Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 11, 2024, 3:01 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Meaninglessness of Meaning
#41
RE: The Meaninglessness of Meaning
(August 13, 2015 at 10:17 am)robvalue Wrote: 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.

This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:  

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.  The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.  Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.  Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Reply
#42
RE: The Meaninglessness of Meaning
(July 25, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Nestor Wrote: Essentially, from an "objective" standpoint, it would seem that no "state of affairs" in the world has any meaning. Consider the happenstance asteroid that collides with the moon; a worm that gets ravished by a bird; the love that a human feels for his or her offspring. We assign meaning, to a higher or lesser degree, to a variety of objects, believing that the very act of valuing something - that is, possessing strong feelings of pleasure towards it that include aims of temporarily "preserving" its illusory equilibrium - confers upon it meaningful attributes, or a quality of meaningfulness. But is this more than a linguistic trick that in actuality serves only to describe the affections, or chemical changes, that such objects cause in our bodies and our brains - to our center of consciousness, that socially and psychologically construed identity - our "selves"? Does such a chemical change, not fundamentally unlike the physical alterations that occur when water is heated to boil or cooled to freeze, justify our rationalization and usage of terms like value and meaning?

Mr. Cup Half Empty! Wink

I prefer to think in the opposite way from the same premise: from an objective standpoint, any "state of affairs" could have meaning because meaning is subjective. To cut a long story short, that gives everything meaning.

Quote:I cannot help but consider that, objectively speaking, we - illusory selves - are but a meaningless "state of affairs," or physical processes, like the asteroid hurling through space, like the worm sacrificing itself for the sustenance of the bird, yet differing in one aspect, its importance not yet properly measured or understood - we are capable of creating the delusion in which "I" have a "meaningful" existence. Is this feature a possible buttress to the seemingly inevitable logical conclusion of physicalism that "'objectively speaking,' no state of affairs possesses 'intrinsic' value or meaning"? For perhaps such powers of creation do reveal physical processes imbued with meaning - even if they are processes that exclusively reveal themselves in the abstract - and it is in the abstract that meaning is not meaningless . . . but what does "existence in the abstract" mean in the context of objectivity?

Huh

Since 'meaning' is subjective and dependent on individual/group experience, perception etc., it's almost insultingly condescending yet critically important to state that it's not a physically existent object in its own right: I can't grab a handful of meaning and apply it to another thing in order to imbue meaning in that thing. However that's exactly what the mind does in it's internal model; some meanings become so complicit with their object, to the individual, that they can never be replaced or lost. It's a mental tool, developed over time, that provides us with a model of 'relative importance' to objects. That model can directly influence our survival rates which explains why so many 'meanings' are shared within a cultural memeplex. Philosophically, it's counter-productive to dismiss 'meaning' as meaningless because in reality, it can mean everything, even our very existence!
Sum ergo sum
Reply
#43
RE: The Meaninglessness of Meaning
(August 12, 2015 at 2:07 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:



I'm glad to see at the end you see the difference between your fire analogy and the watch.  Not to mention fire in itself is not making something more beneficial or new.  My point being is that in your use of the watch analogy you found it preposterous that it would be able to tell time if thrown at a workbench.  I was likening that to the big bang theory of this universe being "thrown at a workbench" and out of that, comes immense order and complexity.  You found it absurd in the watch, but wholly accept it as plausible in something infinitely more complex as the universe.   

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.


You are completely missing the point.  I know that clocks are made by people.  So does everyone else who is familiar with clocks.  So when I say something about clocks, that bit of information is always affecting the kinds of things that I am going to say about them.  I do not pretend to not know that clocks are made by people.  In the case of a fire, there being a fire does not, by itself, tell me whether it is by design or accident that there is a fire.  When I watch the news, and some house burns, I do not know, before finding out more details of the particular story, if that is the result of design (i.e., arson) or if it is an accident.  The same idea applies to a forest fire; it could be design or it could be an accident.  Since I do not know in advance, I make no judgement in advance.  But with a damn clock, everyone knows that clocks are made by people.

As for the evolution idea, my apologies for imagining that you were more reasonable than you are.  I have no interest in arguing with you on that; I am sure that you will find others willing to do that (as can be seen from subsequent posts from others).

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What is the metaethical meaning of 'should'? Disagreeable 1 482 February 26, 2022 at 7:48 am
Last Post: Ahriman
  [Serious] Meaning in Life Gnomey 14 1338 July 18, 2020 at 3:52 pm
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  The Super-Meaning of Romantic Relationships InquiringMind 45 8972 September 29, 2016 at 4:53 pm
Last Post: Athene
  Let's Say I Achieve "Meaning." What Do I Do Next? InquiringMind 51 9429 September 25, 2016 at 3:16 am
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Meaninglessness of the god concept Captain Scarlet 7 3114 September 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm
Last Post: Alex25
  The meaning of it all...? Baqal 12 3502 August 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Last Post: StealthySkeptic
  "What is the meaning of life?"... Sejanus 48 12695 August 5, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Meaning of the Universe - Maybe Beta Ray Bill 19 7126 June 4, 2014 at 5:20 am
Last Post: pocaracas
Lightbulb In the universe there is no meaning nor is it meaningless FractalEternalWheel 5 2959 January 18, 2014 at 1:40 am
Last Post: Faith No More
  Rest in Peace meaning wwjs 8 4021 October 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Last Post: wwjs



Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)