Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

Where no man has ventured warp drive Mr. Scot!!

Arrr, Mr Spock, the warp drive is down and I cannae say if I can fix it before the whole thing blows!

I don't think a lack of absolutes renders reality meaningless. Rather, it's the relativity between things that brings meaning.

Relativity underlines our reactive nature and the reality of being part of something larger than ourselves.

I don't see that at all. Consider the relativity between the Sun and the Earth, or the Earth and humans. Scale matters - and a great deal.

There is no such thing as large or small, but only through comparison. We seem to be missing each other. Do you not think you adapt to the larger self of the earth and the cosmos? Evolutionary development in the absence of relativity/reactions to our ever-changing earth would make adaptation impossible.

Reaction is relativity, the meaning of which is the subject's property alone, and never the object's property. The physical world or apparent reality is a biological readout, it is not the knowing of ultimate reality, it is but the emergent property of its effects/or alterations to our biological natures at rest.

SY BORG// It's just epistemic uncertainty. We don't have to know everything, which is just as well because there's too much to know to learn in a lifetime.[/quote] // SY BORG

Sorry, I do not make much sense of the above. What is the intent? Do you believe we should not inquire about certain things?

We are the instruments of the universe, and the melody it plays upon us is meaning in the form of an apparent reality, our everyday reality. It is a weird situation that makes the organism the source of all meanings. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Another way of saying what you just said is, the relation between subject and object brings about meaning for the subject, at which time the subject then bestows that meaning onto a meaningless world, forgetting in the moment its projections.

SY BORG// I don't even see us as instruments of the universe. Most of the stuff of the universe consists of plasma and dark matter, and we don't think these are sentient. There a small percentage of rare, precious rock, but almost all of it is abiotic. So we are exudations of the Earth, driven by a combination of the Sun's current energy and its stored energy in the planet's core, a remnant of the early solar system. [/quote] //SY BORG

It is true, as far as we know only life forms are sentient beings, but for us, the physical world/ or energy is the fuel of the mind. Something like the subject's need of object for there to be anything whatsoever. Do you believe in evolution? If so, you should be able to realize just how all organisms are reactive creatures. The organism's reactions then become the causes of changes/alterations to the physical world, the mere presence of life on earth is the cause for the changing conditions that in turn again affect our biological natures.

SY BORG // That subjects mainly find meaning in that which involves subjects in no surprise. Is biology the measure and meaning of all things, or just the first step in the wakening of matter? I don't see humans as an end product but the first model of a new series, so to speak, like Windows 1.0. [/quote] // SY BORG

Subjects find meanings through the experience of objects, objects altering the resting state of an organism's biology, this is both experience and subjective meaning. If you wish to consider the consciousness of organisms the first step in the awakening of matter, I don't think anyone would argue with that statement. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, as all meanings, all knowledge is subjective knowledge, there just is no other source of meanings other than a conscious organism.

[Sy Borg]

Popeye, I have added some indicators in your post to show where it's me. I will respond without quotes to simply things.

By all means, inquire as you will. I never said you shouldn't ask questions.

I agree that subjects need objects. Without stimuli stimuli, consciousness cannot persist. You ask if I believe in evolution ... most of my philosophical ideas hinge on evolution, both biotic and pre-biotic. I have been a Dawkins fan for many decades.

It seems circular to claim that meaning only exists where humans* find it meaningful.


* and other intelligent animals

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think a lack of absolutes renders reality meaningless. Rather, it's the relativity between things that brings meaning.

I agree, but I also think we're baying at the Moon here.

It's not as if we have a choice. In almost every aspect of real life, we are faced with uncertainty and relativity, not absolutes. It's probably more useful to learn how to manage uncertainty than to whine about how great it would be if we had absolutes instead.

We have what we have; life is what it is. Uncertain and relative.

[popeye1945]

Popeye, I have added some indicators in your post to show where it's me. I will respond without quotes to simply things.

By all means, inquire as you will. I never said you shouldn't ask questions.

I agree that subjects need objects. Without stimuli stimuli, consciousness cannot persist. You ask if I believe in evolution ... most of my philosophical ideas hinge on evolution, both biotic and pre-biotic. I have been a Dawkins fan for many decades.

It seems circular to claim that meaning only exists where humans* find it meaningful.


* and other intelligent animals

Where other than biological organisms do you see meaning being generated?

[popeye1945]

There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only, in relation to, a conscious subject.

[Sy Borg]

Popeye, I have added some indicators in your post to show where it's me. I will respond without quotes to simply things.

By all means, inquire as you will. I never said you shouldn't ask questions.

I agree that subjects need objects. Without stimuli stimuli, consciousness cannot persist. You ask if I believe in evolution ... most of my philosophical ideas hinge on evolution, both biotic and pre-biotic. I have been a Dawkins fan for many decades.

It seems circular to claim that meaning only exists where humans* find it meaningful.


* and other intelligent animals

Where other than biological organisms do you see meaning being generated?

Everywhere and nowhere. Meaning stems from emotions. Why should emotions be considered to be more important than everything else?

Do emotions matter at all, other than to those emoting or impacted by it?

[popeye1945]

Popeye, I have added some indicators in your post to show where it's me. I will respond without quotes to simply things.

By all means, inquire as you will. I never said you shouldn't ask questions.

I agree that subjects need objects. Without stimuli stimuli, consciousness cannot persist. You ask if I believe in evolution ... most of my philosophical ideas hinge on evolution, both biotic and pre-biotic. I have been a Dawkins fan for many decades.

It seems circular to claim that meaning only exists where humans* find it meaningful.


* and other intelligent animals

Where other than biological organisms do you see meaning being generated?

Everywhere and nowhere. Meaning stems from emotions. Why should emotions be considered to be more important than everything else?

Do emotions matter at all, other than to those emoting or impacted by it?

Emotions are feelings about our biological experiences, or how the psyche is affected by the meanings drawn from experience. Again, there is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject.