Why “Creating” Your Own Meaning is A Moronic Concept

[Duality]

If you look at this theory and ask yourself, why is it like that? Why would this system generate such seemingly arbitrary values? The answer is, as with all biological systems, evolution doesn't design perfect solutions. Evolution is a big game of trial and error. So if we anthropomorphize evolution and say that evolution has "intended consequences" those consequences would be the prolonged existence of the biological system. What we have to understand is that by the nature of evolution, evolution creates tons and tons of "unintended consequences." This is one of them.

None of this explains why these concepts exist. All you are doing here is associating feelings with the creation of these values. Well ok. But why do these things make me feel a certain way and not others. Why does this piece of art make me feel greater emotions and communicate more about the human condition than that other piece? It seems like you are trying to use the existence of evolution to prove materialism, which seems arbitrary.

To add further to this, are these concepts just floating around in the atmosphere everywhere, or are they in the magical part of your brain that stores your invisible material thoughts?

And if nature had these concepts, why wouldn’t it apply them to create a perfect material world based upon these ideals. Did it just say, “fuck it, Im gonna make like 95% of reality unideal, and then throw in about 5% ideals just to make it interesting?” I really wanna know.

[Duality]

My thoughts aren't concealing the future from me, are they?

Thought extracts certain knowledge out of past pleasures and pains, compares the present with it, passes judgments, avoids the present by concocting a future and pursues it. But for the comparisons that thought makes there is no problem with our life as it is; and there is no other life. What I mean by that is there would be no problem if I don’t go about seeking out the meaning of life with the thought that my life would be better if I did so. In that case it would be precisely the thought of a better state that prevents the coming to terms with life as it is.

Once the basic needs are provided, the next question that comes up is, ‘Is this all there is? There must be something more than this to life …’ that’s just plain boredom.

Why would they become bored though? Why wouldn’t they just use their intellect to build sand castles or some shit? Its pretty obvious that human beings throughout history have never felt comfortable living in the world. Maybe because this is not our home.

The lack of satisfaction is not just arbitrary. We don’t all just beat the shit out of each other with sticks when we get bored. We often wonder about the meaning of our existence when we get bored.

And that is the battle that is going on all the time. But there seems to be no way out.

Yea, you got it

[Russiantank]

Duality, Im not sure if I understood your inquiry but here goes...

You wrote: "None of this explains why these concepts exist. All you are doing here is associating feelings with the creation of these values. Well ok. But why do these things make me feel a certain way and not others. Why does this piece of art make me feel greater emotions and communicate more about the human condition than that other piece?"

I think thats what I tried to explain. I tried to explain how people get these apparently arbitrary values. These values exist because they were created in the way that I explained. There is no law in nature that says someone will enjoy Guns & Roses or that someone will think a Picasso is beautiful. These concepts DONT exist in nature until they are formed in the minds of human beings through a particular chain of circumstance.

When I listen to Guns & Roses, it moves me. It makes me feel great. Yet when someone else listens to it, they call it lame and "gay" and say that "Hip-Hop" is powerful music. When I listen to Country music, its hard for me not to think "ah this is lame" and feel displeased at having to listen to it... So the question is, how do you explain this discrepancy in human values? Well, it is pretty clear that we are born with some values built in. The obvious ones are "food is good, sex is good, physical harm is bad." Furthermore, there is a legitimate argument to be had about what other values are built into our DNA. Many argue that alot of our traditional morals have a major genetic component.

Thats all well and good. But it is also clear that we do have some of these arbitrary values, or "preferences" that we can often make sense of through personal narratives. We can often look at a person's experiences in life, their personal narratives, and it gives us a reasonable explanation for how these values came to grow in this person. All we need is a theory of value that allows for this kind of flexibility. Thats what I believe my theory offers.

You wrote: "And if nature had these concepts, why wouldn’t it apply them to create a perfect material world based upon these ideals. Did it just say, “fuck it, Im gonna make like 95% of reality unideal, and then throw in about 5% ideals just to make it interesting?”"

There is no such thing as "ideal" in nature. There is no such thing as "perfect." "Ideal" and "Perfect" and "good" are all value laden terms. And there is NO VALUE in nature outside of the minds of certain organisms. That Value is a function of that organisms physiology and random circumstance... Thats what you have to come to terms with. Theoretically, all you would have to do is rewire a brain and you could generate any value imaginable. Theres no such thing as objective justice/beauty, its just, through a random chain of events, your brain was wired in a particular way and now you feel the justice/beauty that you feel.

[d63]

We old folks tend to our gardens,

and the only fruit we bare is nihilism.


Christ! We can hardly tell it from the weeds anymore.


Still, we have to eat.

[Duality]

Duality, Im not sure if I understood your inquiry but here goes...

You wrote: "None of this explains why these concepts exist. All you are doing here is associating feelings with the creation of these values. Well ok. But why do these things make me feel a certain way and not others. Why does this piece of art make me feel greater emotions and communicate more about the human condition than that other piece?"

I think thats what I tried to explain. I tried to explain how people get these apparently arbitrary values. These values exist because they were created in the way that I explained. There is no law in nature that says someone will enjoy Guns & Roses or that someone will think a Picasso is beautiful. These concepts DONT exist in nature until they are formed in the minds of human beings through a particular chain of circumstance.

When I listen to Guns & Roses, it moves me. It makes me feel great. Yet when someone else listens to it, they call it lame and "gay" and say that "Hip-Hop" is powerful music. When I listen to Country music, its hard for me not to think "ah this is lame" and feel displeased at having to listen to it... So the question is, how do you explain this discrepancy in human values? Well, it is pretty clear that we are born with some values built in. The obvious ones are "food is good, sex is good, physical harm is bad." Furthermore, there is a legitimate argument to be had about what other values are built into our DNA. Many argue that alot of our traditional morals have a major genetic component.

Thats all well and good. But it is also clear that we do have some of these arbitrary values, or "preferences" that we can often make sense of through personal narratives. We can often look at a person's experiences in life, their personal narratives, and it gives us a reasonable explanation for how these values came to grow in this person. All we need is a theory of value that allows for this kind of flexibility. Thats what I believe my theory offers.

You wrote: "And if nature had these concepts, why wouldn’t it apply them to create a perfect material world based upon these ideals. Did it just say, “fuck it, Im gonna make like 95% of reality unideal, and then throw in about 5% ideals just to make it interesting?”"

There is no such thing as "ideal" in nature. There is no such thing as "perfect." "Ideal" and "Perfect" and "good" are all value laden terms. And there is NO VALUE in nature outside of the minds of certain organisms. That Value is a function of that organisms physiology and random circumstance... Thats what you have to come to terms with. Theoretically, all you would have to do is rewire a brain and you could generate any value imaginable. Theres no such thing as objective justice/beauty, its just, through a random chain of events, your brain was wired in a particular way and now you feel the justice/beauty that you feel.

It seems like you don’t really get the point of the statement. These are not subjective terms. Most people agree that 2+2=4. Sure, theres some people who don’t, but who cares about those chimps? This is for people that actually matter and are capable of actual human free thought.

Most people would agree that Shakespeare is a greater writer than the guys at the post office. Just like most people would agree that Plato is a greater philosopher than George W. Bush. Sorry but its not individually subjective.

[volchok]

It seems like you don’t really get the point of the statement. These are not subjective terms. Most people agree that 2+2=4. Sure, theres some people who don’t, but who cares about those chimps? This is for people that actually matter and are capable of actual human free thought.

Russiantank explained this really well and you still don't get it.
I wonder who the chimp is...

[d63]

It seems like you don’t really get the point of the statement. These are not subjective terms. Most people agree that 2+2=4. Sure, theres some people who don’t, but who cares about those chimps? This is for people that actually matter and are capable of actual human free thought.

Most people would agree that Shakespeare is a greater writer than the guys at the post office. Just like most people would agree that Plato is a greater philosopher than George W. Bush. Sorry but its not individually subjective.

A general agreement on something doesn't make it objective; it only makes it a product of a general inter-subjective agreement. This is suggested by the undeniable fact that many considered the philosophy of George W. Bush far more important than that of Plato. The agreement you cite does not exist. I would also site Marx as a far greater philosopher than Bush. And even if you disagree with Marx's conclusions, you still have to agree (if you actually know anything about our intellectual history) that Marx was far more sincere than Bush about intellectual inquirery. And among the intellectually curious, this would tend to seem true. Still, Jr. served 2 terms. Such differences don't arise with issues like 2+2=4.

[d63]

The problem is that you're trying to pass off a prescriptive assertion off as a descriptive one.

[Duality]

It seems like you don’t really get the point of the statement. These are not subjective terms. Most people agree that 2+2=4. Sure, theres some people who don’t, but who cares about those chimps? This is for people that actually matter and are capable of actual human free thought.

Most people would agree that Shakespeare is a greater writer than the guys at the post office. Just like most people would agree that Plato is a greater philosopher than George W. Bush. Sorry but its not individually subjective.

A general agreement on something doesn't make it objective; it only makes it a product of a general inter-subjective agreement. This is suggested by the undeniable fact that many considered the philosophy of George W. Bush far more important than that of Plato. The agreement you cite does not exist. I would also site Marx as a far greater philosopher than Bush. And even if you disagree with Marx's conclusions, you still have to agree (if you actually know anything about our intellectual history) that Marx was far more sincere than Bush about intellectual inquirery. And among the intellectually curious, this would tend to seem true. Still, Jr. served 2 terms. Such differences don't arise with issues like 2+2=4.

They considered it important, but they didn’t consider him a greater philosopher. Its not like people sat down and voted about who the greater philosopher is: GW or Plato. It works best if you really try to contextualize it.

Most people don’t study philosophy at all, which further reaffirms my point that they are mindless chimps who don’t really think, much less formulate opinions. Its like trying to show a Van Gogh painting to a zoo gorilla. You might get a grunt or two, but that's about it.

[Russiantank]

This is retarded argument... You just argued that because most people think Shakespeare is good is evidence that there are objective values in nature and they are the same as math...

Case in point, I think Shakespeare is a shitty writer... Seriously... I never liked his stuff. And yet everyone on this board thinks im smarter than you... Imagine that... That should be a conundrum for you...

[Duality]

This is retarded argument... You just argued that because most people think Shakespeare is good is evidence that there are objective values in nature and they are the same as math...

Cant face that reality?

Case in point, I think Shakespeare is a shitty writer... Seriously... I never liked his stuff.

That’s why I said this thread probably isn’t your cup of tea.

[indoz]

Not everybody has the same neurology.

To dispute the inherent subjectivity of life is to dispute that the Atlantic Ocean exists.

[Dglgmut]

This is hilarious...

So many people putting the cart before the horse... Our brains are all extremely similar... We didn't just happen to all like sex and food, and we don't choose to. If we don't choose what we like, then what does?

You could say it's hard-wired into our brains... but what hard-wired it? Is it not fair to say the same force that caused the big bang is the same force that created conscious beings? Living things capable of adaptation and evolution?

[d63]

Not everybody has the same neurology.

To dispute the inherent subjectivity of life is to dispute that the Atlantic Ocean exists.

Good point, Indoz. What I've realized throughout the debate on this string and another similar to it is that even if we took the materialistic route and argued that mind was little more than a product of the structures of the brain, we would still have to deal with the many individual physical structures that would emerge.

[Russiantank]

Not sure what the issue is Dglg... Like you said, some things are hard-wired. They are hard-wired by evolution, and evolution is the epitome of arbitrary... Since it is random mutation that drives evolution, the values hard-wired into our brain are nothing but a function of a random chain of circumstance...

I guess you could say the same forces that caused everything... caused... everything... including conscious beings... Were just talking about the "forces of the universe" such as gravity. Im not sure if we want to talk about what caused the big bang because... we actually have no idea...

[Dglgmut]

Not sure what the issue is Dglg... Like you said, some things are hard-wired. They are hard-wired by evolution, and evolution is the epitome of arbitrary... Since it is random mutation that drives evolution, the values hard-wired into our brain are nothing but a function of a random chain of circumstance...

I guess you could say the same forces that caused everything... caused... everything... including conscious beings... Were just talking about the "forces of the universe" such as gravity. Im not sure if we want to talk about what caused the big bang because... we actually have no idea...

You must be pretty familiar with random. You realize it's pointless to label something that cannot be identified? There is no meaning to random, because there's nothing about it that can be conceptualized.

[d63]

They are hard-wired by evolution, and evolution is the epitome of arbitrary... Since it is random mutation that drives evolution, the values hard-wired into our brain are nothing but a function of a random chain of circumstance...

I guess you could say the same forces that caused everything... caused... everything... including conscious beings... Were just talking about the "forces of the universe" such as gravity. Im not sure if we want to talk about what caused the big bang because... we actually have no idea...

Yes, there could be a certain kind of operationalism in evolution in that it would create an arbitrary condition in environment that would ultimately validate the evolutionary adaption.

Whether it proves to be wrong or right, it's actually kind of profound.

This basically means that I'm going to steal it, Russiantank. Sorry you flashed it around in front of me.

[Russiantank]

Im thinking out loud here, but Im thinking there is a difficulty with the concept of "randomness" that occurs because people anthropomorphize nature alot. "Random" vs "non-random" is a distinction originating from the process of ... um... what should I call it..?.. lets say "actualizing goals" which is a phenomena unique to organisms with a sufficiently developed nervous system... When there is a goal that is trying to be achieved, actions undertaken with the intention of actualizing the goal are considered "purposeful" and actions that are not intended to actualize a particular goal can be said to be random. From what I can tell, this is where the term is most meaningful... to mean "purposeless."

Now, as I said, as far as we can tell, there is no reason to believe that "goal actualization" is a phenomena that occurs anywhere except in the minds and successive actions of particular organisms. The forces of the universe were not actualizing any goals when they lead to the birth of the sun and planets. Rather, that was just mass and energy interacting according to the forces of the universe. "Stuff bouncing around." The same goes for the birth of organisms on earth. And the same goes for evolution.

Evolution has no purpose or goal. This is an often misunderstood aspect of evolution. Almost everyone ive ever met has misunderstood evolution in this sense. There is no force akin to a will at work with evolution. When an organism is faced with an environment in which it is incapable of surviving, evolution does not "kick into gear" and initiate a process of "goal actualization" with the purpose of changing the organism or creating a new organism that IS capable of surviving in that environment. Thats not how it works. I may have a problem with evolution being considered a unique phenomena, or a unique force in the universe. Its not... Its just the regular, old fashioned forces of the universe, such as gravity, at work. "Evolution" just designates the working of those forces as they pertain to biological organisms, in particular, how mutation and environmental forces combine to affect change over long periods of time.

So... since there is no "goal actualization" going on anywhere except in our minds and actions... you either say that everything in nature (except some organisms' actions) is random or you can say "random vs purposeful" is a distinction that should only apply in the realm of "goal actualization." Distinguishing phenomena in nature as "random" is kind of moot. As long as were not talking about phenomena caused by organisms, its all random. Random doesnt mean "happens for no reason." Theres a perfectly good reason why mutations happen. Its the same reason why billiard balls bounce around the way they do. Its the forces of the universe at work. Gravity, electromagnatism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

So the point of all of this long ass "thinking out loud" above is that when I said mutation is random, I just meant that it is "purposeless." Since evolution has no purpose, since evolutionary adaptation is essentially totally accidental, the source of our hard-wired values for food and sex are in this sense exactly similar to the source of those accidental preferences as I described them in my earlier posts. Accidental/random circumstance. Food and sex are no more objectively valuable than a painting or a piece of music.

[volchok]

Im thinking out loud here, but Im thinking there is a difficulty with the concept of "randomness" that occurs because people anthropomorphize nature alot. "Random" vs "non-random" is a distinction originating from the process of ... um... what should I call it..?.. lets say "actualizing goals" which is a phenomena unique to organisms with a sufficiently developed nervous system... When there is a goal that is trying to be achieved, actions undertaken with the intention of actualizing the goal are considered "purposeful" and actions that are not intended to actualize a particular goal can be said to be random. From what I can tell, this is where the term is most meaningful... to mean "purposeless."

Now, as I said, as far as we can tell, there is no reason to believe that "goal actualization" is a phenomena that occurs anywhere except in the minds and successive actions of particular organisms. The forces of the universe were not actualizing any goals when they lead to the birth of the sun and planets. Rather, that was just mass and energy interacting according to the forces of the universe. "Stuff bouncing around." The same goes for the birth of organisms on earth. And the same goes for evolution.

Evolution has no purpose or goal. This is an often misunderstood aspect of evolution. Almost everyone ive ever met has misunderstood evolution in this sense. There is no force akin to a will at work with evolution. When an organism is faced with an environment in which it is incapable of surviving, evolution does not "kick into gear" and initiate a process of "goal actualization" with the purpose of changing the organism or creating a new organism that IS capable of surviving in that environment. Thats not how it works. I may have a problem with evolution being considered a unique phenomena, or a unique force in the universe. Its not... Its just the regular, old fashioned forces of the universe, such as gravity, at work. "Evolution" just designates the working of those forces as they pertain to biological organisms, in particular, how mutation and environmental forces combine to affect change over long periods of time.

So... since there is no "goal actualization" going on anywhere except in our minds and actions... you either say that everything in nature (except some organisms' actions) is random or you can say "random vs purposeful" is a distinction that should only apply in the realm of "goal actualization." Distinguishing phenomena in nature as "random" is kind of moot. As long as were not talking about phenomena caused by organisms, its all random. Random doesnt mean "happens for no reason." Theres a perfectly good reason why mutations happen. Its the same reason why billiard balls bounce around the way they do. Its the forces of the universe at work. Gravity, electromagnatism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

So the point of all of this long ass "thinking out loud" above is that when I said mutation is random, I just meant that it is "purposeless." Since evolution has no purpose, since evolutionary adaptation is essentially totally accidental, the source of our hard-wired values for food and sex are in this sense exactly similar to the source of those accidental preferences as I described them in my earlier posts. Accidental/random circumstance. Food and sex are no more objectively valuable than a painting or a piece of music.

Well said.

[Dglgmut]

Random doesn't exist. There is only what we cannot yet explain.

Once again: If you disagree with my statements, then you may as well throw reason out the window, because you're saying understanding anything is beyond your mental capacity.

[Russiantank]

I dont think you understood my post... If you have the desire and patience to try to better understand my arguments, tell me specifically which statements of mine you have a problem with... Quote them and say: "this doesnt make sense because..." I find this style of debate is much more effective.

[Dglgmut]

Its the same reason why billiard balls bounce around the way they do. Its the forces of the universe at work.

See, this is your misunderstanding. Billiard balls don't bounce around for "no reason". They bounce around because, yes, there are forces at work that we cannot control or understand, but also because someone took a shot.

Those balls would not be bouncing around if there was no purposeful force to initiate the interaction.

If you're going to use an analogy, use one that supports your point. But you won't be able to.

[volchok]

See, this is your misunderstanding. Billiard balls don't bounce around for "no reason". They bounce around because, yes, there are forces at work that we cannot control or understand, but also because someone took a shot. Those balls would not be bouncing around if there was no purposeful force to initiate the interaction.If you're going to use an analogy, use one that supports your point. But you won't be able to.

You should be a little more humble and make an effort to try and understand other's arguments. What is a person if not the product of "forces" or more accurately, the product of the laws of physics?

What is human action if not a process that abides by the laws of physics?

Does human action take place in a bubble ?

Your so called " purposeful force" would not exist or take place without the laws of physics.

[Dglgmut]

Volchok, you continue to disregard the self-evident existence of INTENT, of DELIBERATION.

We create intentional actions, if you continue to overlook this you'll remain at the dead end you've found for yourself.

[Russiantank]

Oh good! Now were getting somewhere!

You wrote: "See, this is your misunderstanding. Billiard balls don't bounce around for "no reason". They bounce around because, yes, there are forces at work that we cannot control or understand, but also because someone took a shot.

Those balls would not be bouncing around if there was no purposeful force to initiate the interaction."

Oh c'mon now! Billiard balls do not necessarily bounce around because someone took a shot... Simple example: an earthquake can cause billiard balls to bounce around... As I said, there ARE actions in nature that have intent and deliberation, and billiard balls bouncing around because someone took a shot is an example of actions affected by intent and deliberation, as you have said. But the fact of the matter is that most of the observed phenomena in the known universe have absolutely no evidence of intent and deliberation...

What intelligent people try to do is build theories and models of their reality that help them operate because they are able to better predict their environment. Attributing "intent" and "deliberation" to physical phenomena can only be considered reasonable when doing so establishes a theory or predictive model that helps us in some way. So... attributing intent and deliberation to MAN MADE phenomena makes absolutely perfect sense. By creating a model of the psyche which incorporates and approximates the role and function that "intent" and "deliberation" play in the actions of human beings (and other organisms) we are better able to predict those actions.

So allow me to pose to you a very important scenario and question: Lets say I point to a comet flying through space and I give you two separate theories describing the actions of that comet. The first theory describes the comet's actions only according to the known physical forces of the universe. The second theory acknowledges those same forces but then also attributes "intent" and "deliberation" to some point on the causal chain (Just as you did with the billiard balls. You said "yes, the billiard balls are bouncing around due to the forces at work, but the causal chain of forces got started by the intent and deliberation of a human will")

The question to you is: What value is gained in positing intent and deliberation in the theory governing the actions of the comet? Is the second theory better than the first? How so? Or is it worse?