To All: A long-winded clarification on what nihilism is.

develdevil · 7 days

Hm... I think you may be right. Hammie does have a knack for pulling things into oddball territory.

Thank you for interjecting.

I think I may have been well-served to differentiate more strongly between objective and subjective meaning in the course of my dialog, too.

develdevil · 7 days

If we were objective entities (if such a thing is even possible), sure. But we're not. We're subjective entities. As subjective entities sharing common features of experience and common language, statements have subjective meaning.

Rosenberg seems to have hinged on objective meaning being the only sort of meaning there is. I'm pretty sure the concept of 'meaning' itself is subjective, so 'objective meaning' is a non-concept.

develdevil · 7 days

The model doesn't have meaning. It's just a handy way for our primate brains to experience that which is modeled with varying accuracy.

develdevil · 7 days

And we gauge the accuracy of that model by how closely our experience of it matches our experience of the real thing (well, aspects of it).

I still fail to see where meaning becomes an issue. Even if you prefer to discuss the topic of referents, a model only has a referent in the context of humans.

namedmyself · 7 days

Didn't Liebniz have a thing R and MR coexisting independently but in perfect lockstep with each other? Or at least about 'stuff' and 'essence'... I think he was trying to reconcile materialism with free will.

Sorry for my vagueness here, but this sort of thing is pretty distant from my usual areas of thought.

develdevil · 7 days

What? Why does a model have meaning? It's simply thing that, when experienced, produces a state not dissimilar (in some way or another) to experiencing another thing.

Where does meaning enter in?

develdevil · 7 days

Actually, they don't. Science is our effort to understand the universe, or at least accurately model it in a way we can (often with tools, like math) comprehend. Knowledge and science as such are still subjective, predicated as they are on comprehension and modeling. Our experiences of our models (or aspects of our models, when dealing with things like mathematical models) will more or less closely resemble our experiences of the real deal, making them more or less or 'correct', but the whole damn thing is still just subjective.

develdevil · 7 days

As in lacking meaning?

Edit: Oh, obviously. Damn monkey brain.

Right, if they don't have objective meaning then they are objectively incoherent. Fortunately, that's irrelevant to your experiences as a human.

develdevil · 7 days

Yes. I don't take issue with his approach there (well, I think he oversimplifies history a little). I just disagree that that position is necessarily unpleasant.

develdevil · 7 days

My eyebrows furrow as soon as I see the word 'scientism'. I've never seen that not be an attempt to act as though science was trying to claim a special unearned privilege of knowledge and then drag out tired epistemology to show that science is really just another equal-but-not-complete means of exploring the universe.

Edit: Well, okay, in this case he just drags it out to build a strawman of what a materialist should be. He attacks his version of the result instead of the method itself.

develdevil · 7 days

Objective meaning cannot be had in a consistent materialist worldview. That said, as a human, I'm incapable of being perfectly objective. I have to view things as a human. And, as a human, it's to my benefit to attempt to know as an object but to act as a subject.

I can't measure my particular flavor of moral code against another without stipulating some value relevant - perhaps exclusively relevant - to humans. I accept that. Murder is not objectively wrong.

However, as a human, I'm a subject. Murder is subjectively wrong. I can even expand on what I know of what it's like to be a human and make broad statements like, "humans enjoy a physical state which would be subjectively described as happiness." If murder as an action broadly damages the happiness of humans then I'm pretty comfortable calling it morally wrong without 'morally wrong' meaning something outside the context of humans.

It's like poker hands. A royal flush is materially no different from 2 pair, but since things like poker and flushes are only relevant in the context of humans, I'm comfortable saying that a royal flush beats 2 pair.

develdevil · 7 days

Okay, having read Rosenberg's link, it's pretty silly. It boils down to, "here's what materialism says about the universe, isn't it unpleasant? But if you believe materialism you must believe these things!"

He acts as though objective meaning is the only sort of meaning that should matter to us and, since materialism (he insists on using the word 'scientism', but he means materialism) precludes objective meaning then materialists are without any meaning whatever.

He doesn't explicitly say it, but I get the idea he pictures all 'real' materialists as weeping in the corner about living in a purposeless void.

quivering · 7 days

I like it - this actually explains quite a bit.

ShadowStarshine · 7 days

Well... actually, "self" makes perfect sense for the right sort of biological machine. Humans, specifically - we enjoy a few survival traits that I think either comprise or oblige a sense of self.

Simulation, for instance - the capacity to say, "what would I do if I were x?" If you're part of a social species - like humans - the capacity to simulate the behavior of another is a major advantage, and may oblige the ability to know what it's like it to be something - and, in the case of knowing what it's like to be you, entail the notion of 'self'.

ShadowStarshine · 7 days

I have to disagree on this. In my experience with children they may present novel ideas or perspectives, but these are usually unconsidered and may be (or, more often than not, have already been) addressed in more elaborate and expansive terms.

My toddler has occasionally surprised me with apparently profound insights, but these insights usually require tinkering to develop into a more robust form.

Also, why is trust and faith in the universe desirable?

develdevil · 7 days

Well said, sir. Humanist ideals may only mean anything to humans, but I happen to be a human.

vault13rev · 8 days

That seems a bit extreme. I wish there were Valhalla so they could feel really awkward while everyone cool was carousing and quaffing and other things those women don't approve of.

treggify · 8 days

Okay. That makes way more sense than how I read it. I guess it might've helped to know the specific passage in question.

treggify · 8 days

So... okay, if the Bible says that y'all won't be liked anywhere ever, does that mean that, by definition, only unpopular Christians are real Christians? What about explicitly Christian nations?

develdevil · 8 days

Hm, fair enough. I guess I have stepped into full-blown nihilism.

I wonder how I missed that. Damn imperceptive monkey brain.

vault13rev · 9 days

Criminy, that is dirty! I don't blame you for reminding them. Crap.

vault13rev · 9 days

Fair enough. Dang, I was hoping to use America as a handy example of distrust in authority mingled with distrust in atheists.

vault13rev

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login