The Meaninglessness of Meaning

[Pyrrho]

[robvalue]

Nestor: I read your reply but my brain isn't on the ball enough today for a proper response. If I'm up to it I'll try again soon! It's all going a bit over my head and I probably should stay out of it

In essence I was supposing that what we perceive as "meaning", in as far as it exists in reality at all, can only be represented by the corresponding image in the brains of those creating that meaning. This may be a tautology of sorts, and it assumes that our brains alone (perhaps coupled with whatever limited capacity the rest of our body has for memory) physically contains all our knowledge and ideas.

[Kingpin]

According to my understanding of a worldview that takes everything to be ultimately reducible to the physical (a term that is difficult enough to define), we have to basically say that a process of events that are objectively meaningless involve structures through which experiences (or call them emergent properties, though l'm inclined to agree with Sam Harris that "this seems merely a placeholder for a miracle") occur,

A standard example is a clock telling time.  The parts of a clock thrown on a workbench do not tell time, but when the parts are properly arranged, then the clock tells time.  I would not call that a miracle.  Notice, though, that the totality of the clock is still just physical.

The same is true of a person.  When the parts are not arranged properly, the person does not have the motivating feelings that would be present if they were properly arranged.  ("Properly," in this context, merely means that the parts are arranged such that they work that way, not that there is some design to it.)  An extreme sort of example of this is what happens when one chops off a person's head.  They lose all feeling rather quickly.  Likewise, if you chop off an important bit of the clock, it no longer tells time.

Pyrrho, I find your analogy about the clock parts being thrown on a workbench do not make it tell time very interesting. You say only when they are put in the right order. Are you saying that if you throw them on a workbench and it did tell time you would not classify that as a miracle? If not, would it be a pure anomaly? or basic statistical probability?

You say the right order, but is that right order defined by a mind or an unguided mindless process? You state "properly" does not necessitate design but if there is no design to it how can you say that is the proper arrangement? I find it odd that you can know with certainty that throwing clock parts on a workbench will never make it tell time (forgo the fact that the parts exist at all or that all of the "necessary" parts are being thrown together) but you can assume that the infinitely more complex human could be derived from being "thrown at a workbench". Doesn't make sense.

[Pyrrho]

[Whateverist]

I don't always seek meaning, but when I do, I prefer meaning lite. Stay thirsty for meaning my friends.

[Kingpin]

[Mudhammam]

I do not find macroevolution convincing by any means, there are a lot of assumptions and leaps there.  Evolution and natural selection in describing variations within a species, yes.  The pure mathematical probability of beneficial mutations in single cell organisms giving rise to more complex ones leaves me highly suspicious.

So, what do you think would happen if a variation were isolated from its parent species and continued in its minute changes for a million years, under different ecological pressures? I think you don't give enough thought to how long a million - or a billion - years, really is.

[ignoramus]

Nestor, maybe you haven't given it enough thought!
Surely these can't all be fake! I rest my case!

[Kingpin]

[robvalue]

I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that there is no serious debate about evolution; it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, just looking at different time frames.