Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 11:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 12:57 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 12:35 pm

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 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:35 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 11:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 12:57 pm


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 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.

I understand and agree that intelligence is a matter of degree among living systems. Conscious awareness is common to all species.
a matter of degree. However, conscious awareness is a matter of which brain chemicals happen to be circulating all-or-nothing. All-or-nothing describes the electrochemical action of human synapses. Humans' synapses work more with chemicals than other animal species, where synaptic action is more electrical, less chemical.

I deny that inanimate things experience the mental effects of synaptic action as such as rocks , rivers , and AI machines have no neurons and synapses. AI machines are completely electronic.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 12:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:35 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 11:55 pm

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 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.

I understand and agree that intelligence is a matter of degree among living systems. Conscious awareness is common to all species.
a matter of degree. However, conscious awareness is a matter of which brain chemicals happen to be circulating all-or-nothing. All-or-nothing describes the electrochemical action of human synapses. Humans' synapses work more with chemicals than other animal species, where synaptic action is more electrical, less chemical.

I deny that inanimate things experience the mental effects of synaptic action as such as rocks , rivers , and AI machines have no neurons and synapses. AI machines are completely electronic.

Yes, Panpsychism and Whitehead's philosophy of organism take it into realms that could only be called an adventure; still, consciousness did arise from inanimate nature, so it's intriguing. Consciousness, as you know, is not well understood; some creatures have no brain at all and still manage to function. The main thing to remember about meaning, though, is that biology/life is its only source. It is the organism's product and property, and does not properly belong to the physical world.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:10 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 12:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:35 am

I understand and agree that intelligence is a matter of degree among living systems. Conscious awareness is common to all species.
a matter of degree. However, conscious awareness is a matter of which brain chemicals happen to be circulating all-or-nothing. All-or-nothing describes the electrochemical action of human synapses. Humans' synapses work more with chemicals than other animal species, where synaptic action is more electrical, less chemical.

I deny that inanimate things experience the mental effects of synaptic action as such as rocks , rivers , and AI machines have no neurons and synapses. AI machines are completely electronic.

Yes, Panpsychism and Whitehead's philosophy of organism take it into realms that could only be called an adventure; still, consciousness did arise from inanimate nature, so it's intriguing. Consciousness, as you know, is not well understood; some creatures have no brain at all and still manage to function. The main thing to remember about meaning, though, is that biology/life is its only source. It is the organism's product and property, and does not properly belong to the physical world.

Meaning which is combination of the stories we tell ourselves and intentions that are justified or endorsed by those stories.
Inanimate things like rivers, and bits of stone, tell stories in a manner of speaking e.g. to archeologists. But those inanimate things are nothing but their own histories and are incapable of intentions.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 7:27 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:10 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 12:07 pm

Yes, Panpsychism and Whitehead's philosophy of organism take it into realms that could only be called an adventure; still, consciousness did arise from inanimate nature, so it's intriguing. Consciousness, as you know, is not well understood; some creatures have no brain at all and still manage to function. The main thing to remember about meaning, though, is that biology/life is its only source. It is the organism's product and property, and does not properly belong to the physical world.

Meaning which is combination of the stories we tell ourselves and intentions that are justified or endorsed by those stories.
Inanimate things like rivers, and bits of stone, tell stories in a manner of speaking e.g. to archeologists. But those inanimate things are nothing but their own histories and are incapable of intentions.

The inanimate world is but the cauldron of creation from which life arose. It is for us our other half in the union of subject and object, and most difficult to deny as essential to consciousness. Meaning again is straightforward experience and the evaluation/judgment of being altered by our physical world as an object. Meanings are an emergent property, belonging to the subject solely, but then projected outwardly as a biological readout, appearing as apparent reality. Meanings are the property and creation of life forms; their raw materials are the physical world.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 11:22 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 7:27 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:10 pm

Meaning which is combination of the stories we tell ourselves and intentions that are justified or endorsed by those stories.
Inanimate things like rivers, and bits of stone, tell stories in a manner of speaking e.g. to archeologists. But those inanimate things are nothing but their own histories and are incapable of intentions.

The inanimate world is but the cauldron of creation from which life arose. It is for us our other half in the union of subject and object, and most difficult to deny as essential to consciousness. Meaning again is straightforward experience and the evaluation/judgment of being altered by our physical world as an object. Meanings are an emergent property, belonging to the subject solely, but then projected outwardly as a biological readout, appearing as apparent reality. Meanings are the property and creation of life forms; their raw materials are the physical world.

So what! You and I are animate right now. How history began does not justify adhering to the humble beginnings millions of years ago.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 7:07 pm by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Th ... or_Meaning

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 7:07 pm by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Th ... or_Meaning

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 9:01 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 11:22 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 7:27 am

The inanimate world is but the cauldron of creation from which life arose. It is for us our other half in the union of subject and object, and most difficult to deny as essential to consciousness. Meaning again is straightforward experience and the evaluation/judgment of being altered by our physical world as an object. Meanings are an emergent property, belonging to the subject solely, but then projected outwardly as a biological readout, appearing as apparent reality. Meanings are the property and creation of life forms; their raw materials are the physical world.

So what! You and I are animate right now. How history began does not justify adhering to the humble beginnings millions of years ago.

I do not think I understand your criticism. What does justifying adhering to humble beginnings mean? I established that we are part of what we observe, and arose out of something that had the elements for our creation. Could you clarify, please?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 4:07 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 7:07 pm by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Th ... or_Meaning

The meaning of the word 'meaning' is of course the use of the word 'meaning'.

Alongside Wittgenstein's edict the meaning of life is culturally relative. Since the age of revolutions evolved through the Romantic Age, meaning of life has changed from the significance of the heroic and the traditional to the significance of the individual.
We now see politically reactionary efforts to turn back from the significance of the individual to the significance of the group. Particularly in Afghanistan and Russia.

Sadly, God is cui bono.

And that applies only to Europe and her colonies.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:08 pm All words are qualifications and/or limitations. Meaning is what you make of it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 10:51 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:08 pm All words are qualifications and/or limitations. Meaning is what you make of it.

As I pointed out, the locus of the meaning relates to the culture. In a free country the individual makes their own meaning. Historically this was not always so in the UK. Individualism is quite a recent value. Neither is it the case in many societies today.

There are unfree societies where meaning is indoctrinated, or sometimes simply traditional. Thoughts are not always free.

Even within families, sometimes the children are not permitted to think for themselves, and some children, even when they are fully grown, remain under the dominance of another family member.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 4:50 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 10:51 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:08 pm All words are qualifications and/or limitations. Meaning is what you make of it.

As I pointed out, the locus of the meaning relates to the culture. In a free country the individual makes their own meaning. Historically this was not always so in the UK. Individualism is quite a recent value. Neither is it the case in many societies today.

There are unfree societies where meaning is indoctrinated, or sometimes simply traditional. Thoughts are not always free.

Even within families, sometimes the children are not permitted to think for themselves, and some children, even when they are fully grown, remain under the dominance of another family member.

Yes, there are many complications, but even the basic fact that the individual life form is the creator of all meanings is not popularly known or acknowledged. I think it just never occurs to most people. They feel they were born into a world of objects, and objects have meaning because they have always had meaning. Meaning is the experience of the body understood by consciousness. Meaning does not belong to the world at large but to the body; it is not reality one experiences; what one experiences is one's alter biology, and this is one's everyday reality — the experiences of the body.
If people were aware of their function as creators, they would not be as easily dominated or suppressed. Most people haven't even considered this realization; it is a void space in their consciousness. the existentialist idea really shines where conscious reflection and decision-making are present. Even humans can fluctuate along this spectrum depending on circumstances, cognitive capacity, or external constraints.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 10:25 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 4:50 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 10:51 pm

As I pointed out, the locus of the meaning relates to the culture. In a free country the individual makes their own meaning. Historically this was not always so in the UK. Individualism is quite a recent value. Neither is it the case in many societies today.

There are unfree societies where meaning is indoctrinated, or sometimes simply traditional. Thoughts are not always free.

Even within families, sometimes the children are not permitted to think for themselves, and some children, even when they are fully grown, remain under the dominance of another family member.

Yes, there are many complications, but even the basic fact that the individual life form is the creator of all meanings is not popularly known or acknowledged. I think it just never occurs to most people. They feel they were born into a world of objects, and objects have meaning because they have always had meaning. Meaning is the experience of the body understood by consciousness. Meaning does not belong to the world at large but to the body; it is not reality one experiences; what one experiences is one's alter biology, and this is one's everyday reality — the experiences of the body.
If people were aware of their function as creators, they would not be as easily dominated or suppressed. Most people haven't even considered this realization; it is a void space in their consciousness. the existentialist idea really shines where conscious reflection and decision-making are present. Even humans can fluctuate along this spectrum depending on circumstances, cognitive capacity, or external constraints.

The idea of differentiated objects such as my bed, your chair, the nail that punctured your tyre, the ocean liner Queen Mary, Hitler, my glass of milk, the air you are about to inhale is a questionable idea .
People create their own realities if/when they are empowered to do so. Social reality is a reality that is shared with others. Some social realities are harmful as everybody well knows, and existentialists urge us to understand that what we do is what we are. Existence precedes essence (Sartre): Humans are not born with a fixed “nature” or essence. Instead, we define ourselves through our choices and actions.