Philosophy Now Forum

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:15 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:11 pm

But this is NOT the meaning of 'life' AT ALL. This is just YOUR VIEW, only.

The 'meaning' of 'life' is 'that' what 'we' ALL agree with, and accept.



This is just an overly convoluted one person VIEW of things.

Here is another example of your kind of response that insults the thread. [...related to what I just posted to you elsewhere on why I have to overlook your posts.]

Here you begin by affirming the obvious: the OP is PRESENTING AN OPINION by default. He doesn't require asserting, "In my opinion,..." as though this isn't understood. You might have been better to respond by asserting you disagree rather than drag a stinky red herring across the path of that distracts.

[I apologize for my derailing point to Advocate here, but figure this might help you see how and where you are dragging in irrelevant concerns that derail unnecessarily in action.]

Somehow i take it as obvious that Everything i say is my opinion, in a way that others don't. This has nothing to do with whether it's also a justified belief, which is almost always the actual contention. My entire philosophy is intended to be the simplest (but no simpler) version of a framework for understanding that can do all the necessary work of philosophy in each instance. But for forum purposes most of what i OP is conversation starters more than fully fleshed out arguments as many seem to expect.

Are 'philosophy forums' created for just EXPRESSING ONE'S OPINION, or, for SOME 'THING' MORE?

Are 'philosophical discussions' just about EXPRESSING ONE'S OPINION, or, about SOME 'THING' ELSE?

Some think 'philosophy forums' and 'philosophical discussions' are about fleshing out what is ACTUALLY True, so that FULLY fleshed out arguments can be created AND formed from 'that'.

By the way, 'you' RARELY continue on with what 'you' START here, in this forum, anyway.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:24 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. But an answer is a framework for understanding, not a solution; so you must first choose your own framework of understanding for what you want to be, then you can find a solution (bespoke action plan) for every related question of how.

I'm confused at your what you are saying. It appears to be responding to a question unposed specifically by someone else's idea of "meaning of life" without defining. Can you expand on this? I'm assuming you are intending to get to the 'meta-meaning' later?

I see you asserted this as I tried to post:

Advocate wrote:Somehow i take it as obvious that Everything i say is my opinion, in a way that others don't. This has nothing to do with whether it's also a justified belief, which is almost always the actual contention. My entire philosophy is intended to be the simplest (but no simpler) version of a framework for understanding that can do all the necessary work of philosophy in each instance. But for forum purposes most of what i OP is conversation starters more than fully fleshed out arguments as many seem to expect.

So this answers my assumption question. And YES, the assumption that you are giving an opinion was my point of Age's response.

Was "bahman" GIVING AN OPINION, also, OR, was "bahman" AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, to them, as well?

Are you ABLE to KNOW, and TELL, 'this' EXACTLY from "bahman" or ONLY from 'me'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:24 pm I default to assume anyone starting a thread is opining or, as you just stated, attempting to initiate a topic.

AGAIN, ASSUMING can all to quickly, simply, and easily lead one COMPLETELY ASTRAY. This is because of the VERY OBVIOUS FACT that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are NOT necessarily what is true, right, nor correct AT ALL.

Obviously, absolutely EVERY ASSUMPTION could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:24 pm But the one question still remains (on topic) about what you stated.

AND, what is that ONE question, EXACTLY, about what 'they' stated, which you CLAIM here 'still remains'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:24 pm I didn't understand it particularly and share the questions of others here.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:34 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:24 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. But an answer is a framework for understanding, not a solution; so you must first choose your own framework of understanding for what you want to be, then you can find a solution (bespoke action plan) for every related question of how.

I'm confused at your what you are saying. It appears to be responding to a question unposed specifically by someone else's idea of "meaning of life" without defining. Can you expand on this? I'm assuming you are intending to get to the 'meta-meaning' later?

I see you asserted this as I tried to post:

Advocate wrote:Somehow i take it as obvious that Everything i say is my opinion, in a way that others don't. This has nothing to do with whether it's also a justified belief, which is almost always the actual contention. My entire philosophy is intended to be the simplest (but no simpler) version of a framework for understanding that can do all the necessary work of philosophy in each instance. But for forum purposes most of what i OP is conversation starters more than fully fleshed out arguments as many seem to expect.

So this answers my assumption question. And YES, the assumption that you are giving an opinion was my point of Age's response. I default to assume anyone starting a thread is opining or, as you just stated, attempting to initiate a topic. But the one question still remains (on topic) about what you stated. I didn't understand it particularly and share the questions of others here.

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

This seems more like AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, than just PRESENTING AN OPINION, to me. Do you still SEE the OPPOSITE here "scott mayers"?

The REASON WHY this seems like AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, to me, instead of just EXPRESSING ONE'S OWN OPINION, is because they use the words "everyone", "must", "the answer", and "contingent".

The word "contingent" ESPECIALLY makes that statement, AND CLAIM, seem like AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS because that word, by definition, INFERS that it could NOT be ANY other way.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:34 pm The meta-meaning of life is the individual answer (framework for understanding) that someone chooses as their Method for finding the Solution (bespoke action plan). In other words, you have to understand your own levels of salience, perspective, and priority in some sense before you can begin to choose the meaning of life. You can choose without that knowledge but then it's subject to change and the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty.

AGAIN, this appears to be AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS and NOT just PRESENTING AN OPINION. But 'you' are FREE to SEE, and BELIEVE, absolutely ANY thing ANY way that 'you' like "scott mayers".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:43 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. But an answer is a framework for understanding, not a solution; so you must first choose your own framework of understanding for what you want to be, then you can find a solution (bespoke action plan) for every related question of how.

There is only the personal answer. There is no meta-answer, because there is no meta-meaning.

Just out of curiosity "sculptor", Are 'you' AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, or are 'you' just PRESENTING AN OPINION?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:29 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:43 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. But an answer is a framework for understanding, not a solution; so you must first choose your own framework of understanding for what you want to be, then you can find a solution (bespoke action plan) for every related question of how.

There is only the personal answer. There is no meta-answer, because there is no meta-meaning.

Just out of curiosity "sculptor", Are 'you' AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, or are 'you' just PRESENTING AN OPINION?

If I thought you knew the difference I might take the trouble to answer.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm Given Advocate asserting this an 'open' discussion he was intentionally initiating on the topic of 'meaning' of life and the 'meta-' in the title to the most underlying source of meaning, I propose that the function of life that we all share as animal conscious beings, is "to want".

Can I now change this topic to; I propose that the purpose of life is ...?

If yes, then I will proceed.

However if no, then WHY can the one known as "scott mayers" CHANGE things around here, as though this is NO issue at all?

Also, what function would to want among all of 'you', animal conscious beings, actually achieve, besides TAKING the resources, which are actually NEEDED to keep living?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm I actually begun this for the first part of my formal theory because it initiates motive for seeking any 'ultimate' question we have. If we didn't have a genetic program that defines consciousness as "Want X", our consciousness would not exist.

There MIGHT actually be some very useful Truth to this, which could be used to back up AND support the current EVIDENCE to PROVE further how (through) Consciousness is Creating the 'world' in which 'we' live.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm More appropriately, the program might be better called, "Seek X (or else suffer)". So, for instance, where X = food, our conscious existence is evolved not to question why we 'need' it but to conform to the COMMAND to 'seek' or you risk the consequential discomforts that will penalize you. Also, the 'rewards' also strengthen the particular "X" at issue.

Maybe so. But this is VERY OFF TOPIC to the ACTUAL TOPIC: The meta-MEANING of life.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm I think the first "X" for each conscious event that gets assigned regardless of its capacity to be functional, is anything that is initially in the environment. If the first thing you ever 'see', for instance, is your mother's face, that DEFINES X as "what to seek" and it feels as a 'good' sensation associated with all other senses coinciding at once.

LOL The first thing that 'you', usually, ever 'see' could be the one who is to 'catch' 'you' and NOT the face of the one that "you" came out of.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm Then anything against this assigned expectation gets defined as a 'bad sensation (regardless of its actual advantages otherwise).

This appears to becoming more and more DISTRACTING from 'the MEANING of life'.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm But this is just a descriptive mechanism that doesn't necessarily answer what you may have meant with more complexity. I was/am assuming a 'meta-' cause itself that initiates WHAT 'meaning' is from a neutral non-meaningful environment. That is, I'm speaking of a non-religious interpretation of 'meaning of life' that is initiated at the core of evolutionary explanations.

Okay.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:29 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:43 pm

There is only the personal answer. There is no meta-answer, because there is no meta-meaning.

Just out of curiosity "sculptor", Are 'you' AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, or are 'you' just PRESENTING AN OPINION?

If I thought you knew the difference I might take the trouble to answer.

LOL I do NOT recall 'you' ONCE being ABLE TO CLARIFY.

Your response here, like just about EVERY other one you have given me, is just AN EXCUSE and an ATTEMPT to 'try to' DETRACT from YOUR ACTUAL INABILITIES here.

You will NOT CLARIFY because you CANNOT CLARIFY. YOUR INABILITY to CLARIFY becomes MORE OBVIOUS the FURTHER 'you' and 'I' go along here.

And IF you BELIEVE that just saying "the first one" or just saying "the second one" is to much TROUBLE, for 'you', then so be it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:05 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm Given Advocate asserting this an 'open' discussion he was intentionally initiating on the topic of 'meaning' of life and the 'meta-' in the title to the most underlying source of meaning, I propose that the function of life that we all share as animal conscious beings, is "to want".

I actually begun this for the first part of my formal theory because it initiates motive for seeking any 'ultimate' question we have. If we didn't have a genetic program that defines consciousness as "Want X", our consciousness would not exist. More appropriately, the program might be better called, "Seek X (or else suffer)". So, for instance, where X = food, our conscious existence is evolved not to question why we 'need' it but to conform to the COMMAND to 'seek' or you risk the consequential discomforts that will penalize you. Also, the 'rewards' also strengthen the particular "X" at issue.

I think the first "X" for each conscious event that gets assigned regardless of its capacity to be functional, is anything that is initially in the environment. If the first thing you ever 'see', for instance, is your mother's face, that DEFINES X as "what to seek" and it feels as a 'good' sensation associated with all other senses coinciding at once. Then anything against this assigned expectation gets defined as a 'bad sensation (regardless of its actual advantages otherwise).

But this is just a descriptive mechanism that doesn't necessarily answer what you may have meant with more complexity. I was/am assuming a 'meta-' cause itself that initiates WHAT 'meaning' is from a neutral non-meaningful environment. That is, I'm speaking of a non-religious interpretation of 'meaning of life' that is initiated at the core of evolutionary explanations.

In other words, ultimate meaning is just an advanced complexity version of the same avoid/approach mechanism in an amoebae.

Are 'you' AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, or just PRESENTING AN OPINION?

If it is the former, then okay.

But if it is the latter, then 'you' ARE WRONG.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:33 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:05 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:47 pm Given Advocate asserting this an 'open' discussion he was intentionally initiating on the topic of 'meaning' of life and the 'meta-' in the title to the most underlying source of meaning, I propose that the function of life that we all share as animal conscious beings, is "to want".

I actually begun this for the first part of my formal theory because it initiates motive for seeking any 'ultimate' question we have. If we didn't have a genetic program that defines consciousness as "Want X", our consciousness would not exist. More appropriately, the program might be better called, "Seek X (or else suffer)". So, for instance, where X = food, our conscious existence is evolved not to question why we 'need' it but to conform to the COMMAND to 'seek' or you risk the consequential discomforts that will penalize you. Also, the 'rewards' also strengthen the particular "X" at issue.

I think the first "X" for each conscious event that gets assigned regardless of its capacity to be functional, is anything that is initially in the environment. If the first thing you ever 'see', for instance, is your mother's face, that DEFINES X as "what to seek" and it feels as a 'good' sensation associated with all other senses coinciding at once. Then anything against this assigned expectation gets defined as a 'bad sensation (regardless of its actual advantages otherwise).

But this is just a descriptive mechanism that doesn't necessarily answer what you may have meant with more complexity. I was/am assuming a 'meta-' cause itself that initiates WHAT 'meaning' is from a neutral non-meaningful environment. That is, I'm speaking of a non-religious interpretation of 'meaning of life' that is initiated at the core of evolutionary explanations.

In other words, ultimate meaning is just an advanced complexity version of the same avoid/approach mechanism in an amoebae.

Yes, basically. I read years ago "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. In it he compared information itself as 'self-seeking' in a way that lacks 'purpose'. He was intending to describe the 'meaning of life' from the perspective of genetics and, in light of his "information" comparison as a general factor that is more broad, he invented the term, "meme", to which is now a normal term people use everywhere these days. He made it up to mimick the term, "gene", but to express it more generally as something we do on a 'meta-' scale.

Basically, pre-thoughts about 'purpose' is misleading because it implies a kind of religious context about 'meaning' or an emotional state. My addition here is an exention on that thought and how A.I. has to use a similar kind of pre-programming for its logic. That it learns to reprogram itself is due to a meta-program designed to first take the collection of senses (inputs) when first turned on as objects to seek. So if it is initiated to an environment that has the image of a person, it assigns that to a variable, X. [or set of them in a structure labelled, X]. Then the next step requires the X be loaded into a 'Search' program. If it cannot, find what it seeks for looking, it treats whatever it is then seeing as a 'negative' factor and compels it to MOVE in some way, like to turn, if this program is hooked up to a motor. [This actually REQUIRES both sensors AND motors for the feedback loop]

Then this process is repeated. In this way you can see how I defined "good sensation" as just the "first thing it witnesses because it is relatively arbitrary. In evolution, if the living organism is 'poked', for instance, a destructive kind of sensation, the assignment still gets assigned as something to 'seek' and is a "good sensation". Thus this explains HOW we define emotive value that 'motivates' our next moves.

Does it REALLY, or is this just YOUR OPINION, only?

WHY do 'you', adult human beings, 'try' to make just about ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' seem so complicated AND hard?

Learn what the meaning of 'meaning' actually IS, then discovering, learning, and/or understanding what 'the meaning of Life' ACTUALLY IS is Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. But an answer is a framework for understanding, not a solution; so you must first choose your own framework of understanding for what you want to be, then you can find a solution (bespoke action plan) for every related question of how.

The meaning of life for animal man is personal and as Scott wrote it is built round wants.

But how does this relate to meaning of life', to "advocate" as that is "everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves." Where is and what is the 'want' here?

And, "scott mayers", wrote the 'function of life' is built round wants. What can be CLEARLY OBSERVED is that 'the meaning of life' is OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT to and from 'the function of life'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Wants can be either basic or acquired.

Can a 'want' NOT just be 'basically acquired' and/or just 'acquired basically'?

What is the ACTUAL difference between 'basic' and 'acquired', to 'you', here?

To me, ALL wants, which are NOT wants for 'needs' ARE ACQUIRED.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm We need food, clothing, and shelter

LOL Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how quickly human beings have evolved to BELIEVE things, which are OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Untrue, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm but have also created acquired material wants like a new car for example.

Just so 'you' are FULLY AWARE 'we', ONCE AGAIN, SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY, here.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Animal purpose is to satisfy personal needs.

Well this would OBVIOUSLY go for without saying, correct?

There are only four 'needs' for the animal. Everything else are just 'wants'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm However as I understand it, meta meaning concerns human need and an understanding of human purpose.

Understanding of human 'need' and understanding of 'human purpose' is ALREADY KNOWN and WELL UNDERSTOOD.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Human purpose can only become known when humanity understands the purpose of our universe.

ALREADY DONE, and KNOWN.

And which can ACTUALLY be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY True.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm It is commonly believed that this enormous machine and the laws that support it has no purpose. If it has no purpose humanity cannot have meta purpose. Our purpose is to satisfy our personal needs.

When 'you' learn what those four 'needs' ACTUALLY ARE, then this will help in learning AND UNDERSTANDING the rest.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm But if the universe has a purpose, meta purpose is how humanity serves universal needs.

The Universe, Itself, does NOT 'need' ANY thing.

And, by the way, thee Universe is ACTUALLY achieving what It set out to achieve.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Our personal needs suggest the universe serves Man.

LOL What 'you' call "man" ONLY exists because of thee Universe, Itself.

And, thee Universe, Itself, ONLY "serves" 'human beings" because the Universe supplies ALL of your human beings' 'needs'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Meta-meaning means Man serves universal purpose.

There is ACTUAL Truth in this, like a LOT of what 'you' say. But, just like the rest of Truth, this will take a while to explain FULLY.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Can humanity become consciously capable of both?

Yes. This is ALREADY HAPPENING and OCCURRING in the days of when this is being written

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:37 pm Maybe so but looking out into the world, humanity has not yet evolved sufficiently to realize it.

Not 'humanity' as a whole. But human beings individually have evolved sufficiently enough to have ALREADY realized and actualized this.

VERY SOON, in evolutionary terms. ALL-OF-THIS will be REVEALED, and thus SEEN, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD.