How can Alex be so firm in his stance? Objectivity has gone out the window

I have to agree with Bertha on this. On a forum where you engage on this topic all the time, this question amounts to baiting. Please refrain from asking such basic questions. Either respond properly or leave the thread.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of "absolute meaning" people think is built into whatever the fundamental for idealism is. You equated meaning with consciousness in post #133, but I don't know why they would be the same. If the description of meditation is any benchmark, the two are quite separable.

You are correct that I have asked this question many times. Usually I get no response. Occasionally someone tries to describe a "method of obtaining meaning" that is built into the fundamental, although this description is quite vague. Never does someone propose specific meanings, which is no surprise considering how meaning varies from person to person.

You or Bertha could type a couple of sentences or post a link to whatever it is you're talking about. Remember that you posted "There is no need to explain how meaning (consciousness) exists if it is described as fundamental to reality any more than we need explain how electricity exists. It just IS." I was simply asking for more information about this fundamental meaning.

~~ Paul
 
I have absolutely no idea what sort of "absolute meaning" people think is built into whatever the fundamental for idealism is. You equated meaning with consciousness in post #133, but I don't know why they would be the same. If the description of meditation is any benchmark, the two are quite separable.

You are correct that I have asked this question many times. Usually I get no response. Occasionally someone tries to describe a "method of obtaining meaning" that is built into the fundamental, although this description is quite vague. Never does someone propose specific meanings, which is no surprise considering how meaning varies from person to person.

You or Bertha could type a couple of sentences or post a link to whatever it is you're talking about. Remember that you posted "There is no need to explain how meaning (consciousness) exists if it is described as fundamental to reality any more than we need explain how electricity exists. It just IS." I was simply asking for more information about this fundamental meaning.

~~ Paul

Try harder Paul, or leave the thread.
 
I have absolutely no idea what sort of "absolute meaning" people think is built into whatever the fundamental for idealism is. You equated meaning with consciousness in post #133, but I don't know why they would be the same. If the description of meditation is any benchmark, the two are quite separable.

You are correct that I have asked this question many times. Usually I get no response. Occasionally someone tries to describe a "method of obtaining meaning" that is built into the fundamental, although this description is quite vague. Never does someone propose specific meanings, which is no surprise considering how meaning varies from person to person.

You or Bertha could type a couple of sentences or post a link to whatever it is you're talking about. Remember that you posted "There is no need to explain how meaning (consciousness) exists if it is described as fundamental to reality any more than we need explain how electricity exists. It just IS." I was simply asking for more information about this fundamental meaning.

~~ Paul
Have you tried a dictionary?

Look up these two words:

1. Meaning
2. Absolute

My Best,
Bertha
 
Have you tried a dictionary?

Look up these two words:

1. Meaning
2. Absolute

1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : PURPORT b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : IMPORT
2 : something meant or intended : AIM *a mischievous meaning was apparent*
3 : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance *a glance full of meaning*
4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase

1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE *absolute alcohol* c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED *an absolute lie*
2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint
3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements *the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence *this being the case, let us go** b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive *blind in *help the blind* and ours in *your work and ours* are absolute* c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive *kill in *if looks could kill* is an absolute verb*
4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification *an absolute requirement* *absolute freedom*
5 : POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE *absolute proof*
6 a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time *absolute electric units* c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero *absolute temperature*; specifically : KELVIN *10* absolute*
7 : FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE *absolute knowledge*
8 : perfectly embodying the nature of a thing *absolute justice*
9 : being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships *an absolute term in logic* *absolute music*
10 : being the true distance from an aircraft to the earth's surface *absolute altitude*

So let's see. First, I'm not sure which meaning of meaning we imply when we say that meaning is the same as consciousness. Do we mean 4a above, or do we mean something like "the meaning of life"? I'm going with the latter.

As for absolute, I presume we are using meaning 7 above, possibly along with meaning 9.

One possibility is that people believe that the ultimate universal meaning of life is embedded in the fundamentals of idealism (or whatever metaphyisic we're talking about). I'm not sure how we would know, but assuming it's true I still have no idea how we would know what that meaning is. (Nor do I (personally) understand how such meaning could be satisfying in any life-affirming way.)

Another possibility is that people believe that each individual's life meaning is embedded in the fundamental, in some sort of akashic record-like way. Again, how do we know this is the case and how do we know what our meaning is?

A third possibility is that I'm wrong about the meaning of meaning and people are actually talking about the meaning of concepts being stored in some sort of absolute oracle to which we have access. (This is more like meaning 4a.) The idea is that this is how we know what our perceptions mean.

~~ Paul
 
1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : PURPORT b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : IMPORT
2 : something meant or intended : AIM *a mischievous meaning was apparent*
3 : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance *a glance full of meaning*
4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase

1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE *absolute alcohol* c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED *an absolute lie*
2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint
3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements *the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence *this being the case, let us go** b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive *blind in *help the blind* and ours in *your work and ours* are absolute* c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive *kill in *if looks could kill* is an absolute verb*
4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification *an absolute requirement* *absolute freedom*
5 : POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE *absolute proof*
6 a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time *absolute electric units* c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero *absolute temperature*; specifically : KELVIN *10* absolute*
7 : FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE *absolute knowledge*
8 : perfectly embodying the nature of a thing *absolute justice*
9 : being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships *an absolute term in logic* *absolute music*
10 : being the true distance from an aircraft to the earth's surface *absolute altitude*

So let's see. First, I'm not sure which meaning of meaning we imply when we say that meaning is the same as consciousness. Do we mean 4a above, or do we mean something like "the meaning of life"? I'm going with the latter.

As for absolute, I presume we are using meaning 7 above, possibly along with meaning 9.

One possibility is that people believe that the ultimate universal meaning of life is embedded in the fundamentals of idealism (or whatever metaphyisic we're talking about). I'm not sure how we would know, but assuming it's true I still have no idea how we would know what that meaning is. (Nor do I (personally) understand how such meaning could be satisfying in any life-affirming way.)

Another possibility is that people believe that each individual's life meaning is embedded in the fundamental, in some sort of akashic record-like way. Again, how do we know this is the case and how do we know what our meaning is?

A third possibility is that I'm wrong about the meaning of meaning and people are actually talking about the meaning of concepts being stored in some sort of absolute oracle to which we have access. (This is more like meaning 4a.) The idea is that this is how we know what our perceptions mean.

~~ Paul
That's good Paul. And let me ask you - what do you think the nature of meaning is? Do you think absolutes exist in reality? Or you just going to keep on tearing down ideas and thoughts other people make on these forums, without risking contributing any of your own thoughts and ideas?

My Best,
Bertha
 
That's good Paul. And let me ask you - what do you think the nature of meaning is? Do you think absolutes exist in reality? Or you just going to keep on tearing down ideas and thoughts other people make on these forums, without risking contributing any of your own thoughts and ideas?
I tore down nothing. I expressed my skepticism of absolute meaning and asked what it could be.

I think meaning is obtained by associating concepts with real-world objects, possibly through a very long and complex chain of intermediate associations. I don't think there are absolute meanings, neither meanings of life nor an oracle of meanings of concepts. We could call the objects of perception some sort of fundamental meanings, but you don't really obtain any meaning until you interact with the objects, thereby building up your web of associations.

~~ Paul
 
I tore down nothing. I expressed my skepticism of absolute meaning and asked what it could be.

I think meaning is obtained by associating concepts with real-world objects, possibly through a very long and complex chain of intermediate associations. I don't think there are absolute meanings, neither meanings of life nor an oracle of meanings of concepts. We could call the objects of perception some sort of fundamental meanings, but you don't really obtain any meaning until you interact with the objects, thereby building up your web of associations.

~~ Paul
Interesting. What do you consider a "real-world object"? Do you think it possible a "real-word object" can exist in a super-position i.e. more than one position at the same time? Do you believe a "real-world object" can have non-local attributes? Do you believe "real-world objects" exist only when they are measured, otherwise they are just potentialities?

Isn't consciousness necessary to obtain meaning? Are you saying consciousness is a product of "real-world objects"? Aren't our own thoughts meaningful? How are they interacting with "real objects"? For example, I am imagining a unicorn that exists in an alternate universe right now in my mind. How is that interacting with a "real world object"?

My Best,
Bertha
 
I don't think Paul is playing any games here, because I admit that I have the same sort of difficulty with understanding what people are trying to refer to when they talk about "meaning" in this context.

It sounds like people are talking about an awareness of an association? So it isn't sufficient for there to be an association, something needs to be aware of it for it to count as "meaning"? And it's not just that, but the awareness of meaning is what creates the association?

Linda
 
I don't think Paul is playing any games here, because I admit that I have the same sort of difficulty with understanding what people are trying to refer to when they talk about "meaning" in this context.

It sounds like people are talking about an awareness of an association? So it isn't sufficient for there to be an association, something needs to be aware of it for it to count as "meaning"? And it's not just that, but the awareness of meaning is what creates the association?

Linda

I believe you. I do think that this inability to conceptualize these ideas is a reflection that we're not all smart in the same ways. Having strong logical skills does not empower a person with strong holistic thinking skills. That's a different skill set.

This particular topic may be an excellent measure of this difference. Most proponents don't struggle much with meta definitions of meaning. Yet skeptics do. This may be nothing more than a reflection of different types of intelligence at work. Notice that I'm not saying that skeptics less intelligent, because I don't think that's true, but this may be an area where their type of intellect isn't very strong.
 
Interesting. What do you consider a "real-world object"? Do you think it possible a "real-word object" can exist in a super-position i.e. more than one position at the same time? Do you believe a "real-world object" can have non-local attributes? Do you believe "real-world objects" exist only when they are measured, otherwise they are just potentialities?
I doubt that macro objects exist in a superposition of states for long, but this is an empirical question. I'm not sure what you mean by a nonlocal attributes (I don't think you are referring to entanglement). I believe the external world exists even when we are not looking.

Isn't consciousness necessary to obtain meaning? Are you saying consciousness is a product of "real-world objects"? Aren't our own thoughts meaningful? How are they interacting with "real objects"? For example, I am imagining a unicorn that exists in an alternate universe right now in my mind. How is that interacting with a "real world object"?
I don't think consciousness is necessary to have meaning, although you could define meaning to force that requirement. Consciousness is brain function. Our thoughts are meaningful. Our thoughts are products of our memories, which were formed partly through interaction with the world. The unicorn is a horse with a horn and you are imagining it in an alternate universe constructed from bits and pieces of memories.

~~ Paul
 
This particular topic may be an excellent measure of this difference. Most proponents don't struggle much with meta definitions of meaning. Yet skeptics do. This may be nothing more than a reflection of different types of intelligence at work. Notice that I'm not saying that skeptics less intelligent, because I don't think that's true, but this may be an area where their type of intellect isn't very strong.
I don't think this is a question of meta-definitions. I think it's a question of believing in the existence of some absolute meaning-giving entity* that is apparently quite difficult to describe. Note that we haven't even narrowed down whether we are talking about "the meaning of life" or "the meaning of concepts." That is, we haven't even settled on the meaning of meaning. You may be correct that there could be some ability to imagine concepts that I am lacking, but I'm not willing to assume so quite yet.

~~ Paul

* Or some other term that describes what we're talking about.
 
I doubt that macro objects exist in a superposition of states for long, but this is an empirical question.
Interesting. Where do you divide the line between "macro" object and "micro" object? For me, I have much difficulty in seeing a logical consistency of being able to divide a line between one of the other i.e., they are both made of the same matter no? How do you logically create a demarcation between micro and macro objects? It is also true that our physical senses are very poor measuring devices incapable of seeing a great deal of phenomena that exists. This would include quantum effects. So, in my current view, the only demarcation that currently exists is our technological ability to detect quantum effects, and more recent experiments have demonstrated quantum effects on increasingly larger "objects". I am assuming of course, you are aware of some of the scientific research here.

I'm not sure what you mean by a nonlocal attributes (I don't think you are referring to entanglement). I believe the external world exists even when we are not looking.
I am using the current definition of non-local. To be more specific, observed phenomena possessing the following attributes:

1. Unmediated. The phenomena is not linked to any known energetic signal.
2. Unmitigated. The phenomena does not decrease or degrade with increasing spatial distance.
3. Immediate. The phenomena occurs instantaneously i.e. faster than the speed of light.

I don't think consciousness is necessary to have meaning, although you could define meaning to force that requirement. Consciousness is brain function.
When you say consciousness is a brain function, are you saying consciousness is a product of the brain? That without the brain there would be no consciousness? And if so, what science are you basing this upon? And I am not trying to be a dick here. Just would like to know what science to you indicates consciousness is a product of the brain? I think this is a rather important question, and that is why I am asking you the question.

If you don't believe consciousness is necessary to have meaning - I am also curious how do you get meaning without consciousness? What is your general ideas here? I will refrain from mocking or attacking you, whatever you say. I'm just curious what exactly provides meaning without consciousness?

Our thoughts are meaningful. Our thoughts are products of our memories, which were formed partly through interaction with the world. The unicorn is a horse with a horn and you are imagining it in an alternate universe constructed from bits and pieces of memories.
But how can I imagine something that has never existed? How do my thoughts make that kind of leap? Unicorns in alternate universes as far as I know do not exist. So my thoughts appear to create things that don't actually exist. Correct? So what are you saying here? How can imagination build stuff that is new, if it's not part of the world or my memories?

My Best,
Bertha
 
You are overcomplicating this IMO. I am referring to meaning in its most fundamental form. Meaning itself, not its various translations. Consciousness is, or is not, a fundamental property of the universe. If it exists, then meaning exists, if no, then meaning does not exist.

Do we live in a meaningful universe? It depends what you mean by 'meaningful universe'. Materialists and atheists typically deny that there is one single
objective meaning of life or purpose to life. They also reject the idea that everything happens for a reason and that everything we do has cosmic significance.

But they certainly don't deny that human beings can experience art, music, family, friendship, shopping and serial killing as meaningful. Human beings experience the world as meaningful and valuable. There's no question about that. The mistake you're making is to think that as soon as we admit the reality of conscious experience, we are automatically committed to the reality of objective value, meaning and free will. That's not the case.

On what basis do you say that art, music, family and friendship are 'really' meaningful and valuable, whereas shopping and serial killing are not?
 
I don't think this is a question of meta-definitions. I think it's a question of believing in the existence of some absolute meaning-giving entity* that is apparently quite difficult to describe. Note that we haven't even narrowed down whether we are talking about "the meaning of life" or "the meaning of concepts." That is, we haven't even settled on the meaning of meaning. You may be correct that there could be some ability to imagine concepts that I am lacking, but I'm not willing to assume so quite yet.

~~ Paul

* Or some other term that describes what we're talking about.

Fair enough. I'm watching you use terms like "absolute" and "narrowed" and "settled on the meaning of meaning" and this tells me that you're approaching this conceptually from an angle that will only frustrate you. It's as if you're trying to pin it down when you need to widen your scope.

A meaning giving entity? You mean like God? To my thinking, meaning is inherent in consciousness. Meaning is all we have.
 
Do we live in a meaningful universe? It depends what you mean by 'meaningful universe'. Materialists and atheists typically deny that there is one single
objective meaning of life or purpose to life. They also reject the idea that everything happens for a reason and that everything we do has cosmic significance.

But they certainly don't deny that human beings can experience art, music, family, friendship, shopping and serial killing as meaningful. Human beings experience the world as meaningful and valuable. There's no question about that. The mistake you're making is to think that as soon as we admit the reality of conscious experience, we are automatically committed to the reality of objective value, meaning and free will. That's not the case.

On what basis do you say that art, music, family and friendship are 'really' meaningful and valuable, whereas shopping and serial killing are not?

I did not make these arguments.
 
I believe you. I do think that this inability to conceptualize these ideas is a reflection that we're not all smart in the same ways. Having strong logical skills does not empower a person with strong holistic thinking skills. That's a different skill set.

This particular topic may be an excellent measure of this difference. Most proponents don't struggle much with meta definitions of meaning. Yet skeptics do. This may be nothing more than a reflection of different types of intelligence at work. Notice that I'm not saying that skeptics less intelligent, because I don't think that's true, but this may be an area where their type of intellect isn't very strong.

I don't have any difficulty with meta-definitions, or with conceptualizing these ideas, or with holistic thinking. If all we are doing is talking about these ideas from a simple, folk perspective, I don't see cause for any struggle, even for a skeptic. The difficulty comes when you start to explore what is behind the meta-idea.

I thought perhaps you were taking a approach which takes into account the issues which Paul and Dominic have raised, and was trying to make sense of your words in that light.

Linda
 
Fair enough. I'm watching you use terms like "absolute" and "narrowed" and "settled on the meaning of meaning" and this tells me that you're approaching this conceptually from an angle that will only frustrate you. It's as if you're trying to pin it down when you need to widen your scope.

A meaning giving entity? You mean like God? To my thinking, meaning is inherent in consciousness. Meaning is all we have.
I'm not sure why meaning is inherent in consciousness, but let's say it is. What sort of meaning are you talking about? The meaning of existence? The meanings of all the concepts that we have in our minds?

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top