Philosophy Now Forum

Hi all,
I'm trying to develop a reasonable criteria for determining meaningless or insignificant coincidence vs. possible or even probable connection or causation, when that connection or causation may not be verifiable by empirical means. Yes, I'm thinking of religious attribution, but not that subject alone -- I'm hoping to find a more general theory or method that can be applied to other topics. Ideas?
Thanks

You should probably give some examples of the situations you're trying to judge.

If you're talking about religious attribution, maybe you mean something like a scenario where your friend says her mom had cancer, and they got their whole family to pray, and then the cancer went away ? Is it those type of examples you're looking to have a model for, to decide if there's casual influence ?

reasonable meaninglessness is on par with jumbo shrimp...

-Imp

Meaninglessness equals lack of a conscious subject or the lack of the world as an object, for taking either away and one has oblivion/nothingness.

All humans are endowed via evolution with a neural based faculty for a sense of meaning reducible to the instinct for survival of the individual and therefrom that of the human species.

Meaningless gradually manifests when this faculty is defective due to various reasons leading to the inclinations to be suicidal. A person will commit suicide when everything has no meaning at all since his faculty is defective and cannot grasp meaning despite of being immersed in reality - all-there-is. [cannot engage his reality gears].

Thus the criteria for determining meaningless should be directly based on the effectiveness of this neural faculty of meaning. This sense of meaning is stretch across a continuum from mild depression to the most severe impulse to commit suicide.

The above is the fundamental of 'meaning'.

The other meaning is something very relative to one fundamental meaning of life.
For example if one is engaged in the gears of the fundamental meaning with some specific meaning, say, his main focus here is to be X, they whatever is non-X would be meaningless to him.
E.g. a non-theist will find theism meaningless but the non-theist would be engaged with the fundamental meaning of reality.

It is not possible to establish that there is no link between any two facts.
Because everything is connected.

There is never a true separation between everything.

The mere consideration that a fact or a thing exists demonstrates the unity of the whole.

"Being there" is in fact relationship. That is, communication, pure communication. Nothing but this.

And communication is possible only because it is founded on the common Truth.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 11:48 pm reasonable meaninglessness is on par with jumbo shrimp...

-Imp

military intelligence…constructive criticism…calculated risk