Uhm... Hey, guys? I think I figured it out.

[Muad'Dib]

Everything.

Ya'know?

Yeah, I mean it. Everything, life, love God the universe and our place in it.

This is really weird, and really cool.

Also, I assure you, I am not high. At least I hope I am not because it would really stink to have thought that you finally figured all of the answers to all of the big questions. I mean, really. Could there be a bigger let down? Well, maybe. The great thing about life is that it is never so bad that it can’t get worse.

Oddly enough it all really started falling together when I realized what a vile bitch Ayn Rand was. However, she was also very smart and had gotten closer then any one before.

What is to follow is going to often sound like a bunch of new-age hippy bullshit. For that I am sorry because I really hate hippies. They are a bunch of lazy, dirty moochers that take without adding and need to use drugs to give them a false of rightness.

Anyway, back to the point.

But before that. I am posting this (the rough draft and first part) because I want to make sure I am right. I am not sure and I want you folks to look it over (what little their currently is) and tell me if I forgot to carry the one and stuff. Please, please don't start reading this with the mindframe of "wow, Ryan has finally fried his noodle. Let's sit back and watch what happens". If you have to, pretend that some stuffy, old, English proffesor type with a bushy mustache, delicate gold glasses and a pipe. Just, please, give it a chance and tell me if I am wrong, which I am fairly certain I might be. I plan on writting more soon.


I should start out with the biggie, “The Meaning of Life”. Yup there is one. Well, the question might be a bit off. It is better to say “The Point of Life”.

And it is…..

(Drum roll)…….

Budabudabudabuda….

*The curtain quickly draws back and we find:*

The Cultivation of Mind!

BA DA!!!

That is it. Sorry if it seems a bit curt, but that is the best way to sum it up.

When I say mind, I mean awareness, that you are capable of saying “My name is Bob. I like this and do not like that. I will now go do this so I can accomplish that”.

Mainly, the point is that we are creatures that are aware of our selves, of all the stuff around us and that that stuff can be mixed and worked together so that new stuff is created that makes it possible to create or do other really cool, useful and fun stuff that otherwise would not be possible.

It is only mind that can realize this and therefore there can only be good created in relationship to this.

Now you may say “Ryan, but what about then sunlight that falls on a flower? Is that not good for the flower? It makes it so it can live, grow and exist?”

Yeah, but the flower is pointless.

You may as well say that it is good that a rock hit another rock allowing it to roll down a road.

Then you might reply “But Ryan, that is different, that has no point. A rock rolled down a road, of what good is that? A flower is not pointless it makes neat and pretty things like color and fragrance that we can enjoy.”

You are right

But the flower only gained only gained its significance by the fact that it provided what we, creatures of mind, value: pretty colors, fragrances and such. Without a mind to experience and appreciate the flower, it may as well have never happened.. It is like the old, clichéd and famous Zen Buddhist koan:

The answer?

Sure as hell does.

Eeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrr CRASH!
And if it fell on some unlucky little forest creature there will very likely be much screaming until the poor bugger finally goes on to meet its maker.

However, the real point is, does the sound that no mind heard matter?

Nope.

It may as well not have happened. It did not really affect any thing meaningful (unless, of course, that whole “butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and six months later New Orleans is destroyed. Filthy Jap moth bastards.)

It only matters it only matters if it experienced by a creature of mind.

You might respond, “So what if New Orleans or that flower from a while back do not have mind. It still affects them.

Yes it does, but without mind it does not matter. It is no different from a random piece of sand colliding with another on the beach of a world a billion miles away. If there is no mind to experience it, to make something of it, it may as well not have happened.


“So, what? You think that you are better than me?”

I am sure that everyone has heard that at some point, and history is full of horrible, horrible examples. (and I use the word “horrible” literally because those thoughts and actions were an infinitely deep, dark horror). The biggie of the 20’th century, the Nazis proclaiming that they were “better” than, well… not just the Jews ( even though they were supposed to the lowest of the low) but everyone. Now this blond haired blue eyed writer does like to occasionally fantasize that he is superior to just about every one in every way, but a superiority based on those slim genetic factors would fail to explain why Asian chicks are so hot. All forms of irrational prejudice are as such, whether it be racism, sexism, hate between cultures and hate towards homosexuals.

Note also that I said “irrational prejudice”. Prejudice is a good and fine without with we could not function (except, maybe and unlikely, if we are luckily enough to randomly choose the correct item or action every time).

You are, and should be, prejudiced, against lots of things. If I offered you two plates on which was placed two steaks, one cooked to perfection, the other raw and rotted to such a vile point that it is almost unrecognizable, you would rightly be prejudiced against the rotten and for the fresh. I know that there are some folks out there who actually like the sort of rotten meat thing (weird and freaky “gourmand” types), well, I do not care what you think, there is some thing wrong with you.

In the last century many people became confused about what it means to be prejudiced. They started saying that all prejudice is wrong, that you only think it is wrong because you see things and live in a different perspective, therefore no one can really say what is good, bad, right, wrong, true, false.

This is also a mistake.

It is true that we all have different perspectives on how to each and what is good, bad, right, wrong, true, false, but that good, bad, right, wrong, true, false still exist. Although we may take different paths and use different methods to identify them, that there is not one perfect method (although I suspect there is and that all of the different are not really all that different. You might say that they are just different shades of the same color)

Let us say that I can run faster, jump higher, read quicker, solve mathematical equations more speedily (I am running out of synonyms) than you, or anyone else. Then yes, I am superior to you.

But! (And you knew there had to be a “but” coming)

I would only be superior to the others in those endeavors. Even then, that superiority would only matters if the skills can be used to complete tasks desirable to the mind (remember when I was talking about the flower and the sand?).

Think of a bunch of different triangles. Some are obtuse, some are quite intelligent (rim-shot), some are acute, some are very dumb (another rim-shot, I got million of them folks), man are large, others are rather small. So you have this big collection of triangles, all of them unique. Are any of them superior to any others? Remember when I said that I can run faster, jump higher, read quicker, and solve mathematical equations more speedily then all others? While this is true (Really, I can also float through the air with the greatest of ease and zap stuff with my heat vision. I do not have much call to zap stuff though, so I mostly use it to kill irritating bugs), does it make me fundamentally better than anyone else?

No.

I may be able to accomplish more in a significant task, but that has no affect on my status as a human. So long as you can say “My name is Bob (or what ever your name is, but I hear that the Dave’s are mustering their forces to make themselves the only ones who count). I like this and do not like that. I will now go do this so I can accomplish that” you are a creature of mind (I say “creature of mind” on the freaky off chance that we meet up with some aliens, create machines that can think [which will only lead to a whole host of other problems] or encounter some sort of trippy 2001 pure energy space baby)

Those triangles I was talking about a while back, sure they are all different but does that take away from their status as a triangle? Is a big triangle more of a triangle than a small one? Is an acute triangle more of a triangle than an obtuse one?

No. They are all triangles. Their “trianglnes” is unaffected in any way by its shape, size or position. It is a purely digital state, either yes or no, 1 or 0, A or not A.

Such as is with humans.

Let us compare myself with an average person. I am six foot four, I have blond hair and blue eyes, perfect teeth and skin, am impressively muscular, barely an ounce of fat, very well endowed sex machine to all the chicks, intelligent beyond all measure as well as witty, funny, productive inspiring and all around glorious. Also I can float through the air with the greatest of ease and can zap bugs with my laser vision, don’t forget. One more thing, I am also exceedingly humble and I have the patience of a saint (I need to be if I have to deal with the rest of you).. A normal person is sickly wretch with a hallow chest, imbecilic mind, toxic breath, scab covered skinned and always in a foul mood (as they have good reason to be).

Am I better than the other person?

No.

I may be able to accomplish more and enjoy myself more and satisfy infinitely more women, but as long as we both can say “My name is Bob. I like this and do not like that. I will now go do this so I can accomplish that” we are equally human and have the same right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is no less a crime for the common man to kill the Ubermensch that I am then it would be for I toi kill the other.

It is in that why that were all the same. The United States of America is still the greatest and most moral of nation because it was founded on this ides (“we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”)

[crowmanyclouds]

42 still makes more sense.

[Guinastasia]

Hey, I've been meaning to tell you-I saw beef, bean and cheese buritos in the freezer section of a local grocery store.

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Maud'Dib

I should start out with the biggie, “The Meaning of Life”. Yup there is one. Well, the question might be a bit off. It is better to say “The Point of Life”.

And it is…..

(Drum roll)…….

Budabudabudabuda….

*The curtain quickly draws back and we find:*

The Cultivation of Mind!

The point of life, IMO, is to perpetuate life. Mind is a side effect of one of the many strategies for keeping life going.

Anyway, I'm glad you've come to some sort of epiphany, and I hate to strike what may be a sour note, but for some reason I don't really need to make a decision on the precise meaning of my life to get up and go to work in the morning. I know you are trying to write in an entertaining manner, but your OP is wordy, convoluted and seems to go all over the map. It seems you could make your point more effectively without all the filigree. I'm just sayin'.

[E-Sabbath]

The unexamined life is not worth living. - Socrates.

What else is there in life, but to explore and delight in what we find in the world, both within and without? Glory in this world, in the miracles that happen every day, the thousand thousand secrets revealed. Improve yourself, so you might make the world better for others, and thus for yourself.

[Muad'Dib]

I have calmned down.

Nothing matters unless there is a mind to percieve it.

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

I have calmned down.

Nothing matters unless there is a mind to percieve it.

In other words, your grand theory of everything, life, love, God, the universe, and our place in it is: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, who cares if it makes a sound?"

[Malodorous]

Behold, the Kwisatz Haderach!

[Mangetout]

Seems a bit anthropocentric to me, but I will admit I may have dozed off before you got to the good bit.

[Latro]

I will now proceed to shed water over this theory..

[jjimm]

You need to read some Dawkins.

[SentientMeat]

Congratulations, Muad'Dib, you have identified the end of the seemingly endless sellotape of human philosophy and are now probing it with your fingernail. Allow me to take it from you and tear you off a good long strip with a satisfying sssSSCHHHLLLLUUURRCK!

“Meaning” and “significance” are the outputs of parts of the human brain called the temporal lobes, specifically the limbic system and more specifically still, the 'gateway' to it called the amygdalum (pl. ‘amygdala’). From this excellent article:

Originally Posted by V.S. Ramachandran

“We don’t respond to every sort of information in the same way,” he says, reaching down to pick up an umbrella still damp with Oxford rain. “I see this umbrella, and nothing happens. But if my mother were to walk in, I’d say, ‘My God, how are you, sit down!’ Or perhaps I’d be terrified,” he laughs. “When we see something emotionally salient, something significant to us in some way, we have a heightened reaction. And you must have a way of filtering this superabundance of sensory input.

“This is what happens. The message comes into the temporal lobe cortex, which is concerned with visual analysis of the scene, and from there it is sent to the amygdala, which is the gateway to the limbic system, the brain’s emotional center. The amygdala gauges the significance of what we see: is this prey, predator? Something important, or trivial? If it’s important, the message gets conveyed to the rest of the limbic system, and it prepares the body to fight or flee, to react: the heart starts pumping more blood to the muscles and brain, you start sweating —— you get ready for action. And this happens every time you look at your mother or any salient object. You might not notice it, but if I put electrodes on your skin, I can measure the change in galvanic skin response, I can show that it’s exciting.”

So the “meaning” and “significance” of your life is anything that causes those neuropsychological effects. Some people get it from the idea of “God”, others (like me) not at all. We all generally get it from family, friends or other human contact.

And you’re quite correct. I get enormous neuropsychological salience from understanding the universe - “cultivating the mind” if you will.

So, now you’ve got the sellotape, what are you going to stick?

[other-wise]

Originally Posted by jjimm

You need to read some Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins on the mind:

"There are aspects of human subjective consciousness that are deeply mysterious. Neither Steve Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness -- what philosophers call qualia. In How the Mind Works Steve elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness, and asks where it comes from and what's the explanation. Then he's honest enough to say, "Beats the heck out of me." That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don't know. We don't understand it." -Richard Dawkins

[bob_loblaw]

i like soup.



soup is good.





but it's still just soup.

[Thudlow Boink]

Okay, now explain Cinnamon Life.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Muad'Dib is from California.

It shows.

[Muad'Dib]

Mods, please delete the OP and replace it with this.

Sorry guys. I really have figured it out. Not the “How” of things, but I think have gotten the “Why” part down.

I understand why so many of you thought that I was high, specifically on Marijuana.

People take drugs in this situation specificaly (those people who do not have the sickness of a genetic pre-disposition to addiction) do so that they can induce the sensations that they otherwise are unable to experience. Drugs like Marijuana make you feel like everything is much more significant than it is, so you get the same "high" with the drug that you do when you learn something or figure out something really cool and significant. It is false, and unless you realize that it is false, it is evil and deceptive.

That is the difference between a recreational drug user and the sad and sorry tragedy of an addict



The difference is that I really have figured it all out.

I think.

I mean it, and it is a whole hell of a lot simpler than we ever thought.

I see how very close everyone is to understanding why. How all of the religions have been aiming for it (and as far as I can tell, Christians are the ones who are closest)

I understand why people take drugs, except the "how" of those who are genetically flawed in a way that gives them a pre-disposition to it.

I understand why homosexuals, although they are “screwed up”, and you are being really stupid if you say otherwise, are in no way immoral or wrong. What they are doing and are does go against nature (sorry, it does), but does not go against love or morality. They are just folks who are walking, not in the opposite direction (which would be immoral and wrong) but just backwards instead of front-ward’s, and, as long as you and they realize that they are just as good honest, virtuous, noble and capable of being friends, patriots, lovers and parents as anyone else.

I think, I understand all of that now and a whole lot more.

Holy-fucking-God-in-heaven, but I honest-to-goodness think that I have figured it all out; and by that I mean the ground rules, the stuff that morality, religion and our parents are supposed to teach us; the operating system of existence, if you will.

All that is left is for the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers to figure out the "How", then we can finally let the musicians, artists, writers and such to figure out the "what".


Holy-fuck you guys. I figured it out. I really mean it, and if it does turn out that I am right, and not crazy, it is going to change everything by wiping a whole lot of the stupid ignorant crap we have been pulling and letting others pull because we did not know any better for so long and actually allowing us to get some work done.


I am going to try to write it all down and get some folks, who have spent far more time than I, thinking about this stuff to give it the go over.

So please, give me a chance to get this all down and looked at by those folks, and if I am right, and if, by reading the bantering gibberish I wrote earlier, you know why, please do not steal my ideas and let me have the chance to write it down and sell it to the public for an honest price.

If worse comes to worse I will only make an even bigger jackass out of myself and join the long line of crazies and fools who thought that they had it all figured out but were wrong and ended up only making a jackass out of themselves, and occasionally, horribly, hurting a whole lot of people while dragging the other "true believers” to Hell with themselves. If that is true, then fire away, you will have a very justifiable reason to make fun of me. If not, then grant me a little while longer and let us see if I have discovered something significant.

Sincerely;
Ryan Allen McCormac.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

please do not steal my ideas

Darn. [puts bolt-cutters away]

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

please do not steal my ideas

Darn. [puts bolt-cutters away]

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

I understand why people take drugs, except the "how" of those who are genetically flawed in a way that gives them a pre-disposition to it.

Well, you got that part wrong. If there is a genetic component to addiction, there is no reason it couldn't have some survival value.

I understand why homosexuals, although they are “screwed up”, and you are being really stupid if you say otherwise, are in no way immoral or wrong. What they are doing and are does go against nature (sorry, it does)

Also wrong. "Nature" is not a thing that you can "go against". It would certainly be suicidal (pardon the anthropomorphism) for a species to be entirely homosexual, and such a species wouldn't exist very long. That still wouldn't be "going against nature" since it would be the product of nature. Besides, if we assume there is some genetic component that causes homosexuality, it could very well be that the species as a whole benefits from having those genes in its population (at some level).

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Congratulations, Muad'Dib, you have identified the end of the seemingly endless sellotape of human philosophy and are now probing it with your fingernail. Allow me to take it from you and tear you off a good long strip with a satisfying sssSSCHHHLLLLUUURRCK!

“Meaning” and “significance” are the outputs of parts of the human brain called the temporal lobes, specifically the limbic system and more specifically still, the 'gateway' to it called the amygdalum (pl. ‘amygdala’). From this excellent article:


So the “meaning” and “significance” of your life is anything that causes those neuropsychological effects. Some people get it from the idea of “God”, others (like me) not at all. We all generally get it from family, friends or other human contact.

And you’re quite correct. I get enormous neuropsychological salience from understanding the universe - “cultivating the mind” if you will.

So, now you’ve got the sellotape, what are you going to stick?

I think this is a great example of why pure materialist answers are so unsatisfying. Knowing that events which we deem significant trigger a certain part of the brain tells us little about why these events are meaningful or significant (at least, not in any non-circular way).

[alimarx]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

[blah, blah, blah...]
What is to follow is going to often sound like a bunch of new-age hippy bullshit. For that I am sorry because I really hate hippies. They are a bunch of lazy, dirty moochers that take without adding and need to use drugs to give them a false of rightness.

Sorry, but if you can't seem to appreciate the meaning that someone else's mind might make the world into for them, then I think you've just negated everything you've said in your OP.

Yea, I'm a hippy; I'm not lazy, I'm not dirty, I don't do drugs, and I try not to prejudge.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I think this is a great example of why pure materialist answers are so unsatisfying. Knowing that events which we deem significant trigger a certain part of the brain tells us little about why these events are meaningful or significant (at least, not in any non-circular way).

That is exactly right.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by alimarx

Sorry, but if you can't seem to appreciate the meaning that someone else's mind might make the world into for them, then I think you've just negated everything you've said in your OP.

Yea, I'm a hippy; I'm not lazy, I'm not dirty, I don't do drugs, and I try not to prejudge.

You are missing the point of what I said.

I did not actually mean everyone who calls themselves a hippy is that, but the ones who are "lazy, dirty, drug taking loosers". All though it is not all, you will have a hard time convincing me, and I believe most folks, that that is not the vast majority of them. Even if it is not, as I admit I did imply, the essence of them.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Well, you got that part wrong. If there is a genetic component to addiction, there is no reason it couldn't have some survival value.


Also wrong. "Nature" is not a thing that you can "go against". It would certainly be suicidal (pardon the anthropomorphism) for a species to be entirely homosexual, and such a species wouldn't exist very long. That still wouldn't be "going against nature" since it would be the product of nature. Besides, if we assume there is some genetic component that causes homosexuality, it could very well be that the species as a whole benefits from having those genes in its population (at some level).

First part:
You are right, but what may have once been helpful in nature (such as some folks having a very easy time putting on weight) can turn into a hinderance in the modern world.

Second part:
You are also right. I should have said that it being against nature, the order of the universe or whatever you want to call it is what the anti-queer crowd base their arguments on. Although homosexuality does go against the biggist and most pragmatic reason for sex (and it lends itself to a whole buch of extra hassles in the life a a gay person), it is not wrong in the same that saying 2+2=5, it is wrong in a sense (or appears to be at first glance) of walking backwords, not evil or really wrong it is just being different without any apperent benifit.

[Muad'Dib]

Maybe it would sense to you guys if you knew that I am suspected (but not quite positive by a recent doctor) of being high-functioning autistic and am supposed to be physically incapable of realizing any of this; learning it through logical deduction, yes, but really understanding it, no.

In the same way that a person with OCD is not actually a neat-freak, but is completely incapable of truly understanding what organizing things is and must either live in total chaos, or in an infinitely tightly wound world where everything is organized in every possible way because although you can sort of figure out organizing, you can never "get it". It is exactly like that Monk detective. It is not that he is a great detective, but he is so incapable of filtering out the important information that he has had to tediously and mind-numbingly go over every meaningless detail no matter how silly or unrelated it was until he could consciously and logically determine if it was pointless. The minor benefit of this is that although he is forced to go over everything, he does not miss much.


It is not so much that I "like to think about things", but that it never payed off in the way it was supposed to before.

How ecstatic would you feel, how increadible would it seem if you were able to just see things instead of conciously going over every pixel of vision and calculating from there like a computer?

For the first fucking time in my life, I get it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

For the first fucking time in my life, I get it.

Well, okay, you've said that or variations on it twenty or thirty times. It doesn't help clarify what your insight actually is and your original post, though you've disavowed it, amusingly and confusingly melds Ayn Rand (an objectivist if ever there was one) with some kind of solipsism.

Can you give us a summary in 500 words or so?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

First part:
You are right, but what may have once been helpful in nature (such as some folks having a very easy time putting on weight) can turn into a hinderance in the modern world.

Second part:
You are also right. I should have said that it being against nature, the order of the universe or whatever you want to call it is what the anti-queer crowd base their arguments on. Although homosexuality does go against the biggist and most pragmatic reason for sex (and it lends itself to a whole buch of extra hassles in the life a a gay person), it is not wrong in the same that saying 2+2=5, it is wrong in a sense (or appears to be at first glance) of walking backwords, not evil or really wrong it is just being different without any apperent benifit.

The influece of genes on behavior is incredibly complex, and we are only scratching the surface in out attempts to understand this. Assuming that homosexuality is at least partially genetic, the fact that it exists at the levels it does in the population should give pause to syaing it has no "apparent benefit". Better to assume that there is some benefit that we simply don't understand at this point. It might simply be the fallout of a suite of genes that allows us to both fall in love and to have close friendships with people we are not in love with. We may benefit, as a population, by having the "gay genes" in our gene pool even if certain individuals end up having a lower possibility of passing on their own genes. And when we encounter our next extinction possibility, the more diverse (no pun intended) our gene pool is, the better off we'll be as a species. And we will, at some point, encounter an extinction possibility.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The influece of genes on behavior is incredibly complex, and we are only scratching the surface in out attempts to understand this. Assuming that homosexuality is at least partially genetic, the fact that it exists at the levels it does in the population should give pause to syaing it has no "apparent benefit". Better to assume that there is some benefit that we simply don't understand at this point. It might simply be the fallout of a suite of genes that allows us to both fall in love and to have close friendships with people we are not in love with. We may benefit, as a population, by having the "gay genes" in our gene pool even if certain individuals end up having a lower possibility of passing on their own genes. And when we encounter our next extinction possibility, the more diverse (no pun intended) our gene pool is, the better off we'll be as a species. And we will, at some point, encounter an extinction possibility.

You are right but missing the point. It would be highly illogical to assume that a behavior so, seemingly, aberrant must not be overly harmful.

Any way, arguing this point is missing the forrest for the trees.

[Tevildo]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

How ecstatic would you feel, how increadible would it seem if you were able to just see things instead of conciously going over every pixel of vision and calculating from there like a computer?

For the first fucking time in my life, I get it.

* smiles *

I know what you mean, of course, and epiphanies of this kind can do a great deal of good in our lives. I'm glad that your response so far has been rather more - contained - than that of Another Person Whose Name Escapes Me For The Moment.

However, there are three problems which I'm afraid you're going to have to face before long.

1. Monday. No matter how spiritually ecstatic you may feel at the moment, the time will come when you have to go to work (or equivalent), buy your food for the week, wash your clothes, clean out the toilet, and return to mundane reality. It's going to be a let-down; make sure that it doesn't let you down too far.

2. Communicating your vision. You will, if you want to take this further, put it into a form that someone who has _not_ experienced something similar will understand. Depending on your particular talents, some sort of creative work (poetry, art, music) may be a more effective vehicle than trying to explain it to us unregenerate rationalists.

3. The worst one - dealing with people who don't understand. No matter how well you express yourself, you can _guarantee_ that some, if not most, of your audience will turn their backs on you, reject you as "just another mystic". Don't let this reaction make you lose sight of what you have now; and know when to stop trying to convince the unconvincible.

Best of luck!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

You are right but missing the point. It would be highly illogical to assume that a behavior so, seemingly, aberrant must not be overly harmful.

What would be highly illogical is assuming that a behavior that is highly selected against on the individual level doesn't have some value to the population as a whole. Otherwise it would quickly select itself out of existence.

Any way, arguing this point is missing the forrest for the trees.

I have to admit that the forrest here looks more like drug induded ramblings. I'm just trying to correct your misunderstandings of biology and genetics. Also, if your premise leads to incorrect conclusions, there is probably something wrong with your premise.

[Queuing]

Ok, so straight, christian Americans are the closest to "getting it'?

Damn, and I thought you were going to tell us how David Blaine does that hovering thing.

Bush already informed of us of this 'epiphany'.

Sorry to hear about your recent diagnosis.

[Bryan Ekers]

Hmm, we do seem to be ruining the OP's enlightenment.


We're like epiphanic ants.




_{or we're stealing his ep-i-phan-ic basket, whatever}

[Sattua]

Muad'dib: I'm glad you had this moment of clarity. Enjoy it fully. There will be fewer and fewer of them as you get older.

Why is this in Great Debates?

[E-Sabbath]

It's witnessing, man. That's why it's in Great Debates.

[Zoe]

I think your OP is interesting. What I'm going to say to you is not meant to make fun of what you are experiencing. And I really don't want to debate you on these topics. I'm just hoping that in your private writing and thinking, maybe you will consider exploring some of these thoughts.

Muad'Dib: For that I am sorry because I really hate hippies. They are a bunch of lazy, dirty moochers that take without adding and need to use drugs to give them a false of rightness.

alimarx: Sorry, but if you can't seem to appreciate the meaning that someone else's mind might make the world into for them, then I think you've just negated everything you've said in your OP.

Yea, I'm a hippy; I'm not lazy, I'm not dirty, I don't do drugs, and I try not to prejudge.

Muad'Dib: You are missing the point of what I said.

I did not actually mean everyone who calls themselves a hippy is that, but the ones who are "lazy, dirty, drug taking loosers". All though it is not all, you will have a hard time convincing me, and I believe most folks, that that is not the vast majority of them. Even if it is not, as I admit I did imply, the essence of them.

What is a hippy actually? Is it possible that you have created an image and a label to go with it without actually knowing individuals? Most "hippies" don't refer to themselves as such and didn't even back in the sixties and seventies. About the only time that we 'fess up is when someone drags out the old stereotype that you used: He is a hippy because he is a lazy, dirty, drug-taking loser. And he is a lazy, drug-taking loser because he's a hippy. Round and round.

Now you may say “Ryan, but what about then sunlight that falls on a flower? Is that not good for the flower? It makes it so it can live, grow and exist?”

Yeah, but the flower is pointless.

Is it possible that the sunlight falling on the flower is not pointless when you focus your awareness on it?

Yes it does, but without mind it does not matter. It is no different from a random piece of sand colliding with another on the beach of a world a billion miles away. If there is no mind to experience it, to make something of it, it may as well not have happened.

What happens when a mindless thing that is an essential link in the food chain becomes extinct?

In the last century many people became confused about what it means to be prejudiced. They started saying that all prejudice is wrong, that you only think it is wrong because you see things and live in a different perspective, therefore no one can really say what is good, bad, right, wrong, true, false.

Isn't there a difference in prejudging and in being discerning? The person in the restaurant who chooses to eat fresh meat instead of rotten is not acting out of prejudice, but out of informed judgment.

[Zoe]

Sorry, I hit submit a little soon.

Maud'Dib:: It is in that why that were all the same. The United States of America is still the greatest and most moral of nation because it was founded on this ides (“we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”)

The United States was founded on some beautiful ideals. Someday I hope they will be fulfilled. They are not yet. All citizens are certainly not treated equally in this country. And I see our leaders lapsing into conduct that is totally against everything that I was taught that I could count on from my government. Our health care system is a disaster. Our homeland security system failed.

I know of other countries where there is no poverty and no one has to worry about health care. I don't think they are torturing any prisoners at the moment.

Our founding documents are incredibly moving. But we have to make them real. When will you become aware of the awareness of others and of their rights to their own Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness?

I agree with everything you said about creativity! Find those activities that just absorb your time and all sorts of interesting things can start to happen. One thing leads to another.

Enjoy!

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by Richard

think this is a great example of why pure materialist answers are so unsatisfying. Knowing that events which we deem significant trigger a certain part of the brain tells us little about why these events are meaningful or significant (at least, not in any non-circular way).

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

That is exactly right

You two guys honestly can't think of a reason why seeing your mother or a predator might elicit a different reaction than seeing an umbrella?

[booklyn]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Hmm, we do seem to be ruining the OP's enlightenment.
We're like epiphanic ants.
_{or we're stealing his ep-i-phan-ic basket, whatever}

You are going to hell in a handbasket!

[zuma]

At one time, this place was a resting place for the best and brightest. Now it's a stomping ground for the insane.

[DianaG]

So, Muad'Dib am I correct in my interpretation that you had an "epiphany" which essentially affirms that you are right and correct about everything, but has imbued you with the "tolerance" to realize that people who are different than you are simply misguided, and should still be considered human.

Okey dokey then. Yup, the secret of life. Good on you.

[NoClueBoy]

Is now a good time to bring up the glorious Andrew Jackson?

[tomndebb]

Well, this is not really witnessing.
On the other hand, there is not really anything that could be considered a debate, here.
It is not a poll, but it does seem to be a sharing of opinion.

Off to IMHO.

(And as for the request to delete one postr, replacing it with another, I am afraid that we are not actually permitted to mess araound with posted remarks in that way. Anyone who reads far enough through the thread will see your restatement.)

[ /Moderating ]

[Queuing]

Originally Posted by Zoe

I know of other countries where there is no poverty and no one has to worry about health care.

Countries with no poverty? Really? Or who don't have ANYONE worrying about healthcare? Here we have a system of healthcare for everyone, yet lots of people still worry about it.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

You two guys honestly can't think of a reason why seeing your mother or a predator might elicit a different reaction than seeing an umbrella?

?!

I honestly can't figure out how this applies to my post. Are you arguing that the only things which we deem significant are related to fighting, fleeing, and sex?

I am consistently fascinated by people who believe that complex, enduring philosophical problems can be solved by the latest advance in neuroscience.

[eleanorigby]

I thought there were seven levels.


good on you for your insights, Muad.



Don't forget to come down to Earth, soon. And don't expect everyone to want to hear your Truth. (they are busy figuring out their own, or they want to discuss the SuperBowl)

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by Richard

I honestly can't figure out how this applies to my post.

You said "Knowing that events which we deem significant trigger a certain part of the brain tells us little about why these events are meaningful or significant ". I asked you whether you really couldn't think of a reason why these events are significant. It seems that you really can't, which I think shows a collossal lack of imagination.

Are you arguing that the only things which we deem significant are related to fighting, fleeing, and sex?

No. I'm saying that a mechanism for finding things significant is an evolutionary necessity since the organism which can't distinguish its mother, a predator and an inanimate neutral object will lose out to the one that can, all other things being equal. That is the reason why mothers and predators elicit significance outputs while umbrellas don't. That other things do as well, such as "God" for some (but not me), isn't surprising given the existence of that significance-judgement mechanism in the first place (indeed, Rama was talking about temporal lobe epilepsy wherein that physical apparatus is damaged such that everything elicits a similar output).

I am consistently fascinated by people who believe that complex, enduring philosophical problems can be solved by the latest advance in neuroscience.

Which, if I may say, makes you sound like a 19th century vitalist bemoaning how the latest advance in biology doesn't explain the complexity of life.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

You said "Knowing that events which we deem significant trigger a certain part of the brain tells us little about why these events are meaningful or significant ". I asked you whether you really couldn't think of a reason why these events are significant. It seems that you really can't, which I think shows a collossal lack of imagination.

Whoa, a heated IMHO philosophy battle. Yes!

Allow me to take my tone down a notch.... There. Ok.

IMHO , the reason this philosophical question is interesting is because we seek to know what life is all about--what is truly meaningful, and what is just window-dressing. Muad'Dib was arguing that cultivation of the mind is what is truly meaningful. This says something about what we ought to do to obtain a meaningful good life.

Your response to the question is that our mind deems meaningful that which our brain reacts to in a certain way. Well that's nice. But from my perspective, that adds nothing to the conversation. It's as if someone asked, "What is the meaning of life?" and your answer was, "that which turns your hands blue."

And what struck me even more is that you seemed fully cocksure and satisfied with that answer.

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

No. I'm saying that a mechanism for finding things significant is an evolutionary necessity since the organism which can't distinguish its mother, a predator and an inanimate neutral object will lose out to the one that can, all other things being equal. That is the reason why mothers and predators elicit significance outputs while umbrellas don't. That other things do as well, such as "God" for some (but not me), isn't surprising given the existence of that significance-judgement mechanism in the first place (indeed, Rama was talking about temporal lobe epilepsy wherein that physical apparatus is damaged such that everything elicits a similar output).

Ok. We find significance in things because of our evolutionary design. I'm with you there. It's clear, in an evolutionary context, which things we will probably find significant: stuff that has to do with life and death. I'm with you there. So are you saying that only these evolutionary life/death stimuli are meaningful and significant? As I'm sure you're aware, evolutionary explanation of behavior are notoriously ad hoc. And I have little doubt that an evolutionary explanation of the significance of laughter, justice, altruism, etc., will be similarly ad hoc.

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Which, if I may say, makes you sound like a 19th century vitalist bemoaning how the latest advance in biology doesn't explain the complexity of life.

Oh come now. Are you so thoroughly entrenched in your philosophical position that really believe biology is to life as neuroscience is to meaning? You can't claim that the scientific/philosophical community is with you on this one--a tiny minority of each are pure materialists like you.

[Aeschines]

Um, combining all of the major insights in this thread we get,

SPOILER:

If a brain were to fall in the forest, a homosexual tree would be there to hear it.

And that would be meaningful.

[SentientMeat]

IMHO , the reason this philosophical question is interesting is because we seek to know what life is all about--what is truly meaningful, and what is just window-dressing. Muad'Dib was arguing that cultivation of the mind is what is truly meaningful. This says something about what we ought to do to obtain a meaningful good life.

And jolly good for old Muad’Dib, but unlike me he is utterly silent on why the cultivation of the mind should elicit the reaction of significance it does in him, which is why I sought to help him with his sellotape.

Your response to the question is that our mind deems meaningful that which our brain reacts to in a certain way. Well that's nice. But from my perspective, that adds nothing to the conversation. It's as if someone asked, "What is the meaning of life?" and your answer was, "that which turns your hands blue."

You really think that the neuropsychological mechanism whereby meaning and significance are output from a human brain are not relevant to the question of what is meaningful to a given human? To suggest an alternative simile, I think I’ve answered the question “What is blue?” with a quick description of how light of wavelength 420-490 nm, incident on the photosensitive cells of the retina causes an action potential in the optic nerve, chiasm, tract and lateral cingulate nucleus which is received and processed at the visual cortex, whose activity is what we call “blue”. If you consider this a non sequitur of an answer, then like the Monty Python sketch in which a man looks for an argument but finds only mindless automatic naysaying, it’s difficult to see how a cognitive scientist could debate you at all.

And what struck me even more is that you seemed fully cocksure and satisfied with that answer.

I am not fully satisfied with any answer in science - how dull that would be, and how sad that universities worldwide could close their departments of that science because there would be no more answers to find! But to swing so far the other way and propose that cognitive science is irrelevant to the question of what humans find “meaningful” is as backwards as Amish computational physics.

Ok. We find significance in things because of our evolutionary design. I'm with you there. It's clear, in an evolutionary context, which things we will probably find significant: stuff that has to do with life and death. I'm with you there. So are you saying that only these evolutionary life/death stimuli are meaningful and significant?

For the second time, no. But evolution is ultimately all about life and death, statistically. And the move from the significance-judgement mechanism only working for inputs like mothers and predators to working for other things is also easily placed within an evolutionary framework. What if I were to show experimentally that a similar significance output also arises when we work out the right answer to some problem? That would demonstrate that creatures who get a neurological “reward” from the temporal lobe for solving problems with their frontal lobe would have an advantage over creatures with no such “right answer output”, who thus struggled to distinguish the “right” answer from other answers. We could then look for patients in which this mechanism was damaged, and see how they performed on simple tasks such as working out where the food source might be in a natural environment. If they performed extremely poorly, we could justifiably conclude that they wouldn’t last long in the wild (or, at least, would be strongly disadvantaged). Thus, finding even abstract things “significant” could be shown to be literally a matter of life and death in certain contexts as “satisfyingly” as other evolutionary features such as the function of the spleen or thumb.

As I'm sure you're aware, evolutionary explanation of behavior are notoriously ad hoc. And I have little doubt that an evolutionary explanation of the significance of laughter, justice, altruism, etc., will be similarly ad hoc.

It is necessarily the case that explanations of behaviour are trickier, due to the lack of historical evidence (behaviour doesn’t get fossilized!). But I think the neuropsychological nature of “significance” is rather easier than the three examples you gave (and even then, the Cheater Detection Module hypothesis really does have testable consequences which are currently being researched). Again, there must be a reason why physical damage from a stroke makes everything meaningful, and that can be explored experimentally with great rigour.

Oh come now. Are you so thoroughly entrenched in your philosophical position that really believe biology is to life as neuroscience is to meaning?

Absolutely. Do read a bit about vitalism: these weren’t just superstitious idiots, but often highly respected philosophers whose arguments even now are very convincing: can we really explain life fully using only the fossil record and experiments in a lab? Why then, surely we could build an amoeba out of proteins? Of course, it’s the word “fully” that causes the trouble. We understand life well enough in terms of physical elements that a nonphysical element is unnecessary, but many details are still unclear. And I would indeed argue that cognitive science understands the brain well enough in terms of physical elements that a nonphysical element is unnecessary, but more[ of the details are still unclear than in the case of life.

You can't claim that the scientific/philosophical community is with you on this one--a tiny minority of each are pure materialists like you.

On the contrary, the overwhelming majority are on my side, and have been since Gilbert Ryle in the 1940's. Dualistic alternatives like panpsychism are described as “ludicrous” and “absurd” even by fence-sitting philosophers like McGinn and Searle. Like any other science there are competing models and schools of thought (or should that be schools of thought of thought?), but monism and materialism are almost universal, academically speaking.