Good luck stimulating blind eyes with electricity in order to cause them to suddenly see the world despite not having properly functioning biological structures. I hope doctors don't get their patients' hopes up quite yet.

So, for the past few days I've been working on a special presentation box. The wood species and cuts are such that there is a remarkable iridescence emanating from the piece. This is more or less noticeable depending upon the amount of light it is bathed in. The contrasting dark and light tiger striped pattern switches back and forth. They're switching on the face of the box. That's where the pattern is located. The stripes are not in my head. They consist entirely of reflected light. Those reflections do not require being perceived. You can, however, look for yourself.

They go from being the darker stripes in the pattern to being the lighter ones, and vice versa. It is a mesmerizing shift in perception. Captivating. That change does require an observer(at a bare minimum a changing vantage point) It is a change in how the box reflects light according to the gradual change in the vantage point of the observer relative to the location of the box and the light source; how it looks from a gradually changing vantage point.

One can rest the piece in direct light, change the vantage point from which one observes the box by slowly walking around the box, and see for themselves just how the pattern on the box changes as described above. The cause of this change is largely due to the biological structures of the wood itself.

That is not entirely mental.

We all use them to pick out white and gold and blue and black things. We just differ on which things.
— creativesoul

See what I said to Banno about the distinction between the adjective "red" and the noun "red":

The adjectives "red" and "painful" describe things like pens and stubbing one's toe.

The nouns "red" and "pain" refer to the mental percepts that pens and stubbing one's toe cause to occur.
— Michael — Michael

I take it that you're clarifying your own personal use, here in this thread, but you are not making some claim true of everyone using the terms "red" and "painful". Correct me, if you would please, should my take on that be somehow mistaken. I don't think your use has been consistent, but I may be wrong on that.

Colours, as ordinarily understood in everyday life, are how things look, not how things reflect light. How things reflect light determines how things look, and so determines the colour seen, but reflecting light is distinct from colour. — Michael

Agreed. Color is not the same as how things reflect light.

When I think about the colour red I am not thinking about light reflectances; I am thinking about the visual percept. — Michael

Understood. As you should be if you're using the term to pick out/refer to "the visual percept" That may answer my wondering if I'm taking you the right way.

Do all of the eyes that are perceiving the very same scenery at the very same time from nearly the same vantage point perceive the same light? Yup.
— creativesoul

We see the same light but not the same colour. Therefore the light is not the colour. — Michael

I don't think that argument is valid.

We see the same light but not the same color. We agree on that. Therefore, seeing the same light is not the same as seeing the same color. The term "seeing" is being stretched beyond coherence. We do not see all the ranges of wavelengths entering our eyes.

We do not detect all the ranges of wavelengths entering our eyes at any given time. We also do not all detect the same ranges even when perceiving the same light at the same time. Therefore, perceiving light is not equivalent to detecting ranges. If color is light. Then seeing colors is on par with detecting certain ranges and not equivalent to perceiving light.

Or...

You and your friend are not perceiving the same light.

The light is the cause of the colour (much like the chemicals in the food are the cause of the taste), nothing more. — Michael

So, you're saying that at least some of the constituents comprising the food are not the food. To me, eating food is part of the cause of tasting it. The other part is how the olfactory and gustatory biological structures work. Seems to me that throughout this thread, your position completely disregards all the things outside the head. Things that are not mental, all of which are necessary for subjective experience to first emerge; that are necessary for illusions and dreams to first emerge; that are necessary for mental percepts to emerge.

What do you mean with "eyes perceive light"? Are we talking about the eye as an organ? And are we talking about what happens when light waves interact with the eye or what kind of signal the eye transmits? — Echarmion

Brute perception of is physical interaction with light. My words were in response to Michael, who's been depending upon what he thinks the science says and/or supports. So, yes, we're talking about how the biological structures work. I suspect that there's much more to Michael's notion of "perception" than my own.

The words "white and gold" and "blue and black" are referring to both, the light being emitted by the dress and perceived by the viewer.
— creativesoul

They aren't referring to both. — Michael

Bald assertion contradicting everyday observable events, falsified by them, in fact.

Some people use "white and gold" and "black and blue" to pick out specific things. Some use them to pick out particular wavelength ranges within the natural visible spectrum to the exclusion of all else. Some use them to gather groups of things reflecting/emitting the same wavelengths. Some use them to pick out certain parts of personal subjective experience; namely the ocular biological structure's role in our daily lives(seeing things).

We all use them to pick out white and gold and blue and black things. We just differ on which things.

When my colleague and I look at the photo of the dress we see different colours. The noun "colours" isn't referring to the light because we don't see different light...

How many different ranges of wavelengths are emanating from the dress? The dress emits but one, towards both - you and he - at the same time during the same viewing. Saturate our eyes with bright sunlight, and we'll notice changes on the receiver's end, not the source/cause.

Do all of the eyes that are perceiving the very same scenery at the very same time from nearly the same vantage point perceive the same light? Yup. They do not all detect the same ranges though.

Maybe quote the rest of the sentence:

When I look at the photo of the dress and describe its colours as white and gold, the words “white” and “gold” are referring to colour percepts, not the pixels on the screen emitting certain wavelengths of light

Do you agree or disagree with this? — Michael

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of coherency/terminological consistency. As far as I can tell, you're equivocating key terms. "Colours" is one. I was just pointing out the equivocation. The rest of the sentence shows that nicely. You know that too. That's why you corrected it when you added what's below...

When looking at the photo of the dress, some see white and gold, some black and blue. This is a fact. What are the words "white", "gold", "black", and "blue" referring to in that sentence?

I say mental percepts. — Michael

It's worth noting that that dress 'photo' is a digital image. The same issue does not arise with a hard copy. The words "white and gold" and "blue and black" are referring to both, the light being emitted by the dress and perceived by the viewer. The differences between viewers are attributable to the amount of direct sunlight they(and their eyes) had been exposed to leading up to the viewing of the 'photo'. The colors emitted by surfaces and our eyes are effected/affected by environmental influences such as direct sunlight, shadow, etc. Colours and coloured pigmentation are virtually useless in the deep sea for instance. A bright yellow ball looks very different when viewed in deep water, or in very low light conditions. Everything looks different in those conditions. So, it's clearly not just about what's going on in the brain when we look at distal objects.

I say claiming that colours are "mental percepts" confines the scope to inside the brain. The dress, ball, and the light they emit/reflect are not. Technically speaking, nor are our eyes. I'm thinking that science also supports the claim that colours are light. I'm doubting that science supports what you're claiming it does.

Referring to mind-independent objects as having colours is a relic of naive colour realism — Michael

When I look at the photo of the dress and describe its colours — Michael

:brow:

The noun "pen" refers to a mind-independent object. The adjective "red" describes this mind-independent object's causal role in eliciting a particular type of mental percept. The noun "red" refers to this type of mental percept.

I think I've been really clear on this. — Michael

Imagine you're in a debate. Your opponent keeps using the same word, but it feels like they're using it in different ways to make their point. That's called an equivocation fallacy. This tricky tactic can make an argument seem solid when it’s really not.

They use a word or phrase with more than one meaning, but act like it’s just one. That confuses things.

How does the equivocation logical fallacy work? You can think of the equivocation fallacy like a chameleon. A chameleon can change its color to blend into different surroundings. Similarly, a word in an equivocation fallacy changes its "color" or meaning to fit different parts of an argument. This tactic can mislead people or just cause a lot of confusion.

Looks like an equivocation to me. Proudly so even.

Also...

Weird that a chameleon would change my mental phenomena(the color of the chameleon) and result in blending into its surroundings which are not my mental phenomena.

Language doesn't think about itself.

The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank

Data from inside the brain?

Emergence of experience requires more than just a brain. Persistence of experience does as well. Brains are not enough. It takes more than just a brain to smell the cake in the neighbor's oven. It takes more than just a brain to remember that smell. It takes more than just a brain to hallucinate that experience.

Statements don't talk.

People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them.
— creativesoul

I don't think you understand. He believes in authoritarianism. I get that you're not taking it seriously. I do, though. I don't think it's an act. — frank

The above paid no attention to what preceded it. Vance could also believe that authoritarianism is a preferable form of government/society/nation.

He could have gone from a broke drug influenced and otherwise horrible upbringing to the greedy - profit at all and any cost - profit as the sole motive for action - glorified on public media - American venture capitalist. He was portrayed as such for a minute.

Vance could not have gone from believing that certain elites were/are to largely to blame for the socioeconomic circumstances/depression he suffered through...

...to wanting/trying to be one...

...while acting in the best interest of midwestern Americans.



'The elites' harmed American people by virtue of influencing government action/legislation. The elites bought/buy the politicians. Common belief was that our government was being illegally bribed by powerful wealthy entities, but nothing could be done about it. A strategically placed representative can have certain language included in certain pieces of legislation that will provide huge financial gains for you personally. If you have the money and know the right sorts of people. If you're an elite. Trump is.

American politicians are for sale.

Donald Trump himself said so. He bragged about it on public stage, in front of everyone watching. It happened as plain as day. As clear as the nose on your face. The media downplayed it. Well, that's being nice about that very troublesome fact. The lack of attention given to, the sheer lack of outrage regarding that particular event is a sure sign that too many people have accepted the fact that Americans have the best government money can buy.

Vance cannot be both. against elites and with them. I understand just fine, thanks.





The opportunities available for many, some of which are Trump supporters, but many more of which are not, have been steadily decreasing since the early mid 70's. Systematically. The normal blue collar and other normal everyday workers/citizens - on a whole, and generally speaking - have had power taken from them and transferred to the owners/employers. This is particularly relevant when there is a conflict of interest between the American workers and their employer. The owners are/were the elites.

The regulations/legislation have been erring on the side of huge corporations and other powerful entities for over half a century. The history of anti-trust legislation shows the slow methodical practice of systematically removing the ability to enforce laws meant to protect Americans from fraud and otherwise being taken advantage of by those who could not care much less about their livelihoods when that conflicts with stock values and/or the actors'/owners' potential profit margin. Consumer protection and antitrust laws are gone... toothless.

Trump is both an elite, and a fraud.

Vance became Donald Trump's running mate, championing the suggested path forward in the 2024 American presidential election, written by the elites. Vance accepted and joined those he claimed were responsible for the plight of very large swathes of midwestern American people. He's becoming one. He's supporting one.

Look through the well documented history. He 'suggested', for lack of a better term, that certain entities were responsible for the passing of certain legislation resulting in fewer equal opportunities for Americans in general. The powerful well-connected elites. During some of those times, he wrote/read as[/i[] an author/speaker/user that was sincere, honest, and forthright. He seemed to believe what he said at the time.

Vance can believe that elites like Trump are largely to blame for the plight and suffering of rule following, law abiding, otherwise hard working midwestern Americans. Vance can believe that people like Trump - the tremendously wealthy powerful people - are largely to blame for all the outsourcing of jobs and lowering of American wages devastating middle America. Vance can believe that Americans have been starved into agreement with competing with foreign workers who do not earn anything equivalent to an American fair wage. Vance can believe that American government has passed legislation that paves the way for business owners to move all operations overseas. Vance can believe that there is legislation amounting to legal government bribery written by entities whom the public are not allowed to learn about/know of... all in the guise of 'free speech' nonetheless.

Vance cannot believe that and believe it's okay to join the elites unless he is okay with unnecessarily harming the aforementioned Americans in the devastating ways they have been hurt by both parties since the late seventies. If espousing authoritarian style government allows him to become an elite, he will.

That's the act.

People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them.

Oh, and Vance's memoir is pretty well written. He's a fraud though. Profit and power are his sole motives.
— creativesoul

Why do you think that? — frank

His schtick, which is very much tailored towards the Midwest rural Americans, is a shared distain for the 'elite'. The 'elite' are scapegoats to be blamed regarding all the lost opportunity for regular folk. It's their fault in those peoples' worldview. He may have believed all that at one time. The problem, of course, is that the people who've lost those opportunities have been convinced to be mad at and blame the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He knows that now. Rural Americans have been talked into voting for people and policies against their own best interests as well as being convinced that ideas and things that really are good for them, are not.

His railing against the 'elite' just perpetuates the problems above. He's cozied up to Trump, which goes against all the earlier talk of 'elites'. He's not so much against elitism insofar as they think their better than regular people. Rather, he shares the same sort of thinking that he's better than others. He just wants to change things so that he's in the elite group.

He's Trump's running mate. I have a hard time believing that a Yale graduate would have such a change of heart about Trump and people like Trump based upon an understanding of Trump and the way things work in US politics. He has both. So, why/how the sudden change of heart? Trump is transactional, and offered Vance the reward of a means for power, status, and privilege.

That's part of "why" I think that.

Yeah, I'm very cynical when it comes to why no one has just put the facts out there. It seems even the lots of the 'left wing' so called 'liberal' mainstream media see neutral to positive Trump coverage and the repetition of propaganda as a means to an end. Profit is the sole motive. The more viewers the better in those terms.

I'm not sold on Harris' motivations. Or should I say, I'm not very confident that she has the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans at heart. That said, Trump and the republican congress members who were/are complicit in his committing fraud against the United States of America need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There were many of his actions that were not performed under the recent protective language of SCOTUS's immunity decision.

Oh, and Vance's memoir is pretty well written. He's a fraud though. Profit and power are his sole motives. Coincidentally, he and I happened to be born in the same town, a once thriving area chock full of industrial opportunity. Now a zombieland full of hopeless people with little to no chance of any decent livelihood, unless their lucky enough to have been born into it.

When Trump got elected, I posted my general thoughts on the matter, something like "What did you f***ing expect to happen when huge swathes of Americans have been lied to by both parties since the Carter administration. The end result is no teeth in consumer protection, no teeth in antitrust law enforcement, no recourse for those who've watched their livelihoods be swiped away by the stroke of the legislative pen, no decent paying jobs for non college folk, few decent paying jobs for those who got swindled by college for profit, etc."

The American government has not erred on the side of the overwhelming majority of people when there is a conflict of interest between those who already have the most and those who have the least. Chomsky and Sanders both make irrefutable argument by just plain stating the facts that led up to all that.

In short, Americans have the best government money can buy. It sickens me to think about it, so I stay busy making stuff.

I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere.
— Echarmion

Which is weird considering the economy is booming. — frank

The Biden administration record is quite good. The American public have been sold a bill of falsehood and rhetoric that has affected/effected the common persons' opinion in such a way that they believe all sorts of thing that are simply not true about this administration.

I'm not a Biden fan.

I visit x.com — Shawn

Self brainwash much?

Trump will not debate her. She would shred him. Go Kamala.

:100:

Ah. Thanks. So, B and notB are negations of one another while "not B" in normal parlance means different than B but not necessarily contradictory to B.

C is not B. Does that translate into notation the same way that notB does?

So a+b = b+a regardless of what number you stick in to the formula, and a^(a→b)⊢b regardless of what statement you put in, too. Or so it is supposed to go. — Banno

Yeah, I get that much. As you said, that's kinda the point of using variables. I was just thinking that some statements implied a plurality of others, and hence, unless the others contradict one another, implying B and not B(C) does not imply a contradiction.

The international move has taken a year to get settled, but things are going well. Thanks for asking.

Hey Janus!

Evidently, normal parlance does not translate into logical notation so easily. I think there also may be a difference between "notB" and "not B". Given that no one paid much attention, I take it that my ignorance of formal logic was too obvious to mention.

:grin:

I've been reading the replies and trying to better understand, but with so little experience, and no time nor desire to practice, I'll remain an interested bystander.

So, I'm curious. Do you have a bare minimum criterion for what counts and/or what it takes for any and/or all examples of giving purpose to something to count as such?
— creativesoul
An excellent question! I had to read it more than once to understand what you were asking. Not, what are the minima for a purpose to be a purpose, but rather, as you have already granted that purpose is granted, given, assigned... — tim wood

My apologies. The scarequotes implied uncertainty on my part. You used the terms. I indicated my own trepidation of that use by using scarequotes. That was a way of mentioning without assent.

Do (A implies B) and (A implies not B) contradict each other?

Please give your reasoning, if you choose to answer, for why you think they do, or don't, contradict each other. And if you think they do contradict each other, does that mean they can't both be true at the same time? — flannel jesus

It depends upon the values given to the variables.

They can contradict one another at times. At other times, they can both be true. They cannot do both at the same time.

Some A's have a plurality of implications. If A implies both, B and C, then "A implies B" and "A implies not B" is better understood as "A implies B and C". C is not B.

A implies B and C. C is not B. A implies both, B and not B. No contradiction.

QED

I do not limit such behaviour to people, but I do think it makes sense to speak in terms of people on the assumption that at least at first there may be greater clarity. — tim wood

Ah. Good. Thanks for clarifying.

So, I'm curious. Do you have a bare minimum criterion for what counts and/or what it takes for any and/or all examples of giving purpose to something to count as such?

I mean, it seems to me that if humans and other creatures can 'give things purpose' then there must be some bare minimum criterion, some basic set of common denominators/elements, which counts as such. What do all examples of a capable creature giving purpose to something include, human examples notwithstanding?

I'm concerned that focusing upon only human examples could lead us away from the more basic ones. It seems to me that our criterion regarding what counts as the most basic outline of 'giving purpose' needs to be perfectly capable of bridging the gap between the language less animals' cases and our own.

Imho best to limit this to people because, so far as I know, there is no adequate language for making clear just what exactly animals are doing. As to your distinction between purpose on one side and meaning and significance on the other, l don't quite get it. But I have no reason to think I would disagree with you. I assume you mean that a dim bulb can illuminate meaning and significance, but that it takes something brighter to execute purpose. In any case I think none of it exists absent an agent in which it is thought/supposed. — tim wood

Perhaps unpacking the last claim would help.

I do think giving purpose(s) to things takes more complex cognition/thinking than attributing meaning/significance. As before, purpose involves a means to some goal. I think we agree there.

I'm curious what sort of reasoning/justification grounds the implication that only humans are capable of attributing meaning/significance and/or giving purpose to things. The way you put the last claim may be indicative of how you've arrived at that. May I safely conclude that you do not believe any other creature(aside from humans) is capable of thinking in any way that it makes sense for us to say that they are attributing meaning or significance to something, or that no other creature is capable of 'giving' purpose to other things?

All of that presupposes some unspoken notions. Meaning. Significance. Thought. We may be working from very different notions.

1. The action in-itself is good;
2. A good effect is foreseen from that action;
3. The foreseen bad effect is not directly intended (from that action);
4. The good effect cannot be brought about without the bad effect; and
5. The alternative means for producing that good effect also cannot be used without bad effects; and
6. The bad effect for the means chosen is less severe than or on a par with the alternative bad effects from the alternative means (consequentially). — Bob Ross

This could be used to justify knowingly causing preventable harm. 4, 5, and 6 presuppose omniscience of all means capable of bringing about the desired 'good' effect.

You seem incapable of understanding that some folk, myself included, fully accept that all things meaningful and/or significant are so to a capable creature. Hence, if 'the universe' excludes all such creatures, by definition nonetheless, then the universe is meaningless.

I've no issue at all accepting that until something/someone convinces me otherwise. I have no reason to accept the limited options you offered as means to deal with a meaningless irrational universe. In fact, I'm living proof, prima facie evidence, a shining example to the contrary.

The volunteer manning the suicide prevention hotline will try to give his user hope by means of some adhoc crash course in informal spirituality.

Apparently, the Biden administration has approved a yearly budget increase of $100 million (or $200 million) for this approach.

In my opinion, it may already be too late in the game for such last-ditch effort. You cannot give hope to someone who does not even believe in the fundamentally irrational notion of hope. That is why everybody knows that there is simply no hope for the hopeless.

In that sense, this approach is largely an expensive waste of time and resources. They cannot make a visible dent in the problem just by throwing money at it. — Tarskian

Rhetorical drivel.

The quality/accuracy of the belief system is not under scrutiny. In that case, it is how many people it could help to save from having a miserable life. Helping those who can be helped with life by spiritual teaching is fine if it helps. The reward is worth the cost. Doing nothing for them simply because they hold unacceptable beliefs to you is heartless.

Sure hope you're not in charge of appropriating the necessary funds.

Hopeless, to you, evidently means not worthy of help.

"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless.
— creativesoul

There is no rationale for why the universe exists. — Tarskian

"Why the universe exists" is a psychological question. It does not follow from the fact that there is no rationale answering that question that the universe is irrational and meaningless. We are part of the universe. We are meaningful and rational. If a part of the universe is meaningful and rational then it is not true that the universe is meaningless and irrational. That claim is false on its face.

I invite you to reread and directly address the counter-examples of reasoning for committing suicide. One example of valid reasoning arguing in the affirmative for taking one's own life counts as a case of rational suicide.

If all one's suffering requires one's being alive, then one's death ends all one's suffering.

suicide is not always irrational
— creativesoul
Perhaps, but my point is that suicide is always either unsound (choice) or involuntary (abject / pathological). — 180 Proof

Your characterization is not the only past/current state of affairs, situation, circumstance, actual happenstance. Your characterization counts as unwarranted belief(false hope). There are such cases. Not all.

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict with the world. Absurdism claims that existence as a whole is absurd.

Various possible responses to deal with absurdism and its impact have been suggested. The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

Seems other options are there to be practiced.

Rationality is a feature/quality we attribute to a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof. How well are they strung together.

Where there has never been a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof there could have never been rationality.

"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless.

I remain puzzled about what counts as a non atheist society.

We can always rest easy claiming - but that all the more reason to remember it's just a claim. And good claims work - but none of that makes them true. — tim wood

That is the case with all good claims.

It's not easy to describe any animal action in terms that do not tend either to anthropomorphize or make hasty assumptions. — tim wood

I agree. It is not easy to avoid anthropomorphism. We'll keep an eye out for it.

My cat meows at the door; obviously it wants to go out. The evidence being that it goes out - except when it doesn't. Cat owners all share the experience of their cat, once the door opens, standing in the doorway, or lying down in the doorway, for an extended sampling of the day, no matter the weather. So what is the cat about? Who knows? All we get is the probability/possibility of certain behaviours. — tim wood

I do not see the relevance of your mistake to what I wrote.

The cat didn't want to go out. That cat meows at the door for more than one reason. You're the one saying it's obvious that the cat wanted to do something that he did not do. Not I.

What's the problem with what I wrote? I don't have that problem. By all means, if I ever attribute thought/belief/reason that only humans are capable of forming, having, and/or holding to a non human, let me know.

Problems with your account are being held up as an example used against my account. Does that move count as a valid objection these days? My oh my, what is the world coming to?

When one creature that has never done so watches another creature that is well rehearsed in doing so gather termites from a mound using a stick, it learns how to use a stick for the purpose of gathering resources. They want to eat termites. They know how to use a stick in order to do so. The one will break a small limb from branch, strip it of all external leaves and twigs, poke holes into a termite nest, and then poke the limb deep into the nest allowing the termites to climb upon the stick.

That creature does that on purpose. The stick becomes significant to the watcher. The stick is already significant to the user.

Does any of that count as anthropomorphism to you?

:smile:

'ppreciatchoo!

Suicide is not always irrational. That's the only point I was making.
— creativesoul

You don't have to convince me! While I would not want to live in a culture that values 'honour' -whatever they think that means - over life and happiness, I have my own exit strategy in case of certain foreseeable eventualities. — Vera Mont

No worries. Convincing you wasn't the aim. Clearly making the case was.

:wink:

But I have no reason to think I would disagree with you. I assume you mean that a dim bulb can illuminate meaning and significance, but that it takes something brighter to execute purpose. In any case I think none of it exists absent an agent in which it is thought/supposed. — tim wood

You may be getting hung up on my distinction between a capable creature and an agent. I think "agency" is fraught with historical baggage. The more I think about it, I'm not so sure I agree that all purpose presupposes agency either. Chimps. Crows. I'm hesitate to attribute agency to them, but I've no issue clearly explaining how they give purpose to rudimentary tools; how those tools become meaningful/significant to them.

I'm actively working this out as well. :blush: I'm not well rehearsed in the subject matter of purpose/teleology. I'm more seeing where my prior commitments leave/lead me on the matter.

A person can be hungry without knowing what he wants, but at least he's hungry. — tim wood

Sure, but being hungry without knowing what one wants to eat is more akin to being ambitious without knowing how to achieve the desired outcome. That is ambition without clear means. It is not ambition without desired outcome/goal.

X has purpose in strict relation to a creature capable of intentionally, deliberately, and/or knowingly putting things to use...
— creativesoul

Imho best to limit this to people because, so far as I know, there is no adequate language for making clear just what exactly animals are doing. — tim wood

Hmmm. People are not the only creatures capable of intentionally, deliberately, and/or knowingly putting things to use. If a creature learns to use a stick to fetch termites out from deep inside of a nest, we can rest quite easy in claiming that the creature uses that stick for a specific purpose. The stick is a tool. The stick has purpose in strict relation to the creature intentionally, deliberately, and/or knowingly putting it to use. The purpose is 'given' to the stick by the creature under consideration.

Is that not adequate enough?

As to your distinction between purpose on one side and meaning and significance on the other, l don't quite get it.

All purpose is meaningful/significant to a creature capable of 'giving' purposes to things. All purpose presupposes meaning and/or significance. Not all meaning and/or significance presupposes purpose.

If the person believes the only way to rid themselves of misery is to end their own life, and they choose to commit suicide, then that is a completely rational choice. I do not see how false hope plays a role here
— creativesoul
The hope is that all suffering will end with life. It's false if there is a judgmental afterlife, in which suicide is against the law. — Vera Mont

Agreed, if there is some judgmental afterlife.

However, I was simply pointing out by anecdote that suicide is not always irrational, which is about being well grounded, justified, and/or arrived at from valid reasoning. That is quite distinct from whether or not the decision/reasoning was based upon true belief/premises. There are other stories as well.

Samurai will fall on their own sword rather than to be dishonored by virtue of being killed by an enemy. In that culture, it is most honorable to do so. Kamikaze pilots performed honorably according to the cultural mores as well. Suicide is not always irrational. That's the only point I was making.

That said, I suspect there are - sometimes - multiple other ways to rid oneself of misery, but that is definitely context dependent.
— creativesoul
Sometimes there are other means - or would be, if they were made available to the person contemplating death. But there are situations in which that person is powerless to affect change in their circumstances. (I'm thinking prisoner in some benighted country or terminally ill or catastrophically injured patient. those are extreme situations, but they're the simple fact of life for many thousands.)

Yup.