The Search for Meaning

[popeye1945]

Like the search for the Holy Grail, meaning is a myth never factored into the existence of anything or for anything born on planet earth. Meaning can be denoted as the superset or historical archive of every type of wishful thinking encountered by humans from day one. Subtract all that and the set is empty.

Rich with meaning.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, resulting from the union of subject and object. One does not experience what is out there; one experiences how what is out there alters one's biology. Apparent reality is a biological experience, a biological readout, or how ultimate reality plays upon biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon its biological instrument is the changes in the instrument. Meaning is biological experience.

[Belinda]

Like the search for the Holy Grail, meaning is a myth never factored into the existence of anything or for anything born on planet earth. Meaning can be denoted as the superset or historical archive of every type of wishful thinking encountered by humans from day one. Subtract all that and the set is empty.

Rich with meaning.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, resulting from the union of subject and object. One does not experience what is out there; one experiences how what is out there alters one's biology. Apparent reality is a biological experience, a biological readout, or how ultimate reality plays upon biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon its biological instrument is the changes in the instrument. Meaning is biological experience.

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

[popeye1945]

Rich with meaning.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, resulting from the union of subject and object. One does not experience what is out there; one experiences how what is out there alters one's biology. Apparent reality is a biological experience, a biological readout, or how ultimate reality plays upon biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon its biological instrument is the changes in the instrument. Meaning is biological experience.

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

Biological nature is one, one carbon-based biology. Life has taken on many forms, but in its essence, it is one. All are feeling, experiencing creatures of a reactive nature. All are creators of meaning as a subjective quality, from the most massive to the microscopic. The differences are matters of degree, not of kind. We have in our DNA many of the qualities of our animal cousins as our evolutionary heritage.

[Belinda]

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, resulting from the union of subject and object. One does not experience what is out there; one experiences how what is out there alters one's biology. Apparent reality is a biological experience, a biological readout, or how ultimate reality plays upon biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon its biological instrument is the changes in the instrument. Meaning is biological experience.

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

Biological nature is one, one carbon-based biology. Life has taken on many forms, but in its essence, it is one. All are feeling, experiencing creatures of a reactive nature. All are creators of meaning as a subjective quality, from the most massive to the microscopic. The differences are matters of degree, not of kind. We have in our DNA many of the qualities of our animal cousins as our evolutionary heritage.

But the biology of earthworms, bees, feral canines, daffodils and so forth is of no relevance at all, whereas searching for meaning is a purely human search. You need to stipulate human biology not simply biology.

Yes, each species is carbon based but so what! Carbon based does not imply the ability to hold abstract ideas such as "the search for meaning".

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Rich with meaning.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, resulting from the union of subject and object. One does not experience what is out there; one experiences how what is out there alters one's biology. Apparent reality is a biological experience, a biological readout, or how ultimate reality plays upon biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon its biological instrument is the changes in the instrument. Meaning is biological experience.

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

It's the emergent, 6th state of matter, called mind, which can only be instantiated in the 5th, life.

[popeye1945]

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

Biological nature is one, one carbon-based biology. Life has taken on many forms, but in its essence, it is one. All are feeling, experiencing creatures of a reactive nature. All are creators of meaning as a subjective quality, from the most massive to the microscopic. The differences are matters of degree, not of kind. We have in our DNA many of the qualities of our animal cousins as our evolutionary heritage.

But the biology of earthworms, bees, feral canines, daffodils and so forth is of no relevance at all, whereas searching for meaning is a purely human search. You need to stipulate human biology not simply biology. Yes, each species is carbon based but so what! Carbon based does not imply the ability to hold abstract ideas such as "the search for meaning".

The only meaning to be had is that of experience, and that meaning is of a subjective quality. Do you deny that other creatures experience this subjective quality called meaning/experience? If you instead say that humanity differs in that they question their existence, I think, therefore I am, and question the void, this, I believe, is a human quality. It is also unique. For all is process, and as far as we know, process has no meaning; it just is. However, we arose from nature to say that the resources of cognition are not an additive mixture from which experience then arises is to deny the reality of experience and our subjective state. Humanity has simply built upon meaning/experience to a degree that our animal cousins are not presently capable of, but that does not mean the potential is not there. Humanity has always, it seems, tried to distance itself from the commonality of all life forms, with the exception, I think, of many native traditions that appear to be more grounded. The abstract mental world is a means through which wonder reveals the greater secrets of nature, but it is the immediate experience/meaning that sustains all life. To say other life forms are not conscious is being proven wrong, with the acknowledgement that a forest is a community of conscious members who communicate and share resources in a cooperative nature, that care for their young and feed the needy. Book recommendation: "Brilliant Green. "Also, Charles Darwin concluded that consciousness and emotional abilities are a matter of degree, not a difference of kind. Cognitive and emotional characteristics evolved in animals and humans through natural selection.

[Belinda]

Biological nature is one, one carbon-based biology. Life has taken on many forms, but in its essence, it is one. All are feeling, experiencing creatures of a reactive nature. All are creators of meaning as a subjective quality, from the most massive to the microscopic. The differences are matters of degree, not of kind. We have in our DNA many of the qualities of our animal cousins as our evolutionary heritage.

But the biology of earthworms, bees, feral canines, daffodils and so forth is of no relevance at all, whereas searching for meaning is a purely human search. You need to stipulate human biology not simply biology. Yes, each species is carbon based but so what! Carbon based does not imply the ability to hold abstract ideas such as "the search for meaning".

The only meaning to be had is that of experience, and that meaning is of a subjective quality. Do you deny that other creatures experience this subjective quality called meaning/experience? If you instead say that humanity differs in that they question their existence, I think, therefore I am, and question the void, this, I believe, is a human quality. It is also unique. For all is process, and as far as we know, process has no meaning; it just is. However, we arose from nature to say that the resources of cognition are not an additive mixture from which experience then arises is to deny the reality of experience and our subjective state. Humanity has simply built upon meaning/experience to a degree that our animal cousins are not presently capable of, but that does not mean the potential is not there. Humanity has always, it seems, tried to distance itself from the commonality of all life forms, with the exception, I think, of many native traditions that appear to be more grounded. The abstract mental world is a means through which wonder reveals the greater secrets of nature, but it is the immediate experience/meaning that sustains all life. To say other life forms are not conscious is being proven wrong, with the acknowledgement that a forest is a community of conscious members who communicate and share resources in a cooperative nature, that care for their young and feed the needy. Book recommendation: "Brilliant Green. "Also, Charles Darwin concluded that consciousness and emotional abilities are a matter of degree, not a difference of kind. Cognitive and emotional characteristics evolved in animals and humans through natural selection.

The potential may exist for a species of bacterium to evolve into a species with a mind capable of metaphor and abstract ideas . However would the evolutionary process not take too much time to have any practical relevance?

[Belinda]

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, resulting from the union of subject and object. One does not experience what is out there; one experiences how what is out there alters one's biology. Apparent reality is a biological experience, a biological readout, or how ultimate reality plays upon biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon its biological instrument is the changes in the instrument. Meaning is biological experience.

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

It's the emergent, 6th state of matter, called mind, which can only be instantiated in the 5th, life.

Maybe so; how may we use this classification? In other words, what does it mean to me and you?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So, Popeye, what is the sort of biological nature that is peculiar to human nature?

It's the emergent, 6th state of matter, called mind, which can only be instantiated in the 5th, life.

Maybe so; how may we use this classification? In other words, what does it mean to me and you?

We are completely evolutionarily constrained. All our moralizing, all our oughts come from that is. 80% of our pre-wired moralizing has nothing to do with with care and fairness and we wokies fail miserably if those are all we can deal with. We must empathise with fascists.

[popeye1945]

But the biology of earthworms, bees, feral canines, daffodils and so forth is of no relevance at all, whereas searching for meaning is a purely human search. You need to stipulate human biology not simply biology. Yes, each species is carbon based but so what! Carbon based does not imply the ability to hold abstract ideas such as "the search for meaning".

The only meaning to be had is that of experience, and that meaning is of a subjective quality. Do you deny that other creatures experience this subjective quality called meaning/experience? If you instead say that humanity differs in that they question their existence, I think, therefore I am, and question the void, this, I believe, is a human quality. It is also unique. For all is process, and as far as we know, process has no meaning; it just is. However, we arose from nature to say that the resources of cognition are not an additive mixture from which experience then arises is to deny the reality of experience and our subjective state. Humanity has simply built upon meaning/experience to a degree that our animal cousins are not presently capable of, but that does not mean the potential is not there. Humanity has always, it seems, tried to distance itself from the commonality of all life forms, with the exception, I think, of many native traditions that appear to be more grounded. The abstract mental world is a means through which wonder reveals the greater secrets of nature, but it is the immediate experience/meaning that sustains all life. To say other life forms are not conscious is being proven wrong, with the acknowledgement that a forest is a community of conscious members who communicate and share resources in a cooperative nature, that care for their young and feed the needy. Book recommendation: "Brilliant Green. "Also, Charles Darwin concluded that consciousness and emotional abilities are a matter of degree, not a difference of kind. Cognitive and emotional characteristics evolved in animals and humans through natural selection.

The potential may exist for a species of bacterium to evolve into a species with a mind capable of metaphor and abstract ideas. However, would the evolutionary process not take too much time to have any practical relevance?

This is our own history or biological evolution, but no, it would not be meaningful to us in the present. What practical relevance did our development have? All meaning is biological experience.

[Belinda]

It's the emergent, 6th state of matter, called mind, which can only be instantiated in the 5th, life.

Maybe so; how may we use this classification? In other words, what does it mean to me and you?

We are completely evolutionarily constrained. All our moralizing, all our oughts come from that is. 80% of our pre-wired moralizing has nothing to do with with care and fairness and we wokies fail miserably if those are all we can deal with. We must empathise with fascists.

But all our moralising comes from culture not biology, There is evidence that babies have an inherited sense of fairness as in equality of distribution. There is also evidence that very small babies long before they can reason feel distress, empathy, and sympathy when they observe another being hurt.
However moralising is cultural and learned , it takes use of language to understand concepts.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Maybe so; how may we use this classification? In other words, what does it mean to me and you?

We are completely evolutionarily constrained. All our moralizing, all our oughts come from that is. 80% of our pre-wired moralizing has nothing to do with with care and fairness and we wokies fail miserably if those are all we can deal with. We must empathise with fascists.

But all our moralising comes from culture not biology, There is evidence that babies have an inherited sense of fairness as in equality of distribution. There is also evidence that very small babies long before they can reason feel distress, empathy, and sympathy when they observe another being hurt.
However moralising is cultural and learned , it takes use of language to understand concepts.

Culture emerges from, in, biology, in ethology. Moralizing emerges in brain structures. It's sheer inadequacy, the 80% crap of it, especially in sanctity; religion, shows how carnal it is.

[popeye1945]

Maybe so; how may we use this classification? In other words, what does it mean to me and you?

We are completely evolutionarily constrained. All our moralizing, all our oughts come from that is. 80% of our pre-wired moralizing has nothing to do with with care and fairness and we wokies fail miserably if those are all we can deal with. We must empathise with fascists.

But all our moralising comes from culture not biology, There is evidence that babies have an inherited sense of fairness as in equality of distribution. There is also evidence that very small babies long before they can reason feel distress, empathy, and sympathy when they observe another being hurt.
However moralising is cultural and learned; it takes use of language to understand concepts.

Culture and all that it involves are biological extensions of the nature of humanity. You seem to forget that biological consciousness is the only source of meaning in the world. It is quite true that for humanity, reason does not set in until around the age of seven, which is average. Children should be taught that the meanings and values that our ancestors held are not written in stone; they were the creators of meanings and values in their time but now, this is your time. You make the statement that moralizing comes from culture and then list the ways it is innate to biological consciousness. There is no morality where there is no compassion, and there is no compassion without identifying yourself in the self in others. This is the foundation of all societies for animals and humans. If most of the animal world can form societies of various kinds based on the likeness of kind, what makes you think it takes great cognitive effort to identify with a group of like creatures?

[zgnrsn]

Leo Tolstoy expressed profound thoughts on the search for meaning (in his book, "My Confessions"). Ultimately, he concluded that human endeavors are fruitless.

When considering human evolution, the motivation emerges as "survival and reproduction." Nature did not intend for humans to philosophize. The manufacture of tools and weapons developed reason and science. This reason can discover and reason philosophical questions.

For the last hundred years, the science has been providing insights into the microcosm and macrocosm. It is discovering the intervention of energy in everything.

Within the framework of these knowledges, the search for meaning can produce a result.

[puto]

Belinda,

Objective truth always involves an aspect of subjectivity.