The Whole Story

[Atla]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

The original contention is that this set of understandings best answers all philosophical questions, not that it's the only answer. If you understand meaning to exist beyond minds, we're not talking the same language, Meaning, as i understand it, is mind-bound. It cannot be otherwise because it's a mind-created concept. The universe doesn't have a mind in any way relevant to our discussion here, nor does Gaia, nor the internet, nor imaginary alien species, To attribute meaning to them is to extend the meaning of the word beyond what we can verify or justify. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) clarifies that distinction. That which is beyond our current logic and instruments is beyond our knowing. That's called Actuality. What is understandable to us is Reality, and that's the bubble within which meaning has meaning.

Since meaning is a mind-bound concept (and how can it be otherwise?) and humans are the only beings to have minds capable of that level of complexity (as far as we know), meaning can only be individual or average. There is no group mind.

The incredible improbability of human existence pre-supposes external meaning. If we're happenstance, any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other. Only if some mind intended us to turn out this way could it be meaningful that it did. It is not meaningful that the dots on your ceiling are in that particular pattern because no one cares. To the dots it might be an unimaginably complex arrangement but to us, even if it was that, it wouldn't matter. In other words, the kind of being that exists on a scale so much different than ours must also have a vastly different avoid/approach mechanism relative to ours and the word meaning wouldn't apply in any recognisable manner anyway.

Everything all around us is unimaginably complex. The full answer to the fine-tuning question is that we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the reverse, and it's a ridiculously ego-centric position to think otherwise. If we weren't exactly as the universe requires, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. That's not magical.

Of course meaning is mind-bound, I meant the general "why are we here" beyond that.
Of course we can only talk to each other in a universe fined-tuned for human life.

any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other

Then it's near-infinitely unlikely that we happen to be humans right here right now.

You still haven't addressed the philosophical elephant in the room.

[Advocate]

>Of course meaning is mind-bound, I meant the general "why are we here" beyond that.
>Of course we can only talk to each other in a universe fined-tuned for human life.

I guess i need more details. I don't understand the context of your why. What should we be trying to accomplish as a species? Would it matter if all of humanity and everything it ever did disappeared tomorrow? The Whole Story answers any but not all questions of this nature, because of me not wanting to spend that much time elaborating on one element (the time caveat). But if i can distinguish particular categories of answer, maybe i will.

any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other

>Then it's near-infinitely unlikely that we happen to be humans right here right now.

It's also infinitely unlikely for anything else to be the case. It's not special that we're here any more than that the rock outside is here. If it was that way for a reason, it matters. If it just happened to be that way, it doesn't matter. Meaning is a combination of salience (which is entirely beyond our control, and is the typical "meaning" of the word since most people are emotion-based creatures), perspective (which we can manipulate to an extent depending on resources), and priority (which is entirely self-guided but useless in most cases because people don't have their priorities figured out).

Prior to our existence, we had no salience, no perspective, and no priorities, so there is no use of the word meaning that can do any work there. Within our existence we have to choose our own meaning because no one else understands our salience, perspective, or priorities as we do. Relative to our collective existence, our perspectives all differ so that which is generally salient according to general priorities creates a generic sort of meaning. Where in this framework does your understanding of meaning lie? Is it different or compatible?

>You still haven't addressed the philosophical elephant in the room.

I see a room full of elephants and am standing by.

[Atla]

>Of course meaning is mind-bound, I meant the general "why are we here" beyond that.
>Of course we can only talk to each other in a universe fined-tuned for human life.

I guess i need more details. I don't understand the context of your why. What should we be trying to accomplish as a species? Would it matter if all of humanity and everything it ever did disappeared tomorrow? The Whole Story answers any but not all questions of this nature, because of me not wanting to spend that much time elaborating on one element (the time caveat). But if i can distinguish particular categories of answer, maybe i will.

any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other

>Then it's near-infinitely unlikely that we happen to be humans right here right now.

It's also infinitely unlikely for anything else to be the case. It's not special that we're here any more than that the rock outside is here. If it was that way for a reason, it matters. If it just happened to be that way, it doesn't matter. Meaning is a combination of salience (which is entirely beyond our control, and is the typical "meaning" of the word since most people are emotion-based creatures), perspective (which we can manipulate to an extent depending on resources), and priority (which is entirely self-guided but useless in most cases because people don't have their priorities figured out).

Prior to our existence, we had no salience, no perspective, and no priorities, so there is no use of the word meaning that can do any work there. Within our existence we have to choose our own meaning because no one else understands our salience, perspective, or priorities as we do. Relative to our collective existence, our perspectives all differ so that which is generally salient according to general priorities creates a generic sort of meaning. Where in this framework does your understanding of meaning lie? Is it different or compatible?

>You still haven't addressed the philosophical elephant in the room.

I see a room full of elephants and am standing by.

I'm not saying that our species should accomplish something. I'm not assuming that any of this matters. I'm not assuming any meaning at all. And of course there is no 'Whole Story' that can answer this one with certainty. (I'm not redefining the word 'philosophy' like you to suit my needs.)

The question is why, out of the infinite possibilities, did it so happen that we are here and now, that we are humans, what is this world all about? There is probably something going on here, something 'rare' or 'special' or 'extraordinary'. What's going on on this planet stands in stark contrast to what's going on in the rest of the universe, plus the infinities of other possibilities which are even less suited for intelligent life than our universe.

It's the age old question: why are we here, what's going on? A (perhaps the) big question of philosophy.

[Advocate]

>I'm not saying that our species should accomplish something. I'm not assuming that any of this matters. I'm not assuming any meaning at all. And of course there is no 'Whole Story' that can answer this one with certainty. (I'm not redefining the word 'philosophy' like you to suit my needs.)

It's not a re-definition, it's a definition. There are infinite possible definitions and the contention here is that "a story" does the best practical work. However, this story can easily be tailored to meet any Other definition perfectly, assuming it's a reasonable one (caveats included in The Story).

>The question is why, out of the infinite possibilities, did it so happen that we are here and now, that we are humans, what is this world all about? There is probably something going on here, something 'rare' or 'special' or 'extraordinary'. What's going on on this planet stands in stark contrast to what's going on in the rest of the universe, plus the infinities of other possibilities which are even less suited for intelligent life than our universe.

>It's the age old question: why are we here, what's going on? A (perhaps the) big question of philosophy.

I think i have answered that, in the sense of caveat b, that sometimes the answer is that it's not a meaningful question. There's literally no reason to believe Anything that happens is special other than in its own context. Everything is unique, which is why uniqueness is not special. Coincidence is the status quo. History repeats itself (it really doesn't, but that's a different topic), etc. The most direct and true answer possible is, no reason. The most meaningful and satisfying answer is, whatever you want it to be. These answers fall perfectly into the two categories of the prime metaphor (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/), from which all philosophy flows (but is itself contingent upon The Cogito).

[Nick_A]

tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?

I've always be interested in the meaning and purpose of our universe and the objective purpose of Man existing within it. So if I can add an idea or two I'll do it.

[Advocate]

Thanks, Nick. If you're reading it, you'll have noticed in particular how there are major screeds pasted whole cloth where only a portion fits. Clearly that's a work in progress situation. I have a lot of other bits and pieces to integrate as well... eventually. I'm particularly interested in where you believe the important points are made and where you believe things are worded poorly even though you understand the point.

[Atla]

>I'm not saying that our species should accomplish something. I'm not assuming that any of this matters. I'm not assuming any meaning at all. And of course there is no 'Whole Story' that can answer this one with certainty. (I'm not redefining the word 'philosophy' like you to suit my needs.)

It's not a re-definition, it's a definition. There are infinite possible definitions and the contention here is that "a story" does the best practical work. However, this story can easily be tailored to meet any Other definition perfectly, assuming it's a reasonable one (caveats included in The Story).

>The question is why, out of the infinite possibilities, did it so happen that we are here and now, that we are humans, what is this world all about? There is probably something going on here, something 'rare' or 'special' or 'extraordinary'. What's going on on this planet stands in stark contrast to what's going on in the rest of the universe, plus the infinities of other possibilities which are even less suited for intelligent life than our universe.

>It's the age old question: why are we here, what's going on? A (perhaps the) big question of philosophy.

I think i have answered that, in the sense of caveat b, that sometimes the answer is that it's not a meaningful question. There's literally no reason to believe Anything that happens is special other than in its own context. Everything is unique, which is why uniqueness is not special. Coincidence is the status quo. History repeats itself (it really doesn't, but that's a different topic), etc. The most direct and true answer possible is, no reason. The most meaningful and satisfying answer is, whatever you want it to be. These answers fall perfectly into the two categories of the prime metaphor (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/), from which all philosophy flows (but is itself contingent upon The Cogito).

Okay then you don't understand that probabilities are essential to philosophy. You are saying that any explanation is just as likely.

[Advocate]

>Okay then you don't understand that probabilities are essential to philosophy. You are saying that any explanation is just as likely.

Probabilities are part of actionable certainty, but they're a measurement of uncertainty, not certainty, and are not necessary for metaphysics or epistemology, where logical necessity applies. I'm not saying any explanation is just as likely and i find it hard to understand how you could think so in good faith. As long as a story is compatible with this one, it is true. How useful it is remains a different question. This story doesn't attempt to tell people how to lead good lives, for example, or expound much on the relative values of evidence, or explain how to balance the contingencies it introduces. This isn't the end of philosophy, it's the beginning, in every way that matters. Previous attempts have been good but have all been incomplete. This is the glue that holds it all together.

[Age]

So, if, to you, 'metaphysics' is just "The study of the world as a whole, et cetera", then how can there be an 'extreme' or 'positive' metaphysical theory or position?

I''m afraid I don't understand the question. Materialism and Idealism are extreme positions, Kant would call them 'selective conclusions' or partial theories. They make positive claims about the nature of Reality such that in some case it is this rather than that. This creates a pair of dialectical opposites. It is this pair of opposites that are undecidable. These undecidable pairs of extreme positions are Kant's antinomies.

If you ask yourself whether the world began with Something or Nothing,

But I would NEVER ask thy self such an absurd and illogical question as this.

This is because of what thee Truth actually IS.

ALL "one or the other" questions are NEVER something I would ask. This is because of what thee actual Truth IS.

or is one or the other, then you'll find the question is undecidable, Neither answer survives analysis.

I have alluded to previously WHY those "one or the other" questions are undecidable.

They are undecidable, and do not survive analysis, because both are ludicrous. The falsehoods in BOTH of them PROVES this.

Thee actual Truth of things is found in the truths, and from the falsehoods, in both "sides" of ALL of these "one or the other" questions.

This is why so many people give up on metaphysics.

Maybe so. But what you call "metaphysics" has ALREADY been answered and solved, by some. The "studying" is over for those, and now just what the solution and actual answers are, are ready to be explained.

This is tricky. As you don't accept the dictionary definition of metaphysics I'm not sure we can have a useful discussion.

This is about the third time that you have made an ASSUMPTION, which is completely and utterly TOTALLY WRONG.

I ACCEPT dictionary definitions.

There's too much ground to make up.

So called, "too much ground to make up", for what exactly?

[Age]

so what is the meaning of Life ?

Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called meaning of life could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is.

What came first the chicken or the egg ?
All life on Earth evolved from single cell bacteria so eggs came before chickens

But this does NOT answer the question.

Thee answer to that question is different.

Is it nature or nurture ?
It is nature and nurture

Okay.

Who am I ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called I could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is.

What is God ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called God could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is.

And how did It create the Universe ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless

Yes there is.

By the way, why do you answer more questions I ask "other" people, then you answer the questions that I ask you directly?

[Age]

>Okay, so what is the meaning of 'Life'?

The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. Mine is to be fulfilled in making everything perfect for everyone. (Perfection is a direction, not a destination.)

This contradicts your claim that you have "found" ALL the answers.

If EVERY one "must choose the answer/s", then they can not and do not 'find' the answer/s.

What's yours?

The meaning of 'life', to me, can be found in the dictionary, along with the meaning of EVERY other word. To me, 'life' just means living; being alive.

>What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Things we would call an egg existed before things we would call a chicken came out of them.

But what is the 'thing' called, which existed before, which was the 'thing' that laid the egg?

At least you are on the right path with it depends on what and when 'we', human beings, name and label 'things'.

What came first here depends solely on when 'we', human beings, call and label 'things'.

>Is it nature or nurture?

Yes.

Are you aware that a "Yes" or a "No" response to a 'one or the other' question is improper and incorrect?

Nature sets the ultimate boundaries of what's physically possible and then Nurture determines where we actually end up on that scale of possibilities.

This is correct to some degree, but not wholly.

Thee actual Truth is a lot more clearer.

But there's really only one possibility, we just don't know it until it happens. Everything that Does happen always had a 100% chance of happening. (Statistics is a measure of predictive uncertainty.)

Are you 100% absolutely CERTAIN of this?

>Who am 'I'?

That's explained in detail in the self & consciousness portion of the document this post is about which you've never read.[/quote]

Can you not explain this SIMPLY?

>What is God? And, how did It create the Universe?

God is a concept, as real as any other concept and all concepts create real-world differences.

So, to you the concept of 'concrete' is as real as the concept of 'unicorns' and both of these concepts create real-world differences, correct?

Could there be ANY concepts, which are not of the so called, "real-world"?

God is not the sort of concept that can be defined in such a way that it can be tested sufficient to produce agreement (igtheism),

Are you 100% absolutely SURE and CERTAIN of this, forever more?

but what is clear

But what 'God' actually IS is VERY CLEAR, to me.

is that the majority of effects attributed to god have simpler explanations that are more simple to understand And testable.

But this is NOT true, for me.

The universe never began. Nothing ever began in the sense you appear to mean.

But what 'sense' did I appear to mean, to you?

Obviously the Universe never did nor could 'begin'.

What we call beginnings and ends are simple changes of state, sometimes not even in a physical manner. Birth is a change of state from inside to outside the womb, not the beginning of personhood. Personhood is a change of state from morally inculpable to morally culpable, not a change in a physical state or a pattern that can be measured.

Again, 'we' are in agreement, to some degree.

Before you being it up, I'm not answering the rest of your comments because they don't seem relevant.

Why does just asking you to just CLARIFY what you actually mean, in what you have already said not seem relevant to you?

What appears to happen, well from my perspective anyway, is that when people are asked to clarify what they actually mean, but apparently can not, then they make up any sort of excuse for not just being Truly OPEN and Honest.

[Age]

so what is the meaning of Life ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called meaning of life could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

What came first the chicken or the egg ?
All life on Earth evolved from single cell bacteria so eggs came before chickens

Is it nature or nurture ?
It is nature and nurture

Who am I ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called I could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

What is God ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called God could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

And how did It create the Universe ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless

Good of you to also respond to the meaningful part of Age's last few posts, but i fear it's for nothing. That person is both a theist and uninterested in engaging with the content of the OP.

This absolutely TOTALLY WRONG and ABSURD 'assumption' of yours here explains FULLY some of your responses.

The context in which those questions is relevant is in my response a few posts back. There are objective answers to all these questions for people who can understand logic and basic vocabulary, which is the whole point of the OP. Did you read the original document all of this theoretically references?

[Age]

>Most philosophers would object to speaking about "actionable" anything.

I concur. They miss the connection between forest and trees.

>Certainty sure is a commodity. Or humans would love it to be anyway.
>As far as I can tell peace of mind comes after you accept that certainty is an unattainable goal. Death and taxes.

I'm a little sad you didn't say "you humans" - missed opportunity.

Certainty is an unattainable goal as it's normally understood because the line between the immediate/local/personal/contingent and Actuality is deeply understood by almost everyone, perhaps even especially philosophers. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) Absolute certainty is only available in very proscribed circumstances to those of us with an intimate acquaintance with logic. Actionable certainty is available to anyone with common sense, which is a low-resolution, practical application of logic (and as such, can be mis-applied to deleterious effect like any tool).

There is a bit in The Whole Story about how words that reference the transcendent (perfect certainty for example) are only placeholders. This is why certain Enough is the answer to epistemology, and metaphysics - even the most elemental objects of our metaphorical understanding of the material universe, "things", are subject to "according to purpose".

For there to be answers, there first needs to be questions. So, if there are, allegedly, actual ANSWERS to 'epistemology' and 'metaphysics', then what are the actual QUESTIONS?

The fact that facts or things are contingent does not mean they are arbitrary. "Certain enough" is always what certain means, just like "nothing" always means the lack of something specific.

But 'certain enough' does not mean 'certain'. 'Certain' means certain, and, 'certain enough' means certain enough. Can you see they are two different things?

Actionability, the purpose of certainty, is relative to the three basic contingencies - salience, perspective, and priority. Simple priorities don't require much certainty. If something is extremely salient to you, logic is the furthest thing from part of your equation. If your perspective disallows admittance of certain facts that seem inevitable to others, what creates actionable certainty for you will be very different than for them.

You can be Certain that this understanding of certainty answers the most philosophical questions possible because it's logically necessary. The proof otherwise would be to find any other example of a story (in the larger sense) or definition of certainty (for example) that answers more philosophical questions than these.

Without examples, then what you are 'trying to' express and explain, is just not working, for me.

Will you provide some examples?

[Age]

Don't you think 'philosophy' should at least attempt to figure out why we humans are here?

"Yes, but."
The "why" problem is a big one.

Not to me.

To me, EVERY "why" problem can be and is very easily answered and so very simple solved, and very quickly I might add.

There are many levels of possible explanation for any event. "Why did the sun rise?" Is it because that's what we use the words to mean or because of the physical/causal nature of the universe? Most "why" questions are really "how" questions which can only be answered, eventually, by physics as we increase the resolution of our instruments.

But 'why problems' are why problems, just like how 'how problems' are how problems. Can you see these are two very different things, and so therefore they are not really the 'other' at all?

Why are we here? On a species level, because stuff happened. On an individual level, whatever you choose. Meaning isn't a group thing and is only meaningful in a group context as an average.

This is just your own individual view, and so therefore may not be thee actual Truth at all, correct?

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species, and the reasons we're here as individuals isn't subject to anyone else's reasons.

But according to your, so called, "logic" there can NOT be anyone "else's" reasons because you just said there is NO reason, we are here as a species.

Meaning is an advanced complexity of the basic avoid/approach mechanism that all animate objects exhibit.

This appears to be a VERY BASIC avoid mechanism, itself, for not KNOWING what the meaning, or what thee Truth, actually IS.

The closest thing to why WE are here must be the consensus prerequisites for all the personal, individual, bespoke goals. We all need to create a peaceful and abundant society in order to maximize the potential of our individual desires.

This may well be VERY TRUE, and if it is, then SURELY this would probably provide one of the biggest hints, clues, or signs, to WHY 'we' are here?

Thee actual ANSWERS to ALL the Truly meaningful questions in Life can be found very quickly, simply, and easily, once one learns and KNOWS HOW, to find them.

This brings us to the is/ought problem. How we ought to collectively approach remaking the world in our image requires understanding both how things are (actionable certainty) and how we want them to be (contingent actionability). IF we want society X, THEN we ought to behave as Y.

So, without any actual examples of what you are talking about, then what are you talking about? What is 'X' and what is 'Y'?

If you grok the dynamics between external, individual, and group "why"s, the rest clears up simply. There are at least two non-related purposes to philosophy, What Is (truth wisdom) is a prerequisite for what should be (practical wisdom, intent, motive, desire, priority, etc.). Most philosophers jump right to ethics, to the detriment of everyone, especially themselves.

WHY does this, supposedly, happen?

The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.

But what happens if I choose the answer, to that question, that everyone must NOT choose the answer to that question, and the actual True, Right, and Correct answer to that question can be found or learned very simply and very quickly?

No one else can write your story.

So, I can write a story explain just HOW the actual True, Right, and Correct answers to ALL Truly meaningful questions can be discovered or learned very simply and very easily, and which can be agreed upon and accepted by EVERY one, correct?

Why this particular human is here is to be fulfilled in making everything perfect (a direction, not a destination) for everyone.

Great. By the way there is a 'few more' than just that particular human being with the EXACT SAME reason for WHY they are 'here', alive AND conscious, in Life.

Why i was here before i chose my own meaning of life, you'd have to ask the people who put me here because i didn't have a purpose of my own - it's probably something to do with ego and ignorance.

Do 'you' purposely write the 'i', when talking about that particular 'i', with a small 'i', and if so, then why?

Are you suggesting that the two human beings that created that particular body, which eventually puts 'you' here, in Existence, probably did it because of 'ego' and 'ignorance'?

If yes, then why do you say this?

But if no, then what are you actually meaning?

[Age]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about.

But thee ANSWER to WHY 'you', human beings, are 'here' is uncovered or learned AFTER 'you' understand what the meaning of 'Life' IS, FIRST. BUT, there are a lot of other things that 'you' NEED to discover or learn PRIOR.

That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

Do you think, or believe, that the improbability of 'human' existence is any more improbable than any other thing is?

If yes, then WHY do you think or believe that the human 'thing' is more improbable than ANY other 'thing' is?

But, if you do NOT think nor believe this, then the, so called, "mindblowing" is REALLY not that "mind blowing" at all.