Kevin's Watch

variol son wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Thanks, F+F.
If I can establish at least that this desire is universal, then maybe I have gotten somewhere. It is entirely distinguishable from "wishes" - to be rich, own a palace, etc. We can accept, perhaps even cheerfully, living without the latter. But who here could cheerfully accept meaninglessness to our whole life?

That depends what sort of "meaning" we're talking about. Because to be honest, I get the feeling that you're talking about some sort of pre-decided measure of meaningfulness, rather than a measure of meaningfulness that each individual sets for him or herself.

Your feeling probably arises from the fact that I do believe there is overarching meaning that is independent of what the individual believes, but here I am only talking about the need for meaning which drives the individual to find meaning (apparently what you call "sets for himself").

Av said:

The beauty of not believing a meaning exists is that you don't feel compelled to go out and find it. Maybe just living is the meaning of your life. *shrug* It can be anything you want. Because you decide.

-Faith is the persistence of a belief after others have pointed to its inconsistencies, whether to designate it as false, or ridiculous. - Brad Morgan

I know you'll see the irony, but I'll expand on this anyway. From my perspective, this is just another case of faith. To "not believe", requires faith that you're assumption is correct; for there to be no meaning, you must believe that that is the meaning in and of itself... which is of course, an intangible, or an abstract if you prefer. You can't present evidence either way. Thus, one must have faith that faith itself is pointless. Hence, faith cancels faith. Which brings us right back to chaos...

Perhaps the real message here should be that, whether we believe one thing or another, our beliefs, and therefore our reactions based on said beliefs, can and will impact others, whether they believe the same as we do or vice-versa. Which puts me firmly on the side the positive. Our actions, as inane and pointless as they may seem, can and often do impact us in unforseen ways, and perhaps others to an even greater extent.

-B

Nice to see you around Barad.

I don't have faith that faith is pointles. No more than I have faith in the postman.

But I certainly agree that our actions, based on our "beliefs" can and do impact others, in ways foreseen and otherwise.

--A

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:rus, I'm not sure the desire is universal, but I'm willing to agree that it is for the sake of argument. This is not evidence that anything exists outside of each of us that can be an objectively correct/best fulfillment of this desire.

A few comments from different posters that deserve response. Time, time...

Are we distinguishing between evidence and proof? I am only claiming that it is evidence, not that it is proof. There is no rational proof of faith in the end. You make a choice. Believe or not. (That was wonderfully expressed in the Matrix films, especially by the Oracle.)
In a court of law or a scientific lab, if I bring in a glove or a bone, it is called "evidence". It is not yet proved to be anything, but it is evidence that COULD eventually lead to proof - which often is a decision of faith based on evidence - of a murder or of evolution. All I am saying is that this desire for meaning IS powerful evidence, even while it is decidedly not proof in the empirical sense (although for me, personally, it IS proof - but that's because I made my decision and now see it from the other side of faith).

Hope that addressed some of y'all's concerns. (F+F? Avatar?)

I disagree. I do not believe it is evidence. I believe it is a reason to form a hypothesis. "Hey, we all have this desire for meaning. I wonder if there is one specific thing that can be an objectively correct/best fulfillment of this desire." Maybe we could start the search for such a thing by looking within. I might suggest an attitude/way of viewing things. Maybe we could start the search outside of ourselves. You might suggest God.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:rus, I'm not sure the desire is universal, but I'm willing to agree that it is for the sake of argument. This is not evidence that anything exists outside of each of us that can be an objectively correct/best fulfillment of this desire.

A few comments from different posters that deserve response. Time, time...

Are we distinguishing between evidence and proof? I am only claiming that it is evidence, not that it is proof. There is no rational proof of faith in the end. You make a choice. Believe or not. (That was wonderfully expressed in the Matrix films, especially by the Oracle.)
In a court of law or a scientific lab, if I bring in a glove or a bone, it is called "evidence". It is not yet proved to be anything, but it is evidence that COULD eventually lead to proof - which often is a decision of faith based on evidence - of a murder or of evolution. All I am saying is that this desire for meaning IS powerful evidence, even while it is decidedly not proof in the empirical sense (although for me, personally, it IS proof - but that's because I made my decision and now see it from the other side of faith).

Hope that addressed some of y'all's concerns. (F+F? Avatar?)

I disagree. I do not believe it is evidence. I believe it is a reason to form a hypothesis. "Hey, we all have this desire for meaning. I wonder if there is one specific thing that can be an objectively correct/best fulfillment of this desire." Maybe we could start the search for such a thing by looking within. I might suggest an attitude/way of viewing things. Maybe we could start the search outside of ourselves. You might suggest God.

It is odd that you should appear to disagree with me, because I am saying that evidence does precisely that - it is a reason to form a hypothesis - although I think this one clear enough to call theory. It's like I'm saying that it is evidence for that reason, and you are saying it is NOT evidence for the same reason.
A glove or a bone is exactly the same thing. It is evidence. It requires explanation. It may not be the final proof, but it is something sitting there that certainly suggests something. It is the thing that can't, in itself, be denied, no matter what conclusions you draw.

But strictly speaking, isn't evidence more tangible than what you're suggesting?

--A

We do disagree!

I'm saying:
-We are observing a phenomenon: Humans seem to desire that their lives have meaning.

-We can form a hypothesis: There is one, specific thing that, for all people, best fulfills that desire.

-We can look for evidence supporting or refuting that hypothesis.

OTOH, you are saying that the phenomenon is evidence supporting the hypothesis. Further, you are saying that the phenomenon gives information about the nature of the specific thing that, for all people, best fulfills that desire.


Those are two very different things.

If I might say, a phenomenon can be considered evidence of something, but it cannot be considered as evidence of anything you want. Some things are logically inferred from the phenomenon, others not.

For example, if I see horse tracks, I can consider it evidence of a horse, but not evidence of an aligator. That doesn't mean the aligator hypothesis is wrong, just that we have no evidence despite horse tracks.

In this case, the phenomenon in question (desire) is not evidence that supports the hypothesis in question (something exists). It doesn't preclude it either.

Menolly wrote:

Malik23 wrote:[Ki just chimed in: longevity researchers are already saying that we'll soon live to 150.]

With what type of existance?
Does the old line from The Who apply here?

Hope I die before I get old...

Longevity research is not merely about helping people to live longer, but also helping them to live better. Reversing aging is also a goal that will be met in the next century. I know it sounds crazy, but I expect to be in better shape at 150 than I am now.

What I'm really looking forward to is the long term potential of low risk investments.

I really hope you're right Malik, but then, in '69 they thought we'd all be living on mars by now, and driving flying cars.

Nope...my immortality is going to be by conscious effort of will...I'll live forever or die trying.

--A

I'm not sure about living forever, but I do intend to live right up to the moment I die.

Fist and Faith wrote:We do disagree!

I'm saying:
-We are observing a phenomenon: Humans seem to desire that their lives have meaning.

-We can form a hypothesis: There is one, specific thing that, for all people, best fulfills that desire.

-We can look for evidence supporting or refuting that hypothesis.

OTOH, you are saying that the phenomenon is evidence supporting the hypothesis. Further, you are saying that the phenomenon gives information about the nature of the specific thing that, for all people, best fulfills that desire.


Those are two very different things.

Nevertheless, the phenomenon demands explanation. An explanation of universal wishing for the same thing is significantly less probable than my own theory. Occam's Razor, right? Go ahead and look for evidence to the contrary.

I am saying that you should agree that the evidence supports my "hypothesis" - I'd say we have enough reports of test cases to call it "theory".

Yes, it comes to a point where you have to take a step of faith - to accept or reject that it does indeed point to a Creator Who "installed" that in us, and no rational process can take you all the way. I'd say an error you could commit here would be to rely exclusively on reason and reject things like intuition, perception and emotion. You couldn't make the leap of faith if you thought that all truth about life could be boiled down to logical formulas. (Kind of like "the Architect" from the Matrix)
Thus, of course you can disagree with my conclusion on the nature of the specific thing that, for all people, best fulfills that desire - but that it does give information, seems to me to be beyond argument. On that, if you disagree I'd just have to say you are wrong. Our sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, ethical and unethical, etc, does give evidence on the nature of the thing that fills the desire.

I'm sorry I can't help you on the points where our reason ends.

"You just have to make up your own damn mind."

The Oracle

Fist and Faith wrote:I'm not sure about living forever, but I do intend to live right up to the moment I die.

Hee hee....

And I'm actual size.

Avatar wrote: I really hope you're right Malik, but then, in '69 they thought we'd all be living on mars by now, and driving flying cars.

Nope...my immortality is going to be by conscious effort of will...I'll live forever or die trying.

--A

You're talking about the common people, not the scientists. In 1969, no one was actually working on going to Mars or building flying cars. The predictions I listed above are from the people doing the research to actually make this happen. It's an estimate of how long their work will take, based on the progress they are seeing now.

To be honest, I've always had serious misgivings about the notion of medical longevity...who's gonna get it? And what kind of inequalities is it going to give rise to. I've often said I wouldn't be surprised if it is the root cause of future revolutions.

--A

Malik23 wrote:

Avatar wrote: I really hope you're right Malik, but then, in '69 they thought we'd all be living on mars by now, and driving flying cars.

Nope...my immortality is going to be by conscious effort of will...I'll live forever or die trying.

--A

You're talking about the common people, not the scientists. In 1969, no one was actually working on going to Mars or building flying cars. The predictions I listed above are from the people doing the research to actually make this happen. It's an estimate of how long their work will take, based on the progress they are seeing now.

Malik, scientists are merely your priests, and you have as much faith, blind faith, in them, as you accuse believers of. When you're on your death bed, they (the ones that aren't dead yet) will make some scientific comments about your condition, and then indifferently move on to the next fellow in the next bed.

Personally, I'll take the priest, who does see a greater meaning in my life.

Avatar wrote:To be honest, I've always had serious misgivings about the notion of medical longevity...who's gonna get it? And what kind of inequalities is it going to give rise to. I've often said I wouldn't be surprised if it is the root cause of future revolutions.

We are already benefiting from medical technologies that have lengthened our lives, such as childhood immunizations, which we give away to the underpriviledged.

Ouch!

Heh.

Anyway, the fact that the priest sees greater meaning doesn't make it so. Now, if you had evidence...

Ki wrote:We are already benefiting from medical technologies that have lengthened our lives, such as childhood immunizations, which we give away to the underpriviledged.

I'm not sure I would equate lowering the chances of dying prematurely the same as longevity.

We can't all live forever, and have kids who will live forever, who will in turn have kids who live forever. Not as long as we're stuck on one planet. There would have to be limits.

Competition for resources is often bloody and leads to things such as genocide. Living forever would exponentially exacerbate such competition. Concern about what might happen is common sense in my opinion.

We also have a history of opening pandoras box before we've developed our demon handling abilities sufficiently.

Ki wrote:

Avatar wrote:To be honest, I've always had serious misgivings about the notion of medical longevity...who's gonna get it? And what kind of inequalities is it going to give rise to. I've often said I wouldn't be surprised if it is the root cause of future revolutions.

We are already benefiting from medical technologies that have lengthened our lives, such as childhood immunizations, which we give away to the underpriviledged.

Sure, but I'm talking about being able to live for 300 years...who's going to be able to afford whatever treatment provides that? Probably only the rich. And then what kind of social inequality might we bring into being? The rich get richer and the poor die?

Nations have fallen for less...


--A