appropriate manner.

our philosphical musings into the meaning of life could well just be an extension of the subconscious mechanisms which seek to classify the information we receive and which subsequently guide our behaviour through the development of aggregations of stimulus/response correspondances which developed according to an on-going assesement of the 'meaning' we infer from the world around us, as it presents itself to us in the moment-to-moment perceptual experience.

eg;

i've been out in the sun today and now my skin is itching... what does that mean?

oh, it means i've burnt my skin, so i need to put after-sun cream on to ease the discomfort.

next time, i can short-cut the 'infer meaning from the sense data' processing stage...

day in sun + sore, red skin = need to put moisture back into skin

so my previous musing about meaning has influnced my future behaviours and increased my survival chances.

so, to wrap this disjointed ramble up...

where is the meaning?

in our desire to survive.

talk to people who have attempted suicide or who are chronically depressed and they will often boil their problem down to a loss of purpose or a lack of meaning in their life.

it would seem we require a sense of what things mean, we literally can't act if we have no purpose and purpose is a personal (or local) goal derived from the global 'meaning' we can extract from our current situation.

[tekkengod]

ya know i have to say i think this was a semi flawed question in the first place.

[WatchfulAbyss]

ya know i have to say i think this was a semi flawed question in the first place.

Yup, every one is looking at different angles (there are a few for this one) and is essentially answering different aspects of the idea and the word "meaning" ....

[aikiMac]

Maybe the best answers are the individual ones......
Hey, that's what I said: without any God, the only meaning is what you give it. You and I are consistent with Wikipedia's definition of nihilism, here --
the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.


where is the meaning?

in our desire to survive.
Why survive? Is there an "end" that you are serving, or does it stop with your present life? If it stops with your present life, again I ask, why survive? You're going to die anyway. If it goes past your present life, again I ask, why survive? Everyone is going to die anyway.

So, you haven't answered the issue except in a roundabout way of saying, "Because I give my own life meaning." And that's cool, but can't we just say so?

[xen]

Oh, I don't know. I thought that astrophysicists had decided that the universe will end. Is this not what they decided?

And funk is okay. It's bebop jazz that sucks. (Sorry Charlie Parker.)

LOL.

the astrophysicists may be able to convince themselves they know whats going to happen x-billion years after they're dead, but i'm not that gulible or naive.

:D

don't misunderstand me, i'm not asserting my idea is a truth.

it is merely an idea, just a wander down a path to see what the scenery is like.

i gave up looking for definitive answers that stand up to the full weight of philosophic scrutiny about 10 years ago when i realised that greater minds than mine had been hacking through the jungle for centuries and there was still no sight of the plains.

it seems to me that once a certain point has been crossed there is no answer that our rational minds can find alone, we need to drop the obsession with couching everything in objective terms and accept that life is a subjective experience of feelings arising from sensory data and that the sense data, the reflections of our environment which we build our minds from came before our 'reason'.

we have cut the sensory part out of our analytic tool-kit and have been trying for centuries to use reason (a by-product of the mechanics of the mind) to explain the thing which gave rise to reason in the first place.

this is looking at the problem backwards (IMHO).

what we think about the world is not the world, but what we sense directly from the world is.

sit there and imagine holding your finger in a candle flame for 10 seconds, use your mind to really create the experience for you.

now light a candle and hold your finger in the flame.

we should be paying less heed to the copy of the world we carry and modify in our heads and more to the data coming through the senses.

not that the mind isn't 'real', just stale.

its the next surprise you get which will teach you something new, not the next thought you have.

the next sunset will have far more 'emotional' meaning than any abstract explanation you might come up with for some obscure perceptual niche in reality which you create with your mind.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Hey, that's what I said: without any God, the only meaning is what you give it. You and I are consistent with Wikipedia's definition of nihilism, here --


Scarry hu :confused:

I have to admit I don't think I like the word "nihilism" it sounds like a sexually transmitted disease, and I am not a std :D

[aikiMac]

it seems to me that once a certain point has been crossed there is no answer that our rational minds can find alone, we need to drop the obsession with couching everything in objective terms and accept that life is a subjective experience of feelings arising from sensory data and that the sense data, the reflections of our environment which we build our minds from came before our 'reason'.
I'll give you a "for instance." For instance, Natural Law and egoism both claim to be based solidly upon "reason," whatever reason is. The two views are wholly inconsistent, however. Heh heh heh!

Come on, you gotta laugh at that! :D

[xen]

I'll give you a "for instance." For instance, Natural Law and egoism both claim to be based solidly upon "reason," whatever reason is. The two views are wholly inconsistent, however. Heh heh heh!

Come on, you gotta laugh at that! :D

:D

reason and logic are nasty if not handled with care.

with careful application, they can be used to create both the foundation and the justification for anything at all...

;)

[Socrastein]

Like I said, life's meaning is only subjective. You're a nihilist too.

Life's meaning, like the meaning of anything and everything, is necessarily subjective. Objective meaning and objective value are nonsensical phrases.

This negative view of the subjectivity of value stems from an inappropriate comparison of it to objective value. But this is an impossible comparison. You might as well compare triangles to square-circles.

I'll give you a "for instance." For instance, Natural Law and egoism both claim to be based solidly upon "reason," whatever reason is. The two views are wholly inconsistent, however. Heh heh heh!

As Hume noted, no action can stem from reason alone. Our action always stems from desires, and reason helps merely to filter our desires and tell us the best way to act on our desires. Reason can never be the impetus however. The difference between egoism and natural law is the desires upon which they are based. It's not funny... it's not even ironic. It's perfectly understandable.

[tekkengod]

I'll give you a "for instance." For instance, Natural Law and egoism both claim to be based solidly upon "reason," whatever reason is. The two views are wholly inconsistent, however. Heh heh heh!

Come on, you gotta laugh at that! :D
Aiki did you just say that natural law is'mt based in reason?? :confused:
or is that a joke that went over my head?

[aikiMac]

Aiki did you just say that natural law is'nt based in reason?? :confused:
or is that a joke that went over my head?
That will depend upon what "reason" is. I'm still puzzled by the "what" of what reason is, because different people who say they base their theories and beliefs on reason can reach incompatible conclusions. But details aside, to my present way of thinking I do believe that NL is based upon reason, as in logical thinking about the world around me, and I further believe that egoism is fundamentally flawed. But, you know, if you're a follower of Ayn Rand you'll totally disagree with me and you'll probably belittle Aquinas and John Locke and so on for believing that a God exists and interacts in this world. Whatever.

[tekkengod]

to my present way of thinking I do believe that NL is based upon reason, as in logical thinking about the world around me, and I further believe that egoism is fundamentally flawed. But, you know, if you're a follower of Ayn Rand you'll totally disagree with me and you'll probably belittle Augustine and John Locke and so on for believing that a God exists and interacts in this world. Whatever.

ok the bold is what matters, good. :D

[xen]

Why survive? Is there an "end" that you are serving, or does it stop with your present life? If it stops with your present life, again I ask, why survive? You're going to die anyway. If it goes past your present life, again I ask, why survive? Everyone is going to die anyway.

So, you haven't answered the issue except in a roundabout way of saying, "Because I give my own life meaning." And that's cool, but can't we just say so?

missed this one earlier :o

1. why survive? because the force which drives me to attend to my survival is stronger than my desire to sit and do nothing.

the knowledge that sitting and not eating will harm me is a secondary factor.

the feeling of hunger motivates me to act before my mind gets involved.

in fact the sensation of hunger, or the awareness that a body has lost energy and needs to accumulate more, would precede the development of a brain (and subsequently a conscious entity) which relies upon this accumulation process for it to continue to function.

so survival is not a choice unless something causes us to consciously interfere with the natural mechanisms our body has evolved to maintain its autonomy.

remember, this autonomy precedes our more recent development of being able to reflect upon our autonomous state.

survival isn't a 'why' question, because survival of the individual is a doomed mission from the start.

but each individual does have a 'span' between birth and death and they have a some influence over the duration of this life-span.

from an evolutionary perspective, if an individual loses a sense of meaning and fails to take the steps neccesary for the continuation of their life-span then that is all good. They have an inability to motivate themselves to survive and that is a trait which would produce off-spring equally precluded from acting in response to infered meaning and being able to maintain sufficient motivational drive to keep going.

(from a 'human' perspective, this is not good, we care about the well-being of the individual and we would suffer if they were not there)

2. i'm not really saying 'i give my life meaning', i am suggesting that we have evolved to derive meaning from our sensory impressions of the world around us, but really, looking at things from a very long way away, our relationship with our environment is beyond symbiotic. We are the world around us, experiencing the world around us.

A chemical reaction evolves into a homo sapien... in a continuous stream of ever-interacting processes... over a vast number of journeys around the sun...

thus 'meaning' can only ever exist in the relationship between the perceiver and the perceived because the subject and the object are nothing more than a flow of energy, there is no fracture or discontinuity in this process beyond what our own mind creates...

and it creates this in order to differentiate aspects of the flow, and it does this quite naturally, drawing lines around eveything, extending the work of the early stages of the visual system which first maps patterns of light and dark and then partitions these patterns into objects and begins to record and process how the flow shapes the dynamics of the interactions between these patterns of light and dark.

so when i say that it is the subjectivity of meaning which is important, that is not to suggest the objectivity of meaning has no value.. they are just different perspectives of the same process..

what i am suggesting is it is the subjectivity of meaning which needs the attention of current philosophical efforts in this area, simply because the subjective aspects are where we get the feeling of resonance with our surroundings which comes connecting in such a way that we can infer meaning from our current situation.

[Aikikai Novice]

Finally back.

Ok, lots of people are on lots of different pages. Cool.

I'd like to clarify that I never intended to state that pondering the meaning of life instantly boils down to a God/no god scenario. But It's obviously much easier to believe in a meaning to your life if you believe in something exempt from whatever it has to be in order to assign that meaning to you. In the absence of that, it'd have to be something else harder to explain.

I suppose a better question would be - "How do you rationally VALIDATE your existence in the broadest scheme of things?" But blah, this topic has already been tossed back and forth to a point of present exhaustion.

Alright, Socratein. I'm unconvinced that your points about the intrinsic subjectivemess of meaning and value really adress the origional point in any, well, meaningfull way. My points are much more logically intact than you believe.

Even saying that the assigning of meaning and value is intrinsicly subjective because it requires a subject to do the assigning and an object to be evaluated makes one huge, fundamentally important assumption; it has this basic requirement - the subject is in fact a SUBJECT, and not an object.

And as a SUBJECT, it has the ability to make judjements and assign values and so forth. You're assuming consciousness is real. SUBJECTIVITY only can exist as a consciousness being subjected to something.

I'm saying, one can either believe that the existence of our minds has some trancendant implication (as they are "real"), or you can say that our minds are just made up things that we use to describe something that's not really there, it's just chemical activity, and therefore be a nihilist.

In my opinion, those two things are the only rational options.

If you do believe in the trancendance of consciousness, then, well, as I said earlier, in my opinion, that may as well be equated to divinity as I see it. Any aspect of reality that has nonphysical implications for living things would fall into what I would define as divinity.

I think that to deny that is just to play word games.

If you don't think consciousness is real, just admit your a nihilist.

Life's meaning, like the meaning of anything and everything, is necessarily subjective. Objective meaning and objective value are nonsensical phrases.

This negative view of the subjectivity of value stems from an inappropriate comparison of it to objective value. But this is an impossible comparison. You might as well compare triangles to square-circles.


I can think of three ways off the top of my head that this need not be true.

The first, if there were only one single subject in existence, their perceptions and values would be universal.

The second, if there exists some universal similarity in all subjects, in all observers, then it's possible for at least some things to be universally meaningfull/valuable.

AND, objective meaning and value would NOT be meaningless if there existed an omnipotent God out of whom all of existence pours fourth, would they? Like if all our consciousnesses stemmed from one superconsciousness? A Supersubject of some sort?

Anyway, Socratein, I don't think you're really understranding what you tried to imply by "objective" either. You cited laws of physics and mathematics as objective qualities. But within the technical bounds of your argument, we don't really know that for certain.

We simply assign the characteristic of objectiveness to such things because all of our SUBJECTIVE consciousnesses share a universal observation. Mathematics can't proove itself as self-consistent, for goodness sakes. It's an excellent model, one that describes the universal observations of all subjects very well, but that model brakes down in some situatiuons.

If objectivity, then, is how YOU implied it to be, that is, a universal agreement of all subjects, then you hardly dislodge my point.

[WatchfulAbyss]

I never did reply to your starting post so here goes.......


Aikikai Novice:

So, what is it that gives your life meaning?

Lot's... You ask what gives "my life meaning"; well, it's simple, any meaning I give my life.....

If you want to know what meaning "life had" when all life is gone, well, none. But, in such an extreme case, does it matter ?



I mean, especially if you insist that you're an athiest and there's nothing "supernatural," or "metaphysical," or especially nothing "trancendant" or "divine."

It almost seems like a mental illness to me the way that some people try to justify to themselves why they put any given effort into any given part of their lives.


Why would a religious person put forth anything that is not required ???

I mean, essentially all you have to do is have faith in "God" except "Jesus", eat, sleep, maybe procreate. Then die. Nothing more....


Like sometime back on this forum, someone posed the question of what kind of society there should be in the absence of trancendant moral absoultes governing our behavior (or something like that) and the response was something like, the kind that benefits our society...the kind observed in populations of monkeys.


An interesting response, since the obvious real answer is, "that's a completely meaningless question since we're all just figments of our imaginations, just clusters of matter undergoing complex chemical reactions with no real will or feeling."


How do you get that it's not real ?

Even if there is a god, what makes you say that he didn't build the human mind in just that way. I mean just becouse it would involve chemical reactions, based on what is going on around us, doesn't make it any less real....IMHO...

( Unless you want to redefine my understanding of what "real" is..)


Wouldn't "complex chemical reactions" explain things like brain damage, as well as mental illness. I mean If the mind is seperate from the brain, then things like "brain damage" shouldn't be able to effect your thought process right????

Also what about chemicaly induced mental illness, wouldn't that be nonexistent as well?????
Or are you "not" suggesting that the mind is separate from the brain, in which case, I wouldn't understand your point. ( could you clarify it for me)



There seems to be two camps of athiests - The first: "there is no 'God' or whatever, and everything is meaningless. Yeah, you're right. I know. It's meaningless." Some of these people become suicidal (makes sense to me), and some, bizarrely, choose to live anyway as though that is not the case and they just keep that little gem of info tucked away, off to the side, and they live trying to extract enjoyment out of their admittedly meaningless lives, ironically sorta' roughly equating "enjoyment" with "good." Or wallowing in dispair about how it sucks to exist. *shrug*


Let me geuss, theist have never commited suicide, none of them get bogged down, and most certainly they all enjoy every aspect of their lives.

Is this what your saying???



The second: "there is no 'God' or whatever, but there's meaning and importance in our lives or the universe anyway...somehow." Then usually followss some mind bending hash about some kind of intrinsic responsibility or uniqueness or trancendance we posess because we're "conscious" or for some other reason or what not.

Well, "meaning" is an intrinsically metaphysical idea, as it cannot be shown to be "real" using physics. Any assertion of meaning in existence, therefore, is trancendant of the "physical world" and might as well be equated to divinity.


Why does something "metaphysical" equal "divine"?

(I take it by "divine" you don't mean "4 : fudge made of whipped egg whites, sugar, and nuts" ?)


For instance, if your world view is something like, "perception is your personal reality, and since perception is relative, reality then is also relative." This in no small way elevates each of us into gods, since we have the ability to create reality by existing.

Or another example: the idea that there's some way our society should be, that we somehow have the ability to recognize a "best" way of doing something, or that the concept of "benefiting" a person or society as a whole is in some way "good" or at least meaningfully desirable. This also elevates us to gods - giving us the ability to assign ethical imparatives.

So if you're an athiest who belives we're nothing but clumps of matter on a bigger clump going around a bigger clump etc., that we're just fluctuations in quantum probability, what drives you? To ANYTHING? Is it just your body seeking a chemical homeostasis? The universe ticking on by itself? And if it is, why do any of you give a second thought to matters of fairness, or suffering, or tollerance, or achievement?




First thing, I don't think I am a "god".. I also don't think most athiest do either, with their lack of belief in such things and all.



(repeat):
Why would a religious person put forth anything that is not required ???
I mean, essentially all you have to do is, have faith in "God" except "Jesus", eat, sleep, maybe procreate. Then die. Nothing more....

So, why do you bother doing things you don't have to ????



And why are so many of you so unnecessarily antagonistic of those who have religious beliefs? It's all meaningless anyway.

Im not. But, if your talking about on this forum. I suppose if people don't want their faiths "attacked" or "deabated" they shouldn't discus/post in a public manner, same goes for the non believers. Take this thread for example, athiest aren't the only ones that do it......Imho


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some more questions:

Why is "the meaning of life" important?

What's the meanning of "God's" life?

What's "God's" purpose?

The only meaning I can see "God's" life having, is that which he gives it. So, is god a nihilist???

Even if there is a god, what is the purpose of life, I mean, why the test? Is it so "God" can feel he has a purpose?

(Maybe "the meaning of life" doesn't have such a great "truth".......)

[tekkengod]

pwned.

[CKava]

Hey, that's what I said: without any God, the only meaning is what you give it. You and I are consistent with Wikipedia's definition of nihilism, here --
I cannot believe you are STILL trying to equate atheism to nihilism... wasn't this covered in another debate recently? Yes some atheists are nihilists, Skrom for instance seems to be a good example, though to be honest I don't think his position is particularly well thought out. The fact that you can find atheists who are nihilists does not mean that ALL atheists must be nihilists.

the world, and especially human existence, is without 1.objective meaning, 2.purpose, 3.comprehensible truth, or 4.essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: 5.there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, 6.a "true morality" is unknown, and 7.secular ethics are impossible; therefore, 8.life has no truth, and 9.no action is known to be preferable to any other.
Treading the same worn path here but let me see I'm an atheist yet let's see how much nihilism applies to me...
1. That's ok. Subjective meaning is all we've got I'm afraid. Except of course that there could be said to be consensual 'meaning' created by society but then society is just a large collection of subjective views so doesn't really contradict subjective values I guess.
2. Woah Nelly! Who said life has no purpose with no God. Life has as much purpose as your willing to invest in it. Belief in a God does also not immediately remove any need to develop your own 'purpose' in life. If it did I wonder why all theists aren't out there doing the exact same job?
3. What's this? I think science does a good job of finding comprehensible truth. I also think common sense and decent research can be up to the job.
4. Again I'm perplexed as I actually consider life to be 'essentially' valuable as we only get one. It's almost like I'm not a nihilist and am still an atheist???? Weird eh?
5. That one is fine.
6. Again I'd say this comes to the objective/subjective divide... since there is no objective morality it does come down to our subjective pondering. Yet despite this, what Aiki and this definition suggests this does not make all moralities equal. For a start we are social animals and as such the group consensus has always been more important than the individual's personal view when it contradicts what would get the individual accepted into a group. Certain rules seem to constantly reappear in every society and I think it's pretty obvious these are the rules that make human society operate better. I also believe as time goes on our morales as a species will continue to improve- in contradiction to the view of most preachers.
7. Emm... welll again NO! I mean obviously secular ethics are all we have? I mean the alternative is supernatural ethics and you'd suprise me if you had a direct way to get those. I mean I suppose if your a Christian you'll say the bible but I can't really see the reason why Christians should be the privilidged group if we were to allow religions to define ethics... could get messy when religions disagree on those objective supernatural rules. Kinda like they were made up by people or something... maybe that's below the belt but then so is repeatedly labelling atheists as nihilists when it has already been proved they are not!
8. Why's this then? What I think is more accurate is 'Life has no God' that does not equate to life having no truth. E=mc2 is as true for me as it is for you. If you cut yourself, you will bleed is as true for you as it is for me, your only alive for a short time is as true for me as it is for you... I could go on but lets just say life can have 'truth' without God giving it.
9. No, no, no and quadruple no! Who here is advocating non-action because life is pointless? The only person that seems to be is YOU and perhaps Skrom but well that's Skrom. I don't think life is pointless and I don't think my life is given meaning by others THUS I think it important to live my SINGLE LIFE the best way I can and as for who will remember me and all that... well hopefully those that knew me and my children, maybe I won't be remembered in a thousand years or twenty but I don't think the only value to my life is by how long I'm remembered. Worrying about such things seems to be incredibly egotistical to me! And if that is what anyone bases their faith on then I feel sorry for them. My life is unique, it is valuable and it will inevitably come to an end as such I'd say how I live THIS life rather than what happens after it is over is what is important. Remarkably this also doesn't make me a hedonist! As I don't believe my life is more important than everyone else's nor do I believe that pleasure is the only worthwhile experience we can have while we are alive.

Phew well that was a bit longer than I intended but hopefully it makes the point clear AGAIN that Atheism does not equate to Nihilism. No way, no how! and to be honest I think it's wishful thinking on your part Aiki that all atheists exist in such a teenage angst mindset.

I'm saying, one can either believe that the existence of our minds has some trancendant implication (as they are "real"), or you can say that our minds are just made up things that we use to describe something that's not really there, it's just chemical activity, and therefore be a nihilist.
Ever heard of a false dilemma? That is essentially what your saying... to parpahrase:

"Either you believe in a supernatural (i.e. transcendent) feature of our minds or YOUR A NIHILIST!!!"

The only problem with this is that the dilemma is entirely false and was concocted by your imagination. Our minds are created by our bodies... try and find a mind without a body if you don't believe me. The fact that this is true does not make our minds any less amazing. It's a bit like the fact that the body is essentially a massive colony of individual cells acting in tandem. Human's don't act like cells though (well not really) but that doesn't make it any less of a fact that the human body is made from such things. Similarly the mind is indeed a result of chemical activity and elctrical discharge but just like the body the sum is greather than the components. To admit this fact is not to deny the value of human thought, it is in fact to recognise it and to recognise the marvel of the natural world where natural processes resulted in a creature such as ourselves with a brain such as we have which makes us capable of self-conciousness. I don't believe in God nor a supernatural component of the mind yet I believe in reality and I believe in the value of life... so it seems your A or B choice is flawed. As I demonstrated above I am not a nihilist yet I also don't accept your claim to a supernatural mind.

Oh and also of note is that I think 'minds' have a feature that they share which is the result of natural processes that gives them the possibility of examining themselves i.e. 'I' observes 'me'. This feature is amazing, incredible, rather awe inspiring and I believe pretty much all minds share this feature yet I don't see why such a feature must be transcendent.

If you do believe in the trancendance of consciousness, then, well, as I said earlier, in my opinion, that may as well be equated to divinity as I see it. Any aspect of reality that has nonphysical implications for living things would fall into what I would define as divinity.

I think that to deny that is just to play word games.
This is hilarious first you extend the word divinity to refer to soemthing it really doesn't cover under the traditional definition then you argue that anyone who argues with this is just playing word games! You made a new definition for divinity! You defined it beyond its standard parameters and your accusing those who disagree with you of playing word games!

[Strafio]

I'm saying, one can either believe that the existence of our minds has some trancendant implication (as they are "real"), or you can say that our minds are just made up things that we use to describe something that's not really there, it's just chemical activity, and therefore be a nihilist.
So either the minds have a mystical source or they're explainable by natural science. That bit is fair enough.
I don't see how 'natural explanation' implies nihilism though.
'Natural explanation' says that our thoughts, feelings and values are the results of our biological brain. Why should it follow that we have no values?

I can think of three ways off the top of my head that this [values being subjective] need not be true.

The first, if there were only one single subject in existence, their perceptions and values would be universal.
You're right. Soccy assumed that solipsism is false although it was kind of a necessary assumption - there would be no point in him arguing with your otherwise! :D

The second, if there exists some universal similarity in all subjects, in all observers, then it's possible for at least some things to be universally meaningfull/valuable.
I think that this is a fair point in some ways.
After all, we all get hungry and then all value food.
Because there is an objectivity to human biology there is an objectivity to what our body demands etc.

Having said that, some people value hunger (anorexics?) and other 'negative' signals our bodies give us. This means that our values aren't fully determined by the basic needs of the body. I think we're yet to come across a value that is necessarily objective.

AND, objective meaning and value would NOT be meaningless if there existed an omnipotent God out of whom all of existence pours fourth, would they? Like if all our consciousnesses stemmed from one superconsciousness? A Supersubject of some sort?
This is a bit like Berkley's argument, isn't it?
Everything is subjective to God who makes it objective to the rest of us.
So we'd all share values.
Once again, I don't think there's a single value that everyone necessarily shares.

Some don't want to satisfy hunger.
Some don't want to live (are suicidal).
etc.

Anyway, Socratein, I don't think you're really understranding what you tried to imply by "objective" either. You cited laws of physics and mathematics as objective qualities. But within the technical bounds of your argument, we don't really know that for certain.
Here's the distinction between empirical fact and value:
We see a banana:
We all agree that it's yellow.
We all agree that it has a peel.
These are the physical/objective properties to the banana.
It's subjective whether we enjoy the taste of it though.

[Socrastein]

Novice:

Of course my argument assumes subjectivity. No concious being can deny it. If you're not concious, you don't know it. And if you are, then there's no contention. How are you even trying to question this?

Judging by your post, you don't seem to understand the issue I'm getting at. First off, you're confusing intersubjectivity with objectivity. Objectivity is not about everyone agreeing. Objective truths can not be the function of a subject. This is why Strafio's example "We all agree it's [a banana] yellow" is actually mistaken. "Yellow" is a subjective experience. There is no objective reality to color, you cannot reference colors without a subject. The frequency of the electromagnetic waves given off by the banana are indeed objective, but there is nothing "yellow" about them.

Once again, God is merely another subject. He does not bring objective value to the table. Nothing does. Objective value is inherently meaningless, it is a contradiction of terms.

Objectivity by definition cannot reference a subject, yet value by definition is a function of subjects! You're dealing with square-circles here Aikikai.

Basically your refutation of my arguments is a compilation of denying undeniable things (that you are self-aware), creating non-dichotic dichotomies (dualism vs nihilism), and arguing non-objective objectivities (intersubjectivity). If you have anything other than self-contradiction to throw my way, by all means please do. I humbly suggest you reread my arguments and make sure you understand what it is I'm saying before you start swinging away like a blindfolded kid on the wrong side of the piñata tree.

[Strafio]

This is why Strafio's example "We all agree it's [a banana] yellow" is actually mistaken. "Yellow" is a subjective experience. There is no objective reality to color, you cannot reference colors without a subject. The frequency of the electromagnetic waves given off by the banana are indeed objective, but there is nothing "yellow" about them.
I disagree.
Yellow isn't defined as the particular sensation, it's defined as the sensation caused by light with a particular wavelength. So even if everyone's 'sensation' of what yellow is was different, we still all agree on which objects are yellow. So once I've defined the word 'yellow' as the colour of a canary, a banana is objectively yellow.

[Aikikai Novice]

Well... hmm. I'm not too good to admit some of that gave me pause. I'm probably not educated enough to recover from all this, but I'll take a shot at recovering some dignity. With more humility this time.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone; it wasn't my intention, I was just stirring up the mud to make it more interesting. Provocative things are usually more interesting.

Just to clear it up for anyone, the reason, as I understand it, that athiesm is equated with nihilism comes from this perspective:

If you believe that you have the ability to assign meaning and value or whatever to anything in your life or your life itself, then you are in fact the "god" of your life. Even if that's a way that you would never see it or in words that you would never state it, that's the idea.

Logic and science are models - descriptions at best - for reality. Even if one wants to say that an objective value would be the frequency of light reflected off the skin of a bannana, that still requires a consciousness to make the measurement and assign it some kind of value. The only things we can assume to be true are what we perceive in and around us. Or something.

But fundamentally, everything is an assumption. I assume I'm conscious and that I exist because to do otherwise seems noinsensical to me. But I don't have to assume anything else. I don't have to assume you're conscious. There's nothing about my being the only mind in existence that makes my existence intrinsicaly nonsensical just because it's there. But what I perceive leads me to believe that that's probably not true. Who knows, though, maybe some other mind would have a different conclusion.

I was just arguing from the world view, my world view, that relative truth is menaingless truth. If relative truth is no truth at all, then perhaps one can logically deduct how I might perceive that anyone who believes in any kind of "relative truth" would by extension be a nihilist, as no truly difinitive statements can be made about anything.

I was also arguing from the world view that anything temporary might as well not exist because - the state of being of the universe will no doubtedly reach a point that will be the same regardless of whatever existed before it. Therefore, for all the temporary things preceeding that point, existing was the same as not existing.

And that existing is practically the same as not existing just seems dissatisfying to me. Not that my satisfaction necessarily has any bearing on what reality is, but, y'know, still... That's the assumption that I make.

I assume there are others to coexist with because I want fellowship and nothing I perceive tells me I'm completely alone. I assume I'm in some way permanent because nothing I perceive tells me Its possible for ME not to exist, and because I desire what I call meaning. Whatever that is. I have my idea.

At least if I'm right, it matters. And if I'm wrong, well, it wouldn't have mattered even if I were right.

So, yeah. That's the core of everything I believe. If stuff I said before still doesn't make any sense to you, just chaulk it up to me sucking. I don't deny it. I'm sorry if you find wading through my long posts exhausting.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Just to clear it up for anyone, the reason, as I understand it, that athiesm is equated with nihilism comes from this perspective:

There are different degrees of athiesm, just like nihilism is basically an extreme form of skepticism.
(I just feel like alot of people, more often than not, carry a one size fits all attitude.)

(There are lots of "isms" that a person can fall under, and even more ways to hurd them under those ideas.........Imho)


If you believe that you have the ability to assign meaning and value or whatever to anything in your life or your life itself, then you are in fact the "god" of your life. Even if that's a way that you would never see it or in words that you would never state it, that's the idea.

I Disagree, for the simple fact that I don't fall under any part of the definition, that I find to be correct. That is your definition; you defined it. Why would I have to conform, and take it as being correct. Besides, every one will have fallen into atleast one aspect or another, if, I accept it.... Even you....



1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man. (Oh come on)

6. A powerful ruler or despot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god



But fundamentally, everything is an assumption. I assume I'm conscious and that I exist because to do otherwise seems noinsensical to me. But I don't have to assume anything else. I don't have to assume you're conscious. There's nothing about my being the only mind in existence that makes my existence intrinsicaly nonsensical just because it's there. But what I perceive leads me to believe that that's probably not true. Who knows, though, maybe some other mind would have a different conclusion.

I was just arguing from the world view, my world view, that relative truth is menaingless truth. If relative truth is no truth at all, then perhaps one can logically deduct how I might perceive that anyone who believes in any kind of "relative truth" would by extension be a nihilist, as no truly difinitive statements can be made about anything.

"Nietzsche described Christianity as a nihilistic religion because it evaded the challenge of finding meaning in earthly life"

Basically, having an after life, takes away the importance of this one.

what is the point to life? "why the test?"

Without that definitive answer, aren't you left with nihilism?

I mean without that answer, how can you give life any real meaning, the only meaning it has, is that which "you believe" it to have.

[tekkengod]

Basically, having an after life, takes away the importance of this one.

what is the point to life? "why the test?"

Without that definitive answer, aren't you left with nihilism?

I mean without that answer, how can you give life any real meaning, the only meaning it has, is that which "you believe" it to have.

Richard dawkins said it best.
"Atheisim is life affirming, its not something to be endured, its to be enjoyed. We should relish and entertain the one life we have"

[LJoll]

Just because you don't think that life itself has an intrinsic, obective meaning, it does not follow that you cannot find meaning within life.

If you take pleasure from living, why should you need an external "meaning" to justify your life?

[Strafio]

Well... hmm. I'm not too good to admit some of that gave me pause. I'm probably not educated enough to recover from all this, but I'll take a shot at recovering some dignity. With more humility this time.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone; it wasn't my intention, I was just stirring up the mud to make it more interesting. Provocative things are usually more interesting.
I doubt anyone was really offended.
People argue hard... it's part of the fun.
You don't have to take any of it or any of us too seriously! ;)
We didn't learn what we know by being right.
It's when someone tells you you're wrong that you look at it more closely, see where they're coming from and whether they're onto something.

Logic and science are models - descriptions at best - for reality. Even if one wants to say that an objective value would be the frequency of light reflected off the skin of a bannana, that still requires a consciousness to make the measurement and assign it some kind of value. The only things we can assume to be true are what we perceive in and around us. Or something.
Sort of...
Logic is about using language correctly.
As any description, argument or anything will be done in language, the rules of logic will apply. For a picture/description to make sense, it has to be coherent. Logical methods test arguments/descriptions for coherence, testing whether they make sense. Our descriptions/pictures are based on our sensual perceptions of the world.

Your argument is a rationalist one (like Descartes) - abstracting language and meaning from its use in the world. Because descriptive language is originally defined through our senses, (your first words were likely relating a sound to a picture) so this model of the world (where science is taking data through the senses and organising it logically) is the basis of what we know.

What atheists believe is that the scientifically describable world is all that there is and there's no need for anything else.

So, yeah. That's the core of everything I believe. If stuff I said before still doesn't make any sense to you, just chaulk it up to me sucking. I don't deny it. I'm sorry if you find wading through my long posts exhausting.
Lol! We wouldn't be here if we didn't enjoy food for thought.
Thanks for contributing! :)

[Aikikai Novice]

The way I see it, "afterlife" isn't really something so separate from this life that renders it meaningless, it's just some way that we exist apart from what we know about this physical world (thus far) due to our permanence, which I generally take for granted.

Thustly, if we are permanant and "life" or any part of it can have permanance, lasting even into the "afterlife," I do not see how life is rendered meaningless by the idea of an afterlife.

The Christian idea is that all of our "spiritual growth and development" happen durring life where trials, suffering, and imperfestion exist. In the "afterlife," there's no more opportunity for that, and what we are in that respect is what we remain.

[Socrastein]

Strafio

Without people to percieve color, there is no such thing as yellow. Yellow describes the qualia we experience when our eyes absorb light of a certain frequency. If there were no subjects, there would be no yellow. Just as there would be no pain. Colors, and all sensations in fact, are subjective. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees that a broken leg is painful, that doesn't make fractures objectively painful. It makes them intersubjectively painful. I already explained to Aikikai that objective doesn't mean everyone can/does agree, that's called intersubjectivity. Objective truth is truth that is inherent in the object, without being a function of a subject. There is nothing yellow about a canary itself, the yellow is in the minds of the subject percieving the light waves.

Aikikai

Not that my satisfaction necessarily has any bearing on what reality is...

It would appear that it in fact does. You base your metaphysics off of numerous "assumptions", none of which you can rationally defend. You've no good reason to assume dualism over monism, yet you do, and you argue that the mind isn't real without dualism. You've no good reason to assume theism over atheism, yet you do, and you argue that your life has no meaning if you don't believe in God. It seems your assumptions are but a product of what you want to be true, not of what you find to be reasonable.

If I am wrong, by all means, please explain why it is reasonable to believe in the metaphysical and why it is reasonable to believe in all-powerful metaphysical beings. I suspect that you are not up for such a task, and thusly I would suggest you consider whether or not you believe the things you believe because they are worthy of acceptance, or because you simply wish for things to be that way.

[Strafio]

Yellow isn't defined as a particular sensation/qualia.
It's defined as the sensation/qualia linked to objects like canary and banana. (which could potentially be different for all of us)

Have you come across Wittgenstein's 'beetle in a box' analogy?
It was part of his discussion of a private language.
Language is public - a means of communication.
So it makes no sense to label a private sensation without an external object as a criterion of correctness.

So when we say we're seeing blue, we say we're seeing the same sensation caused by an objectively blue object.

[Socrastein]

Once again, there is nothing inherently blue about an object, color is not inherent in any object. The color is in our minds, it is what we experience. The canary is not yellow itself, what we experience inside of our minds when we look at a canary we call yellow. That color is not inherent to the object.

Once again, without subjects, there is no such thing as color. There would still be canaries, but there is no color without subjects such as ourselves who experience particular sensations when we are bombarded with various light frequencies.

You're not actually addressing this point, you've simply repeated yourself. Please explain to me how color exists outside the perception of our minds. Please tell me what reality "color" would have if there were no sentient beings. It's no different than smell, or sound, or touch. There is no objective reality of "stinky". Nothing about a piece of poo is inherently stinky, there is no such thing as smell without a subject to experience it.

Edit:

I've included a small picture to illustrate my point. The electromagnetic waves are objects, they have objective realities without reference to any subjects. The canary itself is an object as well. However, the sensation of color exists only in the mind of the subject, it has no objective reality outside of the subject. There is nothing yellow about the light waves, the yellow is "all in your head" so to speak.

[Strafio]

Now you mention it, if someone was blind, to call it yellow would mean nothing to them.
Fair enough then.

[wrydolphin]

How does the fact that someone can or can not experience the interpretation of a wavelength as color negate the fact that color exists as a physical and measurable wavelength of light?

Also, your picture is all wrong, the light should be hitting the canary with some being bounced off and some being absorbed, the bounced light is what is picked up by the eye.

[WatchfulAbyss]

The way I see it, "afterlife" isn't really something so separate from this life that renders it meaningless, it's just some way that we exist apart from what we know about this physical world (thus far) due to our permanence, which I generally take for granted.


Thustly, if we are permanant and "life" or any part of it can have permanance, lasting even into the "afterlife," I do not see how life is rendered meaningless by the idea of an afterlife.

The Christian idea is that all of our "spiritual growth and development" happen durring life where trials, suffering, and imperfestion exist. In the "afterlife," there's no more opportunity for that, and what we are in that respect is what we remain.
Quote


Why aren't there anymore opportunities? There is no reason why god couldn't have made it that way, I mean, why is earthly life necessary for those things?? If this isn't necessary, then whats the point of earthly life ??

Earthly life isn't necessary to understand those things, or to be a moral being, take god and his angels for example. Also, if trials, suffering, and imperfection, do not still present themselves, what's the story with "Lucifer" ???


If there is no more learning, no more emotional experiences to be had, no more growth, whats the point in a after life?????

And are we still truly alive without those things??????

(Im just bored, no reason to take me as being serious, I wouldn't even have replied at all if it wasn't fun)





Zan:

Just because you don't think that life itself has an intrinsic, obective meaning, it does not follow that you cannot find meaning within life.

If you take pleasure from living, why should you need an external "meaning" to justify your life?

Who are you saying this to ?????? Doesn't matter. I agree...

(sorry for the confusion)

[Socrastein]

How does the fact that someone can or can not experience the interpretation of a wavelength as color negate the fact that color exists as a physical and measurable wavelength of light?

Color does not exist as a physical and measurable wavelength of light. Color exists as a sensation within our minds, nowhere else, in no other way.

Also, your picture is all wrong, the light should be hitting the canary with some being bounced off and some being absorbed, the bounced light is what is picked up by the eye.

Yeah, and the eye was disproportionately large compared to the head... who cares? I drew what was relevent.

[Emil]

So, what is it that gives your life meaning?

I mean, especially if you insist that you're an athiest and there's nothing "supernatural," or "metaphysical," or especially nothing "trancendant" or "divine."

It almost seems like a mental illness to me the way that some people try to justify to themselves why they put any given effort into any given part of their lives.

Like sometime back on this forum, someone posed the question of what kind of society there should be in the absence of trancendant moral absoultes governing our behavior (or something like that) and the response was something like, the kind that benefits our society...the kind observed in populations of monkeys.

An interesting response, since the obvious real answer is, "that's a completely meaningless question since we're all just figments of our imaginations, just clusters of matter undergoing complex chemical reactions with no real will or feeling."

There seems to be two camps of athiests - The first: "there is no 'God' or whatever, and everything is meaningless. Yeah, you're right. I know. It's meaningless." Some of these people become suicidal (makes sense to me), and some, bizarrely, choose to live anyway as though that is not the case and they just keep that little gem of info tucked away, off to the side, and they live trying to extract enjoyment out of their admittedly meaningless lives, ironically sorta' roughly equating "enjoyment" with "good." Or wallowing in dispair about how it sucks to exist. *shrug*

The second: "there is no 'God' or whatever, but there's meaning and importance in our lives or the universe anyway...somehow." Then usually followss some mind bending hash about some kind of intrinsic responsibility or uniqueness or trancendance we posess because we're "conscious" or for some other reason or what not.

Well, "meaning" is an intrinsically metaphysical idea, as it cannot be shown to be "real" using physics. Any assertion of meaning in existence, therefore, is trancendant of the "physical world" and might as well be equated to divinity.

For instance, if your world view is something like, "perception is your personal reality, and since perception is relative, reality then is also relative." This in no small way elevates each of us into gods, since we have the ability to create reality by existing.

Or another example: the idea that there's some way our society should be, that we somehow have the ability to recognize a "best" way of doing something, or that the concept of "benefiting" a person or society as a whole is in some way "good" or at least meaningfully desirable. This also elevates us to gods - giving us the ability to assign ethical imparatives.

So if you're an athiest who belives we're nothing but clumps of matter on a bigger clump going around a bigger clump etc., that we're just fluctuations in quantum probability, what drives you? To ANYTHING? Is it just your body seeking a chemical homeostasis? The universe ticking on by itself? And if it is, why do any of you give a second thought to matters of fairness, or suffering, or tollerance, or achievement?

Well, first of all, do we really need religion to have a meaning in life? Can we not function properly and live a good, honest, benevolent life without the prescense of a god? Then again, is a Christian act of benevolence really benevolent, when he/she has commited that act in the knowledge that being a good Christian, they will be awarded a spot in heaven? To me, that sounds as though a part of them is doing it for themselves.

When you talk about atheism being a mental illness, you seem to have overlooked the fact that many paranoid schizophrenics have dellusions of grandeur, that they are Jesus, or the second coming, etc. Also, there have been quite a few known cases when a psychopath has killed somebody in the name of his religion, and in the belief that he is sending them to heaven, or doing God's work. So, if many atheists drive themselves mentally ill searching for a meaning in life, what happens to the many religious folk who apparently have a meaning in life, yet have still gone insane and done bad things in the name of their religion?

And why are so many of you so unnecessarily antagonistic of those who have religious beliefs? It's all meaningless anyway.

That is a question that is personal to every individual atheist who is antagonistic to religious beliefs, but, for, I believe that it has something to do with the fact that many religious people try to force their beliefs on others. Admittedly, some atheists do this themselves, but when have you ever seen an Atheist in the street, preaching the word of 'No-God'? You ask why they are antagonistic, when a suitable response would be, "Why do religious people feel a need to force their beliefs on others?" I mean, I know in the Bible that it says to spread the word of Christianity, but surley in this day and age, the word has been spread, and people have a right to decide for themselves what path they want to follow.

[wrydolphin]

Color does not exist as a physical and measurable wavelength of light. Color exists as a sensation within our minds, nowhere else, in no other way.


I suggest you take a gander into some physics my friend. Colors are specific wavelengths of light. Quantifiable. Now you can make an argument that what we have named each wavelenth is subjective based upon language, culture etc. However that does not negate the quantifiable existance of color as a wavelength. If what you were saying were true, then no color beyond what is visable to the human eye would exist. Which is patently untrue.

http://acept.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/color.shtml

[Socrastein]

I know the physics. Perhaps you should instead "take a gander" into some philosophy of mind? It's really common sense in fact, it's the implications that are profound. Colors are not specific wavelengths of light. Colors are CAUSED by light. When light waves hit our eyes, our brain experiences them as color sensations. These sensations are known as qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) and they do not exist outside of our own minds. Color is a sensation, it is not a wavelength. You do not experience wavelengths inside your mind, you experience a particular sensation that we know to be caused by light waves of different frequencies hitting our eyes.

And of course it therefore follows that any color that has not been experienced does not exist, for color only exists as an experience in one's mind.

[wrydolphin]

Ah, here's the problem- I am a scientist. You are into all the fuzzy crap.

Yellow is a specific wavelength of light that exists whether someone experiences it or not, just as UV is a specific wavelength even though we can't see it. Sounds that pass above or below our range of hearing do not cease to exist merely because you can't hear them and therefore cannot experience them. Like I said, you can make an argument that the way we describe or name colors are purely subjective, however, the wavelengths themselves are not.

[Emil]

Listen to the lady Socrastein - she's a Physics teacher. Now, extra homework for you, my boy.

[Strafio]

Lol! Thing is, it's not a debate of physics, it's a debate in semantics.
I guess it depends on how you define yellow.
Soccy defines it as the experience we have, in which case it's subjective (being a private experience). Wry is using the more ambigous "everyday" use where it can also be used to denote a property in objects that causes the sensation.

[wrydolphin]

No no- I taught biology not physics. But part of that was teaching about sight- especially in anatomy.

[Socrastein]

Soccy defines it as the experience we have, in which case it's subjective (being a private experience). Wry is using the more ambigous "everyday" use where it can also be used to denote a property in objects that causes the sensation.

It would appear so. However, in my experience, the "everyday" use is yellow = color. In fact, I really don't find a lot of people who have a hard time distinguishing between light waves and the sensations they cause in our minds. Color is a sensation we experience. Color is not a light particle, it is not a wavelength. It is a sensation, a quale. It is the experience we have in our minds when our eyes absorb light and send particular signals to our brains.

The fact that Wry is a scientist really means nothing here. It's ironic that she says I'm the one getting into the fuzzy stuff, however I'm making a very clear, concise distinction between the cause and the effect, and she's erroneously lumping them together :rolleyes:

This makes me wonder if perhaps Wry is really a philosophical zombie :eek:

[AZeitung]

I know the physics. Perhaps you should instead "take a gander" into some philosophy of mind? It's really common sense in fact, it's the implications that are profound. Colors are not specific wavelengths of light. Colors are CAUSED by light. When light waves hit our eyes, our brain experiences them as color sensations. These sensations are known as qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) and they do not exist outside of our own minds.

And yet, the article says that the existence of "qualia" is debatable.

The way you percieve color is related to the frequency of the light you observe. There are probably non-linear properties of the eye that make it slightly dependant on amplitude as well. And what you percieve as a particular color can either be a particular frequency that is filtered by your eye in a particular way, or a combination of different frequencies that are separated out in that same way.

There's some mapping phi that takes us from frequency and amplitude to percieved color. Obviously, this mapping isn't bijective - it's neither surjective nor injective. I'm not even sure I know what those words mean right now, at 3:45 AM. I'm just using terms that I may or may not have learned in abstract algebra. In any event, even if I don't know what I'm saying, I still know that I'm right.

But the actual point is, we can input a frequency and amplitude and have it spit out a color with a reasonably well defined mathematical function, although the function isn't exactly the same for each person.

And before you go complaining that this could never work, that it's too "subjective", you should look up fletcher-munson curves. It's a similar idea, but for sound. It converts from amplitude and frequency to "loudness". Although decibals are usually used as a decent model of "loudness" for human hearing, our conception of volume is dependant on frequency as well as amplitude (and our conception of pitch is somewhat dependant on amplitude as well). It is entirely possible to construct a map that converts from the objective properties of light or sound to the percieved properties. That's all our eyes and brain do. Color is merely a function of frequency and amplitude.

[Socrastein]

AZ

Yes, qualia is debatable, depending on how you define it. It says that right at the top of the article.

Much of the debate over their existence, however, hinges on the debate over the precise definition of the term, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties.

I've merely used the term to refer to what we experience in our minds. That is a very loose use of the word that avoids the more shaky implications that people like Dennett debate against.

The rest of your post doesn't refute anything I've said, intersesting as though it was.

[Emil]

Just watched that scientology thing, Strafio. Disturbing!

[AZeitung]

AZ

Yes, qualia is debatable, depending on how you define it. It says that right at the top of the article.

Much of the debate over their existence, however, hinges on the debate over the precise definition of the term, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties.

I've merely used the term to refer to what we experience in our minds. That is a very loose use of the word that avoids the more shaky implications that people like Dennett debate against.

The rest of your post doesn't refute anything I've said, intersesting as though it was.

Let's say I device that when photons hit it, and it outputs 2 numbers, one for frequency and one for amplitude. I feed that into my little fletcher-munson-esque curves that I've come up with for light and I find that it has landed in the range that we call "yellow". Nobody has seen it, nobody can ever see it, but I can know that the photon posessed the property that we call "yellow". If I had seen it, I would have "experienced yellow" because the photon is yellow, but that yellowness is a measureable property of the photon that can be determined without actually seeing yellow. The experience of seeing the color is different from the object actually posessing the property of that color.

[Socrastein]

Once again... the photon posesses the property of causing us to experience yellow. It does not posess the property of yellow itself. Yellow is an experience we have in our minds when we see certain frequencies of light.

What about when someone who is color blind absorbs those photons? They don't experience yellow. Yellow is not in the photons, it is in our mind. The only property of the light is the frequency, the amplitude, the wavelength, the electron volt energy of the photons, etc. There is no yellow property. Different people experience the exact same wavelengths as different color sensations. Some people see canaries as green, some as brown, some as blue. Do those photons have all those color properties in them? Do the photons that a color blind person sees have no color properties? Or are they just undetectable properties? If everyone was color blind, would we still discover this magical color property of photons and wonder what they were?

Surely you see by know the absurdity of assigning color properties to wavelengths. It's like saying bullets have pain properties because when we get shot we experience pain. The bullet causes the sensation of pain in us because of how we experience the interaction with it. Same with photons.

There is no yellow property of photons. We do not say "these photons have the yellow property", or at least, we shouldn't if we are to speak accurately. Rather, one should say "these photons cause most people to experience a color sensation known as yellow".

Once again, color exists subjectively, only in our minds. It has no objective existence whatsoever. Without minds to experience color, there is no such thing as color.

[AZeitung]

Once again... the photon posesses the property of causing us to experience yellow. It does not posess the property of yellow itself. Yellow is an experience we have in our minds when we see certain frequencies of light.

See, this kind of argument is stupid and not really worthwhile. I say that the definition of yellow is something that emits light of with a particular frequency. You say it's an experience. I would say that the experience of seeing something yellow is the experience, but yellow itself is the property of the object. It's just a definition of the word "yellow", which really isn't all that interesting. Experiences are experiences and measureable properties are measurable properties. If I look at a yellow house, I say "that house is yellow", I don't say "the experience I get from that house is yellow". This indicates to me that most people would define color as the property of the object, and not the experience - then the experience, our sight - activating neurons in our brain, and going through all that stuff, is dependant on the property of the object, which is yellow.

Our sight is a way of measuring things, just like a CCD or a photomultiplier is. We use our sight as a tool, just like any mechanical device is a tool to classify the properties of an object. I see an object I have an experience, then I use that experience to determine a property *of the object*, "yellow", which is just shorthand for "emits light of x nanometers". Sure, we could define yellow as the "experience", but doing so isn't really useful, and it would also mean that we should change the way we talk (from "that object is yellow" to "that object makes me experience yellow"). It's really a pointless argument over semantics.

And my answer about the color blind person - he can't tell that it's yellow.

edit: And on the subject of bullets - when a bullet hits you you say "that bullet hurt me", not "that bullet is hurt". When a yellow photon hits your eye, you say "that photon is yellow", not "that photon yellowed me". Pain - something you experience, color a property of the object that you discern by using your experiences as measuring tools. Again, you can redefine yellow to be an experience if you want, but in common useage, it seems like that's not what it is.

and another example: When it's dark you say "I can't tell what color it is", not "that object no longer has color". You can no longer discern the property of the object, color.

But this is going to be my last post on this subject because I'm done arguing with you about the definition of words. If you want to define yellow as the experience of seeing something that emits a certain frequency of light go ahead. But it seems to me that a much better definition is that color is the property of the object (i.e. things *are* yellow) and that the experience of seeing something yellow is the experience of seeing something yellow, not yellow itself. But whatever. . .

[Socrastein]

Well if that's your last post I won't bother responding. Not sure why you bothered responding however, if you didn't wish to continue the debate.

[Aikikai Novice]

I think that the debate over yellowness as a property or as an experience is relevant to my dualistic interpretation of the mind.

As a side note, there's no further need for anyone to assert the stupidity of saying that one must assume the presence of a single supernatural being in order to assume their life is blah blah blah. I wasn't really even saying this, I just meant to point out that it's easier to say your life has objective meaning if there's something causing it to be that way that is exempt from whatever you want it to be, as opposed to extracting an objective meaning from the world as we know it.

Socrastein has already THOROUGHLY corrected me, explaining the subjectivity of meanings and values as he and probably many others define them. And we all intersubjectively perceived that it sucked to be me.

Anyway, yellow. To me, the idea that yellow is an experience in our minds is a dualistic idea.

A machine that receives "yellow" photons and prints out "yellow," did that machine experience yellow?

An android programmed to mimic certain human behaviours receives "yellow" photons and says, "that house is yellow." Did the android experience yellow?

How complex does the machine have to be? There's nothing physically different about the matter that comprises our brains.

Our bodies are just complex molecular machines. If a person receives yellow photons and says, "its yellow," or doesn't even say anything, just thinks, "I could really go for a bannana right now," we say that person experienced the color yellow.

That EXPERIENCE is not phyhsical in any measurable way. To say that the experience of color exists in our minds is a dualistic view of the universe. In my opinion. Right now. *waits for devastating rebuttle*

[wrydolphin]

By your arguments, any light that does not register in the human eye or any sounds whose frequency is to high or low for human ears to register would not exist. Yes, the interpretation of color and sound relies on the biochemical pathways that exist in the brain, but to say that they depend totally on consciousness does not tell the entire story. You want colors or sounds to be completely defined by the interpretation of the mind, yet they are not. All things have a physical componant that exists in a quantifiable form. And the fact that humans may or may not be able to process it does not negate its existance.

[AZeitung]

By your arguments, any light that does not register in the human eye or any sounds whose frequency is to high or low for human ears to register would not exist. Yes, the interpretation of color and sound relies on the biochemical pathways that exist in the brain, but to say that they depend totally on consciousness does not tell the entire story. You want colors or sounds to be completely defined by the interpretation of the mind, yet they are not. All things have a physical componant that exists in a quantifiable form. And the fact that humans may or may not be able to process it does not negate its existance.

I think it may just be best to give up, Wry, Socrastein just operating on different definition of the word yellow than we are, whether he realizes it or not. I know I said I wasn't going to post again - and I'm not going to debate this anymore, but I just want to make a point.

Let's say thousands of years ago, somebody looked at something yellow and though "what is this sensation I'm getting from this thing? I can *see* something, it's causing me to experience the vision of something. . . color. . . I'll call the experience that I'm having right now yellow, and call everything yellow that gives me this experience. I don't care why it's giving me that experience, even if all things that give me that experience share the same physical properties, it doesn't matter."

Now, let's say that thousands of years ago, when the English language was invented, people understood electromagnetism and wavelengths and all that stuff. Someone looks at something yellow and says "hey, I can tell that object is emitting light between 565 and 590 nanometers because of the way my eye and brain react." Then, whenever he describes something, he gives the wavelength of the light it emitts because it's a property that he knows how to measure, just like he can tell if something is solid, liquid, or gas by touching it, or how he can judge distance, height, and weight fairly well just by eyeballing them.

Eventually someone says, "Wow, it takes an awfully long time to say 'emits light between 565 and 590 nanometers.' Lets come up with a shorter way of saying that. How about if we use the word "yellow" as shorthand, to save time?" And he makes up an entire classification system with names like "blue" and "red"for different ranges of frequencies.

Thousands of years later, everyone forgets the origins of the word yellow, and in either scenario we're having the same argument. It's just a definition of a word, and fairly trivial.

[Socrastein]

Once again, we do not experience the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. We experience color sensations. The COLOR yellow exists in our minds. This is not a matter of definitions. Unless you are a philosophical zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) then you know exactly what colors are, and what experiences blue and red and yellow all refer to.

And I'll repeat this point because it was completely ignored, understandably. If color is an objective property of objects, then how do you explain millions of people who do not experience yellow when they look at a canary? Or don't see green when they look at grass? Some people don't see any color at all, but many people see different colors than what they "should" see, as in, what most other people see. What if everyone in the world really saw green when we looked at bananas and canaries and yield signs? There is nothing impossible about this scenario. We could easily have evolved brains that experience green when they see light of 565-590nm in wavelength.

If this scenario is possible, which it is, then the objectivity of color as a "property" of something goes out the window. The property is subjective, there is nothing objective about color. The actual existence of color, the experience we have when we 'see' something, is dependent on concious beings who experience this qualia. Without any concious beings, all you have are wavelengths and light waves. These ARE objective properties. A color-blind person, even a completely blind person, can determine the wavelength of light. However, good luck trying to get someone to determine what color an object is, what it looks like, if they are blind (born blind). You can get them to say the word yellow and associate it with a banana, but naturally they have no idea what they're referring to.

[Explorer]

Objectively speaking ... when yer dead ... your experience of 'yelloness' has ended and doesn't make a difference of any sort to anyone ... especially you. Actually, from one point of view there never really was a 'you' to begin with ... and the subjective experience of yellow is immaterial.

If the meaning or value of a life is purely subjective ... and life has no meaning outside the one 'giving' it meaning or value. Then, life has no meaning or value. Meaning and value are merely constructs of language.

Therefore, to argue the point is ... well, pointless. One simply claims a definition that fits thier subjective view, claims all who disagree are wrong .... (like that's POSSIBLE in a context where all truth claims are subjective) and trundles on as if it all actually means something.

It's one of those things that makes me go ... "hmm."

To argue meaning and value in a system that has no objective meaning or value is a waste of time regardless of the 'logic' ... which is an artificial construct anyway and has no meaning or standing beyond what an individual SAYS it has.

Anyone can say they view our exitsance as meaningless; that's fine, one can do that. But steal something they're emotionally (and, therefore, irrationally) attached to and watch 'em scream bloody murder ... as if it meant something.

Another one of those things that makes me go ... "hmm."

Most of the folks I meet who say that life is meaningless, don't live that way. Socrates would be displeased. A person's actions and philosophy should be congruent ... well, according to the Greco-Roman moralists.

"hmm."

[Explorer]

BTW - if all meaning and value is subjective to the individual. Things like love, compassion, empathy and jealousy don't really exist either. Our relationships with other people are then based on self interest alone.

[Socrastein]

Your post seems to center around the idea that unless something objectively exists, it doesn't really exist at all. However, nowhere in your post do you actually support this absurd notion. Do you care to?

EDIT:

'logic' ... which is an artificial construct anyway and has no meaning or standing beyond what an individual SAYS it has.

Logic is whatever someone deems it to be? Is that what you're getting at? If so, could you please support this as well. If not, could you be more detailed about what you're trying to get across?

[Explorer]

Your post seems to center around the idea that unless something objectively exists, it doesn't really exist at all. However, nowhere in your post do you actually support this absurd notion. Do you care to?

No need. If life is meaningless ... any attempt to create meaning is an artificial construct with no meaning ... except to the party 'giving' it meaning.

[Explorer]

At any point one could simply dismiss another's subjective viewpoint as 'meaningless' to them.

[Socrastein]

So unless meaning is objective, it isn't meaning? Since it's impossible for meaning to be objective, have you not simply defined everything has meaningless, without any good reason to? There's no such thing as objective meaning, it's impossible - so why do you compare it to subjective meaning in your posts? It is a non-comparison, because you're comparing something to an impossibility. Like I said prior in this thread, you may as well compare triangles to square-circles.

[Explorer]

You do bring up one interesting thought. Does objective truth exist, and, if it does, would it be possible for us to discover it? Would we know it if we saw it? Do we have the intellectual capacity to percieve and understand objective truth?

If we do, I doubt that truth could be contained in human language. So, perhaps not.

[Explorer]

So unless meaning is objective, it isn't meaning? Since it's impossible for meaning to be objective, have you not simply defined everything has meaningless, without any good reason to? There's no such thing as objective meaning, it's impossible - so why do you compare it to subjective meaning in your posts? It is a non-comparison, because you're comparing something to an impossibility. Like I said prior in this thread, you may as well compare triangles to square-circles.

If life is meaningless, I don't need a good reason ... as reason is meaningless.

You're playing with sophistry. Making a knowlege claim about something you can't know. How do you know objective truth is impossible? Did a little bird tell you? Did you find it in a 6000 line 'Truth Table' in Logic class. Or do you just 'know it deep in your bones'?

In my subjective definition it is not impossible to compare the subjective to the objective. I reject your conclusion based on my subjective experience.

[Explorer]

Somehow, some people are asking me to *believe* that a meaningless life can be imbued with meaning ... if I think it has meaning.

OK ... so, imagine a vacuum ... there is nothing in this vacuum. It is void. Pretending something is there does not compel something to appear.

Or, to quote Tyler Durden from "Fight Club" ... "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." No matter how hard you believe.

[AZeitung]

Once again, we do not experience the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. We experience color sensations. The COLOR yellow exists in our minds. This is not a matter of definitions. Unless you are a philosophical zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) then you know exactly what colors are, and what experiences blue and red and yellow all refer to.


Fine, from now on, just use this macro for all of my posts

#define yellow = an object that emits 565-590 nm light

If you use your preprocessor to remove the word yellow from any post I ever make in the future and replace it with that line before, you will more correctly interpret what I say. Since my C compiler can do this no problem, I figure you should be able to do it just as easily. This is how I use the word yellow when I write papers and lab reports, and it's what I generally mean. When I read on an instrument spec that the Raman uses a green laser, I don't give a damn how it looks to anyone, I go with the wavelength/frequency macro. If you don't like my definition of the word yellow, just pretend I never use that word. I guess we just have to accept that I don't know the definition of yellow.

Begin using the macro here, and continue forever:

How do I know something is yellow? I intuit it from the experience I get when looking at it.

Please remember to use the macro on my post before responding, or you're likely to make some silly arguments.

[Explorer]

AZeitung

I feel for you man. He's rather emotionally attached to his point of view and utterly convinced of the rightness of it ... it does make room for some fun, however.


:)

**NOTE** The reference to 'fun' is purely subjective. Others may not consider what I do as 'fun'. However, if life is meaningless ... everything attached to life is meaningless ... therefore my idea of 'fun' is meaningless. For that matter, so is your opinion of what I do ... so, just shut the heck up! :)

[Explorer]

OK, I'll quit screwing around long enough to tell you I think the problem with the position that "life is meaningless but can have meaning if you think it so" lies with the way 'meaning' is used.

There are two opposing claims going on. The 'life is meaningless claim' is an objective truth claim. We'll forget, for now, that this is an unprovable claim.

The 'life can have meaning I ascribe to it' claim is subjective and subject to all the problems surrounding 'personal truth' claims. This claim needs no proof other than the claiment believes it to be true.

The subjective claim is negated by the objective assertion that, ultimately, life has no meaning -- OR -- the objective truth claim is negated by the subjective assertion. Either way, there's a lot of negating going on.

Forget everything else in the argument. This is the problem area ... right here at the beginning. If the proposition is faulty ... then the logic, no matter how consistent or long winded, is also faulty.

[mojo shorin-ryu]

well this i sthe way i see it...if this is all there is us, the world, the universe everything IS essentially meaningless and we might as well run around doing what ever feels good! So in my oppinion life IS meaningless for EVERYONE cause it doesnt matter what we do its all going to end someday anyway....that is it would be if God wanst real. So thank Him it is cause otherwise i would be a VERY different person, or dead one of the two. yeah So thankfully i believe firmly in God.-john

[Explorer]

well this i sthe way i see it...if this is all there is us, the world, the universe everything IS essentially meaningless and we might as well run around doing what ever feels good! So in my oppinion life IS meaningless for EVERYONE cause it doesnt matter what we do its all going to end someday anyway....that is it would be if God wanst real. So thank Him it is cause otherwise i would be a VERY different person, or dead one of the two. yeah So thankfully i believe firmly in God.-john


I believe in you too, John ... or hadn't you noticed?

[Aikikai Novice]

Thank you, explorer. It's like a breath of fresh air to read that someone agrees with my point of view and knows how to describe it, like, not stupid. Yay.

Though I think Socrastein might rebuttle by saying that he's not making an objective truth out of "life is meaningless," just asserting that any meaning is unavoidably subjective by nature. And thustly, more word games will follow.

[mojo shorin-ryu]

I believe in you too, John ... or hadn't you noticed?

i think im going to start ending my posts differnt you because of you, you macaroon! what ever that may be.


-Ruler of all that exists-

[WatchfulAbyss]

well this i sthe way i see it...if this is all there is us, the world, the universe everything IS essentially meaningless and we might as well run around doing what ever feels good! So in my oppinion life IS meaningless for EVERYONE cause it doesnt matter what we do its all going to end someday anyway....that is it would be if God wanst real. So thank Him it is cause otherwise i would be a VERY different person, or dead one of the two. yeah So thankfully i believe firmly in God.-john




That's great and all. But, Im glad not every one has that out look on life .....

[mojo shorin-ryu]

oh PS explorer you should totally go into the chat room

[Explorer]

Thank you, explorer. It's like a breath of fresh air to read that someone agrees with my point of view and knows how to describe it, like, not stupid. Yay.

Though I think Socrastein might rebuttle by saying that he's not making an objective truth out of "life is meaningless," just asserting that any meaning is unavoidably subjective by nature. And thustly, more word games will follow.

Word games are the refuge of the Sophist. Via word games I can 'prove' that I become my own grandfather by marrying my grandmother.

If the claim 'life is meaningless' is unavoidably subjective ... then any claim to real truth goes out the window. Therefore the position weakens. What kind of position is ..."Life is meaningless, I think. But I can give my life meaning by claiming so, I think."?! Hmm.

Let's see ... I claim two unprovable truths and tell everyone who disagrees ... "You just don't get it." ... or something to that effect; explained in such a way as to require 6 truth tables a dictionary, a thesaurus and a bust of Plato to untangle.

It's hardly the stuff of philosophical greatness. But, that's a subjective opinion. :)

[Explorer]

i think im going to start ending my posts differnt you because of you, you macaroon! what ever that may be.


-Ruler of all that exists-

How will they end, so I'm not surprised. :love:

[mojo shorin-ryu]

im not sure yet...but when i do...it will be of the likes which you have NEVER seen! * dramatic music *

[Explorer]

im not sure yet...but when i do...it will be of the likes which you have NEVER seen! * dramatic music *

TURN THAT NOISE DOWN!!!! We're trying to have a ridiculous discussion here! :bang:

[mojo shorin-ryu]

sorry pops

[WatchfulAbyss]

OK, Im confused. What is the meaning to life then?

[mojo shorin-ryu]

in my oppinion, to serve God, he gave us a Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth manuali suggest you check it out,i suggest you start in the second half,4th book in Written by a a guy named john or something. oh and...SCOTT! you should check out the creationism 101 debate type thingy in the relgion forum, its good fun.
-crazy red head
PS nottice the Acronym *nerdy laugh *wow im in a wierd mood today

[WatchfulAbyss]

in my oppinion, to serve God, he gave us a Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth manuali suggest you check it out,i suggest you start in the second half,4th book in Written by a a guy named john or something.


No need to check it out........

Why does god need us to serve him, whats the point ?

Why is it necessary?

[Explorer]

OK, Im confused. What is the meaning to life then?

47 ... or ... 42, I can never remember.

[Explorer]

OK, Im confused. What is the meaning to life then?

Actually, this thread is about everything being meaningless ... or not. The discussion recently has centered around a certain point of view.

There are some who claim 'life is meaningless'. They also claim that an indivitual's life can have meaning if that individual feels it has meaning.

I'm sure they are intelligent and thoughtful people but I belive the proposition to be a crock. To me, if life is actually meaningless ... it's actually meaningless. To pretend it has meaning does not imbue it with real meaning.

That's pretty much where we stand ... while I wait patiently for their next salvo.

Oh, and please don't be confused by the similarity between my avatar and 'Mojo Shorin-Ryu' ... he's one of my karate students.

[WatchfulAbyss]

mojo shorin-ryu
47 ... or ... 42, I can never remember.

Lol..... 42.....

Explorer

Actually, this thread is about everything being meaningless ... or not. The discussion recently has centered around a certain point of view.

There are some who claim 'life is meaningless'. They also claim that an indivitual's life can have meaning if that individual feels it has meaning.

I'm sure they are intelligent and thoughtful people but I belive the proposition to be a crock. To me, if life is actually meaningless ... it's actually meaningless. To pretend it has meaning does not imbue it with real meaning.

That's pretty much where we stand ... while I wait patiently for their next salvo.


Your opinion is that "subjective meaning" doesn't mean anything...Correct?


If subjective meaning doesn't count, then even if there is a "god" his life is pointless, meaningless, and so is any life that follows.......... So, wouldn't this topic be a trick question, no matter what your stance is ???

If this is the case, wouldn't subjective ideas be the only truth, the only real thing in a subjective reality, even if that too isn't real? I mean, wouldn't subjective ideas become as "real" as "real" gets? .....:bang:.......

Also wouldn't this whole conversation hinge on the subjective side..... So, why even take part?
(It's not really real. Wouldn't that be the reality of the matter.......)


By the way, how can you tell someone that "their life" doesn't "mean anything" to "them"; don't you think that's something they get to decide???

I really don't see how "their personal thoughts" on "their own life" get to be decided, by you.. I mean, if it's "real' to 'them" then who are you to say it's not "real' to 'them"???

The whole idea of, rather or not there is a ultimate meaning.... Doesn't change anything. Just because it would have no further purpose, doesn't mean it didn't serve it's purpose to "that person" during "their life." Yes. I mean the purpose they gave it.....

(Of course this is just my opnion)
------------------------------------

Do you have a objective meaning to life that you prescribe to?

(I think, I hate this topic...... :bang: )

[Strafio]

I think I might have an example that proves Soccy's point.

Imagine someone's sight is faulty, so they get the same experience from two different wavelengths of light. So if you showed them two toy ducks, both giving off one of these two different wavelengths of light. These ducks will appear to be the same colour to this colour-blind chap, even though they are emitting different wavelengths.

There's some mapping phi that takes us from frequency and amplitude to percieved color. Obviously, this mapping isn't bijective - it's neither surjective nor injective. I'm not even sure I know what those words mean right now, at 3:45 AM.
Your terminology made sense to this mathematician! :)
An important thing you said is that this mapping isn't bijective.
The colour-blind example is one where the mapping isn't injective. (two frequencies map to the same experience)
So there isn't a equivalence relation between the wavelength and the experience that represents it.

It would appear so. However, in my experience, the "everyday" use is yellow = color. In fact, I really don't find a lot of people who have a hard time distinguishing between light waves and the sensations they cause in our minds.
Our everyday use is ambiguous. It sees no need for the distinction between the sensation and the object causing it. That's why if you brought this conversation up in a non-philosophical forum then you'd be yelled at for being so darned pedantic! :p

[Strafio]

Just watched that scientology thing, Strafio. Disturbing!
Yeah...
The Scientology Church is decidedly 'dodgy'.

Put the link in your sig and spread the word! ;)

[Explorer]

Lol..... 42.....



Your opinion is that "subjective meaning" doesn't mean anything...Correct?


If subjective meaning doesn't count, then even if there is a "god" his life is pointless, meaningless, and so is any life that follows.......... So, wouldn't this topic be a trick question, no matter what your stance is ???

If this is the case, wouldn't subjective ideas be the only truth, the only real thing in a subjective reality, even if that too isn't real? I mean, wouldn't subjective ideas become as "real" as "real" gets? .....:bang:.......

Also wouldn't this whole conversation hinge on the subjective side..... So, why even take part?
(It's not really real. Wouldn't that be the reality of the matter.......)


By the way, how can you tell someone that "their life" doesn't "mean anything" to "them"; don't you think that's something they get to decide???

I really don't see how "their personal thoughts" on "their own life" get to be decided, by you.. I mean, if it's "real' to 'them" then who are you to say it's not "real' to 'them"???

The whole idea of, rather or not there is a ultimate meaning.... Doesn't change anything. Just because it would have no further purpose, doesn't mean it didn't serve it's purpose to "that person" during "their life." Yes. I mean the purpose they gave it.....

(Of course this is just my opnion)
------------------------------------

Do you have a objective meaning to life that you prescribe to?

(I think, I hate this topic...... :bang: )


Ecellent! :bang: You're beginning to see the problem with the entire thing! :bang: I'm not trying to make truth claims for someone else. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of a position.

I didn't start the thread, and mostly, I've been screwing around with the athiests who's base claim is 'life is meaningless' ... but can have 'meaning' that I ascribe to it.

I believe objective truth exists ... HOWEVER, limited as we are in intellect and language (which begins to fail us in this area) we can only see the barest glimpse of objective truth. The closest we might be able to get to objective truth at this time is ... pretty subjective ... based on our life experiences, observations, the observations of others and the like.

The claim that 'life is meaningless' is a truth claim and, if true, renders any meaning I make up ... false meaning. It's an artifical construct. If life is truly meaningless ... why even bother conjuring meaning at all? :bang:

This is the stuff that drove Bertrand Russell nuts! Back in his day, it was common to claim that time and space were 'unreal' ... Russell's hand would shoot skyward and he'd blurt out ... "Does that mean lunch isn't at noon?!" :bang:

People certainly have the right to define their own life's meaning. I just think it's silly to, on the one hand claim life is meaningless; and on the other prestidigitate meaning from the ether.

If life is meaningless ... why not just let it be meaningless? I have my opinions as to why people have such a hard time with meaninglessness ... but that is another set of discussions.

[Socrastein]

Explorer:

It appears to me that either you didn't bother reading the whole thread, or you didn't pay attention while you did. I always find it so deliciously ironic when people complain of sophistry and word games and semantic debates, and yet they can't seem to stop using straw-man definitions of other people's arguments as they rebutt them!

So that you can be on the same page I am on, let me reiterate what it is I've actually been arguing, so you can stop attacking what I'm not saying.

Truth is merely correspondence to reality. Aristotle said it best with "To speak of the truth is to say of what is, that it is, and to say of what is not, that it is not." When a proposition conforms to reality, that proposition is true.

Objective truth centers around the idea of the object. An objective truth is a truth that is inherent in an object. That diamonds are made of carbon and light travels at 300,000 km/s is objectively true.

Subjective truth centers around the idea of the subject. Subjective propositions are propositions that are the function of a subject and its relationship to an object or objects. That Sally likes pizza and Danny hates rock music is subjectively true.

When we speak of things like beautiful, tasty, painful, gross, etc. we speak of subjective propositions. Many propositions make no sense if they do not explicitly or implicitly reference a subject, such as: Pizza is yummy. The proposition "Pizza is yummy" has no truth value if it does not have a subjective reference, that is, if it does not reference a subject or subjects. It naturally begs the question "Yummy to whom?"

So, when I speak of objective truth, I am speaking of propositions that have a truth value without being the function of a subjects relationship to an object. That light travels at 300,000 km/s in a vacuum is true without reference to the preferences of any subject. That Mozart sounds beautiful only makes sense if you are referring to people who like to listen to his music.

So, to tie this into the meaning of life; meaning is inherently subjective, because to say "X is meaningful" you must have an implied subject to whom X is meaningful. Many people find marriage meaningful for example. If there were no people, no subjects, there would be nobody to value marriage, there would be no function between the object and a subject or subjects, and thus it would lose all meaning. To speak of something being objectively meaningful is nonsense. It is the epitomy of sophistry and word games at worst, and mere ignorance at best.

So, when one argues against a subjectively meaningful life and tries to compare it to an objectively meaningful life, one is comparing square-circles to triangles, one is comparing impossibilities to reality... and this is nonsense.

So, the truth of the matter is, the ONLY meaning life possibly COULD have is a subjective meaning. The meaning of life is a function of the relationship between a person and their own existence and happiness. People naturally desire to live, they naturally desire to be happy, and thus their life is meaningful because they value it.

You can only very well deny this by twisting the words around and using vague implications to try and make hazy points that fall apart under careful scrutiny. And as Blind said, inserting powerful metaphysical beings into the mix changes nothing. God is just another subject, you can not change the inherent nature of objectivity and subjectivity.

So Explorer, if you care to respond, please do so, now having a better grasp of what I'm actually saying. I trust that I needn't reiterate my position once again, in so far as you will avoid making straw man attacks against things I haven't actually said.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Ecellent! You're beginning to see the problem with the entire thing! I'm not trying to make truth claims for someone else. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of a position.

I didn't start the thread, and mostly, I've been screwing around with the athiests who's base claim is 'life is meaningless' ... but can have 'meaning' that I ascribe to it.

I believe objective truth exists ... HOWEVER, limited as we are in intellect and language (which begins to fail us in this area) we can only see the barest glimpse of objective truth. The closest we might be able to get to objective truth at this time is ... pretty subjective ... based on our life experiences, observations, the observations of others and the like.

The claim that 'life is meaningless' is a truth claim and, if true, renders any meaning I make up ... false meaning. It's an artifical construct. If life is truly meaningless ... why even bother conjuring meaning at all?

This is the stuff that drove Bertrand Russell nuts! Back in his day, it was common to claim that time and space were 'unreal' ... Russell's hand would shoot skyward and he'd blurt out ... "Does that mean lunch isn't at noon?!"

People certainly have the right to define their own life's meaning. I just think it's silly to, on the one hand claim life is meaningless; and on the other prestidigitate meaning from the ether.

If life is meaningless ... why not just let it be meaningless? I have my opinions as to why people have such a hard time with meaninglessness ... but that is another set of discussions.


That's just it though, I don't think it's absurd, I think it's natural. I don't see anyway around a subjective meaning to life. Even religion doesn't offer it. Your attempting to define what you think "the meaning of life" has to be, "objective," but not what it is, "subjective." I don't understand why this is such a negative thing to some.

[Explorer]

Explorer:

It appears to me that either you didn't bother reading the whole thread, or you didn't pay attention while you did. I always find it so deliciously ironic when people complain of sophistry and word games and semantic debates, and yet they can't seem to stop using straw-man definitions of other people's arguments as they rebutt them!

So that you can be on the same page I am on, let me reiterate what it is I've actually been arguing, so you can stop attacking what I'm not saying.

Truth is merely correspondence to reality. Aristotle said it best with "To speak of the truth is to say of what is, that it is, and to say of what is not, that it is not." When a proposition conforms to reality, that proposition is true.

Objective truth centers around the idea of the object. An objective truth is a truth that is inherent in an object. That diamonds are made of carbon and light travels at 300,000 km/s is objectively true.

Subjective truth centers around the idea of the subject. Subjective propositions are propositions that are the function of a subject and its relationship to an object or objects. That Sally likes pizza and Danny hates rock music is subjectively true.

When we speak of things like beautiful, tasty, painful, gross, etc. we speak of subjective propositions. Many propositions make no sense if they do not explicitly or implicitly reference a subject, such as: Pizza is yummy. The proposition "Pizza is yummy" has no truth value if it does not have a subjective reference, that is, if it does not reference a subject or subjects. It naturally begs the question "Yummy to whom?"

So, when I speak of objective truth, I am speaking of propositions that have a truth value without being the function of a subjects relationship to an object. That light travels at 300,000 km/s in a vacuum is true without reference to the preferences of any subject. That Mozart sounds beautiful only makes sense if you are referring to people who like to listen to his music.

So, to tie this into the meaning of life; meaning is inherently subjective, because to say "X is meaningful" you must have an implied subject to whom X is meaningful. Many people find marriage meaningful for example. If there were no people, no subjects, there would be nobody to value marriage, there would be no function between the object and a subject or subjects, and thus it would lose all meaning. To speak of something being objectively meaningful is nonsense. It is the epitomy of sophistry and word games at worst, and mere ignorance at best.

So, when one argues against a subjectively meaningful life and tries to compare it to an objectively meaningful life, one is comparing square-circles to triangles, one is comparing impossibilities to reality... and this is nonsense.

So, the truth of the matter is, the ONLY meaning life possibly COULD have is a subjective meaning. The meaning of life is a function of the relationship between a person and their own existence and happiness. People naturally desire to live, they naturally desire to be happy, and thus their life is meaningful because they value it.

You can only very well deny this by twisting the words around and using vague implications to try and make hazy points that fall apart under careful scrutiny. And as Blind said, inserting powerful metaphysical beings into the mix changes nothing. God is just another subject, you can not change the inherent nature of objectivity and subjectivity.

So Explorer, if you care to respond, please do so, now having a better grasp of what I'm actually saying. I trust that I needn't reiterate my position once again, in so far as you will avoid making straw man attacks against things I haven't actually said.


:love: NICE! It's true, I didn't read the entire thread ... but jumped in at the middle to have some fun.

With all definitions agreed to ... I persist ...

To simultaneously claim "Life is meaningless" and "Life has meaning I give it" is contradictory. I'm not saying a person can't do it ... it's simply inconsistant.

Why would someone who reasons that life is ultimately meaningless create artificial meaning for their life?

[Explorer]

Socrastein

Glad you're back :love:

Tell me, what do you make of Anthony Flew? He was certainly one of ahtiesms finist minds in the 20th century.

[Socrastein]

To simultaneously claim "Life is meaningless" and "Life has meaning I give it" is contradictory. I'm not saying a person can't do it ... it's simply inconsistant.

I agree. I myself have not said that life is meaningless. I actually agree with you. Check out the very beginning of the thread when Skrom says what you're getting at... and then check my response to him.

I don't know anything about Anthony Flew. I've heard the name, I don't know of any of his views or books or anything like that though. I'll Wiki him.

[WatchfulAbyss]

To simultaneously claim "Life is meaningless" and "Life has meaning I give it" is contradictory. I'm not saying a person can't do it ... it's simply inconsistant.


Ok, fine then, in order, life matters, until it doesn't....... :confused:
Life has meaning up until there is no life for meaning to apply, in which case, the latter is a moot point. Same idea as in, "my dvd player worked, now it don't." Basically life has a here and now meaning. You would have to answer two different aspects of it, the answer has a natural order.
If you apply that I think it works?????

I was going to compare it to a tall midget, but... Well I better not.....

[Explorer]

I agree. I myself have not said that life is meaningless. I actually agree with you. Check out the very beginning of the thread when Skrom says what you're getting at... and then check my response to him.

I don't know anything about Anthony Flew. I've heard the name, I don't know of any of his views or books or anything like that though. I'll Wiki him.

Ah, so we have no argument then! :love: Bartender! Whatevery my friend is having and put it on someone else's tab!

According to some of my friends who follow this stuff closer than I, Flew was the 20th century's finest athiest mind. My brother has seen him in person in both lecture and debate formats. Chip says he has an impressive mind. Flew now claims to believe in a sort of a god ... person/thing. He was influenced by a couple of scientists ... I haven't read their books yet, but I'm going to look them up.

[Explorer]

Ok, fine then, in order, life matters, until it doesn't....... :confused:
Life has meaning up until there is no life for meaning to apply, in which case, the latter is a moot point. Same idea as in, "my dvd player worked, now it don't." Basically life has a here and now meaning. You would have to answer two different aspects of it, the answer has a natural order.
If you apply that I think it works?????

I was going to compare it to a tall midget, but... Well I better not.....

Weeelllllll .... they are contradictory ... so you still have a problem. The premise is simply faulty. IF life is meaning-less then we cannot create a meaning for our lives no matter how much we try. I suppose we could lie to ourselves ... but that is intellectually dishonest in my mind.

The other problem area is the definition of the word meaning. In the statement ... "Life is meaningless." I take 'meaningless' to mean "without point'. In the second statement ... "Life has meaning I ascribe to it." I take 'meaning' to mean "something that makes me feel good."
The use of meaningless and meaning are not equivilent ... and the premise fails because they're not describing the same thing. You can do it ... but it's a bit of a mess.

[Socrastein]

Flew now claims to believe in a sort of a god ... person/thing. He was influenced by a couple of scientists ...

Ah, that's where I've heard the name! I knew it sounded familiar. On Christianforums they used to reference this fact to try and convince atheists that the truly smart one's eventually become theists, therefore we're wrong.

[tekkengod]

According to some of my friends who follow this stuff closer than I, Flew was the 20th century's finest athiest mind

I've got to go with Dawkins on that one. he gets my vote. that just IMO.

Thats one of the people i'd love to meet.

[AZeitung]

I think I might have an example that proves Soccy's point.

Imagine someone's sight is faulty, so they get the same experience from two different wavelengths of light. So if you showed them two toy ducks, both giving off one of these two different wavelengths of light. These ducks will appear to be the same colour to this colour-blind chap, even though they are emitting different wavelengths.

But when a color blind person is the only one to see something, do we say that it had no color, or do we just say that he was unable to tell what color it was? There's a fairly typical way that the average person see's things, and when we talk about color, that's usually the mapping that we mean.


Your terminology made sense to this mathematician! :)
An important thing you said is that this mapping isn't bijective.
The colour-blind example is one where the mapping isn't injective. (two frequencies map to the same experience)
So there isn't a equivalence relation between the wavelength and the experience that represents it.

Well, it's sort of like using a video camera. A (good) video camera does roughly the same thing as our eyes. It's not injective (it uses r, g, and b filters. A particular frequency of light that is not red green or blue will partially penetrate the filters in the same way that some combination of red, green, and blue will) or surjective (it doesn't record UV or infrared. And I hope I didn't get those definitions backwards. I usually use one-to-one and onto, but when I took abstract algebra, the teacher indicated that those terms were kind of old fashioned), but that doesn't mean that what it records isn't just a function of the wavelength that comes in. If you want to use the fact that the mapping of from frequency to color isn't bijective to argue that color must be an experience, then you also have to say that the video camera is recording experiences.

So technically, yellow could be two different things - it could be a particular frequency, or a combination of 2 or more frequencies (this has more to do with the way our eyes work than our brains). I never said our eyes were perfect measuring devices - neither are video cameras. And a non-bijective mapping is no less valid than a bijective mapping.

[Aegis]

Ah, so we have no argument then! :love: Bartender! Whatevery my friend is having and put it on someone else's tab!

According to some of my friends who follow this stuff closer than I, Flew was the 20th century's finest athiest mind. My brother has seen him in person in both lecture and debate formats. Chip says he has an impressive mind. Flew now claims to believe in a sort of a god ... person/thing. He was influenced by a couple of scientists ... I haven't read their books yet, but I'm going to look them up.
The really odd thing is that no-one seemed to have heard of Flew before he went from atheist to more of a deist. He certainly wasn't one of the most famous atheists, which was a comment passed around when this happened.

In any case, there are conversions both ways. People lose faith, people acquire faith, it's really not a big enough deal to make it a special event when this happens. In any case, an appeal to authority or popularity would be a logical fallacy, and would (or should) be unconvincing to most atheists.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Weeelllllll .... they are contradictory ... so you still have a problem. The premise is simply faulty. IF life is meaning-less then we cannot create a meaning for our lives no matter how much we try. I suppose we could lie to ourselves ... but that is intellectually dishonest in my mind.

The other problem area is the definition of the word meaning. In the statement ... "Life is meaningless." I take 'meaningless' to mean "without point'. In the second statement ... "Life has meaning I ascribe to it." I take 'meaning' to mean "something that makes me feel good."
The use of meaningless and meaning are not equivilent ... and the premise fails because they're not describing the same thing. You can do it ... but it's a bit of a mess.

It's not really dishonest, it's just the word "meaning" can only apply if there is something to apply it to, and somebody to apply it. It's a timeline thing. I think the questions are being asked in a faulty way.

There are basically "two different questions," with "two different situations," thefore you are getting "two different answers," to those "two diffferent questions," in those "two different situations." But, your turning around and applying them to one idea......


Equivalent of a working dvd player:

Does life have meaning to those with life intact?
"I believe" that on a individual level, it does.

"I believe" that life has subjective meaning.... I also think that this kind of meaning, is directly tied to us having to be alive.....


Equivalent of a broken dvd player: The dvd player has blown-up, and is no more

Does life have meaning outside of life itself?
"I don't believe" it does....

"I don't believe" life has an' outer objective meaning...... Basically, I don't believe human life will have any reverberating effect on anything outside of human life itself. ( Kind of like a closed system)


You can't apply those answers to just simply "does life have meaning" you have to ask, what kind of "meaning?" Also "when?"
They aren't the same idea or question...

I mean by your logic, you are saying that "my dvd player never worked, because it's broke now." because it blew-up and is no more


Life has a purpose "self givin" and "death" just makes it a finite one.......


( I actually find this interesting.. Go figure.... This is like a really messed up tongue twister)

[Explorer]

It's not really dishonest, it's just the word "meaning" can only apply if there is something to apply it to, and somebody to apply it. It's a timeline thing. I think the questions are being asked in a faulty way.

There are basically "two different questions," with "two different situations," thefore you are getting "two different answers," to those "two diffferent questions," in those "two different situations." But, your turning around and applying them to one idea......


Equivalent of a working dvd player:

Does life have meaning to those with life intact?
"I believe" that on a individual level, it does.

"I believe" that life has subjective meaning.... I also think that this kind of meaning, is directly tied to us having to be alive.....


Equivalent of a broken dvd player:

Does life have meaning outside of life itself?
"I don't believe" it does....

"I don't believe" life has an' outer objective meaning...... Basically, I don't believe human life will have any reverberating effect on anything outside of human life itself. ( Kind of like a closed system)


You can't apply those answers to just simply "does life have meaning" you have to ask, what kind of "meaning?" Also "when?"
They aren't the same idea or question...

I mean by your logic, you are saying that "my dvd player never worked, because it's broke now."


Life has a pupose "self givin" and "death" just makes it a finite one.......


( I actually find this interesting.. Go figure.... This is like a really messed up tongue twister)


I think I understand what you're saying ... I also think the DVD player isn't the best analogy because it doesn't address the fundamental collision between nothing-ness and something-ness. This is one of the problems I have with the proposition. If life is, ultimately, physically nothing-ness ... then we can't impose something-ness via thought projection.

I think you're saying ... Life may be, ultimately, meaningless however, there are things in life that make me feel good about being alive. That's all fine and well, you can do that ... but life's meaninglessness and the things in life that make me feel good are not the same things.

I agree, this is really fun.

[WatchfulAbyss]

I think I understand what you're saying ... I also think the DVD player isn't the best analogy because it doesn't address the fundamental collision between nothing-ness and something-ness. This is one of the problems I have with the proposition. If life is, ultimately, physically nothing-ness ... then we can't impose something-ness via thought projection.


Actually, I used the dvd player to bring an' object into it. Also it made it easy for me to show that I needed life to be functioning.... The "nothing-ness" isn't important, I was just useing it for the before and after affect..... Pretend the dvd player blew up instead of broke.......



I think you're saying ... Life may be, ultimately, meaningless however, there are things in life that make me feel good about being alive. That's all fine and well, you can do that but life's meaninglessness and the things in life that make me feel good are not the same things.

But, thats not the point, the question was "is life meaningless?" "I" am saying, no, it's not meaningless . Atleast not in a subjective way.... To be more specific, the threads question is "So, what is it that gives your life meaning? " The answer I gave was, "whatever meaning/purpose I decide to give my life."

Somehow, we got into "what if there was no more life, what meaning does life have then?"

The answer: Meaning wouldn't exist, life itself wouldn't exist, so, none. The meaning ends with the subject. Makes sense right. After all, I only gave it a subjective meaning in the first place. (Which is the only kind of meaning it can have.)

The two ideas are totaly different, therefore, they get two different answers.

People have gotten into time travel in an' attempt to use conflicting answers. But, in order to compare the separate answers to one idea, you have to take them out of context. In this case, you have to apply them to "objective meaning/meaninglessness" in order to make them conflict. Which by the way, don't work. Especially when life only has "subjective meaning."

This has nothing to do with "feeling good", and it doesn't matter what purpose you give your life. This is about rather life has meaning/purpose or not. I say yes, it does. It's just personal meaning... i.e. subjective meaning....

------------------------------
I have already said this though. So, will you please tell me what it is that you aren't getting. Maybe I can atleast make it clear....... Or maybe tell me what it is that im not answering......

[Aikikai Novice]

Wow, the word meaning is losing all meaning to me. :p

But the substitution of other words would likely result in the same things over again.

-Why is life important? Because it's important to me.
-Why does life matter? Because it matters to me.
-No seriously, in the broadest scheme of everything, why does it matter? Oh, well, those two ideas aren't comprable.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Wow, the word meaning is losing all meaning to me.

meaning
1 a : to have in the mind as a purpose


But the substitution of other words would likely result in the same things over again.

Maybe.....

-Why is life important? Because it's important to me.

Yes. Unless you want to redifine your terms.....

-Why does life matter? Because it matters to me.

Yes. Unless you want to redifine your terms...

-No seriously, in the broadest scheme of everything, why does it matter?

I should simply just ask: Why does what matter?

But I won't.

Life only has subjective meaning, there is no "real" way around it, "meaning" is subjective.......

Objectively, life doesn't have meaning. But, I already said that. :p

Life isn't fixed, "meaning" will fail when life does. In all honesty, to deny subjective meaning, is to say that there is no such thing as "meaning" in any form. Even having a "God" doesn't change that.....


Oh, well, those two ideas aren't comprable.

Can you do it in an' honest manner?

In this case, if you take the two questions, and my two answers:

1. Does life have meaning? Life has a subjective meaning.

2. Does life have any meaning when we are gone? Life has no objective meaning, and no grand affect on anything. (How could it, meaning is subjective....)

I mean really, how are those comparable? They aren't even answering the same thing. They aren't on the same level as one another. One answers a subjective idea, the other lacks that idea all togather. If you take away people, you in turn take away the ability to apply meaning.... It becomes a trick question.....

I mean, if subjective meaning is rejected because it isn't "objective" and therefore declared "not real," as well as "dishonest." You may as well just scratch human thought all togather.

[Strafio]

But when a color blind person is the only one to see something, do we say that it had no color, or do we just say that he was unable to tell what color it was? There's a fairly typical way that the average person see's things, and when we talk about color, that's usually the mapping that we mean.
The point is, colour is dependant on the subject.

Wavelength --mapping--> Colour

This mapping depends on the subject's vision so colour is subjective.
It can still be intersubjective (i.e. we all happen to share the same mapping) but not objective.


Well, it's sort of like using a video camera. A (good) video camera does roughly the same thing as our eyes. It's not injective (it uses r, g, and b filters. A particular frequency of light that is not red green or blue will partially penetrate the filters in the same way that some combination of red, green, and blue will) or surjective (it doesn't record UV or infrared. And I hope I didn't get those definitions backwards.
Your definition of surjective is a little out.
A mapping is surjective if all the members of the target domain are mapped to atleast once, injective if at both once. (so both surjective and injective means the members of the target domain are mapped atleast once and at most once. i.e. exactly once - bijective)

I think what you meant was that the mapping was only defined for the visible spectrum (only mapped wavelengths of the visible spectrum into colours). Come think about it, if the mapping wasn't surjective then there'd be colours that no wavelength mapped into. Now that would be weird!! :D

If you want to use the fact that the mapping of from frequency to color isn't bijective to argue that color must be an experience, then you also have to say that the video camera is recording experiences.
I figured that colour was experience be definition, and the lack of a bijective mapping was reason to separate it from wavelengths, that you could have one without the other...

So technically, yellow could be two different things - it could be a particular frequency, or a combination of 2 or more frequencies (this has more to do with the way our eyes work than our brains). I never said our eyes were perfect measuring devices - neither are video cameras. And a non-bijective mapping is no less valid than a bijective mapping.
So that's why we're saying that wavelengths can be objective while the colours the stimulate are subjective?



On another note, until this topic I'd been misusing the words objective and subjective! I guess we learn something new every day. ;)

[AZeitung]

The point is, colour is dependant on the subject.

Wavelength --mapping--> Colour

This mapping depends on the subject's vision so colour is subjective.
It can still be intersubjective (i.e. we all happen to share the same mapping) but not objective.

Well, we don't all share exactly the same mapping, so there's a more general mapping that we tend to agree on, which basically means that people can be wrong when experiencing color. For example, the color blind person might say "that's grey", and we say, "no that's actually yellow". Or someone might say "that looks kind of blue to me", and five of his friends might say "it's actually green", in which case he would say "I guess I was wrong about the color". We tend to think of color as what the average person experiences as color, rather than what a specific person thinks the color is and because of that we can define a mapping from frequency to color.

But anyway, I think the argument was more as to whether our experience of the color is the definition of color (see the wiki article on qualia that was posted here) or whether it referrs to a property of the object. As for qualia being the propper definition of color, we have no way of knowing whether the qualia that you experience when seeing yellow is what I experience when seeing blue (probably not the case, but we don't know that for a fact), in which case we should be using different words when we see the same object (and blind people should call everything gray).



Your definition of surjective is a little out.
A mapping is surjective if all the members of the target domain are mapped to atleast once, injective if at both once. (so both surjective and injective means the members of the target domain are mapped atleast once and at most once. i.e. exactly once - bijective)

I think what you meant was that the mapping was only defined for the visible spectrum (only mapped wavelengths of the visible spectrum into colours). Come think about it, if the mapping wasn't surjective then there'd be colours that no wavelength mapped into. Now that would be weird!! :D

You're right. For some reason I switched from talking about a mapping from frequency to color to a mapping from color to frequency, which wasn't what we were talking about.


I figured that colour was experience be definition, and the lack of a bijective mapping was reason to separate it from wavelengths, that you could have one without the other...


You couldn't have one without the other. You couldn't have color without frequency, it's just that some map redundantly to colors, but this makes sense because of the filtration process used. It's sort of like if you play a sound at springs with different resonant frequencies. Even if you aren't playing the resonant frequency of any of those springs, they'll still oscillate a little bit.


So that's why we're saying that wavelengths can be objective while the colours the stimulate are subjective?

What? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. Colors don't stimulate wavelengths. Wavelengths are "filtered" by your eye into 3 components, and the intensity of each component determines the color.

If you have a combination of red and blue, it will be filtered into those two components. You could have some other pure frequency that is filtered into those same red and blue components and not into any green components, but in theory it should also be filtered into additional components that your eye doesn't check for.

[Strafio]

Well, we don't all share exactly the same mapping, so there's a more general mapping that we tend to agree on, which basically means that people can be wrong when experiencing color. For example, the color blind person might say "that's grey", and we say, "no that's actually yellow". Or someone might say "that looks kind of blue to me", and five of his friends might say "it's actually green", in which case he would say "I guess I was wrong about the color". We tend to think of color as what the average person experiences as color, rather than what a specific person thinks the color is and because of that we can define a mapping from frequency to color.
Pragmatically, Colour = Wavelength.
We use the terms interchangably in everyday language.
How ever, in philosophy we're a bit more pedantic and recognise that colour and wavelength are logically separate. One is considered objective (independant of experience) and the other subjective (dependant on the person who's experiencing it).

But anyway, I think the argument was more as to whether our experience of the color is the definition of color (see the wiki article on qualia that was posted here) or whether it referrs to a property of the object. As for qualia being the propper definition of color, we have no way of knowing whether the qualia that you experience when seeing yellow is what I experience when seeing blue (probably not the case, but we don't know that for a fact), in which case we should be using different words when we see the same object (and blind people should call everything gray).
Not quite.
Red isn't the name of the particular sensation, otherwise we'd each have a different 'red'. Red is the name we tag to the sensation caused by red objects.

You couldn't have one without the other. You couldn't have color without frequency,
Oh? What about when I dream of pink elephants then? :p
I know what you're saying - practically, pragmatically, wavelength is colour and colour is wavelength. However, when it comes to the philosophy of mind it is important to distinguish literally and carefully. So when we distinguish between what's 'objective' and what's 'subjective', colour lands on one side of the distinction and wavelength on the other.

[cloudz]

Yes and quite right too, it is the mapping or the loop that gives rise to the sensation that is colour. We are simply talking of different perspectives of the same thing. Neither has more or less value unless you hold some sort of bias..The wavelength is the raw data feed if you like. Colour is translated through a process from this. It is wrong to say wavelength equals colour because it is not the full equation whether thinking of it scientifically or philosophically. As it stands emmitence of light only = raw data. The whole loop or process (equation) must be observed to give rise to a sensation of colour.

The upshot is that colour = a specific process, change any part of this equation and the other side of the = changes with it (the sensation). The raw data can remain the same and = a different sensation. It could be changed and still = the same sensation, as long as the other part of the process/equation is adjusted accordingly. The balance and process in components of the equation is what counts. The experience/sensation which is all we have is all in the translation, and the data is certainly part of it, just not on its own. A camara does not experience anything it just records/translates, in the same way our eyes don't experience anything. The most basic way to describe what I'm saying is with the simplest of equations. Here are two differing equations that add up to the same thing.

5+6=11. Let's say that 11=yellow. 5=wavelength and 6= the whole mapping/imaging process (eyes, brain/mind)

3+8=11. hmm..

Some would insist that 5 in our first example really does = 11. Hilarious! :D

------------------------

And please Explorer and Socs, can we have a little less of the sophist bashing please ! :)

Perhaps objective meaning is nonsense in one sense of the phrase, but using words as a useful tool does require some imagination.. Our mind and understanding is a lot deeper and complex than a couple words lumped together. Words are not so dissimilar to colour in that they may be applied artfully and are a process giving rise to sensation and maybe even purposefully. The use of the word meaning can extend to more than one use, so we too should extend ourselves a little beyond the pedantic.

Can the same be said for objective purpose then. Ie. does it = nonsense. A purpose surely can provide meaning to something.

Further would you say the universe is an object, but anyway..

Whatever something that is does is its objective purpose wouldn't you say?

All that is is simply being and no more no less. It does not need to be more and can be no less than this.

Hence forth you can say the objective 'meaning'/purpose of life is simply to be and to do (applicable to all), and we can call this whole thing off..

Yeah, you know you want to. Those that ascribe to a higher purpose than this are surely as deluded as those that were to believe that being and doing is/are meaningless. Because clearly they give rise to all manner of things. perhaps 10,000 or more.. HAHAHA :D

Given that it is a two way process. ie. we imbue things with meaning, things (objects) also imbue meaning into us as subjects (but at the same time we are no less objects). Subject and object when looked on in one sense are simply differing perspectives of the same thing.. We cannot sit here and deny our minds eye. But we can say we are only seeing things diffently, but what we are seeing is nonetheless the same.. As also we will see different things. We 'see' in the same breath as our imagination..

Such is the beauty and ugliness of lifes process. Beauty and ugliness can be both subjective and objective. Men find certain women more beautiful on the eye due to certain objectively definable things.. Likewise the same woman would appear ugly to another man looking at her character again based on objectively definable traits. So which is she? I don't really care as I am only after one thing ! :D :D

The answers(opinions) may well be in the subject, but at the same time everything is both subject and object so there is an answer here too. Again we find a good case for translation.. Subjectivity is the result of differing translatory process. People really end up with different translations of the same thing(s). So really when we talk of 'subjective truth' Are we really just refering to opinion then..

I think generally speaking life is either meaningful or meaningless mostly dependant on what mood we're in.. and what parts we are focusing on at the time. Sometimes the same whole or the parts that we know can look beautiful or look ugly or we could become indifferent to them..

It just depends on.. hmm. Translations!

My big word of the day, think Sesame street. :)

Those who may imagine no 'real truth' can be found through sophistry really should think again. Don't fear that which you find hard to translate. There is truth that has sweet fa to do with objective reality. Being and doing is the key. We cannot only see the truth in the doing of reality, and ignore the reality of being. Which we translate in one sense as being subjective. Truth is not married at the hip to reality. Reality is ever changing. Some truth never changes.

"oh what fun we had, lalalalalala" - madness
:p

[AZeitung]

Not quite.
Red isn't the name of the particular sensation, otherwise we'd each have a different 'red'. Red is the name we tag to the sensation caused by red objects.


Red is the name of a sensation, but it's caused by red objects. This requires the use of two different definitions of the word red in the same sentence. If red is only a sensation, then it can't be a property of the object, or we have just defined:

Red is the sensation caused by things that cause the sensation red.

In you're definition you've admitted that red also has to be defined as the property of an object.

Let me try to explain what I'm saying better:

Here's what I'm saying red is: "red is a name we give to objects that cause a particular sensation"

For example, you say "that house is red", "my throat is red", etc instead of "that house makes me experience red", etc. In common useage, it assigns properties to objects and not to sensations. That's the way we construct our sentences. We say that the OBJECT is the thing that's red, and we say this because it makes us see something in our minds.

We assigns properties to objects based on the sensations they cause, but never the less, it is describing a property of the object and not the sensation itself.

Sensation is a way of measuing something. I can touch something and feel that it's hard, which is a subjective sensation, but by that subjective sensation, I can objectively say that it's a solid, and not liquid or gas.

I can also look at an object and catagorize it based on the visual sensations that it causes. Catagorize objects into different groups, such as red, blue, yellow, etc. by using my sensations.

But the thing is, you can pretty much use colors however you want. In scientific circles, color usually referrs to shorthand for specific frequency ranges rather than anything related to experiences (when an instrument says that a laser is green, it's describing the frequency of the object). 90% of the time in everyday conversation, we use colors to describe properties of objects based on experiences (e.g. "the house is green" you cannot argue that that sentence construction means anything else unless the speaker is using really bad grammar). About 10% of the time, we use it to referr to the experience itself (e.g. "He can't see red", unless the speaker actually means "he can't see that things are red", in which case it's referring to a property of the object again).

But another questions is, if color is a name for the catagorization that our eye performs on wavelengths, based on how it stimulates rods and cones (I don't remember much biology, but I think that's right), how would you be able to differentiate that definition from the useage of color as a name for sensations? Most of the time, you wouldn't be able to, and certainly not for anything that regular people use the word color to describe.

Philosophers, on the other hand, often talk about experiences and situations arise where the specific definition of color as a sensation is important, so they use it to mean a sensation. Scientists often talk about things where frequency is important, so they use the word to mean frequencies. In the end, they're just words, and arguing about the actual definition of words isn't all that worthwhile. I don't think either of us is denying that the thing the other one is talking about exists, we're just arguing about which thing a particular set of words is used to describe. So, no matter how long we keep this up, whether or not we reach an agreement, we won't really accomplish anything useful other than greater standardization of the English language.

[Strafio]

Red is the sensation caused by things that cause the sensation red.

In you're definition you've admitted that red also has to be defined as the property of an object.
This is what I first argued when Socrastein brought it up. He changed my mind though. It would still only be red to somebody capable of sensation, or who wasn't colour blind. (In which case they'd see 'red things' as another colour)
Even if everyone was capable of the sensation, it would still be inter-subjective. (i.e. dependant on the subject but everyone agrees on it)

Red being a sensation is dependant on a subjective perceiver.

Let me try to explain what I'm saying better:

Here's what I'm saying red is: "red is a name we give to objects that cause a particular sensation"
This is fine for 'everyday' usage, (which is a bit more ambiguous and context sensitive) but in a philosophical discussion the terms are used a bit more concisely and colour terms are reserved for the sensation.

Philosophers, on the other hand, often talk about experiences and situations arise where the specific definition of color as a sensation is important, so they use it to mean a sensation. Scientists often talk about things where frequency is important, so they use the word to mean frequencies. In the end, they're just words, and arguing about the actual definition of words isn't all that worthwhile.
lol! This surmises our argument quite well.
Philosophy is about being pedantically correct so the correct grammar/words comes up a lot in argument. Wittgensteins arguments were more or less all based around grammar...

[AZeitung]

This is what I first argued when Socrastein brought it up. He changed my mind though. It would still only be red to somebody capable of sensation, or who wasn't colour blind. (In which case they'd see 'red things' as another colour)
Even if everyone was capable of the sensation, it would still be inter-subjective. (i.e. dependant on the subject but everyone agrees on it)

Red being a sensation is dependant on a subjective perceiver.

I agree that the sensation you get when looking at something red is dependant on the perciever, but a red hat is called red when it is catagorized as such by someone capable of seeing red. The color blind person has to admit that he can't tell that it's red, or that it doesn't look red to him, not that the hat isn't red for him. I've never heard anyone say "this isn't red for me". That's not the way the word is used. I've even heard people say things like "That's purple? Why can't I tell that it's purple. There must be something wrong with my eyes.", not "The color isn't purple for me". Once again, the grammar indicates that people are talking about a property of the object, and the fact that someone thinks there must be something wrong with him if he doesn't see the "accepted" color, indicates that the catagorization is made based on an average or assumed mapping.


This is fine for 'everyday' usage, (which is a bit more ambiguous and context sensitive) but in a philosophical discussion the terms are used a bit more concisely and colour terms are reserved for the sensation.

And who gets to say that's the correct definition? That seems like a definition that only applies to a small group of people in certain contexts. It is no more or less valid than the scientific useage of color as frequency, and probably less valid than the everyday useage where an object is catagorized as red by the typical mapping of frequency to sensation that most people experience.

The only reason I can accept that definition as valid at any time is because there are circumstances when you want to talk about the experience of looking at something red, and you need a word to do so. It's easier than making up a new word, but if philosophers had just made up a new word, we wouldn't be haivng this discussion. The word yellow, however, was in use long before philosophers were talking about qualia or scientists were talking about frequency.


lol! This surmises our argument quite well.
Philosophy is about being pedantically correct so the correct grammar/words comes up a lot in argument. Wittgensteins arguments were more or less all based around grammar...
Which is so laughably poked fun at in Beyond the Fringe's "Words. . . and things".

All problems regarding definitions could be solved if someone would just write a less ambiguous definition. I don't see where we're going to get by trying to decide on definitions because it could very well be a non-issue in another language.

edit: And we could very easily be making the same argument about musical notes if someone hadn't sorted it out a long time ago. A 440 is the current standard, but frequency wasn't always the tuning standard. I would guess that the obo was made with a certain length, width, and general design, and so would generally give about the same frequency to tune to. A is now defined as a frequency of 440 Hz, but it wasn't always so well defined.

Pitch is something we experience in the same manner as color, and the musical scale is what we use to label it, like colors are labeled with names like red, green, and blue. Obviously, there's some leeway on either end of 440 Hz where a note can still be an A, because no one can tell the difference. So, are musical notes frequencies, the catagorization of sounds into frequency ranges based on sensations, or the sensations themselves? The second choice seems best, and if you agree, I can't see why you would decide that color should be treated differently. I think you'd have a hard time finding people who say that A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are words for the sensations themselves.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Here is an article on color......http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,158215,00.asp

(I am so confused.) Is it fair to say color is basically "conceptualized" as objective. I am starting to think it is a little of both, just in different ways. (yup I am confused)

[edit]

I also found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/
It's very long winded though.......


Sorry, but, I have one more, this one is kinda in between the two ideas:
http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/hatfield.html

[cloudz]

Lets say you have a computer and it is programmed to operate on x language. This enables it to read y raw data and translate it to colour yellow.

change the program and it will read the same data and not come up with yellow. It may now read it as green. Wheras before it may have read green from differing data in x language. Conceivably we can change the data and the program from the original and conjure up yellow again as long as we have a blueprint to follow of how we got to know yellow in the first place. Which we do.

The colour yellow is in the program, doing the reading and translating of data. It will recognise yellow in the new data because it has been told what it is. Like wise we have been 'told' what yellow is by our 'programming'. And we can identify the specific data that provides it due to this. If we had black and white vision, i doubt this would be the case.

The question of is colour objective/ subjective is an irrelevence really.. in the objective sense we are wired the way we are wired and so all the causes of the sensation are fixed in place, and not about to change.

Ultimately it is both objective and subjective at the same time. But for 'you and me', it seems we can only be either here or there and not in two places at once..
All problems regarding definitions could be solved if someone would just write a less ambiguous definition. I don't see where we're going to get by trying to decide on definitions because it could very well be a non-issue in another language.

I doubt that AZeitung, you're the only one who is bothered by the language and definitions angle from what i can tell. The 'everyday' definition is a non issue. Yes we see an object and recognise its colour and say it has that property to us 'that ball is red'. Nothing wrong here. The ball is red!! And nothing wrong in looking at it in more detail either, whether scientifically or philosophically. Language is relatavistic . How something is said matters not so much, as long as the purpose is fullfilled. That I would say is communicating and understanding tool. So language is used accordingly to fit the situation. Stricter definitions are not practical, they would simply be loosened through use, and who's going to enforce it anyway. In this sense language is a pretty organic thing. It will either make some sense or it won't.. We obviosly need definition for the tool to work, but not so much that we blunt its uses.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Lets say you have a computer and it is programmed to operate on x language. This enables it to read y raw data and translate it to colour yellow.

change the program and it will read the same data and not come up with yellow. It may now read it as green. Wheras before it may have read green from differing data in x language. Conceivably we can change the data and the program from the original and conjure up yellow again as long as we have a blueprint to follow of how we got to know yellow in the first place. Which we do.

The colour yellow is in the program, doing the reading and translating of data. It will recognise yellow in the new data because it has been told what it is. Like wise we have been 'told' what yellow is by our 'programming'. And we can identify the specific data that provides it due to this. If we had black and white vision, i doubt this would be the case.

The question of is colour objective/ subjective is an irrelevence really.. in the objective sense we are wired the way we are wired and so all the causes of the sensation are fixed.

Ultimately it is both objective and subjective at the same time. But for 'you and me', it seems we can only be either here or there and not in two places at once..

So, my idea of it being a little of both (objective, subjective) isn't that far from acceptable.

[cloudz]

So, my idea of it being a little of both (objective, subjective) isn't that far from acceptable.

Well to me at least it is more than acceptable. If relativity/relationism(?) is accepted as an objective reality then I think we can by-pass this distinction quite comfortably.

[Explorer]

Ah, that's where I've heard the name! I knew it sounded familiar. On Christianforums they used to reference this fact to try and convince atheists that the truly smart one's eventually become theists, therefore we're wrong.

Yeah, whatever. Really smart people disagree all the time. Flew's change of mind isn't evidence of anything other than Flew's change of mind.

I have to spend more time with Flew's original thinking ... so I'll look up some of his work. Then I'm interested in his change of mind. Fascinating.

I've been gone for a while, sorry. I'm preparing for a trip.

[Strafio]

Besides, he specifically stated that it wouldn't be the Christian God.
More like the deistic God of Spinoza or something like that.

[Deepsey]

Besides, he specifically stated that it wouldn't be the Christian God.
More like the deistic God of Spinoza or something like that.
No i did not. ( I understand you mean like ... 2 gods? Am i right?)
I more like meant, that the one god had the powers of duality under his order.
[16.51] And Allah has said: Take not two gods, He is only one God; so of Me alone should you be afraid.

[Strafio]

eh! Are you Flew? Because that's who I was talking about! :D
Deists believe that there's a creator God who buggered off and left us to it, or atleast doesn't mess in human affairs.

Besides, I made a mistake with Spinoza - it turns out he was a pantheist, the belief that God is nature and Flew believed that there was a 'God' but it had to be either deistic or pantheistic (like Spinoza's God).

[cloudz]

Spinoza's 'God' sounds kind of cool.. I'm off to hug a tree :) :cool: