Universal Design

[Suggestologist]

So yes, everything seems to act upon its own behalf (its own design). And yes, everything has its own sense of meaning. Which is to say, meaning is everywhere.

Meaning is an evaluation; and evaluation only occurs to a mind. Potential meaning is indeed everywhere; but without a mind to make the evaluation, that meaning goes unnoticed.

 

[Iacchus]

Meaning is an evaluation; and evaluation only occurs to a mind. Potential meaning is indeed everywhere; but without a mind to make the evaluation, that meaning goes unnoticed.

So, our pea-brains have grown to the extent that we can acknowlege "potential meaning" which, is only potential because we have yet to acknowledge it? So, are our brains fabricating the meaning or, merely acknowledging it? Because if we're merely acknowledging it, then we have to ask where this meaning comes from. From a Greater Mind perhaps? Why does meaning exist at all then?

 

[Suggestologist]

So, our pea-brains have grown to the extent that we can acknowlege "potential meaning" which, is only potential because we have yet to acknowledge it? So, are our brains fabricating the meaning or, merely acknowledging it? Because if we're merely acknowledging it, then we have to ask where this meaning comes from. From a Greater Mind perhaps?

Well. Meaning is a cause-effect type of relation. If you're not in a place to sense an effect on yourself; then the potential didn't become the actual.

Let's say that seeing a baby smile means you remember all the good times you had when your child was a baby, and that means you feel good. Well, if you're not there to see the baby when it smiles, then the potential meaning related to remembering your child as a baby does not become an actual meaning.

That is my meaning.

 

[Iacchus]

However, you can observe a tree falling in the woods and not have it affect you (personally), and yet it could still have meaning. Neither would it make a difference whether you observed it or not, because the tree still has meaning relative to it's surroundings.

 

[Suggestologist]

However, you can observe a tree falling in the woods and not have it affect you (personally), and yet it could still have meaning.

I agree that personal (emotional) meaning is not the only kind. And an unobserved event (like a tree falling) could have meaning that is only discovered later (a bridge is blocked by the tree; thus the meaning is you can't get where you were going -- your intent/purpose is blocked).

If you mean something else; when it comes to the tree falling; could you elaborate?

 

[brian0918]

In other words what you're saying is that we're the only purpose makers in a Universe which is otherwise without purpose, right? That doesn't make sense does it?

I am saying that the purpose we create is simply an illusion. There is no actual purpose to anything, only purpose that we create and apply to the world. A bunch of rocks made of collections of particles have no purpose. We can chisel away at them and make a big round calendar, giving them a purpose, something useful for us. Without us, it loses its purpose, simply because it never actually had a purpose, just the illusion of one, created by us. If you cannot understand this distinction, it may be hopeless

Because obviously purpose does exist. How do you know, due to our large brains of course, that this is the very thing which allows us to recognize it? You know, like the more poweful a telescope you have, the more capable you are of observing the furthest outreaches of the Universe?

I've tried and tried to make sense of this. It makes no sense to me. Please restate it. I'm not trying to avoid some point of yours, it's just that you don't make any sense. Nada.

Yeah, it's not like it "popped up" out of nowhere right?

I don't know, and I'm comfortable with that. Why are you unable to be? There are plenty of arguments for the appearance of matter from nothing. You do know that particles and antiparticles are constantly appearing and disappearing in the emptiness of space, right? This isn't just some theoretical result, it is observed.

Quantum mechanics goes against all common sense (such as that that suggests something can't come from "nothing"). Does that mean that quantum mechanics is wrong? I think you are appealing from ignorance. (the only way it can be done, I guess)

But then, what are you suggesting, that our sense of purpose exists outside of the Universe? How so?

See above. The only "purpose" there is is the purpose we create, but it is all an illusion, something to help us understand the world.

And how is it that we can even establish a sense of purpose, without acknowledging other Universal laws of order which have already been set in place? Which, in and of itself belies purpose.

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. State more clearly.


Please reply to all of my reply. For every reply you reply to that occurred after this reply, I will reply requesting you reply to this reply... reply?

 

[Suggestologist]

I am saying that the purpose we create is simply an illusion. There is no actual purpose to anything, only purpose that we create and apply to the world. A bunch of rocks made of collections of particles have no purpose. We can chisel away at them and make a big round calendar, giving them a purpose, something useful for us. Without us, it loses its purpose, simply because it never actually had a purpose, just the illusion of one, created by us.

See above. The only "purpose" there is is the purpose we create, but it is all an illusion, something to help us understand the world.
QUOTE]

I agree that purpose is created by minds. Please elaborate on how this makes it an "illusion". I certainly don't come to a dismissive conclusion. I would guess that all thought must be an "illusion" by your criteria; not just the assignment of purpose.

 

[brian0918]

I agree that purpose is created by minds. Please elaborate on how this makes it an "illusion". I certainly don't come to a dismissive conclusion.

I'm using the word "illusion" in a very loose sense. It is the only word I could think of that would hopefully let Iacchus see the distinction that I was trying to go for. The word "purpose" has no meaning (neither does the word "meaning") without us. The only purpose in the world is that which we assign to the world. Maybe "illusion" is a bit closer to the truth than I care to admit.

I would guess that all thought must be an "illusion" by your criteria; not just the assignment of purpose.

Well, it can't all be an illusion. For example, causality does exist. We can look at this and determine what once was, and build up our understanding of the world. Maybe you are referring more to thought itself, and not specifically to knowledge, in which case, I would have to think about it for a while.

 

[Radrook]

Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way.

I agree 100%
Here is an article which further reinforces this concept.

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm

 

[dmarker]

What does "meaning" mean?

 

[Suggestologist]

What does "meaning" mean?

I believe philosophers have argued on the topic extensively.

My view is that it is intimately associated with cause-effect and equivalence (which is like cause-effect without the time factor). Meaning can occur on the thought landscape; as well as on the physical landscape (the person's body is the border between the two): The fact that one thing happened MEANS that another will happen, or has a change in probability of happening, or has already happened, or has a change in relative-probability of having already happened.

Something physical may MEAN that something on the though-landscape changes: Kissing makes You (MEANS) have feelings of falling in love, for example.

Something on the thought-landscape may MEAN that something physical will change; feeling in love can change the dilation of that person's pupils; thus the other person seeing dilated pupils (if they know what it MEANS) can increase their probability estimate (I mean this happens intuitively) of the person with dilated pupils being in love with them.

And so on.

 

[dmarker]

I believe philosophers have argued on the topic extensively.

My view is that it is intimately associated with cause-effect and equivalence (which is like cause-effect without the time factor). Meaning can occur on the thought landscape; as well as on the physical landscape (the person's body is the border between the two): The fact that one thing happened MEANS that another will happen, or has a change in probability of happening, or has already happened, or has a change in relative-probability of having already happened.

Something physical may MEAN that something on the though-landscape changes: Kissing makes You (MEANS) have feelings of falling in love, for example.

Something on the thought-landscape may MEAN that something physical will change; feeling in love can change the dilation of that person's pupils; thus the other person seeing dilated pupils (if they know what it MEANS) can increase their probability estimate (I mean this happens intuitively) of the person with dilated pupils being in love with them.

And so on.

Of course arguing whether or not the universe has meaning is useless unless we can come to some consensus on what "meaning" is.

 

[brian0918]

Re: Re: Universal Design

I agree 100%
Here is an article which further reinforces this concept.

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm

Creationist garbage.

I'm not sure how many of those are correct. Let's assume they all are.

First, they do not say how much a certain number has to be larger or smaller for our universe to be drastically different. Who's to say that changing the permittivity of space by one part in a thousand wouldn't result in a universe with different structures that could form life? Let's assume any small change in a single number completely messes everything up.

Second, they are taking all of these numbers separately. How many other combinations of different values (for all of these numbers) results in life? That is a better question to ask. I don't care to answer it. Let's assume there are no other combinations.

Third, life exists in this universe simply because the universe has taken on values for which life can exist as we know it. Otherwise, there would be no life, nobody to observe these values, nobody to have this debate on this message board. This might suggest that there must have been past universes without life. This suggestion must assume that life (in any form, imaginable or unimaginable) is difficult to create. (see my 2nd point)

"The anthropic principle [what you are trying to argue for] is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, He could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. "



See this Talk.Origins article for a more direct response to the idea of a "fine-tuned universe"

 

[Iacchus]

If you mean something else; when it comes to the tree falling; could you elaborate?

I would suggest that when anything has an impact on its environment, it has meaning, realized by the observer or no. Especially when you think in terms of how many things have to happen that we're unaware of, before anything can happen that we are aware of. So yes, everything is related meaningwise in that sense.

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Re: Universal Design

Creationist garbage.

There is no need for insultant name calling.
It tends to encourage the target of the insult to resort to the same tactic which when reported by an observant, would eventually lead to either one of the two participants getting temporarily or permanently banned.

It it is not to our advantage to resort to this type of thing.
Neither does it add anything to the discussion. In fact, it tends to terminate it even before it has gotten a chance to develop.

After all, who likes to feel obligated to read that kind of thing or to deal with a person capable of flinging that kind of comment at another person.

Not me! I just simply include the person in my list of persona-non grata and go by the very effective policy of out of sight out of mind which very neatly resolves the irritational issue imediately.

 

[Iacchus]

I agree 100%
Here is an article which further reinforces this concept.

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm

Actually, I'm satisfied to know that the rules exist themselves, because there's nothing arbitrary about them whatsoever and, in fact suggest something quite deliberate, in terms of how the Universe has unfolded itself.

 

[Iacchus]

I am saying that the purpose we create is simply an illusion. There is no actual purpose to anything, only purpose that we create and apply to the world. A bunch of rocks made of collections of particles have no purpose. We can chisel away at them and make a big round calendar, giving them a purpose, something useful for us. Without us, it loses its purpose, simply because it never actually had a purpose, just the illusion of one, created by us. If you cannot understand this distinction, it may be hopeless

The usual copout. Have you heard of the expression separating the wheat from the chaff? Well, even the chaff has purpose too ... If nothing else to protect the wheat before the time its separated.

I've tried and tried to make sense of this. It makes no sense to me. Please restate it. I'm not trying to avoid some point of yours, it's just that you don't make any sense. Nada.

I'm saying that if we didn't have such large brains maybe we wouldn't be able to recognize anything. In which case the only time meaning is completely arbitrary is without one (a brain).

I don't know, and I'm comfortable with that. Why are you unable to be? There are plenty of arguments for the appearance of matter from nothing. You do know that particles and antiparticles are constantly appearing and disappearing in the emptiness of space, right? This isn't just some theoretical result, it is observed.

But then again if I didn't have such a large brain maybe I wouldn't be so inquisitive and would want to know?

Quantum mechanics goes against all common sense (such as that that suggests something can't come from "nothing"). Does that mean that quantum mechanics is wrong? I think you are appealing from ignorance. (the only way it can be done, I guess)

There are a lot of things I'm unaware of, including quantum mechanics, but that does not mean they're without their purpose.

See above. The only "purpose" there is is the purpose we create, but it is all an illusion, something to help us understand the world.

Yes, but why would we want to understand that which has no meaning? Or, are you saying the world does have meaning?

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. State more clearly.

Please see my reply to Radrook above.

Please reply to all of my reply. For every reply you reply to that occurred after this reply, I will reply requesting you reply to this reply... reply?

Ever consider that you place too much significance -- and hence meaning -- on what you say?

 

[Z]

What you say... means nothing.

Why do you Creationist lunatics continue to find significant that things are the way that they are? Have even one of you any evidence, any solid PROOF, that a life-bearing universe couldn't form if other constants weren't meant?

Does it in any way seem silly to you that these numbers are only Man's perception of scales, Man's application of scales, etc?

You should keep in mind, that whole article is purely conjecture, purely theory. If one constant were different, who is to say that every other constant wouldn't also change to adjust and create a new pattern for life?

Quit babbling this creationist dribble and get some REAL education, Iacchusradrook.

 

[Cleopatra]

Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does.

I'll bite.

So, you choose to define the whole by pointing out the existence of the partial and its relation to the whole only to conclude that the partial cannot stand alone?

Socreates would spank you if he could read that.

And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way.

Did you turn to a pragmatist now?

 

[Iacchus]

What you say... means nothing.

Why do you Creationist lunatics continue to find significant that things are the way that they are? Have even one of you any evidence, any solid PROOF, that a life-bearing universe couldn't form if other constants weren't meant?

Does it in any way seem silly to you that these numbers are only Man's perception of scales, Man's application of scales, etc?

You should keep in mind, that whole article is purely conjecture, purely theory. If one constant were different, who is to say that every other constant wouldn't also change to adjust and create a new pattern for life?

Quit babbling this creationist dribble and get some REAL education, Iacchusradrook.

Yeah, and what you say is packed full of meaning, except it doesn't mean anything, right? Ribbet ribbet ...

So, why should I listen to that which is anything but, totally meaningless? Why even try, if this is the most you can hope -- hmm, maybe even that would be wrong -- to do?

Why? Why? Why? Hmm ... Why should I care? You're right, the Universe is strictly mechanical, and machines don't care.