The Meaning of Life

[redbaron]

You obviously didn't read my posts.

First, I said I use it for reliability. If it wasn't reliable in some ways, i wouldn't use it.

Second, I'm specifically talking about people who take science as some ultimate kind of faith that should be used above all other kinds of faith. These people exist.

Okay hold it there. These people exist, but (most) scientists themselves (the people whose opinions are worthwhile) don't have the attitude you're talking about.

You're basically directing your argument at a bunch of internet trolls/bandwagon atheists - the same kind of people who subscribe to stupid shit like, 'I fucking love science!' facebook pages, when really what they like is just photography (obsessing over pictures of space etc.), funny anecdotes that mock religion and arguing in YouTube comments.

Basically the lowest common denominator of people who like science. Disproving the things people like this say and do doesn't really prove anything against the scientific method, because these people are idiots who don't really know dick about anything in a scientific field other than what they see in popular culture.

As for the last part, that only applies to things we don't yet understand in science. Things like the, 'mind', 'consciousness' etc. are easier to understand by concepts that are not necessarily scientific - because we haven't yet developed ways of testing them in a falsifiable manner. @SpaceYeti also this paragraph. Feel free to debate me on this as well, I haven't really made up my mind yet either

And I was actually mocking the way you cite some of the most obsolete teachings of a deceased-for-2500-years philosopher. I don't recall saying anything about you personally either, and I'm not offended that you're discounting the scientific method (if that happened, I wouldn't be offended anyway, I'd be glad to have increased my knowledge further), I'm pointing out that what you are saying doesn't discount it, because your argument is aimed at people who present the scientific method incorrectly- not the scientific method itself.

By asserting that your argument is correct, all you're doing is demonstrating that those people are idiots. Which I agree, even though I respect and study science to the best of my ability.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Hardly. All it takes is for someone to employ The Scientific Method to support a pseudoscience as a science to qualify. Psychiatry just happens to be one of the pseudosciences that attracts such people.

Or do you actually believe psychiatry is a science? If so, explain why.

... Why do I get the feeling you don't actually have a problem with this but are just venting due to some other issue.

I don't mean to dismiss you. I already asked why you're concerned, and who are the people you're talking about**; and I could ask what you define as (pseudo)science and how psychiatry applies, but that seems like it would just go nowhere productive.


**I agree with Redbaron, actual scientists are different from any one just obsessed with (pseudo)science.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@SpaceYeti also this paragraph. Feel free to debate me on this as well, I haven't really made up my mind yet either

This subject has come up in that other thread... it's titled.... I dunno, something about somebody's butt. Anyway, I don't want to repeat it here.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=15048

 

[SpaceYeti]

I can't discuss anything with you if you're going to ignore philosophical distinctions because you choose too. And you don't have to fucking agree with me, but pretending those distinctions don't exist is pretty fucking closed-minded when the subject matter is "philosophy". And nice try there calling me a sophist as a way to cover your ignorance. It's still ignorance.

And anyway, all your bullshit aside, do you believe psychiatry is a science? Answer the question by explaining why as I've already done so and yet you continue to belabor me with strawmen and slander without explaining anything yourself.

I fully admit my last post was bullshit. At the same time, I was merely responding in kind.

Anyway; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

That link explains why psychology is a science. Psychiatry is basically applied psychology, in the same way engineering is applied physics.

 

[Grayman]

Technically:

There cannot be meaning to objectivism as that would defeat the definition. Objectivism is independent of the mind and meaning is a product of the mind.



Playing the game:

If the world exists independent of the mind then it lacks meaning and is therefore a simple action and reaction dependent environment. The universe is all matter and space. The energy is simply the action and reaction of matter in space. If meaning must be used in comparison to understand the universe then I would say that the meaning of all is to act, to move, to exist. For a subjective point of view all meaning is to "exist". When we cease to have meaning we cease to exist and when we cease to exist we cease to have meaning.
If you look at the universe you would see that it ceases to exist at certain points that are called black holes. The points when even energy is pulled away from the universe and the meaning, action reaction, of the universe is gone.

Conclusion of the game:

So when considering all points of view... living, non-living, matter, universe, my purpose, it comes down to one simple meaning "exist". To do otherwise is to have no meaning. It is what drives us down to the core of our being and when it no longer drives us we cease to have meaning. When we die or when we become so depressed as to end our life we then are a subjective black hole, no action, no reaction, no meaning, just the destination to non existence.

 

[Reluctantly]

... Why do I get the feeling you don't actually have a problem with this but are just venting due to some other issue.

I don't mean to dismiss you. I already asked why you're concerned, and who are the people you're talking about**; and I could ask what you define as (pseudo)science and how psychiatry applies, but that seems like it would just go nowhere productive.

**I agree with Redbaron, actual scientists are different from any one just obsessed with science.

Look, I don't appreciate you playing "Mr. Psychologist". I knew what you were doing and I find it underhanded and don't think very much of you for trying to do that. It's a strawman and it takes the focus away from the phenomenon I'm trying to explain. There are no "particular" people, as it can be everyone. And if you don't think I have anything worth saying and can't even be bothered to answer my question, then just go away. Your condescension isn't needed, nor is it at all helpful, but maybe that's your aim. I wish that it isn't, but such is the hell of other people.

I fully admit my last post was bullshit. At the same time, I was merely responding in kind.

Anyway; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

That link explains why psychology is a science. Psychiatry is basically applied psychology, in the same way engineering is applied physics.

That link does not make the case for Psychology as a science, nor does it say anything about psychiatry as applied psychology. In fact, it explains why it is thought to be a pseudoscience.

Criticism

Theory
Criticisms of psychological research often come from perceptions that it is a "soft" science. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique[69] implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics.
Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not an objective science. Other concepts that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured[70] and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic.[71][72]
Some critics view statistical hypothesis testing as misplaced. Research[which?] has documented that many psychologists confuse statistical significance with practical importance. Statistically significant but practically unimportant results are common with large samples.[73] Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on the Fisherian p < .05 significance criterion (whereby an observed difference is deemed "statistically significant" if an effect of that size or larger would occur with 5% -or less- probability in independent replications, assuming the truth of the null-hypothesis of no difference between the treatments).[citation needed] False positive conclusions, often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias, are an inherent hazard in the field, requiring a certain degree of skepticism on the part of readers.[74]
Sometimes the debate comes from within psychology, for example between laboratory-oriented researchers and practitioners such as clinicians. In recent years, and particularly in the U.S., there has been increasing debate about the nature of therapeutic effectiveness and about the relevance of empirically examining psychotherapeutic strategies.[75]

I can only imagine you posted that without even reading it yourself and lazily said whatever you wanted to. I can no longer trust that you will discuss with me fairly or that you are even really listening to me at all. And you never answered the question I asked you. I will not talk with you anymore.

Okay hold it there. These people exist, but (most) scientists themselves (the people whose opinions are worthwhile) don't have the attitude you're talking about.

But I never said they did.

You're basically directing your argument at a bunch of internet trolls/bandwagon atheists - the same kind of people who subscribe to stupid shit like, 'I fucking love science!' facebook pages, when really what they like is just photography (obsessing over pictures of space etc.), funny anecdotes that mock religion and arguing in YouTube comments.

Basically the lowest common denominator of people who like science. Disproving the things people like this say and do doesn't really prove anything against the scientific method, because these people are idiots who don't really know dick about anything in a scientific field other than what they see in popular culture.

As for the last part, that only applies to things we don't yet understand in science. Things like the, 'mind', 'consciousness' etc. are easier to understand by concepts that are not necessarily scientific - because we haven't yet developed ways of testing them in a falsifiable manner. @SpaceYeti also this paragraph. Feel free to debate me on this as well, I haven't really made up my mind yet either

And I was actually mocking the way you cite some of the most obsolete teachings of a deceased-for-2500-years philosopher. I don't recall saying anything about you personally either, and I'm not offended that you're discounting the scientific method (if that happened, I wouldn't be offended anyway, I'd be glad to have increased my knowledge further), I'm pointing out that what you are saying doesn't discount it, because your argument is aimed at people who present the scientific method incorrectly- not the scientific method itself.

By asserting that your argument is correct, all you're doing is demonstrating that those people are idiots. Which I agree, even though I respect and study science to the best of my ability.

Well...what is obsolete about how Socrates dealt with Meno's Paradox? He showed that we have a cognitive ability to see the world in certain ways. Again, as I said to Yeti, a cat wouldn't be expected to create mathematics because it isn't thought to have that ability to see mathematics in the world. Whether we call this a form of recollection about the world or not, doesn't really matter, as the point I used this for was to explain that we can perceive the world without having previous knowledge about it; we were given that ability through genes, if you want to call it that. Whether we call it recollection or not though, misses this whole dang point...and if you're mocking me, then you've missed this point...And what problem do you actually have with this?

Plus, those aren't exactly the kind of people I'm referring to. It's a little more complicated then saying it's some people and not others because many of us, myself included, have done this at one point, but don't now. It's the phenomenon of misapplying science that I'm talking about.

Specifically, one could argue that all sciences start out as pseudosciences until such repeatability deems it worthy as concrete knowledge and a true science. The problem though is one of repeatability. What constitues repeatability? Psychiatry, for example, even psychology, is notorious for confirmation bias, but within that bias, repeatability can be found. Is it then science? With repeatability presumed to be found, one then can believe it is until shown otherwise. And thus they APPLY IT as if it is useful and reliable without any further consideration that it might be wrong.

Pseudosciences then should scare you and people that think this way should scare you. And yes, I'm sure we've all thought this way before at one point or another; and being a scientist doesn't preclude one from never doing this, as all it takes is the belief that repeatability is found, only to see it disappear later on.

The question then is a matter of repeatability. And as I tried to explain, but maybe no one really cares, is that repeatability for understanding inanimate objects could be thought to lead to truth because the objects themselves do not change and it's fair to assume that as we apply The Scientific Method more and more will we hone closer in on the truth; but that repeatability for animate objects is extremely complicated, perhaps metaphysical, because those objects CHANGE, during and even after The Scientific Method has been applied. Repeatability for such a thing (animate objects) becomes sketchy and not very clearly defined. Science can not explain the subjective world and THIS is what I'm TRYING to explain. People who think it can or have at once thought it could, do so much harm.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Look, I don't appreciate you playing "Mr. Psychologist". I knew what you were doing and I find it underhanded and don't think very much of you for trying to do that. It's a strawman and it takes the focus away from the phenomenon I'm trying to explain. There are no "particular" people, as it can be everyone. And if you don't think I have anything worth saying and can't even be bothered to answer my question, then just go away. Your condescension isn't needed, nor is it at all helpful, but maybe that's your aim. I wish that it isn't, but such is the hell of other people.

Did you want me to just intolerantly criticize your perspectives with a closedmind? I think people should understand where the other is coming from to have productive discussion.

I'd rather have communications issues resolved before trying discussion, but you say you don't appreciate my approach. That's fine with me. But I never said I thought you didn't have anything worth saying, not sure why you're making those conclusions in an accusatory tone. I do think there're people obsessed with science, but it seems you're mixing actual science and scientists for pseudoscience and fanatics and I disagree with you on that line of thinking.


Are you dismissing psychiatry as a valid field of study and application? On what grounds?

 

[SpaceYeti]

That link does not make the case for Psychology as a science, nor does it say anything about psychiatry as applied psychology. In fact, it explains why it is thought to be a pseudoscience.

No, it's criticized as a "soft" science. You need to learn how to read. Not once did it say psychology does not follow the scientific method, nor does it state that it is a "pseudoscience", or that anyone claims it is one.

I can only imagine you posted that without even reading it yourself and lazily said whatever you wanted to. I can no longer trust that you will discuss with me fairly or that you are even really listening to me at all. And you never answered the question I asked you. I will not talk with you anymore.

Hahaha, you're funny! Linking to that Wikipedia page was my answer to your question. If you want it in my own words, here;

Psychology is a science because it makes observations, forms hypotheses, conducts tests, and shares the results among peers, in order to review the results. I'm pretty sure I, myself, have already pointed out that it's a soft science, due to having such a horribly difficult time controlling variables and due to the subjective nature of the subject.

If you're done talking to me, okay. We can do things that way. You still haven't explained how it's not a science either way, though. But okay. I wish I could say this was fun, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out where your tangent came from. I mean, we were happily "discussing" your dislike of science, or something, and then you start ranting and raving about psychiatry.

Why are you so worked up? Why is this so personal to you?

Also, you're still misunderstanding Socrates' arguments in Meno. Even if you did have it right, it's pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand. For anyone curious, here's Meno;

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

Edit; The relevant discussion is about 2/3 the way down the page.

 

[Reluctantly]

Did you want me to just intolerantly criticize your perspectives with a closedmind? I think people should understand where the other is coming from to have productive discussion.

I'd rather have communications issues resolved before trying discussion, but you say you don't appreciate my approach. That's fine with me. But I never said I thought you didn't have anything worth saying, not sure why you're making those conclusions in an accusatory tone. I do think there're people obsessed with science, but it seems you're mixing actual science and scientists for pseudoscience and fanatics and I disagree with you on that line of thinking.


Are you dismissing psychiatry as a valid field of study and application? On what grounds?

Look, trying to make this personal does not address anything I have said. If you actually cared about resolving communication issues you would address specifics and ask for clarity. You have not. And I even answered your question as addressed to Red Baron in my last post, which means you don't read my posts and your miscommunication problem is more about your laziness than it is about me.

No, it's criticized as a "soft" science. You need to learn how to read. Not once did it say psychology does not follow the scientific method, nor does it state that it is a "pseudoscience", or that anyone claims it is one.

Hahaha, you're funny! Linking to that Wikipedia page was my answer to your question. If you want it in my own words, here;

Psychology is a science because it makes observations, forms hypotheses, conducts tests, and shares the results among peers, in order to review the results. I'm pretty sure I, myself, have already pointed out that it's a soft science, due to having such a horribly difficult time controlling variables and due to the subjective nature of the subject.

If you're done talking to me, okay. We can do things that way. You still haven't explained how it's not a science either way, though. But okay. I wish I could say this was fun, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out where your tangent came from. I mean, we were happily "discussing" your dislike of science, or something, and then you start ranting and raving about psychiatry.

Why are you so worked up? Why is this so personal to you?

Also, you're still misunderstanding Socrates' arguments in Meno. Even if you did have it right, it's pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand. For anyone curious, here's Meno;

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

Edit; The relevant discussion is about 2/3 the way down the page.

Troll.

If you look at the universe you would see that it ceases to exist at certain points that are called black holes. The points when even energy is pulled away from the universe and the meaning, action reaction, of the universe is gone.

We're not really sure about that though. I personally speculate that all a Black hole really involves is compression of space time. The idea that compression could then lead to different dimensions is valid given that you would experience reality on another subatomic level. But that's assuming black holes don't "break down" all matter that comes into it as well.

If you think about how light represents the energy exchange between different objects, involution in spacetime would mean that a black hole reacts to us; thus no light coming out of it. The opposite, being a supernova would cause us to react to it; thus all the brilliant light coming out of it.

Stuff like this sometimes makes me wonder if viruses have a higher intelligence behind them on a subatomic level that lives in a neutron or something because they can completely change their structure in short time, but remain their functioning.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If you actually cared about resolving communication issues you would address specifics and ask for clarity.

You're kidding me.

Who are these people? And why do they interest you?

Are you dismissing psychiatry as a valid field of study and application? On what grounds?

What do you define as (pseudo)science and how does psychiatry apply?

Now are you going to address these specifics to provide clarity?

there are no "particular" people, as it can be everyone.

But where did this impression come from? You can't just say people are a certain way but have no examples of those people.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Troll.

Harlot.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If you look at the universe you would see that it ceases to exist at certain points that are called black holes. The points when even energy is pulled away from the universe and the meaning, action reaction, of the universe is gone.

No. Matter is smashed down as far as it can be, but it remains safely inside this universe.

 

[redbaron]

If you look at the universe you would see that it ceases to exist at certain points that are called black holes. The points when even energy is pulled away from the universe and the meaning, action reaction, of the universe is gone.

Well no, but I can't be fucked explaining at length. Spaceyeti gave the short version anyway. Black holes are an object that is part of the universe, they aren't places where it ceases to exist.

Plus, those aren't exactly the kind of people I'm referring to. It's a little more complicated then saying it's some people and not others because many of us, myself included, have done this at one point, but don't now. It's the phenomenon of misapplying science that I'm talking about.

I don't think you're accurate here to be honest. When you say, 'many of us' - who is 'us'? You once did it at one point, and now you don't. It comes across as confirmation bias when you go ahead and attribute this mistake (in your eyes) to 'many' people.

I don't see what phenomenon you're talking about either, I think you're blowing this issue way out of proportion - partly based on your own experiences.

Specifically, one could argue that all sciences start out as pseudosciences until such repeatability deems it worthy as concrete knowledge and a true science.

Okay. So let's say you demonstrate that chemistry began as a, 'pseudoscience'. What then? This doesn't do anything to demonstrate why current alchemical knowledge is pseudoscience.

I get the impression that this all means a lot to you partly because you saw yourself as once being one of the people you're making an argument against.

 

[Grayman]

No. Matter is smashed down as far as it can be, but it remains safely inside this universe.

LOL, really we cannot say what it 'is' but we can speculate. It, in theory, is a point where matter has no space anymore because of compression. This would indicate that all energy, interaction of atoms in space, is gone. I did not really mean that it disappears but that it has no meaning to us, no point, no action, or existence in a preceivable form.

Besides, it was not meant as a literal comparison it was meant to show how if the atoms stopped moving, the universe would have no energy and life would stop everywhere and everything will have mass like a dead body but will have no sustenance or llife. My point was that Meaning is action and Action creates meaning.

I am not sure I am using the right words this time.

 

[SpaceYeti]

LOL, really we cannot say what it 'is' but we can speculate. It, in theory, is a point where matter has no space anymore because of compression. This would indicate that all energy, interaction of atoms in space, is gone. I did not really mean that it disappears but that it has no meaning to us, no point, no action, or existence in a preceivable form.

It still radiates gravity into the surrounding space, thus making it affect the universe outside of the black hole.

Besides, it was not meant as a literal comparison it was meant to show how if the atoms stopped moving, the universe would have no energy and life would stop everywhere and everything will have mass like a dead body but will have no sustenance or llife. My point was that Meaning is action and Action creates meaning.

Um... I don't like that figurative statement either, but fair enough, either way.

I am not sure I am using the right words this time.

Maybe.

 

[redbaron]

LOL, really we cannot say what it 'is' but we can speculate. It, in theory, is a point where matter has no space anymore because of compression. This would indicate that all energy, interaction of atoms in space, is gone. I did not really mean that it disappears but that it has no meaning to us, no point, no action, or existence in a preceivable form.

No.

Black holes occupy space. We'll just start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=P_T0xxhDcsIC&redir_esc=y

The related books also will provide useful information. Though I suspect there's overlap between them all in some way.

 

[BigApplePi]

Answer 2 Meaning of Life

Often, people will suggest on here, using one form of argument or another, that life has no objective meaning. But I wonder, if they don’t know what that objective meaning is from the start, they wouldn’t know what they are looking for and then how can they know it doesn’t exist just because they never found it?

Because of this, I realize, when it comes to things like this there are expectations people can have that is tied to the idea; those that conclude no objective meaning want an objective meaning, which is why they care to begin with (and why they feel let down and declare it doesn’t exist)...because why would you assert a universal truth if you didn't care about it, to begin with? And I then want to ask, if you decided there is no objective meaning, what is it that you want?

The objective meaning to life is to go on living. This is true for all living creatures*. I mean to test this, try to detract any living creature from their life. They will resist. Run your test and report back here how close you get to 100 percent.

Part of the life of these creatures is to reproduce, but in humans this is a little indirect. Humans have conscious minds and they like to imagine they will continue this "living." So they run their minds to imagining all sorts of living.

I mean to test this, try to suppress imagination of any one of these humans. Check out if they resist. Run your test and report back here how close you get to 100 percent.

After that, feel free to live your life well. Consider that an option.
______________________________________________
*Some individuals will commit suicide to either keep their species going or to set an example of poor living**.
______________________________________________
**When the body declines we could call that poor living. Then life comes to an end naturally.

 

[Reluctantly]

Now are you going to address these specifics to provide clarity?

But where did this impression come from? You can't just say people are a certain way but have no examples of those people.

I've already answered all your questions.

The question then is a matter of repeatability. And as I tried to explain, but maybe no one really cares, is that repeatability for understanding inanimate objects could be thought to lead to truth because the objects themselves are not thought to change and it's fair to assume that as we apply The Scientific Method more and more will we hone closer in on the truth; but that repeatability for animate objects is extremely complicated, perhaps metaphysical, because those objects CHANGE, during and even after The Scientific Method has been applied. Repeatability for such a thing (animate objects) becomes sketchy and not very clearly defined. Science can not explain this subjective world and THIS is what I'm TRYING to explain. People who think it can or have at once thought it could, do so much harm.

The most appalling thing I can think of is,

When I see it applied to things like psychiatry, I see how scientists can use the scientific method to justify abusing people with drugs and harmful destructive treatments. They justify it with reaffirming studies and other such things that create the results they want, but forget to mention or accept the notion that their ideas of "mental illness" are as abstract as what an INTP is exactly. And they aren't finding truth or even getting closer to it in this way when they won't question the philosophical basics their scientific method stand on. And they won't listen because it doesn't involve the scientific method, but a reframing of the beliefs behind their scientific process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_validity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation

Not to mention that the argument for normative behavior and a "balanced" brain has no objective standard from which to judge because behavior and the brain is in constant mental flux.

Giving people drugs that influence the brain will change some of their personality aspects. A lot of people claim antidepressants reduce their ability to think and feel. Some antipsychotics have a record of destroying brain functioning (lithium destroying frontal lobes off the top of my head) and even, in modern times, has led to involuntary muscle twitching of the face that is not correctable Tardive_dyskinesia . The fact of the matter is that these drugs are not "balancing" anything as they claim. And yet, these drugs are still considered science and still used. There are insane side effects to psychiatric drugs and yet we are to believe they "balance" things? Seriously, you're backing psychiatry up as a science?

Now clearly, I find that psychiatry is a pseudoscience and I've look at the evidence for why and even made a philosophical case to explain the blind nature of psychiatry. And I raised the question of repeatability in attempting to distinguish between pseudoscience and science, but moreso to hear anything insightful someone might add or illuminate as an important difference.

Now stop being lazy and actually ask me a specific question about what I've said, or better yet, share some of your own thoughts and stop with the red herring assaults.

 

[Reluctantly]

Well no, but I can't be fucked explaining at length. Spaceyeti gave the short version anyway. Black holes are an object that is part of the universe, they aren't places where it ceases to exist.



I don't think you're accurate here to be honest. When you say, 'many of us' - who is 'us'? You once did it at one point, and now you don't. It comes across as confirmation bias when you go ahead and attribute this mistake (in your eyes) to 'many' people.

I don't see what phenomenon you're talking about either, I think you're blowing this issue way out of proportion - partly based on your own experiences.

The way I communicate is a flow of information. If I make a claim, I will explain my reasons for the claim later on in the post. It's a progression and the WHOLE post must be read. That said, I explained or at least outlined the phenomenon I'm talking about in the last paragraph of the post to you...

Okay. So let's say you demonstrate that chemistry began as a, 'pseudoscience'. What then? This doesn't do anything to demonstrate why current alchemical knowledge is pseudoscience.

Did you read my post? I attempted to make a distinction between valid repeatability and invalid repeatability.

I get the impression that this all means a lot to you partly because you saw yourself as once being one of the people you're making an argument against.

The only thing that means anything to me right now is the fact that you guys have no thoughts of your own to contribute, continue to misattribute my intentions, and continue to misread and not read what I've already written specifically to you.

And I've been both abused by psychiatry and abused The Scientific Method in believing it, but that's not the point. It doesn't change the fact that I questioned it and found unreliable and highly suggestive science. And it doesn't mean my objections are personal, as they are based on reasonable objections supported by different facts and evidence. Maybe I should make another thread...as people seem to focus on thinking I have an agenda then sharing their own thoughts...

And my last post in response to EyeSeeCold outlines my case. But I'm more interested anyway in hearing how you would distinguish science from pseudoscience, if you disagree. I don't really give a shit that you disagree or that I have a position, if it means nobody will share what they think about topics, but just what they think of me or how I explain things.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Answer 2 Meaning of Life

The objective meaning to life is to go on living. This is true for all living creatures*. I mean to test this, try to detract any living creature from their life. They will resist. Run your test and report back here how close you get to 100 percent.

Part of the life of these creatures is to reproduce, but in humans this is a little indirect. Humans have conscious minds and they like to imagine they will continue this "living." So they run their minds to imagining all sorts of living.

I mean to test this, try to suppress imagination of any one of these humans. Check out if they resist. Run your test and report back here how close you get to 100 percent.

After that, feel free to live your life well. Consider that an option.
______________________________________________
*Some individuals will commit suicide to either keep their species going or to set an example of poor living**.
______________________________________________
**When the body declines we could call that poor living. Then life comes to an end naturally.

I suppose. But part of being alive means the realization of death. If we thought we couldn't die, would we put so much importance to living? And death can create the beginning of birth; suicide then may not always be about poor living, but a desire to escape the boundaries of current existence and become something freer. In some ways, if we are reality and we are not happy with it, death is a more indirect way of changing that reality.

For example, when some people get old and their bodies become weak, fragile, and start to crumble, these people might choose to die of their own will rather than wait. Someone I worked with said that his mother stopped eating at one point because she wanted to die; she was not necessarily depressed (though psychiatrists might adamantly argue that suicidal ideation is always a form of mental illness) and just decided it was okay to die. She died within a week. And she made it clear that it was something she was sure she wanted and that nobody should feel that she didn't enjoy life or didn't want to be a part of it or that it was a bad thing because she could no longer enjoy life well enough, if at all. Suicide, for her, was a natural progression for change to reality. And if her death allowed reality to change itself and birth new things that will enjoy life, how can that not be a good thing? And how is that not a possible continuation of her life?

 

[snafupants]

Re: Answer 2 Meaning of Life

If we thought we couldn't die, would we put so much importance to living?

Probably more so. I reject the implication of the limbo unconscious scenario featured in the movie Inception, which equates time with leisurely boredom. Folks would come face-to-face with their pain, and seek ways to transcend it, given an extension or infinite spring of life. I guess there's a distinction between hedonistic "living" and self-development. I feel that people would emphasize the latter to sidestep pain given more rope to hang themselves with, so to speak; in other words, existence free of pain is higher "living" to me than wanton excitements spiked with emotional troughs and deluded byways. I'm at the point where I realize this reality might be it, or "it" at any rate holds more import than the nihilists might immediately concede, and I want to feel good; there isn't much nobility in suffering. With enough time or pain - maybe there's no difference in this reality - I contend most would come to similar conclusions as I have outlined above.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Answer 2 Meaning of Life

Probably more so. I reject the implication of the limbo unconscious scenario featured in the movie Inception, which equates time with leisurely boredom. Folks would come face-to-face with their pain, and seek ways to transcend it, given an extension or infinite spring of life. I guess there's a distinction between hedonistic "living" and self-development. I feel that people would emphasize the latter to sidestep pain given more rope to hang themselves with, so to speak; in other words, existence free of pain is higher "living" to me than wanton excitements spiked with emotional troughs and deluded byways. I'm at the point where I realize this reality might be it, or "it" at any rate holds more import than the nihilists might immediately concede, and I want to feel good; there isn't much nobility in suffering. With enough time or pain - maybe there's no difference in this reality - I contend most would come to similar conclusions as I have outlined above.

That's interesting. I guess you're right; if people couldn't die, they would have no choice, but to focus on living well. I'm not sure what people mean when they say pain though. What do you think pain is on a philosophical level?

 

[snafupants]

Re: Answer 2 Meaning of Life

That's interesting. I guess you're right; if people couldn't die, they would have no choice, but to focus on living well. I'm not sure what people mean when they say pain though. What do you think pain is on a philosophical level?

Realizing the futility and hardship of this transient world; the foregoing is how I would define pain in terms of ontology. Transcendence, therefore, offers an escape hatch in which the bleating id wants are quieted and love pervades. Most monks come to a point where they can't take anymore; the philosophical or sacerdotal life is usually preceded and buttressed by existential angst; quotidian interactions fail to stir the heart, and higher needs beckon. An enough-alreadyness to capstone Heidegger's always already. Pain, in a lived general sense, should be defined as irritable exasperation with normality.

 

[SLushhYYY]

Why does chemically bonded star dust have to have a purpose in life? We just are...
We're in the middle of butt fuck nowhere, Space...only to be seen by an outsider by reflected light off the surface of our planet.

The meaning of consciousness is a whole nother topic...does consciousness manifest itself naturally throughout the cosmos? Is it some sort of quantum matter? How does an electro-chemical signal turn into a coherent thought?

 

[snafupants]

Why does chemically bonded star dust have to have a purpose in life? We just are...
We're in the middle of butt fuck nowhere, Space...only to be seen by an outsider by reflected light off the surface of our planet.

The meaning of consciousness is a whole nother topic...does consciousness manifest itself naturally throughout the cosmos? Is it some sort of quantum matter? How does an electro-chemical signal turn into a coherent thought?

The top and bottom paragraphs deal with the perplexity of being. The discussion isn't about cosmology or neuroscience; it predates these things: what is the meaning of is?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I've already answered all your questions.

All you've done is either make accusations, or evade my questions.

If you're going to be like that, I can only assume you just want to argue topics on your own terms, and don't actually care about any sense of sincere discussion. And if that's how you're going to be, fine. I won't waste my time, neither yours.

 

[redbaron]

All you've done is either make accusations, or evade my questions.

Pretty much.

@Reluctantly yes, I read your posts as a whole. They aren't as specific or informative as you seem to think.

You say that you can argue any modern science began as pseudoscience, or that you could make any pseudoscience a real science by applying the scientific method to it, but you haven't demonstrated it. I personally think scientific inquiry into say, astrology would pretty quickly be able to determine that it's all BS, but you apparently think otherwise.

In regards to who this 'phenomenon' affects, you say, 'it can affect everyone, it doesn't affect anyone in particular'. So again, you haven't demonstrate who you're talking about.

And as has already been said by SpaceYeti, the fact that people can misuse the knowledge or tools developed through science, is not the fault of the scientific method, which is what you've tried to blame.

Also, what about all the good that comes from the correct application of the knowledge and tools we've developed through science? That is what the scientific method does, helps us understand and build knowledge. How it is applied is not an argument against the scientific method, but people.

In any case, I'm having trouble taking you seriously given that all this has been said, and you still try and attribute the irresponsible behaviour of people to the scientific method.

 

[Grayman]

It still radiates gravity into the surrounding space, thus making it affect the universe outside of the black hole.

A dead body can effect those around it and create movement, burial, funeral, but it does not mean life is in the dead body.

 

[Grayman]

No.

Black holes occupy space. We'll just start here:

The related books also will provide useful information. Though I suspect there's overlap between them all in some way.

Occupying space and having space are two different things.

The atoms lose space and become compressed but they still exist in space.

 

[SpaceYeti]

A dead body can effect those around it and create movement, burial, funeral, but it does not mean life is in the dead body.

No, the people mourning the lose of their loved one do or initiate all those things you listed. I think this is a bad analogy. Matter in a black hole effects the matter around it through gravity, just like if it weren't in a black hole. The only difference is it doesn't do anything else matter might do. No chemical reactions, no light or heat, but gravity's the reason galaxies exist, and they normally form around a central black hole. Further, large black holes have gamma radiation jetting out of their North and South poles. Black holes are not "dead".

 

[redbaron]

No, the people mourning the lose of their loved one do or initiate all those things you listed. I think this is a bad analogy. Matter in a black hole effects the matter around it through gravity, just like if it weren't in a black hole. The only difference is it doesn't do anything else matter might do. No chemical reactions, no light or heat, but gravity's the reason galaxies exist, and they normally form around a central black hole. Further, large black holes have gamma radiation jetting out of their North and South poles. Black holes are not "dead".

They also exhibit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Occupying space and having space are two different things.

The atoms lose space and become compressed but they still exist in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_density

Even if it gets this small, it still has space.

 

[SpaceYeti]

They also exhibit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Yes, an effect of the gravity I did not mention. Pulling one of a pair of spontaneous particles in. That's how the math goes, anyhow. I think it's just as likely that plenty of electromagnetic radiation and particles are orbiting the black hole just outside of the event horizon, and their smashing into each-other would also cause radiation to escape the black hole, even though most of it would be drawn into the BH. These orbitals would also add to the center of gravity's mass, since they exist in a generally spherical shape around the BH, thus explaining their energy loss, and still allowing for a small BH to eventually evaporate as the EH collapses to within the body of the hole itself. Either way, I'm no expert, it's just an idea I had.

Anyway, yeah, black holes totally make shit happen. The event horizon in particular is an interesting aspect of them, which isn't actually "part" of the black hole, but another effect of it's gravity.

 

[redbaron]

I do think there's some confusion over terms here anyway, because the word, 'space' is not generally used in this context.

These orbitals would also add to the center of gravity's mass, since they exist in a generally spherical shape around the BH, thus explaining their energy loss, and still allowing for a small BH to eventually evaporate as the EH collapses to within the body of the hole itself. Either way, I'm no expert, it's just an idea I had.

Interesting. I don't think a BH will really evaporate. I think of them as an object, the same as I would a neutron star. But obviously it's not possible to validate this either way with our current knowledge.

I sometimes think of Black Holes as a 'super neutron star' - it's incredibly dense and light can't escape, but still an actual object. It's simply too dense and its gravitational pull too strong to give off light.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I do think there's some confusion over terms here anyway, because the word, 'space' is not generally used in this context.



Interesting. I don't think a BH will really evaporate. I think of them as an object, the same as I would a neutron star. But obviously it's not possible to validate this either way with our current knowledge.

I sometimes think of Black Holes as a 'super neutron star' - it's incredibly dense and light can't escape, but still an actual object. It's simply too dense and its gravitational pull too strong to give off light.

If a Black Hole develops, and it has a very small amount of mass, it will evaporate. I think they have to be bigger than the moon to stay together... I'm not sure exactly. Either way, why would such a small black hole develop in the first place? What sort of thing that small will collapse into a BH? Not gonna happen, probably.

 

[redbaron]

If a Black Hole develops, and it has a very small amount of mass, it will evaporate. I think they have to be bigger than the moon to stay together... I'm not sure exactly. Either way, why would such a small black hole develop in the first place? What sort of thing that small will collapse into a BH? Not gonna happen, probably.

Oh you mean in that sense. I thought you meant an already existing (large) BH eventually evaporating. Though, perhaps it is possible given enough time.

Is evaporating the right word though? Would dispersing be more accurate? I'm not 100% sure here.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Oh you mean in that sense. I thought you meant an already existing (large) BH eventually evaporating. Though, perhaps it is possible given enough time.

Is evaporating the right word though? Would dispersing be more accurate? I'm not 100% sure here.

I wonder what it would look like to flush a black hole down a toilet.

 

[Sorlaize]

Often, people will suggest on here, using one form of argument or another, that life has no objective meaning. But I wonder, if they don’t know what that objective meaning is from the start, they wouldn’t know what they are looking for and then how can they know it doesn’t exist just because they never found it?

Because of this, I realize, when it comes to things like this there are expectations people can have that is tied to the idea; those that conclude no objective meaning want an objective meaning, which is why they care to begin with (and why they feel let down and declare it doesn’t exist)...because why would you assert a universal truth if you didn't care about it, to begin with? And I then want to ask, if you decided there is no objective meaning, what is it that you want?

Wants change/transform with who you are / how you grow. There is no objective purpose or scoring rubric for life because one has to be *defined* by the society or individual you are talking about, and in the context you have also had to create.. which requires such a rich description to be built. Basically it's impossible to even know what you want from life because to even form a question is creation or creativity itself, and (similar to quantum theory) it will influence you and how you think.

People don't really want objective meaning-- they want subjective meaning which is found by changing your situation in life. Objective meaning in itself is worthless. You want the relative quality of being better at someone at some thing, but to gain that thing in itself? It's not worth it. Nothing is worth it *until* it becomes desirable for some (social or personal) relative reason. Even saying you want the objective meaning of painting the best picture in human history.. that's an individual motivation caused by our society and your conditioning into it. You *cannot* want something for infinitely pure, infinitely objective reason. Your views are subjective, as a member of this society. You view objects and images like a human does, for example. Even that, is twisting the picture of reality already. All the time. All of us do it.


Alien gods don't kill us for strange reasons according to their taste. Our universe operates *only* on a cause and effect basis. Past that, the above rules "come into play" because they emerge from plain cause-and-effect. Even though it may seem like everything you do / your actions' purposes 'exist' in reality. But they don't, because they are only interpretations. Everything you know and understand is "merely" an interpretation of naked space around us. You aren't truly comfortable when you sit in a chair; that's a human illusion. There is no room for such constructs in plain naked space. Humans invent these constructs *above* the real layer of reality.. so, there is no objective way to judge anything (human) if the universe only knows the various states of matter/space/particles itself.


So.. there is no objective meaning. Objective means truly without observers. We can only want what we know exists; we can only want what we've "seen" but even then, we are only able to reconstruct experiences to a certain pattern-- not exactly.

 

[Sorlaize]

Technically:

There cannot be meaning to objectivism as that would defeat the definition. Objectivism is independent of the mind and meaning is a product of the mind.



Playing the game:

If the world exists independent of the mind then it lacks meaning and is therefore a simple action and reaction dependent environment. The universe is all matter and space. The energy is simply the action and reaction of matter in space. If meaning must be used in comparison to understand the universe then I would say that the meaning of all is to act, to move, to exist. For a subjective point of view all meaning is to "exist". When we cease to have meaning we cease to exist and when we cease to exist we cease to have meaning.
If you look at the universe you would see that it ceases to exist at certain points that are called black holes. The points when even energy is pulled away from the universe and the meaning, action reaction, of the universe is gone.

Conclusion of the game:

So when considering all points of view... living, non-living, matter, universe, my purpose, it comes down to one simple meaning "exist". To do otherwise is to have no meaning. It is what drives us down to the core of our being and when it no longer drives us we cease to have meaning. When we die or when we become so depressed as to end our life we then are a subjective black hole, no action, no reaction, no meaning, just the destination to non existence.

I wouldn't put it like that but rather

1) the universe is void of all meaning, because meaning must be created "on top of" it, because meaning cannot exist without an owner which also must be created "on top of" it

2) anything which exists creates meaning, which is a psychological component used by the individual to navigate the world and experience (much less so by insects, but never devoid of meaning entirely)

3) meaning exists in form of what something means to us, which is an (ultimately illusory) experience itself, and it must exist during depression; anger; sadness; insanity (for the individual to function at all) but not in the individual's death

4) the universe has gradients of existence of space, but that isn't important here, because we are talking about human meaning within a space that totally exists, with very small and intangible differences in the composition of "existing universe" around us at human scale. (e.g. planets have gravity but that doesn't interfere with the concept of human meaning, in itself)

 

[snafupants]

But I wonder, if they don’t know what that objective meaning is from the start, they wouldn’t know what they are looking for and then how can they know it doesn’t exist just because they never found it?

I'm not following that logic. You can walk out the door on Saturday night without any agenda and still have a great time. In much the same way, it's not always necessary to have a rigid ontology from the outset. Also, I would gainsay anyone who claimed some grand meaning without sufficient experience, intelligence, sacrifice, suffering, age, and renunciation.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Life and matter are the variables of the universe. In order to understand why they exist and why they operate, you must first discover the universe around you.

If you do not reach each corner of the universe before dabbling in such questions, every conclusion is pure speculation. So in short,this thread is pointless because we will never achieve interstellar travel in any of our lifetimes.

 

[Sorlaize]

Life and matter are the variables of the universe. In order to understand why they exist and why they operate, you must first discover the universe around you.

If you do not reach each corner of the universe before dabbling in such questions, every conclusion is pure speculation. So in short,this thread is pointless because we will never achieve interstellar travel in any of our lifetimes.

You seem to be saying it all has to be quantified

But we're not asking about the nature of the entire universe. We are only human, so we are only ever asking for a human explanation of life and (asking) within the potential for what life can mean for our planet and a little beyond. That changes the question immensely.

You are hit with a limit past a certain point, yeah, but that's not to say it's not far beyond what excites each us of and creates things that will fascinate humans for many lifetimes to come, with new and original insights.

So it's completely worth discussing today and will be for some time, because it relates to us. Although it won't have much of an effect on the *universe* objectively. But when you think about it hard, we never really asked for as much, as a civilization. So while we could be struck down by alien (god)s tomorrow or 1000 years away, it will always be worth it, because we are only humans and we aren't objectively evaluating the point of life or existence within the universe. We are only ever describing ourselves in relation to it. We don't need to be *that* accurate.


that said, to come to "useful" conclusions i.e. create a brighter future than an apocalypse scenario for us, there (might be said to be) difficult topics, like quantifying the value of a human life. Of all human lives.

Even with a little speculation (e.g. spiritual.. "teachings and realizations") we can go a long way to changing human life. I'd be surprised to see any modern AI let alone human collect all the relevant pieces of insight there.

examples
"in the future multiple individuals will share a single body"
"in the future individuals will communicate by emitting light/images because it's faster"

..and they go towards transforming the meaning of life, like any quest of truth does for the individual.

 

[Reluctantly]

I took a break from this thread.

All you've done is either make accusations, or evade my questions.

If you're going to be like that, I can only assume you just want to argue topics on your own terms, and don't actually care about any sense of sincere discussion. And if that's how you're going to be, fine. I won't waste my time, neither yours.

Btw, you're an asshole. I gave you my arguments in my last post. You don't want to discuss them for some reason (you could be discussing them in this post). And that doesn't mean I want to argue on my own terms, it means I expect you to listen to my arguments before judging me or forming your own, which you choose not to do. And if you can't do that, I don't even know why you would even bother. Do you really have that much of an ego?

edit: And why are we even talking about this? If you see something wrong with my arguments, then say something. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Reluctantly]

I'm not following that logic. You can walk out the door on Saturday night without any agenda and still have a great time. In much the same way, it's not always necessary to have a rigid ontology from the outset. Also, I would gainsay anyone who claimed some grand meaning without sufficient experience, intelligence, sacrifice, suffering, age, and renunciation.

I just meant that just because they haven't found an objective meaning, it doesn't mean or prove it doesn't exist. But it also begs the question of whether or not it has to be known in order to find it.

Sure, you could end up having a great time without any idea of what that great time would be; but you would have to have some idea of what a great time is to label it a great time. And if you just decided to label your experience, after-the-fact, as a great time (never before using the label), then that's somewhat arbitrary because it relates to nothing, but that experience alone.

 

[Reluctantly]

Pretty much.

@Reluctantly yes, I read your posts as a whole. They aren't as specific or informative as you seem to think.

You say that you can argue any modern science began as pseudoscience, or that you could make any pseudoscience a real science by applying the scientific method to it, but you haven't demonstrated it. I personally think scientific inquiry into say, astrology would pretty quickly be able to determine that it's all BS, but you apparently think otherwise.

In regards to who this 'phenomenon' affects, you say, 'it can affect everyone, it doesn't affect anyone in particular'. So again, you haven't demonstrate who you're talking about.

And as has already been said by SpaceYeti, the fact that people can misuse the knowledge or tools developed through science, is not the fault of the scientific method, which is what you've tried to blame.

Also, what about all the good that comes from the correct application of the knowledge and tools we've developed through science? That is what the scientific method does, helps us understand and build knowledge. How it is applied is not an argument against the scientific method, but people.

In any case, I'm having trouble taking you seriously given that all this has been said, and you still try and attribute the irresponsible behaviour of people to the scientific method.

I don't even...logical fallacies and paradoxes of thought don't need to apply to anyone in particular to be real. It's about pointing out misleading beliefs due to faulty reasoning, not about context.

 

[Reluctantly]

People don't really want objective meaning-- they want subjective meaning which is found by changing your situation in life. Objective meaning in itself is worthless. You want the relative quality of being better at someone at some thing, but to gain that thing in itself? It's not worth it. Nothing is worth it *until* it becomes desirable for some (social or personal) relative reason. Even saying you want the objective meaning of painting the best picture in human history.. that's an individual motivation caused by our society and your conditioning into it. You *cannot* want something for infinitely pure, infinitely objective reason. Your views are subjective, as a member of this society. You view objects and images like a human does, for example. Even that, is twisting the picture of reality already. All the time. All of us do it.

I suppose. But I do think I want objective meaning in a sense. I'd like to know how the world interacts and processes things. I think there can be an objectivity to understanding how the world relates to one another without me in it or a part of it. Do you know what I mean?

Alien gods don't kill us for strange reasons according to their taste. Our universe operates *only* on a cause and effect basis. Past that, the above rules "come into play" because they emerge from plain cause-and-effect. Even though it may seem like everything you do / your actions' purposes 'exist' in reality. But they don't, because they are only interpretations. Everything you know and understand is "merely" an interpretation of naked space around us. You aren't truly comfortable when you sit in a chair; that's a human illusion. There is no room for such constructs in plain naked space. Humans invent these constructs *above* the real layer of reality.. so, there is no objective way to judge anything (human) if the universe only knows the various states of matter/space/particles itself.

Interpretations are a part of reality. How can that be an illusion?

So.. there is no objective meaning. Objective means truly without observers. We can only want what we know exists; we can only want what we've "seen" but even then, we are only able to reconstruct experiences to a certain pattern-- not exactly.

It's interesting that you say that. An observer doesn't have to want, they can just observe. I guess you could say they "see". But it could be argued that by seeing, reference points or anchors of thought can be created. To be objective, one would have to include them all or they are missing something. And what one then goes after or wants may be a subjective desire, but is armed with an objective understanding. Do you know what I mean?

 

[Reluctantly]

You know what, I'm starting a new thread.

Scientific Method discussion should be in a different thread anyway.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I took a break from this thread.



Btw, you're an asshole. I gave you my arguments in my last post. You don't want to discuss them for some reason (you could be discussing them in this post). And that doesn't mean I want to argue on my own terms, it means I expect you to listen to my arguments before judging me or forming your own, which you choose not to do. And if you can't do that, I don't even know why you would even bother. Do you really have that much of an ego?

And why are we even talking about this? If you see something wrong with my arguments, then say something. This is getting ridiculous.

You return to the thread after all this time just to perpetuate drama?

Saying "I've already answered all your questions" is not answering my questions. I don't have any arguments to listen to or discuss because you haven't even given me a reply with any arguments.

If you really do care about discussion and not about furthering drama you could show it by actually answering my questions, or quoting the posts that do. Anything else is just unnecessary and a distraction.


*Don't really have much interest in the topic anymore anyway.

 

[Reluctantly]

@EyeSeeCold

You return to the thread after all this time just to perpetuate drama?

Saying "I've already answered all your questions" is not answering my questions. I don't have any arguments to listen to or discuss because you haven't even given me a reply with any arguments.

If you really do care about discussion and not about furthering drama you could show it by actually answering my questions, or quoting the posts that do. Anything else is just unnecessary and a distraction.


*Don't really have much interest in the topic anymore anyway.

I replied to you and answered your questions. But then you claim I'm setting the terms for discussion. If you see a criticism in my reasoning, point it out; if you can't discuss with what I've already shown and demand some kind of reforming of my arguments for you to comment, then don't post. That makes you a temporary asshole to me, pure and simple, whether you consider that drama or not. Don't do it to me. I find it abrasive, condescending, and rude.

Anyway, I came to reply to people out of respect and interest in this topic I started. And this thread, http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=15343, greatly elucidates much better what I was trying to get you to talk about. I would appreciate it (out of respect for knowledge, learning, and understanding) if you could take some time, read my OP carefully, understanding the problem I'm getting at and answer the questions I've provided. This thread has become a mess now.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Wow... It was a misunderstanding. I didn't realize the rest of this post was addressed to me.

Sorry man, wasn't paying attention..

@Reluctantly

 

[BigApplePi]

I just meant that just because they haven't found an objective meaning, it doesn't mean or prove it doesn't exist. But it also begs the question of whether or not it has to be known in order to find it.

Sure, you could end up having a great time without any idea of what that great time would be; but you would have to have some idea of what a great time is to label it a great time. And if you just decided to label your experience, after-the-fact, as a great time (never before using the label), then that's somewhat arbitrary because it relates to nothing, but that experience alone.

Are we fully taking into account self-deception? Must we know? If one believes they are having a great time, then they are having a great time. That gives life its meaning for now. If you think you are going to fall on your face later, that puts a wet blanket on your great time.