| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
This may seem silly, but the issues it raises are the very things that
make intelligent discussions useful.
The most important question has to do with context: Does meaning reside
in things themselves, or is it merely the interpretation of an observer?
Riddle one. If meaning must be known/remembered in order to
exists/persist, does that imply that it is a form of information?
Riddle two. In the late 18th century, many examples of Egyptian
hieroglyphics were known, but no one could read them. Did they have
meaning? Apparently not, since there were no "rememberers." In 1798,
the French found the Rosetta Stone, and within the next 20 or so years,
this "lost" language was recovered, and with it, the "meaning" of
Egyptian hieroglyphics. So, was the meaning "in" the hieroglyphics, or
was it "brought to" the hieroglyphics by its translators?
Riddle three. If I write a computer program to generate random
but intelligible stories (which I have done, by the way), and it writes
a story to a text file, does this story have meaning before any person
reads the file? Does it have meaning after a person reads the file? If
it was meaningless before but meaningful afterwards, where did the
meaning come from?
Riddle four. Two cops read a suicide note, but interpret it in
completely different ways. What does the note mean?
Riddle five. Suppose I take a large number of tiny pictures of
Abraham Lincoln and arrange them, such that they spell out the words
"Born in 1809"; is additional meaning present?
Riddle six. On his deathbed, Albert Einstein whispered his last
words to the nurse caring for him. Unfortunately, he spoke them in
German, which she did not understand. Did those words mean anything?
Are they now meaningless?
Riddle seven. When I look at your family photo album, I don't
recognize anyone, or understand any of the events depicted; they convey
nothing to me but what they immediately depict. You look at the album,
and many memories of people, places, and events are engendered; they
convey much. So, where is the meaning? Is it in the pictures, or is it
in the viewer?
.
Maybe confusing 'meaning' with 'relevance' a little?
.
Oops. I thought everyone knew the basic tenants of Information Theory.
.
The Parity Problem
Let's do a thought experiment. I have two marbles in my hand, one white
and one black. I show them to you and ask this question: Is the number
of black marbles even, or is it odd?
Naturally you respond odd, since one is an odd number. If both of the
marbles had been black, the correct answer would have been even, since
2 is an even number; if I had been holding two white marbles, again the
correct answer would have been even, since 0 is an even number.
This is called the Parity Two problem. If there are N marbles, some
white (possibly none) and some black (possibly none), the question of
whether there are an odd number of black marbles is called the Parity-N
Problem, or just the Parity Problem. This problem is important in
computer science, information theory, coding theory, and related areas.
Of course, when smart people talk about the parity problem, they don't
use marbles, they use zeros and ones (binary digits = bits). For example,
I can store a data file on disc and then ask whether the file
has an odd or even number of ones; the answer is the parity of the file.
This idea can also be used to detect data transmission errors: if I
want to send you 100 bits of data, I could actually send you 101, with
the extra bit set to a one or zero such that the whole set has a
particular parity that you and I have agreed upon in advance. If you
get a message from me and it doesn't have the expected parity, you know
the message has an odd number of bit errors and must be resent.
.
Five Riddles about Information
Suppose I have two lab assistants named Orc and Kobold, and two data bits.
I show only the first one to Orc, and only the second one to Kobold. If I
ask Orc what the parity of the original pair of bits is, what will he
say? And if I ask Kobold what the parity of the original pair of bits is,
what will he say?
Neither one can say what the parity of the original pair is, because
each one is lacking a bit. If I handed Orc a one, he could reason that
if the bit I can't see is also a one, then the parity of the original
pair is even. But if the bit I can't see is a zero, then the parity of
the original pair is odd. Kobold is in exactly the same boat.
Riddle one. Orc is no more able to state the parity of the
original bit pair than he was before he was given his bit and the same
is true for Kobold. That is, each one has 50% of the data, but neither one
has received any information at all.
Suppose now that I have 100 minions, and 100 randomly generated bits of
data. To minion 1, I give all the bits except bit 1; to minion 2, I
give all the bits except bit 2; and so on. Each minion has received 99%
of the data. Yet none of them is any more able to state the parity of
the original 100-bit data set than before they received 99 of the bits.
Riddle two. Even though each minion has received 99% of the
data, none of them has received any information at all.
Riddle three. The information in the 100 data bits cannot be in
the bits themselves. For, which bit is it in? Not bit 1, since that bit
was given to 99 minions, and didn't provide them with any
information. Not bit 2, for the same reason. In fact, it is clear that
the information cannot be in any of the bits themselves. So, where is
it?
Riddle four. Suppose my 100 bits have odd parity (say, 45 ones and 55
zeros). I arrange them on a piece of paper, so they spell the word
"odd." Have I added information? If so, where is it?
Riddle five. Where is the information in a multiply encrypted
message, since it completely disappears when one bit is removed?
.
Now, scroll up read the OP again.
.
... how bizarre, how wonderful.
What if there's no such thing as meaning, significance, or relevance?
What if there's no such thing as meaning, significance, or relevance?
.
Yay! That's exactly what I wonder too. Then, how can there be anything
at all ???
.
What if there's no such thing as meaning, significance, or relevance?.
Yay! That's exactly what I wonder too. Then, how can there be anything
at all ???.
Are We Are All One Consicousness Experiencing Itself Subjectively ?
I seriously doubt you will wrap up the $1,000,000 P=NP debacle in this forum, but hey? Good luck
.
Let me help you up from the dirt:
We are looking for an ontology.
An ontology is a theory of being. It is an attempt to conceptualize
answers to certain fundamental questions such as: What is reality?
Do things have meaning? What can be known?
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People with philosophy degrees have the most practice at saying, "Would you like fries with that?"
;-)
Oh, well nothing excites me and makes me want to participate in something faster than an insult, followeled closely by an assumption of ignorance.
.
Which is exactly how you started in on this thread: e.g. I seriously
doubt you will wrap up the $1,000,000 P=NP debacle in this forum, but
hey? Good luck
We can all play that game here.
.
What if there's no such thing as meaning, significance, or relevance?.
Yay! That's exactly what I wonder too. Then, how can there be anything
at all ???.
There's stuff, we know that. Atoms and energy expanding indefinitely until heat death.
But meaning, significant, relevance... words we invented to try and define feelings and questions we had.
Just inventions of a mankind struggling with existence.
We're akin to mould on a piece of bread.
One rock was in the right place and had the right elements and 4 billion years later you get us.
There's stuff, we know that. Atoms and energy expanding indefinitely until heat death.
But meaning, significant, relevance... words we invented to try and define feelings and questions we had.
Just inventions of a mankind struggling with existence.
We're akin to mould on a piece of bread.
One rock was in the right place and had the right elements and 4 billion years later you get us.
It certainly has a certain...je ne sais quoi.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's <<stuff>>, we know that. Atoms and energy expanding indefinitely until heat death.
.
I doubt anyone actually knows this; what do I mean by that?
I'm sure we have models of this <<stuff>>.
That is, coherent collections of empirical laws that we give the name
"models". And *thus far* some models are experimentally verified (observed.)
But you (a_1|can't> + a_2|can>) surf a probability amplitude, let alone point at one. (that's a joke)
Furthermore, all this *observation* is being filtered through our brains
(which according to your view is a collection of this <<stuff>> to begin
with).
So how can the atoms in our brains give meaning to other atoms?
.
A Man in Black is always so polite.
Yawn. I refute it thus
*kicks a rock*
You're assuming our knowing something is special.
It's not. Our brain is just the processing centre for stimuli entering our sensory organs.
The physical is all there. The perception of that stimuli may vary from person to person or animal to animal, but all of them receive that stimuli, that stimuli is there.
We're just wet machines exploring and cataloguing our surroundings and processing new ways to do that.
You're assuming our knowing something is special.
It's not. Our brain is just the processing centre for stimuli entering our sensory organs.
The physical is all there. The perception of that stimuli may vary from person to person or animal to animal, but all of them receive that stimuli, that stimuli is there.
We're just wet machines exploring and cataloguing our surroundings and processing new ways to do that.
.
Unless you can explain how a group of atoms (our brains) can go around
and "exploring and cataloguing" the other atoms around the place, I'm
going to have to say you have no idea what you are talking about.
.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're assuming our knowing something is special.
It's not. Our brain is just the processing centre for stimuli entering our sensory organs.
The physical is all there. The perception of that stimuli may vary from person to person or animal to animal, but all of them receive that stimuli, that stimuli is there.
We're just wet machines exploring and cataloguing our surroundings and processing new ways to do that.
.
Unless you can explain how a group of atoms (our brains) can go around
and "exploring and cataloguing" the other atoms around the place, I'm
going to have to say you have no idea what you are talking about..
It's easy.
Those atoms formed into biological molecules. The ones in our brain are combined in a complicated organ capable of functions akin a to computer.
That computer is attached to a series of instruments (our eyes, nose, tasebuds etc.)
Stimuli enters those instruments, is sent to our processing center, processed, and then defined based on that processor
So we call a particular combination of atoms a rock, or a tree, but that's just how our programming language defines a combination of atoms with particular properties.
Life is nothing but a wet machine formed naturally through natural processes of mutation and adaptation.
It's not somehow special when compared to a dry machine, just different.
Our programming language is chemicals and electricity instead of binary, but it's the same idea.
Our dreams are basically like running a defrag cycle. Which is why lack of dreaming makes our brains go funny. We need that downtime for our brain to do basic filing tasks.
Our thoughts are never unique, they're just our recombination of stimuli we've encountered and cataloged.
We are literally just biological computers in a fleshy chassis.
It's easy.
Those atoms formed into biological molecules. The ones in our brain are combined in a complicated organ capable of functions akin a to computer.
.
Ha hahaha... oh man. Hurray for public school !
This idea was shot down in 1931 by >Godel<.
.
It's easy.
Those atoms formed into biological molecules. The ones in our brain are combined in a complicated organ capable of functions akin a to computer.
.
Ha hahaha... oh man. Hurray for public school !
.
I could go into the very specific process of abiogenesis to the human brain, but there are these things called evolutionary biology text books that will explain it infinitely better than I.
The short form goes:
There is a clay found near volcanic vents under the ocean that acts as a hell of a catalyst for chemical bonding.
This clay is often found near "convection currents". This is were hot water rises, carrying material with it and cooking it, then as the water cools the current goes back down, bringing that cooked material back to the floor for another run through the oven.
So this happens a lot for a billionish years.
Finally, the first super primitive strand of RNA pops up.
This stuff isn't even DNA, it's RNA, it's like half of DNA.
Now, we get lucky here, the RNA is self-replicating. It can consume energy and multiply.
Better yet, when the copying makes a mistake, the mistake carries on to the generation after that mistake.
So now we have a self-replicating organic molecule, and we got copying errors.
Now, most errors are benign, some are bad, and some actually make the mutant superior to its parent.
So this RNA keeps copying, keeps screwing up the copies, and becomes more complex and better suited for life in its environment. Basically, it evolves.
Then, eventually, one of the copies evolves the ability to attract lipids to itself, creating a nice little shell.
That RNA hiding in it's little shell of lipids... why, you have the first cell. Now, it's nothing like our cells. No mitochondria, it's missing most of what our cell has, but it's the first time RNA has a protective shell, which is a HUGE leap.
So fast forward a billion years and you start getting primitive processing centers. They're not quite brains yet, more ganglions and nerve clusters, but they're starting to become more brain like and complex.
Fast forward another billion and a half or more years, and bam, our complex little go machines on top of our shoulders.
From dirt to wet super computers in like a 7th the age of the universe, not bad.
It's easy.
Those atoms formed into biological molecules. The ones in our brain are combined in a complicated organ capable of functions akin a to computer.
.
Ha hahaha... oh man. Hurray for public school !
.
I could go into the very specific process of abiogenesis to the human brain, but there are these things called evolutionary biology text books that will explain it infinitely better than I.
The short form goes:
There is a clay found near volcanic vents under the ocean that acts as a hell of a catalyst for chemical bonding.
...
.
That's a neat story. But,
Unless you can explain how a group of atoms (our brains) can go around
and "exploring and cataloging" the other atoms around the place, I'm
going to have to say the meaning of "meaning" is still unbound.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy.
Those atoms formed into biological molecules. The ones in our brain are combined in a complicated organ capable of functions akin a to computer.
.
Ha hahaha... oh man. Hurray for public school !
.
I could go into the very specific process of abiogenesis to the human brain, but there are these things called evolutionary biology text books that will explain it infinitely better than I.
The short form goes:
There is a clay found near volcanic vents under the ocean that acts as a hell of a catalyst for chemical bonding.
....
That's a neat story. But,
Unless you can explain how a group of atoms (our brains) can go around
and "exploring and cataloging" the other atoms around the place, I'm
going to have to say the meaning of "meaning" is still unbound..
I already explained that.
Atoms can form into more complex structures capable of more complex activities.
One of these structures is a wet processing center known as a brain.
And I already said, there is no meaning of meaning.
There is no meaning.
There are definitions based on given programming languages of given sensory devices.
Those definitions mean nothing to anyone but our particular processing center.
The definitions are entirely subjective, as nothing exists capable of assigning objective meaning and definition.
No meaning, no purpose, no karma, no destiny, no point.
Just the death rattles of a universe.
Beautifully meaningless.
Nihilism already is light :P
Sure, it begins as all doom and gloom, but you forget the ultimate revelation of nihilism:
If nothing matters, if no destiny or karma exists, if no point is out there, than we are free.
Ultimately free.
Free from morality, purpose, destiny, karma.
A free agent able to use your will in whatever way you see fit.
I find it a quite positive feeling.
Imagine a life where you barely worry.
It's easy.
Those atoms formed into biological molecules. The ones in our brain are combined in a complicated organ capable of functions akin a to computer.
.
Ha hahaha... oh man. Hurray for public school !
This idea was shot down in 1931 by >Godel<.
.
I could go into the very specific process of abiogenesis to the human brain, but there are these things called evolutionary biology text books that will explain it infinitely better than I.
The short form goes:
There is a clay found near volcanic vents under the ocean that acts as a hell of a catalyst for chemical bonding.
....
That's a neat story. But,
Unless you can explain how a group of atoms (our brains) can go around
and "exploring and cataloging" the other atoms around the place, I'm
going to have to say the meaning of "meaning" is still unbound..
I already explained that.
.
sigh... ( I can just say Jesus made it that way, and I get as valid
and explanation as yours. )
Ok. Let me guide you:
Given your story -- start with one atom. Now begin adding atoms,
explain at what point we get a brain; and more importantly explain at
what point we get a mind.
.
sigh... ( I can just say Jesus made it that way, and I get as valid
and explanation as yours. )Ok. Let me guide you:
Given your story -- start with one atom. Now
begin adding atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more
importantly explain at what point we get a mind.
There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.
At what point did WE get a brain or at what point did LIFE get brains?
Brains evolved long before people, starting as ganglions in simpler animals.
The difference between a brain and a ganglion is mostly one of complexity, at what point we started using brain for some and ganglion for others I'm not sure, but the distinction between the two is largely man made.
Both are processing centers of varying complexity.
Here's an excellent Oxford Journal on the subject of brain evolution in vertebrates
Now, at what point did we get a "mind"?
We didn't.
There is no evidence of "the mind", it's a word we created to try and fumble about and explain a concept before we had the right science to figure it out.
Everything you are is just an operating system. There's no mind or soul, just data on wetware powered by electricity fueled by you eating.
Turn off the juice, the whole thing shuts down and everything you are is gone.
All that thinking you do is just processing. You're just trying to order and file the stimuli you've absorbed for access later if you need it.
Define what you consider "the mind" and I'll try to help you understand the science behind your misinformation.
I'm having flashbacks to Intro to Doctoral Studies...
The meaning of meaning is Michel Foucault. If you like this kind of stuff, read his books. Not the good ones, like Discipline and Punish, but the bad ones, like The Order of Things.
Although the man did coin the phrase "Polyhedron of Intelligibility," which should be a Pathfinder Artifact.
There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.
Oh not this crap. You're making atheists look bad, and as one, I can't abide that.
There is indeed evidence that Jesus existed. It's called the New Testament. You may not believe it, but it's about as credible a historical source for the existence of Jesus as any other document for anyone else at the time. Whether he did all the things they said he did, that's a whole nother story.
*Also, the NT is corroborated on the existence of Jesus by a small number of contemporary (to the NT, not Jesus) sources that are non-Christian. No serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus.
Aaaaaannnnnd, the sadness returns.
Look, please, Mr Grand Magus, what is the point of asking people what they think, or feel, or imagine, or wonder, about the subject of "meaning” if it is obvious that you are not interested in the answers and are only here to tell people that their opinions are invalid?
It's what prep school kids do to make themselves more smug.
I don't know why you're so sad. The Nihilists were pretty cool.
Imagine a life where you barely worry.I have one while rejecting the trap that is nihilism.
I don't see it as a trap, I see nihilism akin to a natural stepping stone to something more.
One never chooses nihilism, it's just that one day the universe comes into focus and without any evidence to the contrary, nihilism is left as the default.
Now, a lot of early literature on nihilism suffered from the problem of it being written by depressed nihilists. They talked about it being a crisis, a problem of post modernism, etc etc.
They had entered nihilism and were in the natural first step of nihilism, the "omg what is the point of this!?"
But later, with a lot of important input by Camus, I think nihilism evolved.
Camus described it as absurdism. The human condition being defined by the absurd act of constantly looking for meaning when no meaning is to be found.
We are absurd creatures by nature.
So, first you "fall" into nihilism.
Then you wallow for a bit, the length of whining and complain varies from person to person.
Eventually, assuming a nihilist doesn't kill him/herself or go insane, another step takes place.
An embracing of the absurdity.
An understanding that you are insignificant and meaningless, yet being totally okay with this. The understanding that nihilism is perfectly natural and the way you were born. You came into this world as a nihilist, so obviously there's not something "wrong" here.
So then many nihilists begin "the annihilation of all value". You think of the things you value and ask "why?" You keep doing this until you have basically destroyed your own value-matrix and moral standing.
But NOW you're a blank sheet. You are reborn without the artefacts of your social upbringing (or at least you TRY to become this.)
Then, the fun part. The redefinition of all values.
The almost god-like realization that your value determinations are as valid as anyone's. Your definition of good and evil is as valid as anyone else's. Your purpose is yours to forge. The meaning is what YOU dictate it to be. You are a creature seeking to exert your power.
This is often called "Positive Nihilism". The extension of nihilism into a workable, liveable philosophical view point. A foundation to build a new set of values on top of, with the constant understanding that those values are meaningless to anyone but yourself.
I could never see that as a trap. I see the way before I was like this as a trap. A prison of values built by other people. A society dictated by things I had no say in.
That, my friend, is a trap. A prison. Hell on earth.
There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.
sigh... ( I can just say Jesus made it that way, and I get as valid
and explanation as yours. )Ok. Let me guide you:
Given your story -- start with one atom. Now
begin adding atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more
importantly explain at what point we get a mind.
.
Ok -- Stop using the Jesus thing as a smoke screen:
Getting back to the question -- start with one atom. Now begin adding
atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more importantly
explain at what point we get a mind.
.
I know you can't do it. Don't worry, smarter men than you have also failed.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tell ya, being a nihilist is exhausting.
There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.
sigh... ( I can just say Jesus made it that way, and I get as valid
and explanation as yours. )Ok. Let me guide you:
Given your story -- start with one atom. Now
begin adding atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more
importantly explain at what point we get a mind..
Ok -- Stop using the Jesus thing as a smoke screen:
Getting back to the question -- start with one atom. Now begin adding
atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more importantly
explain at what point we get a mind..
I know you can't do it. Don't worry, smarter men than you have also failed.
.
If you read past that Jesus part, you'd see the SECOND time I've explained this.
I get it, you don't understand the science, I've pointed you to at least one academic journal on the subject which you undoubtably failed to read.
There are thousands of books out there on this subject. You can even take an entire university degree on the subject.
If you don't understand even the most basic aspects of brain function, how do you expect me to explain it to you in laymen's terms?
I keep trying, you keep not reading it.
I'm done.
I get it, I understand it, your lack of understanding on the subject is not my problem and I don't get paid to fix people's ignorance.
Also, Albert Camus was a loser.
If you read past that Jesus part, you'd see the SECOND time I've explained this.
.
No you have not. All you say (including the SECOND time) was shot down in 1931 by >Godel<.
Getting back to the question -- start with one atom. Now begin adding
atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more importantly
explain at what point we get a mind.
.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do I get this feeling, this special timecube feeling? Right now, noone is evil yet, but we're getting there. Rapidly.
I am beyond good and evil.
(Apologies to Fiendish Wilhelm)
I am also beyond educated stupidity.
Why do I get this feeling, this special timecube feeling? Right now, noone is evil yet, but we're getting there. Rapidly.
What is Crom's name did I just read?
I've seen monsters in an abyss. And I've seen timecube.
Give me the monsters any day.
But hands off my Cosima. I'll stab you.
.
WHO IS NEXT?
Fleshgrinder's notion that we are just computers was invalidated
back in 1931 by >Godel<.
.
What is the meaning of "meaning"?
OR
( I like this one know: )
-- Start with one atom. Now begin adding atoms, explain at what point we get a brain; and more importantly explain at what point we get a mind.
.