# Death **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 2, 2005, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435 "2005-10-02T09:40:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/81 "2005-10-04T10:38:12Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > And that isn’t claimed either. It’s essentially claimed by Bandit. As for the rest of your post(s) until you expand on your one-liners there’s nothing worth commenting on (nor is it possible to since I’m not psychic. Whatever I do say I’m pretty sure will get a satisfied “that’s not what I meant” in reply). ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/82 "2005-10-04T10:42:14Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > It’s essentially claimed by Bandit. Take it up with him/her, then. I’m just disputing your claim that meaning and mechanisms are distinct types (even in the absence of an underlying absolute meaning). ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/83 "2005-10-04T11:05:03Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Take it up with him/her, then. > > I’m just disputing your claim that meaning and mechanisms are distinct types (even in the absence of an underlying absolute meaning). Fine, take issue. I have no clue what your issue is, or what your viewpoint is, but at least I’m aware that you take issue. You know…if you bothered to stick your neck out and lay out an actual argument, instead of tossing out koans from a safe distance, thoughless people like me might not have the gall to misinterperet you. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/84 "2005-10-04T11:40:42Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Well, I do agree with you there. What you believe or what I believe can’t alter the truth one way or the other; and what we do is more important than what we say or what we think. > > Well, no. When I’m dead, _I_ will end, but that doesn’t mean _everything_ will end. If you believe that it is good to act to alleviate the suffering of your fellow human beings, there is no reason why you can’t go on doing so long after your death. Thomas Jefferson founded a great university, wrote laws to establish religious freedom, and helped found a great and free nation. His legacy is continuing to make the world a better place; whether or not Jefferson has long ago turned to dust, or is smiling down on us from heaven, doesn’t alter that either way. > > (And yes, I know Jefferson believed in a God and that some form of afterlife was likely.) > > If anything, it can be easier to act to alleviate the suffering of others after you die and cease to exist. Giving money to charity _now_ means I have less money to spend on myself; leaving money to charity in my will doesn’t entail any sacrifice on my part at all. Giving someone one of my organs _now_ would be a serious (possibly fatal) sacrifice; signing a little card that says that if I slip and fall in the shower and bash my head in my organs should be given to other people is no trouble whatsoever. I agree with everything you say. There is an inner desire to help others, and I can see how it is not necessary to believe in God in order to follow that desire. But usually altruistic individuals do believe in God. Like Jefferson, they may not believe in the popular God, but they do believe in a personal God. One of the points I try to make is “why not believe in a personal God, since it is a very helpful thing to do.” If God can not be proved scientifically, so what, God can be proved personally. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/85 "2005-10-04T12:39:24Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > I have no clue what your issue is, or what your viewpoint is, but at least I’m aware that you take issue. I’ve stated it quite clearly above. I’ll repeat: meaning is a mechanism, if there is no underlying absolute meaning. In formal terms, objects of consciousness have intentional content, i.e. they are about something or lead to something (which can be another thought/feeling or action). If I’m hungry, that’s an indication for me to fetch food. Now, that’s a very simple fundamental connection. For more abstract things like emotions or aesthetics, we appeal to evolutionary explanations for why they exist. Fear as a signal to fight, freeze or flee. Human beauty assessment as a heuristic for evolutionary fitness. For the most fundamental psychological elements, the answer for the atheist lies in neurology. Point is, meaning is a mechanism to assess and direct psychological activity. Of course, the base assumption here is that there is no underlying absolute meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/86 "2005-10-04T13:35:54Z")
We still have the ability to _create_ meaning. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/87 "2005-10-07T02:55:00Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > For more abstract things like emotions or aesthetics, we appeal to evolutionary explanations for why they exist. Fear as a signal to fight, freeze or flee. Human beauty assessment as a heuristic for evolutionary fitness. For the most fundamental psychological elements, the answer for the atheist lies in neurology. Point is, meaning is a mechanism to assess and direct psychological activity. Of course, the base assumption here is that there is no underlying absolute meaning. Obviously I need to put this another way. When I say that you (or bandit) is confusing meaning with mechanism - what I’m saying is that you believe that the mechanism for how something came into existence defines its nature in toto. That everything reduces to it’s (usually vastly oversimplified) origin. Of course you and Bandit mean two totally different things when you talk about mechanisms. But they can be handled together, since at root you’re both making the same error. In bandit’s case, he reduces all human consciousness (values, thought, meaning, etc) to it’s \*physical \* mechanism. All consciousness and the components of consciousness reduce to the “meat.” The error here is it’s like saying that Hamlet reduces to a series of marks on the page. Of course it doesn’t - of course the marks create meaning. And neuronal circuits may just be an arrangement of meat, but it’s an arrangement that holds and creates meaning. \*Your \* error is in reducing phenomenon to the evolutionary mechanisms which created them. Or to turn that around you don’t understand that all evolution seeks to explain is how something came to be - it does not seek to evaluate phenomena or even explain what something is _good for_. Aesthetics may exist in part because of the selective value of assortative mating - but aesthetics is not just \*for \* assortative mating. The meaning of a phenomenon does not reduce to the mechanism that created it. Again let’s take Hamlet. Your explanatory mechanim might be that Hamlet was created so Shakespeare could exercise his verbal prowess and pay off some bills. But Hamlet does not reduce to just an ego-boost and a bill payment. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/88 "2005-10-07T11:22:19Z")
> [@](#): > > of course the marks create meaning. And neuronal circuits may just be an arrangement of meat, but it’s an arrangement that holds and creates meaning. And the arrangement is dictated and manipulated by more fundamental laws. BTW, I don’t believe that consciousness is physical. So that’s between you and da Bandit. > [@](#): > > Aesthetics may exist in part because of the selective value of assortative mating - but aesthetics is not just \*for \* assortative mating. I did not claim that. For aesthetics, we appeal to neurology. I linked human beauty assessment specifically to mate selection. > [@](#): > > The meaning of a phenomenon does not reduce to the mechanism that created it. You’ve asserted it, but you need to explain it as well. Keep in mind that the base assumption is that no absolute meaning exists. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/89 "2005-10-07T15:35:21Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > We still have the ability to _create_ meaning. We have the ability to create priorities, goals, visions, etc. We can not create meaning, it can only be discovered. True we can assign meanings to our lives, but there will never be knowledge of its correctness. It will be “made up” and therefor forever questionable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/90 "2005-10-07T16:10:56Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > We have the ability to create priorities, goals, visions, etc. We can not create meaning, it can only be discovered. True we can assign meanings to our lives, but there will never be knowledge of its correctness. It will be “made up” and therefor forever questionable. My self assigned meaning is the only kind of meaning that I care about. If some self anointed god wants to assign me another, too bad; I’m not his puppet. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/91 "2005-10-07T21:18:50Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > My self assigned meaning is the only kind of meaning that I care about. If some self anointed god wants to assign me another, too bad; I’m not his puppet. Most people are puppets of their own belief systems. The belief pulls the strings and the puppet dances. Not so with one who has no belief systems. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/92 "2005-10-08T02:32:43Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Most people are puppets of their own belief systems. The belief pulls the strings and the puppet dances. Not so with one who has no belief systems. Everyone has a belief system; most people are not puppets. The only people who are truly puppets are fools ( who don’t think for themselves ), morons ( who _can’t_ think for themselves ), and fanatics. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/93 "2005-10-08T04:09:58Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Everyone has a belief system; most people are not puppets. The only people who are truly puppets are fools ( who don’t think for themselves ), morons ( who _can’t_ think for themselves ), and fanatics. Well, and puppets. Y’know, like Charlie McCarthy and Miss Piggy and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/94 "2005-10-08T05:10:33Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Well, and puppets. Y’know, like Charlie McCarthy and Miss Piggy and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Puppet Dictator : “You heard me ! Arrest Howdy Doody and string him up !” ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435/95 "2005-10-08T11:01:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Everyone has a belief system; most people are not puppets. The only people who are truly puppets are fools ( who don’t think for themselves ), morons ( who _can’t_ think for themselves ), and fanatics. Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has a belief system. Belief systems are confining, such as science, and religion, one must conform to their dictates or risk being ostracized. Belief is like faith, it is ok unless you hold it so tightly it strangles you. Only free thinkers would understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/death/324435.md?page=4)