Your representation of Penrose makes sense to me. There is nothing about the BigBang that logically prevents multiple big bangs. — Jackson

I wish I had the physics/maths expertise required to understand the details in his papers.
I have listened to some of those who don't fully support CCC such as Sean Carroll, who I know is more attracted to the many-worlds interpretation but Penrose has stated in Youtube interviews that the evidence that these Hawking points came from a previous universe is very strong.
You can download a PDF of the paper he and his team published regarding the evidence here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01740

I downloaded the pdf and tried to research each word I did not understand but I haven't gotten very far in my understanding yet and have paused my efforts. I am hoping the current cosmological heirarchy will summarise the main points for me in lay terms I can grasp easier.

Makes sense to me. — Jackson

Well, we certainly seem to be moving at the largest scale from low to high entropy so It seems plausible that when all matter turns back to energy, then, as Penrose suggests, 'scale' becomes meaningless and we will eventually have the conditions required for a singularity inflation/expansion/big bang happening again. Another cycle. The universe would be eternal in that sense.
I await the 'adequate response' Penrose is calling for from the cosmological community!

What is CCC? — Jackson

From the OP of my thread link I posted above:

The conformal cyclic cosmology ( CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicist Roger Penrose.

Basically, it posits a cyclical universe. Our big bang was caused by the deathroes of a previous manifestation of a Universe. The interesting part is that Penrose and his team recently published his evidence that it really happened. He has called his evidence 'Hawking points,' and suggests his team has currently found 6 of them in our Universe and that their existence is direct proof of a previous Universe. He also claims that the current cosmological community has not adequately addressed his evidence yet. I think that means they must still be considering it. Exciting stuff imo!

↪Jackson
You might find my thread on CCC (the Penrose bounce) interesting as a candidate for 'before the big bang — universeness

Quick correction, my thread was not ABOUT CCC but it describes the basic concept.

You might find my thread on CCC (the Penrose bounce) interesting as a candidate for 'before the big bang'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce/p1

So, you think that if a thinking thing is in the universe, then the universe also thinks? I am in my underpants. Therefore my underpants think. — Bartricks

You again demonstrate your shallow thinking. You project dialogue regarding connection between individual thought and universal purpose onto your underpants thinking. You open yourself to complete ridicule.

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that the universe itself has a mind and has desires and so on. How does that affect my argument? — Bartricks

Which part of 'all human thought, can be projected as a totality which currently has limited ability to demonstrate thought as a collective but can work together in common cause and communicate in ever-increasing networked manners.' do you dispute? This affects you argument because an emergent collective panpsychism for humans cannot be part of a future in which humans don't exist Sherlock!

and if there's a premise that you think is false, don't just say that. Your opinions count for nothing unless they're backed by reason. So, show that a premise is false - or show that there is a reasonable doubt about it anyway - by showing how the negation of that premise follows from premises that appear self-evidently true.

Then thank me for teaching you how to reason like a boss, as opposed to just saying stuff. — Bartricks

I find it quite humorous that you believe that you are typing important responses here which establish 'hoops' others have to jump through or the dance steps others have to perform to argue against you using only YOUR perception of how it must be done. Again, this is laughable and delusional on your part.
You then want me to appreciate your help and you want me to see you as a 'boss.' :lol:
You remind me of a child shaking its rattle whilst its lips quiver, unhappy that it's not getting the attention/recognition it feels it deserves. It's not my fault the points you raised in the OP are so flawed and shallow in their thinking, it's your fault, It's your shallow thinking.
Any time I ever hear Donald Trump talking on TV now, I just hear a kind of overall background waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaa! coming from him. Please don't invoke the same by what you type! It's got a high cringe factor.

Giving purpose to the universe literally doesn't make sense to me. — schopenhauer1

Fair enough. It makes sense to me. We are all made of the same raw materials, all of which are natural and of the universe. We all ask questions. When we ask questions such as 'why /how/what/ are we, we are imo synonymously asking why/how/what is the universe, Creatures such as us must continue to exist to ask such questions or else the universe is harmed. Antinatalism is therefore misguided imo.

Non-sequitor and ad hom. — schopenhauer1

Just trying to shake you from your depressing viewpoint and your support of what I consider to be an obnoxious immoral viewpoint (antinatalism.) It is an emotive issue.

This doesn't make sense to me. The "origins of birth" is not a disembodied thing, but a decision/action made on one person on behalf of another and indeed is laden with values about what should or should not be done and how we view harms. — schopenhauer1

No, birth is a PROCESS, its origin is evolutionary. It's the natural process of how newborn humans are brought into the world. The process stands separate from any morality based on the OP's suggestion of a violation of innocence. The natural processes involved in creating and birthing a human have no moral driver. I agree that two humans deciding to begin the process have questions of morality associated with it. The processes which occur after sex have no moral driver. The process of birth has no moral driver. BUT harm/suffering can occur during these processes. YOU and @Bartricks are suggesting that moral imperatives should be applied to processes with no moral driver. A tiny number of babies die in the womb. According to the OP, this would be a violation of an innocent and therefore this harm/suffering supports antinatalism. This is an example/consequence of the skewed logic antinatalism engages in and exemplifies how ridiculous the OP is.

Being attracted to someone is a complex phenomenon shaped by genes, development, and to a large extent cultural expectations. That is another debate though. That is not the question at hand. — schopenhauer1

No, it's very much related to the question at hand. Antinatalism is a moral choice against a system with no moral driver. Reproduction within species is natural priority NUMBER 1. Most species will see males fight to the death sometimes to win the right to procreate with the female/females in season.
Heterosexual human males will also instinctively fight tooth and nail to win the ability to reproduce. Even many homosexual couples want to produce children through surrogacy etc.
In drama we get projections like the Vulcan 'Pon Far,' where every 7 years if a Vulcan does not reproduce then they will experience extreme physical and psychological imbalance.
This is based on the observed reproductive behaviour of many Earth species.
Antinatalism insists on ignoring all such natural imperatives :lol: (ridiculous), ignoring ALL OF THE HARM AND SUFFERING that would cause.

LIFE started on this planet by natural happenstance! and YOU advocate for phasing out that occurance before forms of that LIFE such as US, has even started to answer any of the questions regarding why it happened, what its purpose was/is etc and your reasons is that suffering exists alongside joy as a comparator. YOU and a tiny number of other skewed thinkers such as @Bartricks are trying to convince intelligent people that you are standing on moral high ground. You occupy no such position and I accuse you of being no more than morose misanthropes and you fully deserve that label no matter what complaint you make against it using the same old boring Latin BS phrases.

We owe the universe and the "species" nothing.. "They" are not entities that have the capacity to be owed. A category error — schopenhauer1

How morose and misanthropic of you to say so!

it is quite the opposite of arrogant as no one is actually making a judgement call on behalf of another. — schopenhauer1

Not true as you advocate for 'prevention' of conscious/sentient lifeforms which can be harmed despite the fact such gives purpose to the universe. Such advocation is indeed arrogant as well as stupid.

Sorry, but antinatalism is not CREATING problems for OTHERS which causes a person to thus deal with those problems. — schopenhauer1

Have you not noticed that the problem you are having with antinatalism, is having to be addressed by the members of this forum. I would rather be discussing ideas to improve the human experience than having to spend time trying to help you with your skewed thinking. Yes, I know that's arrogant but I also think it's true. Do the world a favour and stop being such a morose misanthrope.

This is the naturalistic fallacy. Being a product of nature, and intentionally following an ethic because it is seen as "natural" are two different things.. If that is what you are getting at.. — schopenhauer1

You suffer from fallacy obsession as many do. My point was there is no moral imperative in the process of our origins. Evolution and natural selection has no moral driver. The harm caused by natural selection has no moral driver. I was not suggesting we follow that example on how we apply morality within human civilisations. I am suggesting that the origins of 'birth' or 'life' has no moral driver and thus is not associated with the morality of harm or suffering.

it's a process that is completely based on decisions and actions that are not inevitable. — schopenhauer1

Nature compels procreation, it's why it makes heterosexual males fervently attracted to females and makes heterosexual females fervently attracted to males. Do you think your infinitesimal antinatalism can compete. :rofl:

But I would never create a situation of harm for people JUST so they can overcome it and feel achievement. That itself is paternalistic aggression and not good. — schopenhauer1

You don't have to, providence will provide! Just deal with it when it comes your way and help others do the same. Don't stay a misanthrope.

Now who is anthropomorphizing? The universe can't be "harmed", and certainly by simply "not procreating". — schopenhauer1

Of course it can, I am not anthropomorphising, we are OF the universe, that is FACT.
If we are removed from it then the universe will be harmed/diminished, especially if it turns out that we are the only lifeform in the universe with our level of cognitive ability. Even if there are others, we may still be incredibly rare. To advocate antinatalism is therefore highly irresponsible and reckless, if not just plain stupid.

I prefer song lyrics. — schopenhauer1

Easy to turn such into song lyrics. You don't want to go gospel music so perhaps thrash metal!

Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe?
— universeness

Er, no. What a silly question. The universe is not a person. Do you think the universe has feelings? Do you think the universe is a bit miffed today? Do trees talk to you? — Bartricks

What a stupid response! A clear demonstration of how shallow your thinking is. We are OF the universe so yes it has feelings through us, as it has purpose through us. Purpose that your dimwitted antinatalism seeks to harm. You sound permanently miffed, maybe you should spend some time just hugging tree's, it might help you to hug something/anything more often.

Bollocks. — Bartricks

Yeah, try growing some!

So, your view is that if enough of us judge you do deserve to die, then you do? — Bartricks

Another of your clumsy questions which ignores the vital details and naunces involved. Try to think a little deeper. For example, what REALLY matters is I can kill and a group can decide that another must die. Who was justified in doing what is normally postscript and can even be reviewed and reviewed again over time. All that matters in the case of the individual facing such a situation is will they get killed or can they or other interested parties prevent it.

And it has nothing to do with humans. It has everything to do with persons or minds. — Bartricks

Minds make decisions as a main function. Harm is an interpretation. Hunger is harmful and it is best to have a balanced control over it by learning. Too much sating of hunger can be harmful and satisfying a deep hunger can be a very enjoyable experience.
Innocent children, babies, (or anyone) starving to death, in a world, which is capable of feeding everyone is the fault of all humans. The solution is better human decision making not idiotic antinatalism.
You just seem a little obsessed with the concept of harm and you have jumped to a ridiculous solution, which you have tried to defend in such a chiseled way that you cannot find your way out. So you are becoming part of the background white noise. Which is where antinatalism resides and where good people will make sure it stays.

So that means that all the harm they suffer is undeserved. That means it is unjust. — Bartricks

No, you conflate and project 'undeserved' with 'unjust,' a point that has already been made to you many times on this thread but you are too chiseled to understand.

Don't then just blurt stuff that doesn't in any way engage with the argument. — Bartricks

Yeah, you should stop doing that.

Saying something doesn't make it true. — Bartricks

I am glad to see you make some progress. You realise that because you type something that doesn't make it true. Well done you!

Another question for you - see if you can just answer it rather than blather on about unrelated matters. — Bartricks

Now, now, have a wee meditative session before you type each sentence and you may gain more control over your tiny tantrums and little schisms. Go help someone in your local area who is suffering rather than just bleat because you are not able to progress your viewpoint in any useful way.

If an act will create great injustices that another person will suffer, does that imply that it is wrong to do it, other things being equal? — Bartricks

Like most of your questions, this is a big, cumbersome, poorly formed one that your shallow thought processes present to you as requiring only a yes/no answer. If the justice the act creates outweighs the 'great injustices,' you claim it causes, then my answer would be No it does not imply it's wrong to do it. Do you think putting a junkie through the pain and horror of 'cold turkey,' to save their life is unjustified?

Misogyny at its finest. — baker

So stop being misogynistic! Keep your aspirations high!

The universe is a big place. If we had increased longevity, were much more robust and could travel faster, we could see a lot more of it and truly break into the final frontier. Where no one has gone before certainly does interest me.

Deep, slow breaths, in and out. You'll be fine!

Not at all. Already the "regular" use of scientific achievements is what causes pollution. Plastic waste is plastic waste, regardless whether produced by an honest, hardworking man or by a glutton — baker

Plastic being dumped as cheaply as possible into the oceans etc is the main cause of plastic pollution and that is done by nefarious profiteers. You need to probe deeper to understand the true causes of our bad ecological stewardship of the planet.

Look up a textbook for learning English, under the chapter "Giving short replies". — baker

Now now, try to keep your big boy pants on. Don't try to intimidate as you are about as intimidating as a tiptoe through the tulips!

Yes. Look up the DSM; "a religious problem" and other existential issues are actually listed as signs of mental illness — baker

Do you suffer from such yourself?

Having relatively low aspirations in life has nothing directly to do with poverty. There is plenty of very rich, very educated people who nevertheless have relatively low aspirations in life. Their aim is the pursuit of sensual pleasures in their various forms, and that's it — baker

Please tell me you don't hold any positions of authority!

I assume you are not female.

Why do you assume that? — baker

Because I can.

Because they know that for a woman, it is best to be a fool, a beautiful little fool. — baker

Are you speaking as a beautiful little fool or is that just one of the 'high aspirations,' you currently favour?

I also might add, being overly paternalistic is also a factor to consider. To think that because you think this life we have in this universe is somehow a good one, that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. — schopenhauer1

It is just as arrogant to suggest this life we have in this universe is somehow a bad one and we should prevent anyone living it.
We have purpose, we ask questions. We need comparators in life to be able to differentiate. We are of the universe. Suffering must exist for us to work against it. You are suggesting we harm the universe by not existing anymore. How will the what, why, and how of the universe ever be answered, if nothing exists which is able to ask the questions? YOUR arrogance is what you should be concerned about as you would remove from the universe that which enhances it's purpose.
But you are an insignificant force and cannot stop the questions. Learn from any suffering that comes your way, do your best to prevent or alleviate the suffering of others and become part of the solution instead of what you are now, part of the problem

that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. You are making a decision on someone else's behalf that THESE conditions of life are perfectly fine for others to have to endure. — schopenhauer1

We are a product of the natural process of evolution and natural selection and you are trying to anthropomorphise morality into that process. At the moment we cant say much more than, were here because were here because were here because were here. Stop crying about the journey. You dont want everything to be just perfect for you as you would never experience achievement or have any purpose. Enjoy the wonderful adventure of life. Don't be a wee misanthrope who keeps complaining about the existence of suffering, FOCUS on helping alleviate it.
Stop recommending that we should harm the universe by refusing to exist within it.
Don't be so scared of life, don't be a coward!
I lay before thee, life and the curse, therefore choose life so thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.
Even atheists like me can find some use in theistic style prose.

Do you think a newly created person deserves to come to harm? — Bartricks

Just to give a more direct answer to your laboriously hyped question. NO, I don't think innocent people deserve harm but the solution is not something as dumb as don't procreate. The answer is to get better at protecting the innocent despite white noise protestations from misanthropic antinatalists that we cant achieve 100% protection against all potential harms of the innocent. We will continue to try just like we will continue to try to explain the big how and why questions regarding the universe. I am sure you will continue to make your antinatalist white noise. Furthermore, your concern for the 'innocent,' is only relevant for as long as they fully deserve the label innocent. As soon as a child deliberately manipulates their position to gain an advantage over a sibling, for example, as demonstrated in the young of most species, do they still fully deserve your 'innocent' label?

Er, no. That simply does not follow and it is not my view. — Bartricks

So, answer the question I posed to you and stop obfuscating, otherwise, you are not worth my time as you are engaging in mere sophistry. The points you raised in your OP have already been soundly defeated on this thread imo. Your dissenters make far more compelling points compared to your one or two supporters. Your viewpoint is even more fringe and more diminished in importance than it was before you started this thread. The antinatalist voice is nothing more than background white noise.
Every person I have stated the word to had never heard of it and ridiculed its main proposal and the skewed thinking behind it. At least they now know the word so I furthered your cause in that sense but the result was to add to the number of dissenters.

Do you think a newly created person deserves to come to harm? — Bartricks

Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe?
The answer to your question is easy. Harming a newly created person has three sources.
1. Self-harm.
2. Harm caused by another human/lifeform.
3. Happenstance.
'Deserve,' is a judgment call, a human judgment call that probably has no relevance outside of humans and lifeforms like them. I will repeat again that which is obviously inconvenient to you.
Your concern is trivial in comparison with the significance of the purpose of consciousness, which I think is to ask questions.

Thus, an argument for antinatalism is not an argument for stopping others procreating. — Bartricks

Ok, I am personally fine with that. Remain background white noise if you wish.
Anytime you try to be more than this, you will simply be returned to white noise status as you have been in this thread imo.

Keep to the text — baker

I do, but I will respond to what you type.

"The harm" is the center of your phrase, and to this one I replied. — baker

Clarity is your responsibility also. If your response is based on the emphasis of certain words I have typed then make that clear and perhaps you will receive a return closer to your area of concern.

For example, all the polution we're facing nowadays is the result of science. — baker

Based on what evidence? The technologies created by scientists are open to abuse by the nefarious and by self-interest or just incompetent decisions made by those in power. Profiteers are only interested in profit. Your argument is similar to those who blame fictitious gods for the actions of theists.
I am not suggesting all science and all scientists are morally pure but I would certainly not make the sweeping generalisations you make.

Again, keep to the text: — baker

Again, try to improve your clarity.

The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life. — baker

Do you consider such people a large majority of the global population?
We live in very imbalanced rich/poor conditions. It is harsh to judge the aspiration level of any individual who has had poverty imposed upon them since birth and very limited or no opportunity to escape it.

Women cannot even be the masters of the noun for them!
The state should FORCE people to use the noun "woman" correctly, correctly distinguishing between the singular and the plural form.
It adds insult to injury not to use the noun "woman" correctly in a discussion of a topic that is of great importance to women. — baker

I think your point here is not an important one but I will leave it to any female posters to declare their support of your viewpoint. I assume you are not female.
No woman I know has ever raised any concern about such. Singular or plural THEY should be masters of their own body! I suggest you temper your excitement about an e in one of my sentences, that should have been an a. Btw, the word pollution has two l's not one, as you typed in one of your sentences. Are we exchanging ideas here or do you wish to continue making petty valueless points about spelling?

I think my list is longer than yours. — baker

I am sure it is but I have always favoured quality over quantity.

Even Jesus felt betrayed by God.
— Jackson
:up:

"Why are all the gods such vicious cunts?"
~Tyrion Lannister — 180 Proof

because they don't exist, apart from as projections of human behaviour within our storytelling traditions.

I don't understand the question. Innocence or guilt is always someone's. And it always belongs to a person, a mind. — Bartricks

This answer is quite clear. It implies that you agree that innocence/guilt is a concept created from the human condition. I think good/evil is the same. The concept of innocence is very important to the points you make in the OP.
You are using 'violation' of the common concept of innocence to invoke antinatalism as the only solution.
I am suggesting to you that I think this is an unwise invocation when as a species/lifeform, we don't yet understand human consciousness, we don't know why we are or what our main purpose is.
It seems to me that it is to ask questions and we are 'little packets of existence,' whose origin seems to be happenstance. The purpose of our manifestation seems to be OF THE universe to figure out why and what it is. It's almost as if some of the component parts are trying to figure out what the whole is. You suggest the 'suffering' aspect of the human experience negates that effort based on your claim that the human concept of innocence is violated. I think this is 'too small' a concern compared to the universal goal of seeking answers to the big 'how' and 'why' questions.
If antinatalism was realised it would achieve no more than setting the evolutionary clock back to a time without sentient/conscious/intelligent humans who ask questions like 'why does the universe exist,' and what is its purpose. Evolution would simply recreate sentient/conscious/intelligent species which could ask such questions and it will be ever thus! Does your own 'sense of the human condition,' and your own understanding of 'why we ask questions,' dispute this?

Er, no. Of course not. Why would you think I was? It's wrong to lie, isn't it? Default wrong, anyway. Does that mean I have an obligation to stop you lying? Should I kill everyone in order to stop lying occurring? No, that's dumb. If it's wrong to lie, that means I ought not to lie (and you ought not to lie). It does not follow that I ought to prevent you lying or you me. — Bartricks

I can only apply my own ability to interpret the words you type. This has two weaknesses, my ability to correctly interpret your intended meaning and your ability to impart your meaning with sufficient clarity, in the word combinations you choose to type. Neither possibility requires subterfuge or 'lying' by either party. We need to be tolerant of our misinterpretations of each other and simply request further clarification until understanding is gained or frustration results in us, politely and respectfully, discontinuing our exchange.
Your accusation that I am lying is offensive. I can trade blows with you at that level if that is one of the ways you get your 'jollies,' I am well practiced at doing so. I am enjoying my exchange with you so far in this thread. I would rather try to maintain that but if you prefer another slanging match with me to add to ones you have had with others then I can oblige you.

And create a million others — baker

Scientists have certainly been involved in biological and chemical warfare but it would be rather dumb to create a virus that can kill as many of your own people as it will the enemy, unless you have a cure. I think what you are suggesting belongs more to unlikely conspiracy theories than reality. Also, people should be a little more accurate in their use of quantities. There is an old 'jokey' response; "for the millionth time! Stop exaggerating!."

They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight. — baker

Well, you are engaging in a great deal of generalisation in such typing. I am capable of such myself but I think it's important to recognise when you are using such a big cumbersome brush to try to paint details.

But they're not actually preventing anyone. Antinatalists are a small, powerless bunch. It's the normal people who believe that procreation is "just fine" and who abort a half of all pregnancies that are actually preventing others, literally. — baker

Ok, so from this I would assume you are not an antinatalist. Yes, abortion will 'reduce the chances' of another Einstein or Ted Bundy. I believe however that women must be masters of their own body. The state cannot FORCE a women to maintain a pregnancy.

I think we probably have quite a bit of common ground on the issue of antinatalism.
I consider it a fringe, extreme and valueless viewpoint but I also think you should not bring children into this overpopulated world unless you can tick a large list of requirements first.

Innocence is not our creation. It's a status that someone has, not something we bestow by our attitudes. If I believe you're guilty of something, that doesn't mean you are - even if I manage to convince everyone else that you're guilty of it — Bartricks

My question was, does innocence/guilt exist outside of the human species or our like?

If, by the 'meaning' of our lives, you mean their purpose, well clearly the purpose of our lives is to do what is right. By procreating then, one goes against the purpose of one's being here. If you disagree, you need to challenge my argument. — Bartricks

I do challenge your argument. I asked you if the purpose of the universe is linked to the existence of humans. If antinatalism were realised it would damage that purpose, would it not?

I don't know. But evolutionary forces do not have moral obligations. We do — Bartricks

Extinction is permanent so if you don't know, perhaps it is unwise to advocate for antinatalism, if it would not achieve your goal as humans would just be eventually replaced by another conscious/sentient species who face the same dilemmas as we do. Morality is a development which occurred as humans worked together more and more and lived in communities. Morality would be an issue for any lifeforms which have a similar level of consciousness to humans.

among them is an obligation not to procreate. Note, I have not argued that we have an obligation to stop the production of persons. I have argued that we, as individuals, are obliged not to procreate. — Bartricks

You make an intriguing distinction here. Are you saying that if human beings can be created by harvesting sperm and eggs and producing humans completely outside of the human body then your antinatalism, would be ok with that?

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. — Harry Hindu

If you are saying that an individual's own life experience or/and their own (perhaps even subconscious) bias can influence how they interpret an event and what (and how) the event was caused, then I think there are certainly cases where this is true. I don't think it's true in all cases ( I am not suggesting you do think so.)
Even scientists have been known to push a particular interpretation and downplay any counter-evidence, even if they know the counter-evidence seriously compromises their findings.
This can be a question of your own morality or it could be that the meaning you garnered was just flawed interpretation.

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. — Harry Hindu

My comment was based on your use of 'scribbles on a screen,' which invokes a careless attempt at communication. This invokes quite a different image to a term like 'relaying your musings/contemplations/scientific findings to others.'

No, not how meaning becomes knowledge. It's how interpretations become knowledge - another causal relation, or meaning. — Harry Hindu

You yourself stated that 'the relationship between your interpretation and the observed effect is meaning.' This suggests to me that you propose 'meaning' is a composite of two sub-terms, interpretation and 'observed effect.' Meaning is (according to you) an umbrella term. Meaning would then be the term that can become 'knowledge,' not one of your suggested sub-terms.

We don't necessarily need to prove to others our own interpretations for our interpretations to work for us — Harry Hindu

True but we do need to if we require/seek their support.

Common knowledge exists as a result of others trying on others' interpretations, not simply taking others at their word. — Harry Hindu

I agree and I also strongly advocate against 'simply taking others at their word.' Check all sources!

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)? — Harry Hindu

Depends on what my personal missions were/are in life. How much my intentions depended on the support of others.
You must always self-analyze your own intent and hopefully resist any temptation at self-aggrandisement or recognise any narcissistic or egotistical tendencies you have.
At times this can be difficult to maintain 100% especially when your dissenters/enemies may be ruthless.
For me, fighting against the nefarious gives me great meaning in my life and is in fact very very life affirming. I will leave the antinatalists and their like to concern themselves about the meaningless lives they sadly feel they are living.

A being without a childhood with all its experiences like going to school, and family life, playing would all be missing and these contribute so much to human identity and the autobiographical self. — Jack Cummins

:up: Perhaps only the Neuroscientists working with Computer scientists will offer us some future answers. I don't think it will be in my lifetime.

In answer to your post about identity security and even credit rating, identity may be changing in the digital age. One's self online may be becoming an important part of identity construction, including the interaction on sites as this. It may be like a stage of performance because what we write may be read by many not known to us in daily life. It is a kind of disembodied voice and identity — Jack Cummins

An interesting new aspect of personal identity indeed.
I worry about who will control it.

Science and philosophy — val p miranda

Two very useful tools for all seekers of truth imo.

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks

For you, is innocence/guilt a creation of human conscience or does it have any significance outside of humans or they're like?
If lifeforms such as humans went extinct, do you think evolution/natural selection would simply continue and another lifeform like humans would emerge?
Is antinatalism a pointless viewpoint because the universe has no inherent significance/meaning without the existence of lifeforms such as humans, even antinatalist ones.

Science can help you with all three of those?
— universeness

No. — baker

Did science not eradicate the harm of smallpox to use a simple example.

No, it's precisely because I know I can't be that kind of parent that I don't feel qualified to have children — baker

If you feel you fall short in these aspects yourself does that mean everyone does? If not then do you think it's justified that antinatalists would prevent the birth of people such as Albert Einstein as well as people like Ted Bundy?
Do you associate the antinatalist viewpoint with any measure of human cowardice?

Would any artificial system such as an android emulation of a human have to have 'childhood experiences,' either programmed into it or actually have lived through for any attempt at emulating a HUMAN consciousness, to have any chance of success?
How much of the 'child' experience is essential to becoming an adult human conscious.
Would the android have to first emulate being born as a baby and be 'programmed' as such.
Would it need components that could 'grow'? etc.
To me, producing an artificial HUMAN consciousness/unique person is completely different from enhancing the lifespan/robustness of an existing one.
Might be of interest also to @punos

My imaginary scenario was more about our reliance on others to confirm who you are and we also rely on records to confirm so much about our status and position in life. I find such as your 'credit rating,' particularly controversial. I wonder how easy it would be to disrupt that system and force you to doubt your own identity. I think you are suggesting that it would be very difficult to get a person to really believe that their past was 'implanted.' Films like Total Recall have played with this idea.
Films like '1984' depict an example through torture where they represent a malleable or broken identity when the thought police expect their victims to see 4 lights when there are only three. It's not just about saying you can see 4 lights, you have to actually see them, when commanded to.
I think personal historical identity is insecure, partly because we don't have total recall and the recall we do have can be manipulated, records changed, lies told etc.
An authority can smash an individual's life very easily imo, as suggested/dramatised for Will Smith's character in the film 'The Pelican Brief.'

With your thought experiment it may be that I, as the subject example would have many of the aspects of identity in tact, but some may change accordingly to the different experiences — Jack Cummins

would these intact aspects of identity hold no matter how long my experiment lasted?
I used to add a bit, such as 'after two years of this. I turn up in a dark suit and black sunglasses to where you are with a large official-looking fancy car. I apologise about what we had to put you through. I now need to tell you who you really are and what your exciting mission is. Will you believe me?

I can only agree with the points you make about societal pressures based on how you look.
Such pressure seems to me to be from the 'natural selection book of rules.' Who should you pick to produce offspring with the best chance of survival? Not quite like that anymore but vile TV programs, such as love island are still ever popular with the masses.

What I am saying is that this way I have not at all proved your uniqueness, nor the existence of your will. You are the only person in the world able to decide if your perception of your will makes you unique. — Angelo Cannata

Quite a good description of free will imo.

Illness, old age, disease — baker

Science can help you with all three of those? If not you then your kids or their kids but if there are no more kids then the human adventure dies along with the suffer/learn why/ prevent the suffering process, due to the whims of spoilsport antinatalists.

Such as, "When you'll get older, you'll become numb, and then life will be much easier."

Early on, I swore I would rather not have a child at all than to give him such answers. — baker

:lol: Yeah, I can appreciate that but you might have been the father of the one.
The one who wins for us all. The one who cures all cancers or who discovers how to increase human lifespan for 10,000 years or discovers how to terraform Mars into an Earth-like planet within 20 years or.... or..... and you could have picked its name as well!
I have no kids and at 58, it's too late to do the job justice but I do wonder if my child could have been 'one' who made things better for millions of people. One who could even have changed the depressing mind of an antinatalist.
I know, it could have also have been a wee f***wit. :roll:

I appreciate the links. I will have a look!
Again, thanks for the very interesting exchange :smile: I am surprised that your line of thought did not attract more contributors from the TPF population.
Maybe I speak too soon.

How about this thought experiment Jack that I used to chat to my S6 pupils (16,17) about.
Normally when we had finished the course and were near to the end of session.

Imagine that 'Jack' (yeah, let's take you as my victim when you were around 17, you don't even have to place yourself in that mindset, go with you as you are now.) came into my classroom and I had already 'arranged' for everyone in his life to be in on this 'experiment' and for all records of him to be altered. All authorities have given their permission 'temporarily' for the sake of the experiment. I start by asking who you are and why you have entered my classroom. All the pupils claim to not know you. I call down to the office to ask about this new pupil and send you down there despite all your emotive protestations.
The office staff finally call the police who take you home to the address you live at and all your family deny your identity. The police take you to social services.
How long do you think it would take before you become unsure of your own identity that you have had for X years?
Who you are is quite tenuous in my opinion and so dependent on so many other aspects of your life that I think it's hard to be secure in any aspect of "What Makes Someone Become the Unique Person Who They Are ?" Of course, my experiment is probably a ridiculous one that would never be or could never be attempted but I am sure 'memory loss' patients or 'alzheimer patients,' do experience some similar type crisis of personal identity.
I don't think we are a blank slate at birth, I do think we inherit some personality traits from our ancestry but from that point, it is all about nurture and social and economic environment.
Who you are can also be influenced by a myriad of other factors, of that I think there is little doubt.

I didn't comment on your Feynman link as I have watched all that is available on him on youtube many times as I am a big Feynman fan.

I am glad you enjoyed our exchange.

Did you read this entry on my link:
In 2018, Google Duplex voice AI called a hairdresser and successfully made an appointment in front of the audience. The hairdresser did not recognize she was speaking to an AI. Considered to be a groundbreaking achievement in AI voice technology, Google Duplex is also far from passing the Turing test.

Duplex is a deep learning system representing the ‘Second Wave of AI’ – trained with hundreds of hours at performing very narrow tasks. Real-time learning, deep understanding, reasoning requires true cognitive abilities that none of the Second Wave AI programs have. As soon as the human would lead the conversation in a different direction, Google Duplex would fail.

I think it's a direct criticism of the vid you posted, is it not?

Your quote from Hassabis is partly why the turing test has not been passed yet by any AI system.
Surely you would withdraw your 'passed it with flying colours' claim!

I fully admit that I don't know the details on the workings of the most up-to-date AI systems involving artificial neural nets but you would need to source me some very convincing scientific evidence that current experts in the field don't know how current artificial neural nets produce the results they do based on your typing of:

Even now we don't understand what artificial neural networks are doing when they give their responses, it's too complex. — punos

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. — Harry Hindu

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.

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? — Harry Hindu

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.

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.'
I am ok with all the interpretations of an event. Was that a comet or a 'star of Bethlehem etc.
When we are sure what interpretations/meanings are correct to most people than we accept them as truth. That's the only time knowledge should be committed to a science book.
A theist/theosophist can write any fable/personal interpretation of events in a religious text that he/she/personal gender wants but stop calling it the truth. I am personally convinced that counting tree rings does indicate the age of the tree.
When we can find majority agreement we can say that effect is meaningful enough to rename the proposal as knowledge. Meaning is therefore a carrier force. Like a gluon. Bonds quanta together into something more useful to all of us. Events.....meaningful interpretations.....knowledge. Life is good....and...meaningful.

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. — Harry Hindu

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

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. — Harry Hindu

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.'
Should I care if my answer to "what is your meaning of life " is useful or not to another?

Failure to achieve goals and purposes is something that should be considered. — Harry Hindu

Good advice I think and I certainly apply it but I will still try, despite the risks if I perceive that goal to be very meaningful to me or to a group I identify with.

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. — Harry Hindu

But surely the communication of my ideas, expressed in a common language between us are indicators toward my 'education with the English language.' I don't imagine it matters whether or not it comes from a self-taught source or an academically certificated source, as long as I am able to demonstrate my command of it to your satisfaction and if I can't then I would assume our communication would become less attractive to both of us.

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. — Harry Hindu

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.

Ok, I understand your viewpoint as much as I am going to on this topic I think. We certainly have common ground and some disagreement. Thanks for the interesting exchange.