The Meaning of Life

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

i also agree with the generality of your statement, basil.

sometimes i find myself when faced with certain thoughts or situations if i think too deeply about the pertaining matter it ultimately debilitates me from acting decisively in the first place. we're almost forced beyond all recognition of will to choose a moral side as we humans don't really see too much of the gray in between the black and white of good and evil having much effect, but i personally think that the gray area is what holds all truth.
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

Locke, i think that if intelligent life outside of humanity resides in any other part of the Universe it would only further help to produce case evidence of an all governing dualistic principle.

i also believe that if any and all hypothetical life forms do reside in such localities of our Universe it is ultimately non relevant to our current situation until the moment they present themselves to us.
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

cousinbasil wrote:
Something causes a thousand troops to move when a general says "march." It is not caused by the food they have eaten which supplies the energy for their locomotion. Life and consciousness must be taken into account, but still there are always causes for every effect.
Yes! Yes! You have many good points but this is a perfect example of what I'm thinking. The amplification of cause requires comprehension. The general says " March" but in the wrong language and the troops remain immobile. So I ask you as well does man have a special causal relationship?
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

m4tt_666 you present a interesting viewpoint; but, I'm not too afraid to admit that it may be beyond me. Allow me some time to digest your thoughts and see if I can come up with an opinion of my own. I just don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you.
Last edited by Locke on Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

on the contrary, i hope anyone would allow the advantage of taking it in and discerning for themselves what it ultimately means! undoubtedly even if everybody collectively ignored my posts i could remain satisfied in knowing i have at least presented my view as such.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by cousinbasil »

Locke wrote:So then is man a special case of causal relationships? And since the universe is so vast; the probability of human level intelligence existing elsewhere is not negligible. Then man's special causal relationship is not just limited to us. Is it that special anymore?
Whether or not it is special is subjective; more objectively, I think that human level intelligence cannot be unique. And just as you say, it is the sheer vastness of the universe which guarantees this, as much as anything else could. Some day we may have tangible proof that there is nonterran life, but I do not see how it could ever be proved that there is not.

And it is not just man which is a special case of causal relationships, although man's ability to think abstractly makes the dichotomy between living and nonliving systems more marked. What drives thought? Why do we think?
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

cousinbasil wrote: What drives thought? Why do we think?
Good questions. On the face of it; one would probably say that complex thought allowed more adaptability in survival. But, this would lead me to think why are there not more high level thinkers in the animal world? Human's as a whole have had many benefits. In fact, does it not seem that humans are over engineered? In a Darwinian world; why would the human brain advance to the level that they are at now? We could survive with a much lower level of cognitive ability; and do quite well it seems. To be able to fly a jet or race a car; the human mind can take in information and react to it quicker then if we were just running around on the ground hunting food. Now this line of thought is not to suggest a divine influence; just that on the surface we seem very lucky.

1. Complex brains- Allows very abstract thought
2. Forward facing eyes- Good stereographic vision and good color range.
3 Hands- Great dexterity allows complex tools to be developed and fine motor control allows information to be written and stored.
4. Vocal range- We are able to make a great range of sounds. Combined with our brain this allows a very complex language to develop.
5. Erect posture- Protects the hands and allows simultaneous use of legs and tools.
6. Good timing in evolving- Now this is a stretch; but, follow my train of thought for a moment. If we evolved too early we couldn't take advantage of the large energy resource of fossil fuels such as oil and coal. These materials with their higher energy density allowed a rapid industrial evolution.

I'm sure that there is more that I have missed.

I imagine that the dolphin is the next most complex thinking creature on this planet. But, hampered with fins they will never develop tools. So, did humans win the lottery in life?

I'm sure by now you've notice that I side stepped the original question of " Why do we think?" But that's because I can't answer that. Much too hard. :-)
Last edited by Locke on Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Blair »

Causality.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by guest_of_logic »

Hi Locke. Welcome to the forum. Just to let you know, the viewpoint that you're encountering (causal determinism) is the mainstream one on this forum.
Locke wrote:One of my issues with this type of thought is life. The idea of cause and effect works very well when objects don't introduce their own locomotion into the system. A leaf follows the flow of water; using hydrodynamics one could predict its eventual resting place. But, fish with their limited brains regularly swim against the current. You would respond that the brain also is subject to this cause and effect and probably throw another shitweasel in for good measure.
The problem here is that you've anticipated the response without countering it. Personally, I don't see a way to disprove causal determinism conclusively, because it's internally consistent, but I do see ways to object to it based on its implications, and to dispute that it is definitively the truth being that - mainstream claims on this forum to the contrary - it's an empirical rather than a "purely logical" issue.

What I mean by it being internally consistent is that a proponent of causal determinism can pretty much always respond to any scenario you raise with, "Yes, that happens, but it is fully caused", without contradicting him/herself. For example, you wrote in a later post:
Locke wrote:I think I may have an example of a non universal causal relationship if you'll allow.

If you and any other people on this forum read and do the following "Stand up.. Take step back... then take a step forward... then sit down". This statement takes very little energy on my part. The computer sends very little data to transmit this message. But, I can motivate a 170 pound mass to move. The input energy in itself is not sufficient under Newtonian physics to move the specified mass; But, comprehension on the readers part amplifies the small message into gross reaction.
Now a proponent of causal determinism can simply write a variation of what I just suggested: "Yes, you can motivate a 170 pound mass to move simply through words, but, regardless, that movement was fully caused, in part by those words but also by the rest of the causal web of the universe - and being fully caused just as is every other thing in the universe, there's nothing special about it."

The hypothetical proponent can respond similarly to your even later post:
Locke wrote:The amplification of cause requires comprehension. The general says " March" but in the wrong language and the troops remain immobile. So I ask you as well does man have a special causal relationship?
Here the proponent might respond with: "No, this is not special because it is again a simple case of causality in action: the cause of speaking in a language not understood by the troops has (amongst an infinite number of other causes) the effect of those troops not understanding and not moving, in a pre-determined way, just as the cause of (amongst an infinite number of other causes) flowing water has the effect of your hypothetical leaf moving in a pre-determined way."

Another objection that can be raised to causal determinism is to say, "But hang on, subjectively I know that I make choices - I know that my free will operates because I operate it!" Again, the hypothetical proponent of causal determinism can simply say, "Yes, you experience something that feels like free will, but this is simply an illusion - in reality the choices that to you seem free are predetermined by infinite causes".

As I wrote earlier, there is in my opinion no way (but please tell me if you can think of one) to definitively refute this viewpoint; instead, I would make two points:
  1. We cannot know for certain that it is true. There is undoubtedly evidence that causality operates in the world, but it's impossible to know for sure that it is the only basis for existence.
  2. It leads to absurdities which certain minds (the mainstream of this forum, at least) are happy to accept, but which others (such as myself) aren't. Two absurdities come to my mind:
    • The absurdity of illusory free will: experiencing yourself making a choice yet at the same time supposedly not actually making that choice.
    • The absurdity of an indeterminate deterministic system: within the all-encompassing deterministic system (referred to on this forum as "the Totality"), every thing is fully caused, but this can't apply to that system itself (because there is nothing other than itself by which it could be caused/determined), meaning that the deterministic system as a whole is indeterminate. It's absurd to me to insist on hard determinism within the system whilst accepting indeterminism for the system as a whole, but I spent many posts arguing this case in a somewhat recent thread so I don't expect to rehash it again - I'm just including it as a summary for your benefit.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Laird,
guest_of_logic wrote:There is undoubtedly evidence that causality operates in the world, but it's impossible to know for sure that it is the only basis for existence.
It depends how you've defined existence. If for example you've defined it as "causality + possibly something else", causality cannot be shown to be the only basis. But when it's understood how existence is only a term for causality, or that causality is a higher order principle compared to just "existence", it becomes clear the question: "what exists apart or beyond causality" , ceases to be.
The absurdity of illusory free will: experiencing yourself making a choice yet at the same time supposedly not actually making that choice.
But many, even mundane things in life appear in similar ways. The most basic example would be to feel as if it's cold and shiver while the room is actually comfortable warm as usual. It's not really cold, one is just experiencing a sensation of cold (or 'I', or 'I do', etc).
It's absurd to me to insist on hard determinism within the system whilst accepting indeterminism for the system as a whole
This is only a problem when introducing a 'system' as actually being defined somehow or existing. But it's not. The totality isn't. There, I've said it.
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

lets take a look at some facts we can undoubtedly agree upon;

-the theory that infinity is possible

-the fact that life is observably present at this moment

now take a look out into this Universe. has our consciousness survived death itself in countless other physical forms thus bringing us to this point in our humanity?
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

guest_of_logic wrote:
  • The absurdity of illusory free will: experiencing yourself making a choice yet at the same time supposedly not actually making that choice.
  • The absurdity of an indeterminate deterministic system: within the all-encompassing deterministic system (referred to on this forum as "the Totality"), every thing is fully caused, but this can't apply to that system itself (because there is nothing other than itself by which it could be caused/determined), meaning that the deterministic system as a whole is indeterminate. It's absurd to me to insist on hard determinism within the system whilst accepting indeterminism for the system as a whole, but I spent many posts arguing this case in a somewhat recent thread so I don't expect to rehash it again - I'm just including it as a summary for your benefit.
Hello, Thank you for the welcome. You've preformed an excellent breakdown of the problem. I agree with your noted observations. I have to admit to causal relationships existing in the universe because we see evidence in specific systems. It just seems to me that those who believe in Causal Determinism have carried the observed effects much too far. It has the quality of fractal logic. Every answer no matter how closely we look into an area of inquiry becomes " Causality."
Why does the earth go around the sun? Causality
Why is there life on this planet? Causality
Why does an electron move around an atom? Causality
This is evident in prince's responses. ( to prince: This is not a attack. Your replies just are a good example of what I'm trying to say)

So, I can see no real benefit in this mode of thinking. It seems self-limiting. In our past the word causality would have been replaced by god/gods and we would be done questioning. I hoped man had moved forward from this type of thought.
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

m4tt_666

I have some questions. You believe that our consciousness is held separate from our physical forms, correct?
If this is the case
Where do you think that it is held? What led you to this belief?
How do we access it? Are our brains receivers that tune into this consciousness?
Why do I have to learn things and not just know them?
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: This is only a problem when introducing a 'system' as actually being defined somehow or existing. But it's not. The totality isn't. There, I've said it.
Hello, could you expand on this. Why isn't the " Totality" a system? Isn't one defining it as such when they call it " The Totality"?
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

it is what i believe but cannot explain in detail how i happened to recognize this, simply because it was not my intention in the first place to come to such an absurd conclusion. i understand it does me no good in this present physical form to hold this as truth beyond doubt, because i could expect the resultant action to be detrimental.

i am however, unwavering in this view and have merely concluded one cannot force realization, but we all possess an equal chance to see if we decide.

i do apologize for not being able to answer your other questions simply because i can only speculate, much as you could at best. gaining no real knowledge thus making it illogical to dwell on such a subject. i think the only way to recognize truth, is to simply let it come to you rather than letting your imagination hold reign over your free will.
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

Hmmm.. that does make it hard to discuss the issue. I understand; subjective feelings are almost impossible to relate and yet are no less real to the subject. Why do I love this girl? Can I explain it to you? Would you understand my exact feeling? Probably not.

Do you have a feeling on why our shared consciousness can be selective with the information that is disseminated?
If I type " Srisaket" until you google it I doubt that you would even have a sense of what it is. Why do I know it and you don't?
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

like i said, we each possess the potential to unlock our infinite capabilities. i think most people, and undoubtedly myself have been overwhelmed with superficial properties since birth which has deluded us further in life from the actual truth of our individual pasts.

it has become increasingly so in the rise of technology and entertainment that seems to be aimed strictly to our physical sense only, but it is also unforeseeable to us that such causal actions would have these now observable effects thus it has happened.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Blair »

Locke wrote:Why does an electron move around an atom? Causality
This is evident in prince's responses.
What makes an electron revolve around an atom then?
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

prince wrote:What makes an electron revolve around an atom then?
I'm game. What?.... hmmm.... I'll guess causality. Does this give you a better understanding of the atom?


We could stop with that answer or look further into the mechanics of the atom. Now, I'll admit to being no expert on quantum mechanics so if anyone sees a glaring mistake in my answer please chime in. The basic idea is a negatively charged electron is attracted to the positively charged proton. Like a magnet. The momentum of the electron keeps it from collapsing into the nucleus. A problem for determinism arises from the wave nature of the electron; this makes it impossible to know the electron's exact position. The Heisenberg uncertainly Principle. If one doesn't know where something is exactly; how can one determine the exact effect it's going to cause?

But my point really wasn't to prove whether I knew these answers. It was that if people were satisfied with causality being the answer to everything what would the motivation for further investigation be?
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Blair »

Ego.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by guest_of_logic »

Hi Diebert,
guest_of_logic: There is undoubtedly evidence that causality operates in the world, but it's impossible to know for sure that it is the only basis for existence.

Diebert: It depends how you've defined existence. If for example you've defined it as "causality + possibly something else", causality cannot be shown to be the only basis. But when it's understood how existence is only a term for causality, or that causality is a higher order principle compared to just "existence", it becomes clear the question: "what exists apart or beyond causality" , ceases to be.
This response seems to imply, "Causality is the basis of existence because I define it to be." The problem with this is that simply defining something to be doesn't necessarily make it true, as I've pointed out to you in previous threads. I could counter by defining the basis of existence to be a pink elephant, and where would that get us? You need to do more than play with definitions if you want to argue for the truth of causal determinism. So here's my challenge to you: prove beyond a doubt that causal determinism is the basis of existence without in some way simply defining it to be so.
guest_of_logic: The absurdity of illusory free will: experiencing yourself making a choice yet at the same time supposedly not actually making that choice.

Diebert: But many, even mundane things in life appear in similar ways. The most basic example would be to feel as if it's cold and shiver while the room is actually comfortable warm as usual. It's not really cold, one is just experiencing a sensation of cold (or 'I', or 'I do', etc).
Yes, things like that sometimes happen, but whether they can be extrapolated to the more complex phenomenon of choice-making or willing is another question: personally I think that the two scenarios are too different to be fairly compared, but I could be wrong. Bear in mind after all that choice-making involves not just input (feeling cold) but also output (directing one's body to put on a jacket), and all the steps in-between, sometimes in a feedback loop.
Diebert wrote:This is only a problem when introducing a 'system' as actually being defined somehow or existing. But it's not.
But of course it is: it's defined as "everything". If it weren't defined then we couldn't talk about it meaningfully.
Diebert wrote:The totality isn't. There, I've said it.
Now where did that facepalm emoticon get to? ;-)

Locke,
Locke wrote:It just seems to me that those who believe in Causal Determinism have carried the observed effects much too far. It has the quality of fractal logic. Every answer no matter how closely we look into an area of inquiry becomes " Causality."
Exactly. It starts to take on a dogmatic quality after a while.
Locke wrote:In our past the word causality would have been replaced by god/gods and we would be done questioning. I hoped man had moved forward from this type of thought.
To be fair, I don't think anyone in the mainstream of this forum rejects the value of science. They just think that its results are bound by causal determinism.
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

Laird,

I think you are right. " I hoped man had moved forward from this type of thought" is too extreme a statement on my part. I do think that the readers here value the scientific.
dogmatic quality
Exactly
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:As I wrote earlier, there is in my opinion no way (but please tell me if you can think of one) to definitively refute this viewpoint; instead, I would make two points:
  1. We cannot know for certain that it is true. There is undoubtedly evidence that causality operates in the world, but it's impossible to know for sure that it is the only basis for existence.
For anyone who instinctively shuns logic the moment it bites, sure. For them, it will always be impossible.

[*]It leads to absurdities which certain minds (the mainstream of this forum, at least) are happy to accept, but which others (such as myself) aren't. Two absurdities come to my mind:
  • The absurdity of illusory free will: experiencing yourself making a choice yet at the same time supposedly not actually making that choice.

Our daily experience of free will is not unlike our daily experience of the sun going around the earth. Both are real enough as far as experiences go, yet they are both illusory when seen from a larger perspective.

Poof! The "absurdity" vanishes with a moment's thought. That's all it takes - a moment's thought.

[*]The absurdity of an indeterminate deterministic system: within the all-encompassing deterministic system (referred to on this forum as "the Totality"), every thing is fully caused, but this can't apply to that system itself (because there is nothing other than itself by which it could be caused/determined), meaning that the deterministic system as a whole is indeterminate. It's absurd to me to insist on hard determinism within the system whilst accepting indeterminism for the system as a whole, but I spent many posts arguing this case in a somewhat recent thread so I don't expect to rehash it again - I'm just including it as a summary for your benefit.[/*][/list][/*][/list]
Alas, the Totality is no more indeterminate than it is determinate. Neither category applies.

Still trying to treat the Totality as a non-Totality, I see.

Personally, I don't see a way to disprove causal determinism conclusively, because it's internally consistent, but I do see ways to object to it based on its implications,
This is the telling remark. To reject truth on the basis that you don't like its implications is never a good idea. Not if you want to be truthful.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Locke wrote: I have to admit to causal relationships existing in the universe because we see evidence in specific systems. It just seems to me that those who believe in Causal Determinism have carried the observed effects much too far. It has the quality of fractal logic. Every answer no matter how closely we look into an area of inquiry becomes " Causality."
Why does the earth go around the sun? Causality
Why is there life on this planet? Causality
Why does an electron move around an atom? Causality

So, I can see no real benefit in this mode of thinking. It seems self-limiting. In our past the word causality would have been replaced by god/gods and we would be done questioning. I hoped man had moved forward from this type of thought.
You're neglecting the logical aspect of the matter. When done properly, the affirming of the truth that all things are causally-created is purely a logical exercise, one that requires no belief or act of faith at all, which immediately removes it from the "god/gods" category and from religion altogether. It involves recognizing - with absolute logical certainty - that it is impossible for anything, anywhere, to arise without cause.

This is great knowledge. Priceless knowledge.

Moreover, far from being "self-limiting", the recognition that causality drives utterly everything, including all aspects of our own behaviour, is incredibly liberating. For through it we can open ourselves to our infinite nature, which is the most amazing thing that a human can ever do.

-
Locke
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Locke »

Hello David,

While true that I can't ignore the causal relationship of objects within this universe I believe that there is inherent randomness in the system that can't be predicted. The proponents of Determinism seem to ignore this. An example being star light that travels through interstellar gas. The light is on a set path when it leaves the star; but, when the photons encounter, lets say, a hydrogen atom. Specific photons are absorbed by the electrons around said atoms. When that quanta of energy is emitted back as a new photon it now travels in a random path that is not predictable. This of course diffuses the light and gives us spectral lines to read.
Moreover, far from being "self-limiting", the recognition that causality drives utterly everything, including all aspects of our own behaviour, is incredibly liberating. For through it we can open ourselves to our infinite nature, which is the most amazing thing that a human can ever do.
I say " self-limiting" because while browsing the boards; causality seems to have become a catch all answer. This seems to have limited discourse. You mention that this is liberating. Do you have an example of your constrained thought compared to your liberated thought? I'm not sure what you mean by man's " infinite nature." Could you elaborate on that a bit? Was our nature around before man evolved? Or even before this solar system came into being? Or, is it infinite from this point forward? Or, possibly when you said "our" did you mean the universe's nature?

Sorry for the rapid fire questions but I am truly interested in the appeal of this line of thought.

Thanks
Locked