The purpose of life

[sologdin]

well, who can contradict that smudgey bits on cranial MRI scans in the hands of neo-hobbesians trump over two thousand years of discussion?

[Castel]

well, who can contradict that smudgey bits on cranial MRI scans in the hands of neo-hobbesians trump over two thousand years of discussion?

I don't really see what part of these reductionist theories aren't part of the discussion. Metzinger himself says that the view is pretty old (he tied it to Buddhism) in and of itself. Attaching science for explanations is now some sort of scientistic sin now?

. If "the self" is an "illusion" (and some aspects of "the self" might well be!) who is experiencing this illusion?

An organism cannot generate (here we go with this word and the Hard Problem) consciousness without having a whole self? That conscious experience cannot just be one other factor?

I don't think that most of us deny that there is something like what it is to be a bat or whatever.

[sologdin]

some sort of scientistic sin now?

not at all. it's just that the smudgey bits aren't very persuasive.

[Castel]

some sort of scientistic sin now?

not at all. it's just that the smudgey bits aren't very persuasive.

There are definitely unique challenges for neuroscience (well, physicalism or reductionism) here. And even bigger problems with post-intentional philosophy that grabs neuroscience (see Bakker's recent Romney-esque trip to Scientia Salon).

Still, can't let the NDTs of the world poison the scientific well. Time will tell.

[Iskaral Pust]

Absent any evidence of an objective, exogenous meaning of life, I think it's more interesting to look at the types of meaning that we have subjectively, endogenously assumed for ourselves.

Religion is a big one, mixing the fear of mortality with the lingering need for a parent figure after we graduate to adulthood. Parenthood is another, heavily influenced by the heady mix of inherited unconscious neuro-triggers to protect and nurture. Art/aesthetics are another big field, fueled by the inherited restless curiosity that propelled our sentient development. Altruism seems to be a pretty big area too, driven by the inherited and socially conditioned compulsions of a social animal in moderate to large social units. Nihilism is the rejection of all of the above (perhaps not unreasonably perceiving that our brain is tricking us into them). And hedonism needs no explanation.

Any individual might feel a powerful, moving attachment to one or more of these but in aggregate they seem to flow from some pretty mundane axioms of the human condition. And so the various school's of philosophical thought can deliver taxonomy and critiques that are very interesting but seem to wring out the subjective magic.

I think this is why people who feel most inspired by their particular meaning of life angrily reject the cold-hearted rationalism that nullifies that subjective magic, e.g. ultra-theists vs. atheists (the former being disproportionately defensive), and doting parents upthread.

[Theda Baratheon]

there is no one, definite meaning. my purpose in life is to survive until i die and try to make it as enjoyable as possible despite any factors running against me. well fuck u depression because i'm gonna get a 2:1 degree, im gonna keep all my amazing friends and im not gonna kill myself

so many ace films and tv shows to watch, so many albums to listen to, so makes walks to take and video games to play and new foods to try and new people to meet, im gonna do as much as i can

[Castel]

there is no one, definite meaning. my purpose in life is to survive until i die and try to make it as enjoyable as possible despite any factors running against me. well fuck u depression because i'm gonna get a 2:1 degree, im gonna keep all my amazing friends and im not gonna kill myself

so many ace films and tv shows to watch, so many albums to listen to, so makes walks to take and video games to play and new foods to try and new people to meet, im gonna do as much as i can

What of normativity though?

This is my problem. Most of us believe in morality. If life is just a hedonistic trek talking about morality is far harder.We certainly like to believe that there is some moral hierarchy, this makes us all equal blind men did doesn't it?

Sure, pragmatism is untouched but I think we believe in more than that.

[Gears of the Beast]

How we philosophically view it is kinda the point. You can't really quote a philosopher or depend on a philosophical worldview and then ignore the challenges.( Not to mention that describing what we practically do depends on a whole bunch of philosophical assumptions and definitions. "You" creating meaning only makes sense if "you" are a thing)

I mean, you can but I find that incredibly unsatisfying. It's basically abandoning any notion of truth. You can no longer answer question put forth in the OP.

I don't see how that's unsatisfying at all. You have no way of solving the problem of hard solipsism, does that affect how you practically approach anything? We have to make a lot of assumptions because there's tons of problems like this we simply can't solve and essentially what we do is ignore them out of practical necessity and move on. We're not abandoning any notion of truth by conceding we can't have absolute truth.

What's wrong with not being able to answer the question? I think the point is no-one can answer that question. If everyone's being intellectually honest they must say "I don't know".

edit: Maybe I could have worded what I originally said a little better. Suppose everything you said is true, all that would change is the philosophical label I would put on everything I said. It would become the illusion of self creating the illusion of meaning and a sense of direction/purpose. The knowledge that it's illusory wouldn't suddenly give us a better way of doing it. But it's something we can never know ("how do you know?").

[Liffguard]

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me." - Conan.

[Larry of the Lawn]

To create the best sockpuppet this site has ever seen.

[all swedes are racist]

To create the best sockpuppet this site has ever seen.

Hah! I knew that droid looked familiar!

[Castel]

I don't see how that's unsatisfying at all. You have no way of solving the problem of hard solipsism, does that affect how you practically approach anything? We have to make a lot of assumptions because there's tons of problems like this we simply can't solve and essentially what we do is ignore them out of practical necessity and move on. We're not abandoning any notion of truth by conceding we can't have absolute truth.

Well, the difference is that solipsism leaves you- or the varied assumptions about what you are- intact. I fail to see how any change to our view of ourselves wouldn't have consequences. Global nihilism likely isn't entailed by anything we've seen yet, for reasons that Jo has explained, but a general change in understanding about what it is to be us is still possible.

But, the entire issue depends on what we're talking about. If you're merely describing the process by which people claim to get meaning you're right. Even if the most eliminative view of consciousness is proved universally accepted tomorrow (not saying that it will) you could always just say that The Thing Called Castel (which still exists) has some feeling of meaning and will (since it's up to how we define these things) and that all the other Things do too thus everyone in practice finds their own meaning then...sure, you're right.

But if we're talking about something normative you need more. Any challenge has to be attacked, like Jo did. Or maybe I need more, I dunno. If you're fine with meaning as just some...whim varying from thing to thing that's okay. But I tend to find that most people tend to also have the intuition of more. That some are right, some wrong.

[rocksniffer]

Gary Busey came to me in a dream and said...run from this tread...i mean thread.....

... :smoking:

[Wise Fool]

There is no purpose of existence, since purpose is only a thing a conscious being could have.

But there is no such thing as consciousness; it's merely an illusion.

There is no meaning to life; because meaning is created by the mind.

But there is no mind; it is merely the result of cause and effect.

There is no freedom of will, because of causation.

The universe is like a vast sheet of paper, and all matter (and mass and energy) is merely wrinkles and grains and molecules and atoms of that paper. And we, who are so insignificant in every way to that big picture, would call any lump of universe-paper bigger than us a god, perhaps an all-powerful one. But just as we mistakenly assign "self" to ourselves, we assign intent and life to anything greaterr than ourselves. Storms, suns, moons, stars, nature, fire, light - and we worship them!

Nowadays, we are so proud. So advanced. But the gods have only really changed in name. And many do not even recognize them as gods. Luck, chance. Justice. Wealth. Happiness. Progress. Morality. Love. All illusory, intangible things we obsess over, hold in high esteem, and either imagine we bend our lives toward them, or are things that can be bent toward us.

You can have your own purpose. You can create your own gods too. But it's good to recognize that it is just mental masturbation, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's when people take things seriously and start harming themselves or others, that it becomes disconcerting to me. At least, this particular mass-pile believes it.

But...

do we dream the god, or does the god dream us?

[Fat Mans Plan]

Or maybe I need more, I dunno. If you're fine with meaning as just some...whim varying from thing to thing that's okay. But I tend to find that most people tend to also have the intuition of more. That some are right, some wrong.

I don't really understand this eternal Philosophers quest to find absolute meaning.

You won't find it, not now or ever. Not through any armchair philosophy and not through studying the universe.

You could get a bunch of inteligent agents to agree on pretty much the same definition of meaning, then claim you have found meaning, but that's the best you can hope for.

It's a word, don't overthink it.

[Castel]

But there is no such thing as consciousness; it's merely an illusion.

There is no meaning to life; because meaning is created by the mind.

But there is no mind; it is merely the result of cause and effect.

There is no freedom of will, because of causation.

I would say that consciousness isn't an illusion. The self as traditionally understood can be an illusion but qualia is a thing and so self-evidently a thing that the onus is on the eliminativist to destroy it. Besides, calling consciousness an illusion opens you to a very simple attack that is otherwise avoidable that we'd all rather not see rehashed.

As for free will: how do you feel about compatibilism?

You can have your own purpose. You can create your own gods too. But it's good to recognize that it is just mental masturbation, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's when people take things seriously and start harming themselves or others, that it becomes disconcerting to me. At least, this particular mass-pile believes it.

And this qualification is exactly what I mean. We all seem to have that. You at least seem to suggest that it's more mental masturbation. But the way we talk seems totally bound up in this normative language. When you talk about this being immoral or bad is that then just you using shorthand for "in my completely irrelevant moral schema this is bad but I have no possible grounding for this belief"?

Or is it just such an engrossing illusion that you constantly fall back into normative language?

You might write it off but I think a lot of people talk in a way that is simply at odds with that belief.

[Crom Dubh]

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me." - Conan.

Sounds a bit grim to have come from Conan O'Brien, dunnit?

Pretty sure I have the prime rebuttal to all this poncy talk of neuroscience, solipsism, and what nots.

[Wise Fool]

When you talk about this being immoral or bad is that then just you using shorthand for "in my completely irrelevant moral schema this is bad but I have no possible grounding for this belief"?

Or is it just such an engrossing illusion that you constantly fall back into normative language?

Of course it is! It's not the kind of illusion you can simply think your way around. Presumably you need a red pill from Morpheus.

[Fat Mans Plan]

but qualia is a thing and so self-evidently a thing that the onus is on the eliminativist to destroy it.

No, the onus is always on the person that claims it exists. There is nothing about my experience that leads me to believe there is anything other than physical forces guiding us.

Don't say something is self-evident, provide no proof for it, then expect others to disprove it. Expecially when it is something so obscure and vague (and apparently disconected from the physical world if you believe it) that it is unfalsifiable.

[Castel]

Of course it is! It's not the kind of illusion you can simply think your way around. Presumably you need a red pill from Morpheus.

Well, I hope we both keep this in mind the next time someone is an asshole in the religion or morality threads.

Or not. Consistency and truth are illusory too after all.

I...seriously have no idea how I ended up defending meaning here.

No, the onus is always on the person that claims it exists. There is nothing about my experience that leads me to believe there is anything other than physical forces guiding us.

Don't say something is self-evident, provide no proof for it, then expect others to disprove it. Expecially when it is something so obscure and vague (and apparently disconected from the physical world if you believe it) that it is unfalsifiable.

It doesn't matter what force is guiding it. I'm not arguing for immaterialism. I'm arguing that there is a conscious, subjective experience. Just that, and that alone. Whether it comes from the brain and thus physics or some fundamental force is irrelevant.

Unless you're a zombie it should be self-evident to you that there is something like the feeling of greenness for example. That's like, a basic thing about humanity. All the other challenges to materialism are based on it but they're not the issue right now.