Philosophy Now Forum

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.

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 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.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm 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.

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

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 is that there is no meaning for life.

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;

Not a solution to what?

Are you trying to discuss what life means or what is the value of life? Or why is there life? What is your question?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:11 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 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.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm 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.

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.]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=485641 time=1608476768 user_id=11118]
[quote=Age post_id=485576 time=1608412281 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=485249 time=1608219661 user_id=15238]
The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.[/quote]

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.

[quote=Advocate post_id=485249 time=1608219661 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]

This is just an overly convoluted one person VIEW of things.[/quote]
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.]
[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=485650 time=1608477858 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=485249 time=1608219661 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]
I'm confused at your what you are saying. It appears to be [i]responding[/i] 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:
[quote=Advocate]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.[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

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

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.

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.

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=485657 time=1608479236 user_id=11118]
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 [b]function[/b] of life that we all share as animal conscious beings, is "[b]to want[/b]".

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 "[b]Want X[/b]", our consciousness would not exist. More appropriately, the program might be better called, "[b]Seek X (or else suffer)[/b]". So, for instance, where [b]X = food[/b], our conscious existence is evolved not to question why we 'need' it but to conform to the COMMAND to '[b]seek[/b]' or you risk the consequential discomforts that will penalize you. Also, the '[b]rewards[/b]' also strengthen the particular "[b]X[/b]" at issue.

I think the [b]first "X"[/b] 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 [b]DEFINES X[/b] as "[b]what to seek[/b]" and it [i]feels[/i] as a '[u]good[/u]' sensation associated with all other senses coinciding at once. Then anything against this assigned expectation gets defined as a '[u]bad[/u] 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.
[/quote]

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

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.

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. Wants can be either basic or acquired. We need food, clothing, and shelter but have also created acquired material wants like a new car for example. Animal purpose is to satisfy personal needs.

However as I understand it, meta meaning concerns human need and an understanding of human purpose. Human purpose can only become known when humanity understands the purpose of our universe. 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. But if the universe has a purpose, meta purpose is how humanity serves universal needs. Our personal needs suggest the universe serves Man. Meta-meaning means Man serves universal purpose. Can humanity become consciously capable of both? Maybe so but looking out into the world, humanity has not yet evolved sufficiently to realize it.

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

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:11 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 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.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:41 pm 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.

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

SEE, I do NOT class 'my kind of response' as 'insulting the thread' AT ALL. AND, there was NEVER 'this' INTENTION AT ALL, EITHER.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:06 pm Here you begin by affirming the obvious: the OP is PRESENTING AN OPINION by default.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE the contradiction AND hypocrisy here?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:06 pm He doesn't require asserting, "In my opinion,..." as though this isn't understood.

But do I require asserting, "In my opinion"?

Your Honest CLARIFYING ANSWER here would be MUCH APPRECIATED.

If yes, then WHY do 'I' but 'he' does NOT?

But if no, then WHY do 'you' DIFFERENTIATE what 'I' say as AFFIRMING THE OBVIOUS, from 'his' just PRESENTING AN OPINION?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:06 pm You might have been better to respond by asserting you disagree rather than drag a stinky red herring across the path of that distracts.

What 'red herring'?

WHY bring the EMOTIVE "stinky" word into 'this'? [Is this a 'red herring', itself?]

"Distracts" from 'what', EXACTLY?

WHY might I have been better to respond by asserting that I disagree? Could 'you' NOT SEE, or NOT HEAR, that I was DISAGREEING?

From reading the above AGAIN it LOOKS PRETTY OBVIOUS that 'I' DISAGREE.

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

LOL The OBVIOUS HYPOCRISY is what I ACTUALLY SEE.

This is becoming FAR MORE HUMOROUS, AMUSING, and SELF-PROVING, far more quickly, than 'I' even intended this to become AND BE.