Kevin's Watch

Well, they do to him, Hashi. As mine do to me. I think this and that are wrong. Maybe they aren't in any objective, or universal way. But I think they're wrong, and will stop them if I can.

It's easy to forget that man is also a part of the universe, even part of its glory.

I still tend to think that these kinds of questions imply a great deal of subtext, in particular a high regard for one's personal experience of disaffection or melancholia -- high enough to project it everywhere and rationalize it too.

It's a bit like the Buddha. He could not have plumbed the depths and subsequently reached the heights without first having been isolated from material want. And I think the same thing is true of people now in the modern world, who, unlike those happier third world wretches who take joy in the daily achievement of survival, take things for granted rather than taking satisfaction in them; but having once glimpsed the shade of approaching doom, are left with a hollow feeling of aspirations undiscovered, challenges unmet. So a higher challenged is accepted. But that challenge is not the end of the road.

Now I see that the other way round. Your actions have consequences, even if they ultimately have no meaning.

--A

I was going to say the same thing. The consequence of detonating Bomb X would be the destruction of the planet. That might have meaning to you or me, but only subjective, and very short-lived, meaning. It wouldn't ultimately mean anything. The universe wouldn't care, and probably wouldn't notice.

We are part of the universe.

Yup. And without us, there is nothing left to find meaning in our lives and deaths. The non-sentient parts of the universe don't care, or even have a way of caring. If we blew ourselves up, planets, stars, galaxies, and everything else would go on doing their thing. The extraordinarily large majority of the universe would not be effected at all. And there wouldn't be meaning in the difference between the way the local parts - the moon and passing comets and such, maybe Venus and Mars, possibly even more distant planets - developed as a consequence of our blowing ourselves up and the way they would have developed if we hadn't blown ourselves up.

Unless there are other sentient beings out there who know of us and find meaning in our lives and deaths. No reason to assume there are, but it's possible. In which case our lives and deaths would no longer have meaning once they were also dead.

Avatar wrote:Now I see that the other way round. Your actions have consequences, even if they ultimately have no meaning.

--A

There is a slight difference between "consequence" and "consequences". My actions today at my job have meaning to me because I take pride in my work and I do my job very well (which is why my raise was slightly larger than those of my coworkers--but don't tell them that). These personally meaningful actions have consequences because the people whom I assist will then be able to do their jobs, which often includes helping patients who are suffering from chronic medical conditions.
Unfortunately, my actions ultimate are of no consequence--when at some point in the future the company for which I work goes out of business all those users I helped will move on, those computers will be wiped and parted out for junk or resold to school districts, and all my files will close. The final end result of all my work will be nothing.

Does that explain how I view "meaning", "consequence" and "consequences"? I suppose for "consequence" I should come up with some other word to describe the truly long-term total of one's actions in order to avoid confusion with "consequences", the immediate fallout of choices made or actions taken.

Fist and Faith, you get it--that is realism, though, and not nihilism. Realists accept the fact that the long-term result of all our efforts and actions, whether monumentally good or horrifically bad, is nothing. The key difference comes in the personal meaning of those actions--realists recognize that there can be meaning found in what we do; nihilists think that nothing has meaning, even the fact that they think that nothing has meaning.

But if we are really stupid enough to f**k up our wourld th the point where it kills us - but life survives - and regathers - and contiues to do it's thing, but just without 'intelligent' life there to observe it [pass, on the question of how intelligent anything can be that screws it's own environment to the point of it's own demise] - then does all beauty pass from the world? And is 'value and meaning' encompassed just by that....beauty, and nothing else. Surely the value must be first and foremost in the continuence of life and the beauty only a secondary consideration. Something in all of us seems to yearn toward a simpler life, a less complicated form of relationship with the world that provides for our daily needs, but how few of us are prepared to take the steps, to make those hard 'lifestyle' choices that might make that simpler existence a possibility. One cannot but help to wonder if it might not have been better if we had perhaps not started down the long road that led us away from the 'noble savage' [not forgetting of course that his life was 'nasty, brutish and short'!] state of existence.

Fist and Faith wrote:Yup. And without us, there is nothing left to find meaning in our lives and deaths. The non-sentient parts of the universe don't care, or even have a way of caring. If we blew ourselves up, planets, stars, galaxies, and everything else would go on doing their thing. The extraordinarily large majority of the universe would not be effected at all. And there wouldn't be meaning in the difference between the way the local parts - the moon and passing comets and such, maybe Venus and Mars, possibly even more distant planets - developed as a consequence of our blowing ourselves up and the way they would have developed if we hadn't blown ourselves up.

Unless there are other sentient beings out there who know of us and find meaning in our lives and deaths. No reason to assume there are, but it's possible. In which case our lives and deaths would no longer have meaning once they were also dead.

What is sentience?

Don Exnihilote wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Yup. And without us, there is nothing left to find meaning in our lives and deaths. The non-sentient parts of the universe don't care, or even have a way of caring. If we blew ourselves up, planets, stars, galaxies, and everything else would go on doing their thing. The extraordinarily large majority of the universe would not be effected at all. And there wouldn't be meaning in the difference between the way the local parts - the moon and passing comets and such, maybe Venus and Mars, possibly even more distant planets - developed as a consequence of our blowing ourselves up and the way they would have developed if we hadn't blown ourselves up.

Unless there are other sentient beings out there who know of us and find meaning in our lives and deaths. No reason to assume there are, but it's possible. In which case our lives and deaths would no longer have meaning once they were also dead.

What is sentience?

In order to avoid sidetracking this to a debate on the definition of "sentience", I will substitute. When I said "non-sentient", I should have said "not possessing the ability to find or assign meaning". And when I said "sentient beings", I should have said "beings (and that should probably be 'things') possessing the ability to find or assign meaning".

peter wrote:One cannot but help to wonder if it might not have been better if we had perhaps not started down the long road that led us away from the 'noble savage' [not forgetting of course that his life was 'nasty, brutish and short'!] state of existence.

There never was a such a beast as "the noble savage" and life is still "nasty, brutish, and short" today. Those conclusions were based on the faulty thinking that there is some sort of mostly linear relationship between "time in the past" and "technological devolution" so that if we go back far enough in time humans would barely be used to agriculture and the wheel and before that we were still mystified by fire.

We would be better if we would stop making each other's lives miserable.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Yup. And without us, there is nothing left to find meaning in our lives and deaths. The non-sentient parts of the universe don't care, or even have a way of caring. If we blew ourselves up, planets, stars, galaxies, and everything else would go on doing their thing. The extraordinarily large majority of the universe would not be effected at all. And there wouldn't be meaning in the difference between the way the local parts - the moon and passing comets and such, maybe Venus and Mars, possibly even more distant planets - developed as a consequence of our blowing ourselves up and the way they would have developed if we hadn't blown ourselves up.

Unless there are other sentient beings out there who know of us and find meaning in our lives and deaths. No reason to assume there are, but it's possible. In which case our lives and deaths would no longer have meaning once they were also dead.

What is sentience?

In order to avoid sidetracking this to a debate on the definition of "sentience", I will substitute. When I said "non-sentient", I should have said "not possessing the ability to find or assign meaning". And when I said "sentient beings", I should have said "beings (and that should probably be 'things') possessing the ability to find or assign meaning".

Sentience is a property of the universe.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

peter wrote:One cannot but help to wonder if it might not have been better if we had perhaps not started down the long road that led us away from the 'noble savage' [not forgetting of course that his life was 'nasty, brutish and short'!] state of existence.

There never was a such a beast as "the noble savage" and life is still "nasty, brutish, and short" today. Those conclusions were based on the faulty thinking that there is some sort of mostly linear relationship between "time in the past" and "technological devolution" so that if we go back far enough in time humans would barely be used to agriculture and the wheel and before that we were still mystified by fire.

We would be better if we would stop making each other's lives miserable.

Hashi, not trying to be a dick or anything, but I think you're conflating -- somewhat ironically -- Hobbes and Rousseau. That said, I don't think either Rousseau or Hobbes were fundamentally correct about primordial conditions, though there are merits to either of their thought experiments. Perhaps this is an example of man's duality.

Don Exnihilote wrote: Hashi, not trying to be a dick or anything, but I think you're conflating -- somewhat ironically -- Hobbes and Rousseau. That said, I don't think either Rousseau or Hobbes were fundamentally correct about primordial conditions, though there are merits to either of their thought experiments. Perhaps this is an example of man's duality.

I was merely responding to peter's comments. I'll be certain to let you know when or if I think you are being a dick.

Don Exnihilote wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote: What is sentience?

In order to avoid sidetracking this to a debate on the definition of "sentience", I will substitute. When I said "non-sentient", I should have said "not possessing the ability to find or assign meaning". And when I said "sentient beings", I should have said "beings (and that should probably be 'things') possessing the ability to find or assign meaning".

Sentience is a property of the universe.

Indeed. Since we are a part of the universe, and we are sentient, it must be so.

But I am not talking about sentience. I'm saying that, if there is nothing with the ability to find or assign meaning to X, then X has no meaning.

Fist and Faith wrote:But I am not talking about sentience. I'm saying that, if there is nothing with the ability to find or assign meaning to X, then X has no meaning.

I concur. The quality of "having meaning" is applicable only to beings capable of forming a value system of meaning. If we consider the Hubble Telescope and cats then the telescope has no meaning to cats--they can neither see nor touch the satellite nor collect images from it so it will never register on their radar as "something of value". Similarly, there are going to be objects in the universe we will never detect and thus those objects have no meaning to us.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:But I am not talking about sentience. I'm saying that, if there is nothing with the ability to find or assign meaning to X, then X has no meaning.

I concur. The quality of "having meaning" is applicable only to beings capable of forming a value system of meaning. If we consider the Hubble Telescope and cats then the telescope has no meaning to cats--they can neither see nor touch the satellite nor collect images from it so it will never register on their radar as "something of value". Similarly, there are going to be objects in the universe we will never detect and thus those objects have no meaning to us.

I don't disagree with that for the most part...especially if one little step sideways is taken.
Much like "Truth," isn't a noun and trouble ensues when it is treated as one [it's really just an adjective]...meaning and value are not objects or properties of objects. They are processes/verbs/acts.
A poem or a painting or a black hole may be things...but any meaning or value arises in doings/interactions.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Don Exnihilote wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: In order to avoid sidetracking this to a debate on the definition of "sentience", I will substitute. When I said "non-sentient", I should have said "not possessing the ability to find or assign meaning". And when I said "sentient beings", I should have said "beings (and that should probably be 'things') possessing the ability to find or assign meaning".

Sentience is a property of the universe.

Indeed. Since we are a part of the universe, and we are sentient, it must be so.

But I am not talking about sentience. I'm saying that, if there is nothing with the ability to find or assign meaning to X, then X has no meaning.

But there is not nothing. Does the universe look at itself through our eyes?

Vraith wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:But I am not talking about sentience. I'm saying that, if there is nothing with the ability to find or assign meaning to X, then X has no meaning.

I concur. The quality of "having meaning" is applicable only to beings capable of forming a value system of meaning. If we consider the Hubble Telescope and cats then the telescope has no meaning to cats--they can neither see nor touch the satellite nor collect images from it so it will never register on their radar as "something of value". Similarly, there are going to be objects in the universe we will never detect and thus those objects have no meaning to us.

I don't disagree with that for the most part...especially if one little step sideways is taken.
Much like "Truth," isn't a noun and trouble ensues when it is treated as one [it's really just an adjective]...meaning and value are not objects or properties of objects. They are processes/verbs/acts.
A poem or a painting or a black hole may be things...but any meaning or value arises in doings/interactions.

I don't really have a problem with the dialectic you guys are having, as long as you remember that it is speculative given the metaphysical subject matter.