• Against simulation theories
    You have a point monsieur - the simulation is part of the real world; you said the same thing about the notion of unnatural many suns ago if you recall. — Agent Smith
    What I said about the distinction between natural and unnatural (artificial) has nothing to do with the distinction between reality and simulation.

    The difference between unnatural and simulation is that yhe latter is a world and so deserves, how shall I put it?, equal respect as the real deal. — Agent Smith
    So you think that simulated people deserve the same rights as real people?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    2 is an application of existential introduction. 4 is modus tollens. They're valid rules of inference. — Michael
    That's nice, but every rule of inference is either uttered or scribbled. Where do these rules of inference exist?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    ↪Michael

    1. is fine.
    I take issue with 2 and 4.

    2 and 3 seem to be saying the same thing.

    As I pointed out to Tate propsitions can be true or false. A true or false propsition is not synonymous with an existing or non-existing proposition. A false proposition is just as real as a true one. The difference is that a true propsition accurately represents something while a false one does not.

    Can propsitions exist independently of some string of scribbles or utterances? Is a proposition a string of scribbles or utterances? If so propositions exist everywhere scribbles are drawn and utterances are made.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    OK, but do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? Does the existence of a proposition depend in some sense on us? — Michael
    Did propositions exist prior to humans existing? If the answer is no, then propositions depend on our existence. If the answer is yes, then I'd have to pause and ask exactly what we are proposing when we use the term, "proposition".
  • Is there an external material world ?
    It's usually thought of as an abstract object, which just means a proposition is "beyond" any particular person. I can be wrong about the status of a proposition, so it's not just a resident of my noggin. Mathematical entities are also abstract, so you can compare propositions to things like numbers. — Tate
    What does it mean for a proposition to exist "beyond" any particular person? Where, in relation to a person, does a proposition exist?
    You being wrong is a relationship between your idea of a thing and the real thing. Propositions can be true or false. A wrong (false) proposition can only exist in your head. True propositions only exist in your head as well because the proposition and what the proposition is about are two separate things. Propositions do not exist anywhere except within a mind as a relation between some scribbles and what the scribbles refer to.

    I'm not ruling out propositions, I'm questioning what it means for a proposition to exist. Do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? If they do then it strikes me as Platonic realism. Is that what you're arguing for? — Michael
    Propositions are a causal relation just like everything else in the universe. Any particular thing does not exist independent of the causes that led to its existence.
  • Against simulation theories
    Let's look at this from a human perspective. The possibilities are:

    1. We're in a simulation, meaning there's the real world + the simulation we're a part of.

    2. We're in the real world. This isn't a simulation.

    Your point is that the simulation is part of the real world, whichever world that is, and that implies that I'm wrong (about the simulation hypothesis being a perfect Harry client for the novacula Occami :snicker: ).

    Let's do the math.

    From the simulator's point if view: Real world + The Simulation it creates = Real World (no issues).

    From the simulated's point of view: The Simulation it's part of + The real world of the simulator > The Simulation it's part of.     — Agent Smith

    I don't understand your point.

    It's really simple. A simulation is part of reality in the same way that the Earth is part of reality and the same way the Andromeda galaxy is part of reality and the same way our universe is part of the multiverse (reality). It's not a mathematical relation. It's a spatial relation.

    Even heaven and hell (if they were to exist) are part of reality with reality being the entirety of all causal relations. The events in our universe would have a causal relation with the events in heaven and hell with your actions here in this world determining whether you go to heaven or hell, and God - being in heaven - creating the universe. Heaven, hell and our universe would not be separate "realities". They are all part of one reality because they all interact with each other (Occam's Razor) and any boundaries between them would be arbitrary constructions of our mind.
  • Against simulation theories
    Is a map of the territory another "territory"?
    — Harry Hindu

    It can be, e.g:     — Michael

    That's pretty cool. I can't imagine the the time that went into making that.

    My point was that even the map is part of the territory depending on how much territory we're talking about. For instance, that map is part of the territory of the Earth that is taken to represent another part territory of the Earth, just on a smaller scale and with less detail. For instance the map you posted does not include the people of that territory. It can only represent so much being on a smaller scale than what it is representing. What parts of the real territory it represents and what parts it doesn't depends on the map-maker's intentions and goals.

    Now that I think about it, a map can include itself on the map. When hiking nature trails, you will find a sign post that contains a map of the surrounding territory with a mark on the map labeled, "You are Here". It's not really where you are, it's where the map is because you move along on the trail but the map and it's mark of where "you" are doesn't move. So the mark is really where the map is, not where you are.
  • Against simulation theories
    How would William of Occam tackle this? — Agent Smith
    By understanding that if a simulation is a world it is no longer a simulation. A simulation only makes sense in light of a world.

    Is a map of the territory another "territory"? Just because the map does not represent itself on the map even though it is part of the territory does not mean that it is above and beyond the territory. It just means that it would be useless to do so.
  • Against simulation theories
    It's true that the simulation is part of reality, within it to be precise. However, the simulation is a world unto itself and so must be treated as equals with the world it is within. — Agent Smith
    :roll:
  • Against simulation theories
    A simulation’s an additional entity over and above reality. — Agent Smith
    No. It's not. A simulation exists within reality as it is composed of real things. You need a real computer to create a simulated one.

    I have no idea what "over and above reality" means anyway. Reality is all there is. There can be no "over and above" reality.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Perhaps there is a subtle joining here of 'effect' and interpretation of that effect becoming a personalised meaning. I would prefer your last sentence above to read 'So effect and its interpretation as good or bad are two different things.' I am not sure the word 'meaning' rests as comfortably in your sentence as the word 'effect,' I don't see the word effect and meaning as synonymous — universeness
    I never said that meaning and the effect were synonymous. I said that the relationship between some effect and its causes is synonymous with meaning. As such, your interpretation is the effect of the interaction of the observed effect (like words on this screen or tree rings in a tree stump) with your memory and goals. So effects are also the causes of subsequent effects (infinitely?). As such, the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning.

    I concur with your first sentence here but yes meaning, because it can be very subjective and interpretive is garnished from effect. If an item falls towards me from a window and just misses me then once I know whos window it came from, I can interpret the meaning to be a deliberate act or accidental.
    I need further investigation to know for sure but 'deliberate' or 'accidental' are both valid creations in my mind at the moment of the 'event.'     — universeness
    Exactly. You interpret the meaning. Interpretation and meaning are different things. Again, the interpretation is just the effect. The meaning is the relationship between your interpretation and some other causal relation. Your interpretation is the act of discovering that relationship between the item falling and its cause.

    Well 'scribbles on a screen' is a phrase intended to dilute the importance of the communication attempt or the communication method or perhaps both. We are social creatures, asking questions seems to be fundamental to our psyche and our 'seek meaning' imperative. — universeness
    Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that scribbles on a screen are what is interpreted, and the act of interpreting is discovering the cause of the scribbles on the screen - specifically the idea in the head of the author that produced the scribbles.

    To me, your tree example speaks to how meaning becomes knowledge and finally widely and sometimes even universally accepted knowledge such as 'all humans are mortal.' — universeness
    No, not how meaning becomes knowledge. It's how interpretations become knowledge - another causal relation, or meaning.

    When we are sure what interpretations/meanings are correct to most people than we accept them as truth. — universeness
    We don't necessarily need to prove to others our own interpretations for our interpretations to work for us. We test other's interpretations to see if they work for us. It's not in the number of people that believe it. It's if it has been tested by each individual to see if it works for them, not the fact that someone simply claimed what their interpretation is and is accepted by everyone without everyone testing it for themselves. Common knowledge exists as a result of others trying on others' interpretations, not simply taking others at their word.

    I agree but it's also a continuum of how your legacy is interpreted by each new mind that encounters its forms of memorialisation and their view of the memorialised interpretations of others, about you.
    Socrates has no personal memorialisations so we only assign personal meaning to his legacy through the interpretations others have made about him yet he remains an important figure in human history and to each new generation of humans     — universeness
    Do you need others to interpret your legacy for your life to have meaning? Are you saying that your life's meaning is dependent upon others' interpretation of your actions? Or can you give your life meaning by interpreting your own actions and their subsequent effects on the world (which includes other people)?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Absolutely -- waiting-for-death is not a suitable approach for people who are not old yet -- whatever one thinks of as "old" for themselves. My approach isn't "resignation from the game" altogether, because I, of course, don't know how long I may live yet. I still "engage". — Bitter Crank
    A young person could die tomorrow. No one at any age knows how long they have. The point is to live each day like it's your last no matter how old you are.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    But you can't, don't, won't teach others your solution. You simply blame them. (So typical for religious/spiritual people and optimists.) — baker
    There's nothing to teach. You give meaning to your life by simply living. Of the millions, if not billions, of possible genetic combinations between your parents, you were the lucky one to have come into existence.

    I'm not religious or spiritual. I can be an optimist as much as I can be a pessimist. I am a determinist. Your existence is determined given the conditions of this universe. Make the most of it.

    1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence?
    — Tate

    Chronic pain, among other things.
    Social ostracism, disenfranchizement.     — baker
    This explains a lot. From a chronic pessimist's POV everyone else is a "typical religious/spiritual people and optimists". It seems to me that a balance of optimism and pessimism is necessary for a better understanding of life's meaning.
  • Against simulation theories
    My brain tells me this:

    1. Real (1 entity)

    2. Real + Simulation (2 entities)     — Agent Smith
    Invalid if we think of the simulation as part of reality. All simulations exist within one reality. Simulating an old gaming console on your modern computer is real example of a simulation within reality. Both the simulator and the simulation are only a fraction of reality. The problem is that we just don't know how big reality is, or how much information exists.
  • Against simulation theories
    Exactly how does this contradict what I said? — hypericin
    As I pointed out, all you need is a more powerful information processing system to simulate another system that has less information. Your argument is invalid because you dont know if our universe contains all possible information. You just dont know how much information actually exists. Our universe could be a fraction of the total information so a larger system could actually be simulating our universe.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I never said that. Plainly from the perspective of a subject, myself, other beings appear in some sense as objects, but we do not regard other beings as objects, which is why we refer to them with personal pronouns rather than as ‘it’ or ‘thing’. — Wayfarer
    Language habits left over from when humans thought of themselves as special and separate from nature.

    (For that matter, reflect on why humans and some of the higher animals are called ‘beings’.) — Wayfarer
    When did we start calling chimps and dolphins "beings"? Who have you heard say that? I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just wondering about the evolution of the word, "being".

    Philosophy has long been aware of the paradox that we ourselves are subjects of experience, but are also objects in the eyes of other subjects. — Wayfarer
    What makes something both a subject and object and not just an object? Which came first? Are subjects dependent upon their accompanying objects existence? Is a subject a part, or a fraction, of their accompanying object or does the subject exhaust what it is to be the object?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    Does a walk exist? Does a cartwheel exist? Does a backflip exist?

    Our language no doubt attempts to abstract actions from the extant being that performs them. But at no point should we take this to mean there is an actual, existing distinction between doer and deed. They are like the morning and evening star, one and the same.     — NOS4A2
    I wasn't trying to separate dream from dreamer. I was pointing out that if you can talk about it must exist. The manner in which it exists is irrelevant. You, as the doer, are dependent upon other things for your existence just as your dreams' existence are dependent upon your existence. The Earth is the doer and you are the deed.

    Your body and mind are just as much a deed as a doer. One might even say that the deed of living and the doer (your body/mind) are one and the same.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    I exist. I experience. But it doesn’t follow that something called “experience” exists. — NOS4A2
    I exist. I dream. Do dreams exist?

    It follows from the idea that people are attempting to communicate sonething when they use words. If what you are talking about doesn't exist then what are you talking about?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Still waiting for your proof. — Jackson
    I have shown that the proof is in the way people use the word, "meaning" in that they are referring to a causal relationship. I think that universeness's mentioning of "legacy" and how one's actions affect the world and other people support this.

    I have asked you what you believe others are referring to when they use the word, "meaning" and I'm still waiting on that.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    The OP was suggesting that life was meaningless. I think even the simple acrimony that discussion about the meaning of life can cause is itself strong evidence that living a life is anything but meaningless and that legacy is very important to many, if not most people.
    — universeness
    A legacy is essentially the effects you leave behind.     — Harry Hindu
    To expand on this: One's legacy (the effect) is a result of one's actions (the causes) in life. As such you create your own meaning by your actions - hence life is not meaningless unless you take no action.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect and reference is a type of causal relation.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Not if meaning is subjective and interpretive. How can inherent meaning be subjective? If you are saying that the reason is that some interpretations of meaning are wrong or fall short of what you are labelling 'inherent and found in nature,' are these incorrect meanings not still created in real human minds. These human minds are physical parts of the natural world. A nazi will assign certain interpretive meaning to the label Jewish. Such personal assignment of meaning can be very destructive and very unjust. This happens also in your serial killer example and may be due to a malfunctioning brain.
    Were such warped meanings not still CREATED in the real brains/minds of the people who constructed such.     — universeness
    If meaning were subjective and interpretive then how can we ever hope to communicate using scribbles on a screen? Wouldn't we have to have a common understanding of the meaning of the scribbles for us to communicate?

    Take the tree rings in a tree stump. What do the tree rings mean? What does it even mean to ask that question? A botanist would say that the tree rings mean the age of the tree. Was the meaning projected by the botanists mind or something discovered by observation? If it was projected by the botanist's mind then I could project something different and then where would we be? Who would be right or wrong and would it even matter? In other words, if meaning is projected by the mind then I simply need to project from my mind and asking others would be pointless. If it is something that is observed then what would that be if not observing how tree rings (the effect) were created by how the tree grows throughout the year (the cause)? If this is the case then meaning is inherent in the causal relationship between how the tree grows and tree rings appearing in the tree stump. I would simply need to observe the causal relation and agree with the botanist, but there would be no reason for me to agree, or even ask the botanist's opinion, if meaning is projected by each mind.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Its not different really but it is down to their interpretation of the 'effect' you have had of THE world or THEIR world. Which can be very different from your own personal assessment of your effects. — universeness
    Right. So we're not disagreeing that your actions have effects on the world (meaning), or that one can have an interpretation of those effects as being conductive to achieving their goals or inhibiting them. So meaning and it's interpretation as good or bad are two different things. Those effects exist prior to any interpretation. Unless you are saying that the interpretation of the effects is meaning which would mean that unless we share the same goals, we don't share the same meanings. If this is the case then when someone asks what the meaning of life is then you have to get at their goals in life to even know if your answer would be useful to them. Goals are simply ideas in the present that trigger effects like behaviors in an effort to realize the goal. Having a purpose, or goal, for something does not necessarily mean that you will achieve that purpose or goal. Even acting in such a way to achieve the goal or purpose doesn't necessarily mean you will achieve it either. Failure to achieve goals and purposes is something that should be considered.

    The OP was suggesting that life was meaningless. I think even the simple acrimony that discussion about the meaning of life can cause is itself strong evidence that living a life is anything but meaningless and that legacy is very important to many, if not most people. — universeness
    A legacy is essentially the effects you leave behind.

    Does this also indicate that you think some meaning is useful to ones life? — universeness
    Sure. Meaning and usefulness are mutually exclusive. Meaning is the relationship between causes and effects. Those relations are either useful or not depending on one's own goals. One's goals do not determine if some causal relation is meaningful. They determine which relationships are useful in achieving or inhibiting one's goals.

    For instance, your words on this screen carry all sorts of meaning as the effects of numerous causes. Your words are caused by your ideas and your intent to communicate them. They are also caused by the language you learned and you level of understanding of English. By reading your words I can get at your ideas as well as your understanding of the language you are using - depending on my goals. Just because I may be more interested in your understanding of the English language does not mean that you words also do not carry meaning in that they refer to your ideas. Meaning is there in the causal relation between your idea and your words on this screen, but aren't useful to my goal in understanding your level of education with the English language.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Where is your proof of that? Just asking you a question. — Jackson
    In the definition I have provided for meaning as the relationship between cause and effect. The definition I have provided stems from my own observations of others asking questions about what something means and what they actually mean in asking what something means is what caused it to happen.

    For instance, what do your words on this page mean? They mean your ideas and your intent to communicate them. If you didn't have any ideas or an intent to communicate them (the cause), would your worlds appear on this screen (the effect) for me to observe and read them? In reading your words (the effect) am I not attempting to get at your ideas (the cause)?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Indeed. But others judge your 'meaning' or 'value' to the world or to their individual lives. — universeness
    How is this any different from saying that others judge your 'meaning/value' based on your effects on the world and their individual lives? Meaning and one's judgement of it are mutually exclusive. Meaning exists where ever causes leave effects. Any judgement of those effects is based on one's individual goals. So in judging some meaning to be bad or good, they are projecting their own wants and needs on to meaning that already exists as inherent in the universe

    I do think all humans seek meaning — universeness
    Right. So meaning is something that exists prior to seeking it as it is something that is looked for and found in nature, and not created by the mind. Not all meaning is useful to one's life, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist apart from your own wants and needs.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    It is your issue not mine. — Jackson
    No, it's yours as you are the one that thinks that value and meaning are objective. If that were the case then a serial killer's values and meanings would be shared by you.

    That sentence made no sense. — Jackson
    I'm no longer interested in what you think.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    It's a personal value measure, yes, it's subjective, yes. Seeking personal meaning may be objectively true. I suppose you would have to see how many dissent from that before you could declare 'seeking meaning' to be objective. I don't think it's useless to ask others about their measures of meaning as it can help you judge what kind of relationship you might establish with them. — universeness
    If 'seeking meaning' is seeking value then what makes a life valuable if not the effects it has on the world?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Why would I want to do that? — Jackson

    Why wouldn't you want to do that?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    You edited your post where you seemed to disagree that value is subjective. I can't have an intellectual discussion with someone who changes their posts in the middle of the discussion.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    That is just your subjective opinion. — Jackson
    All you have to do is watch the news to see that the value of human life varies from individual to individual. Why don't you go ask a serial killer what the meaning of life is.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    I think you do not know what cause and effect means. You confuse cause with meaning. I think you would flunk an intro philosophy class. Your questions are formal and show lack of understanding. — Jackson
    Ad hominems and intellectual dishonesty are not an argument against anything that I have said. You would flunk a class in logic.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    Have you not suggested an answer yourself. — universeness

    That depends on how you define meaning. If meaning is the relationship between cause and effect then meaning is innate to the universe. In asking what the meaning of life is you are asking what caused life to exist and what purpose (which is just another type of cause as a prediction of future states based on one's goal in the present (final cause)) it has. — Harry Hindu

    Meaning is a human measure of significance. A measure of profundity, which has a range from low to high, small to big! — universeness
    Then meaning is equivalent to value? Each human places varying degrees of value on different things, therefore meaning cannot be something objective and asking others what the meaning of life is would be useless. You would never need to ask the question of others.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    If you answered it point me to where you answered it. If you think asking questions is a form of hostility then maybe you shouldn't participate on a philosophy forum.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    I didn't ask why people ask it. I'm asking what they are saying, or assuming, when asking. Again, what is meaning?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    Not every meaning is profound. Most meanings are simple and trivial. In asking what the meaning of life is, the asker tends to believe they are asking a profound question so they expect a profound answer, but this isn't necessarily the case.

    Why don't you try answering the question about what people are asking when they are asking what the meaning of life is. What is meaning?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    ↪Jackson
    I'm more interested in why you don't think that, not that you actually don't think it.

    So what is it that you think people are asking when they ask what the meaning of life is if not what caused life and what effects the existence of life brings to the world?
  • Is there an external material world ?
    The subject is third-person when referred to in the third person. — Wayfarer
    And it stands to reason that the subject is first-person when referred to in the first person (you and I). The point being that a subject is an object - a person. The perspective from which one refers to a subject does not matter at all. I just don't understand your issue of reification of the subject when you are the one that has defined a subject as an object, or a thing.

    Other people are only known via our "first-person" experiences - which is typically visual, auditory, tactile information. Our own self is known via our attention looping back on itself in attending itself, or in attending the information as information and not attending what the information is about like other people or the world.

    What is an experience? Would it be fair to define experience as the information of the subject/object/person relative to the world?
    — Harry Hindu

    I don't know if it can be defined as that, but certainly experience implies the subject for whom, or to whom, it occurs.     — Wayfarer
    Well, you are the one that linked the subject (an object as a person) with experience. I thought you had an idea of what you were talking about when using the term, "experience". If you don't know what it is then how can you say that it implies the subject for whom it occurs?
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    To be fair, I think the question refers to there being no innate meaning to the universe. — Jackson
    That depends on how you define meaning. If meaning is the relationship between cause and effect then meaning is innate to the universe. In asking what the meaning of life is you are asking what caused life to exist and what purpose (which is just another type of cause as a prediction of future states based on one's goal in the present (final cause)) it has.
  • How do you deal with the pointlessness of existence?
    I'll put you down for "I don't understand the question." — Tate

    No offense, but I was looking for the thoughts of people who are familiar with this particular issue. — Tate
    We are familiar with the issue. It's just we've solved the issue. It's not our problem you don't like, or understand, the solution. If you can't answer my question, then maybe you should put yourself down as not understanding the question or the issue. It sounds like you're regurgitating a mass delusion that human existence is meaningless.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    By subject, I refer to the subject of experience. Conventionally, the person, the being, to whom experiences occur. — Wayfarer
    Then the subject is an object, like a person.

    What is an experience? Would it be fair to define experience as the information of the subject/object/person relative to the world? For instance, the visual experience of the world for a person appears as if the world is located relative to the person's eyes.
Home » Harry Hindu