The meaning of life. Deep Down.

[DrZoidberg]

If it really was, why would you be chipping in? Let's not? Easy: then don't.

The topic was what is the meaning of life. You jumped in and treated it like a free will discussion. And said something silly. I helped out by setting your straight. That's why. I'm still interesting in discussing the actual topic.

Before you try to figure out if we have free will or not, perhaps you should start with establishing why you want to know it?

Easy too because the reason is not specific to free will. To the extent that we are interested in exchanging ideas with other people, we will want to clarify what we mean by certain words whose meaning appears contentious. That's what people do and there's no good reason to leave free will out of the picture.

If I punch you in the face, does it matter if I have free will or not? If somebody lies bleeding on the street because of a traffic accident, does it matter if they have free will or not? In every case where you bring in free will, I can easily show how it's a redundant quality. Try me!

For our court systems it's important because they treat intentional and unintentional crimes differently. They also care about if things are objectively true or not. They've decided to sacrifice accuracy for efficiency. If they would actually give a shit about philosophy they wouldn't bother. But they don't care. They just want to get beyond reasonable doubt. So it works for them. But this is not a court of law.

Not it's not but you've just provided your own very good example of why it's important to discuss the notion of free will. Anything that's important to the courts is important to any citizen susceptible of being brought in front of one. Or maybe you think you're immune to prosecution.

The point of our legal system is to make the world more safe and one that works. A world conducive to positive behaviours. Justice is just something we say. Nobody really believes in it, and it's not what the "justice" system is for.

If somebody is found guilty of a crime, is punishment a deterrent? Yes, or no. If yes, then continue. If no, tweak the punishment until we get the result we want. So easy. Free will is a non-factor.

This is a heritage from Christian theology. Which in turn is inherited from Roman law. Assuming free will is actually unnecessary for our legal systems. It's just something that's lingered. But we could as well simply explore the various scenarios available in the court room, and if an action was taken that did unnecessary damage, then guilty. We actually don't need to get mired in the motivations of the accused. BTW, criminal courts usually don't do that all that much anyway. Today they usually just get on with it.

Sentencing people on the basis of causing objective harm is already taken into account, I think, at least if you're suing for liabilities and damages, in civil courts. The question then is about whether you did the deed, not whether it's was intentional. Free will is more likely to become an issue in public prosecutions, although maybe there are substantial differences between countries.

There's no such thing as objective harm. There is only subjective harm. Harm is fundamentally an emotional state. Measure that!

You are also giving another reason why it may be important to discuss free will, namely that, like it or not, it's a part of our culture. If you don't like it, the last thing to do would be to wait for other people to settle the issue of the reality and nature of free will.

The free will debate is older than the existence of God debate. Neither will ever get answered. Perhaps time to move on?

So if the courts are more sensible today, then why can't we be?

I'm quite sure my view of free will is perfectly sensible.
EB

I didn't say it wasn't. The problem that all the other definitions are just as sensible. That's the problem.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The topic was what is the meaning of life. You jumped in and treated it like a free will discussion.

I didn't talk about free will until you had because you just decided, for your own private reasons, that I was talking about free will. I certainly wasn't.

So it's you who first introduced the question of free will into this thread.

What I was doing with the post you responded to was to address the semantics of the term "purpose" you had used wrongly in my view. I was not discussing free will. I only started to talk about it to reply to your claim that I was discussing free will.

And you actually invited my comment on free will:

But now you've just sidled into the free will debate. What does it mean to chose? What does it mean to want something? What is free? From what is it free?

I put below the two relevant posts for your consideration.
EB

What we need to do to stay alive and procreate is our purpose.

First, most of the time, what you need to do won't be a purpose for you.

Second, what you need to do to achieve something else, first is usually not a purpose for you, and second, it's the means to achieve this something else, which may be then your purpose, although maybe not.

As I see it, purpose is intentional and voluntary. It's a choice. A purpose is something you're intent on achieving, whether 'in life', or within some shorter period of time and may indeed be perfectly trivial like to say hello to your neighbour. Crucial to the notion of purpose is the fact that people will go to greater lengths to achieve their purpose than to do most other things. Very often your purpose may be something like "to have sex urgently" and many people in this situation may well not have the purpose of "procreating" or "reproducing themselves", even though having sex will often enough result in just that. People will reproduce anyway even without having the purpose of reproducing themselves. If you do something you would rather not do, it's not a purpose for you. If you're forced to do something then doing it becomes the means to stay out of trouble. And then, staying out of trouble will be your immediate purpose.

Of course, talking of 'purpose' in the case of genes and things without a mind is therefore a mistake.
EB

First, most of the time, what you need to do won't be a purpose for you.

Second, what you need to do to achieve something else, first is usually not a purpose for you, and second, it's the means to achieve this something else, which may be then your purpose, although maybe not.

As I see it, purpose is intentional and voluntary. It's a choice. A purpose is something you're intent on achieving, whether 'in life', or within some shorter period of time and may indeed be perfectly trivial like to say hello to your neighbour. Crucial to the notion of purpose is the fact that people will go to greater lengths to achieve their purpose than to do most other things. Very often your purpose may be something like "to have sex urgently" and many people in this situation may well not have the purpose of "procreating" or "reproducing themselves", even though having sex will often enough result in just that. People will reproduce anyway even without having the purpose of reproducing themselves. If you do something you would rather not do, it's not a purpose for you. If you're forced to do something then doing it becomes the means to stay out of trouble. And then, staying out of trouble will be your immediate purpose.

Of course, talking of 'purpose' in the case of genes and things without a mind is therefore a mistake.
EB

But now you've just sidled into the free will debate. What does it mean to chose? What does it mean to want something? What is free? From what is it free? If we can't control what we want, how can we be free? You're treating all these as self evident. BTW, don't bother answering them. It's not interesting questions to either ask or answer.

I'd argue that you've said nothing. Everything we do can be seen as intentional and voluntary, or done under duress. Do you eat because you love good food, or because otherwise you'd starve? Wouldn't it be nicer not to have to eat at all?

Humans just do shit, for whatever reason. Why they do them is uninteresting. It's all results from genetic programming, in one way or another. What matters isn't how freely we chose to take the actions, but our attitudes towards them. How they make us feel. Which, incidentally, is also down to genetic programming.

 

[OLDMAN]

I'll take a pound of whatever you guys are smoking...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Before you try to figure out if we have free will or not, perhaps you should start with establishing why you want to know it?

Easy too because the reason is not specific to free will. To the extent that we are interested in exchanging ideas with other people, we will want to clarify what we mean by certain words whose meaning appears contentious. That's what people do and there's no good reason to leave free will out of the picture.

If I punch you in the face, does it matter if I have free will or not? If somebody lies bleeding on the street because of a traffic accident, does it matter if they have free will or not? In every case where you bring in free will, I can easily show how it's a redundant quality. Try me!

I will have to guess that you spent no time trying to get what I meant by free will, which I think is also what most people not philosophers or the usual free will pundits around here mean. Which makes your sorties here completely irrelevant. You're barking at the wrong tree.

Still, just to show how irrelevant your post is to free will as most people understand it, I make clear below where you go wrong.

For an easy introduction to this ordinary meaning of "free will" I've presented, you would have done well looking at my exchange with FDI earlier on the subject. The basic outcome of that was that human beings have more free will than cows, which in turn have more free will than ordinary stones.
Now, Personally, I would say that this does matter to us, not least because we are the ones to decide, or just feel, whether something matters to us.
So, now, would you say it doesn't matter that we should have more free will than cows and stones, in just the way that most people think we do?
And, if you ever thought for a moment you could well say "yes", think that if that was true then everything, not just free will, would not matter in the least. An interesting proposition of sort.

I don't think I need to address the rest of your post.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

I will have to guess that you spent no time trying to get what I meant by free will, which I think is also what most people not philosophers or the usual free will pundits around here mean. Which makes your sorties here completely irrelevant. You're barking at the wrong tree.

It's more like you've failed to grasp my critique. Your definition of free will is fine. No, it's not what most people mean. Free will debaters are masters at making false assumptions, and just interpreting whatever others say to fit their pet theory. Each of the terms can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Yours is just one in the huge pile.

My point, you are responding to, was that free will is irrelevant. Since it doesn't matter whether we have free will or not, we can just move on and discuss things that are interesting.

 

[Speakpigeon]

free will - The apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined.

This is the main definition (the first one) and so I will assume it's what most people will mean using this expression. It also suits me fine.

And I doubt very much that it is of not interest to anybody whether we have that kind of free will.

The discussion of the meaning of 'free will' should indeed be of no interest whatsoever, or at least no more interesting than, say, what 'love' means, or 'intelligence' and such, that still many people seem nonetheless very much interested in discussing.

However, various people are using 'free will' to push their philosophical views. They do it using a sense of 'free will' different from the definition above, something like 'absolute free will', a sense which is effectively absurd and easy to criticise.

I see no reason to let the ordinary notion of free will be hijacked.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

...
The discussion of the meaning of 'free will' should indeed be of no interest whatsoever, or at least no more interesting than, say, what 'love' means, or 'intelligence' and such, that still many people seem nonetheless very much interested in discussing.

However, various people are using 'free will' to push their philosophical views. They do it using a sense of 'free will' different from the definition above, something like 'absolute free will', a sense which is effectively absurd and easy to criticise.

I see no reason to let the ordinary notion of free will be hijacked.
EB

That is what happens when religion gets involved, with its need to inflict eternal or extroaordinary punishment for one's choices. Determinism is an unacceptable excuse when justice is determined soley by an unreasonable God. That's why it's an important issue in religion and philosophy and even science. It's more like they are forced into defending free will by their philosophical views than the other way around. Views that are deeply ingrained in the more violent societies. It's an issue.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I think a lot of what is commonly seen as altruistic, is not actually altruistic, and that many people are not aware of their own motives for action. I believe true altruism is extremely rare.

I think of altruism as an underlieing motivation for people despite the exigencies of modern life. But it's also obvious that society encourages the principle of altruism. Our species has evolved that trait because it provides an advantage over genetic populations that didn't and don't. Self-interest and altruism are not the dichotomy that is inherent when using the word 'selfish'.

No matter which way you slice it, it's the individuals who produce the most babies that make up the genetic code of any population. And the only thing that is truly common to people who produce babies is that they want to produce babies. It isn't altruistic people who are more likely to reproduce, it's people who like having kids. And so our genetics are primarily comprised of a combination of genes that lead to that goal.

You might want to reserve judgement on that. I think kids who grow up with altruistic parents are more likely to have successful families themselves. If for no other reason than women tend to select altruistic men with whom to have a family. But I might be wrong about that.

Contrary to your belief, it doesn't matter if the species propagates, it only matters that individuals within the species propagate. The species propagating is the corollary of individuals propagating, and so our evolutionary behaviour is aimed at the individual producing babies.

Species don't propagate, they survive. Sure, individuals need to propagate, but that in itself doesn't ensure species survival. Neither does increasing the propagation rate.

Like I said before, I would grant that altruism exists, but in practice altruism mostly only extends to family and in-tribes, and that's what accounts for your description of 'species wide genes' that ensure everyone makes it. The anthropological concept of the family gives individuals a supportive net that makes sure more kids get made.

But one advantaged family eventually becomes many until it becomes most and then almost all. The genetic tendencies for communal living become amalgamated into the culture.

To take that concept a little further, having children is an inherently selfish act in practise. If we were truly altruistic and giving we would be more likely to spend our energy helping people who need it rather than propagating our own genes. Because the world doesn't need more people, and a lot of people need help, but in reality.. nobody cares, because they have evolved to be baby-makers.

I don't mention that last part with any angst, because that's essentially what it means to be a living thing, but your idea that altruism is somehow baked into what we are, any further than extending to in-groups, is just not tenable to me. Maybe that's a grim picture, but that's reality, and until we as a species get better at understanding and respecting reality, we're not going to be able to make things much better

I think we learn to care for others in society by having to learn how to be part of a caring and supportive family despite the angst it at times presents. Actually, because of it. I just read a headline for an article in the local paper today: "Stop Being Unhappy: Be Selfish, Advises Greenwich Parenting Expert". That's Greenwich, CT. The wealthiest town in the US. So you may be right. I worry about America, survival-wise. But there's more hopeful evidence that the human race is adapting in ways that aren't easily identified as altruistic but coincident with the need to contain overpopulation. The rapidly increasing acceptance of LGBTQ rights and the tendency for economically successful couples to wait longer to have kids. And just having women in the workforce rather than raising kids was a paradigm shift. So the compromises are being tested empirically and social mores are changing in ways that emphasis compassion for the individual. Feels good to me, in a grim kind of way.

 

[WAB]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

Oh boy.

Science is grand. Science is the reason we are where we are at (a professional linguist would love, or hate, or at the very least wonder why I strung 6 of those kind of words together. But that's for a different thread).

The meaning of life? Jaysus H Christ, there are how many billions of individuals on this speck of dirt, aloft amid unspeakable G U L F s of space, and how many millions are in a billion? Now break it down from there...

Most people do not give a shit about genes, replicators, zygotes, the fucking word fitness, or any of that sciency-Darwinian jazz.

Most people want to get on with their lives. They want to live and enjoy and prosper, if they can.

The meaning of life? Life means exactly what you (or you) want it to mean. If you're a nihilist, then hey, it means nothing, nada. Have a nice time in eternity, and you know what, you were right.

Capitalist/playboy/funster/hedonist? What's the meaning of life? Hey, guess what everybody, these clowns are right. Their lives had meaning to them, and they ascribed meaning to whatever the hell they did, and their lives meant something, for them. Nothing matters, and the one with the most toys wins? Guess what? They were right.

Atheists: You're right. Life means whatever you, as an individual, claim that it means, and it has only the value that you assign to it.

Theists: Well, you're right, too. If you value the life beyond what's here and now, MORE than what's here and now, then go for it! You will not be disappointed. Because, if you're wrong, you won't know it. But, if you're right, well, you're right!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Theists: Well, you're right, too. If you value the life beyond what's here and now, MORE than what's here and now, then go for it! You will not be disappointed. Because, if you're wrong, you won't know it. But, if you're right, well, you're right!

Sounds like a creative variation on Pascal's wager. <wink-wink>
EB

 

[George S]

Theists: Well, you're right, too. If you value the life beyond what's here and now, MORE than what's here and now, then go for it! You will not be disappointed. Because, if you're wrong, you won't know it. But, if you're right, well, you're right!

Sounds like a creative variation on Pascal's wager. <wink-wink>
EB

When my brother-in-law was dying he confidently said, as his last words, "See you on the other side." If that gave his family and himself comfort...

 

[sharon45]

Theists: Well, you're right, too. If you value the life beyond what's here and now, MORE than what's here and now, then go for it! You will not be disappointed. Because, if you're wrong, you won't know it. But, if you're right, well, you're right!

They are right only if they actually find out there is really a god, but on which god is quite a different matter.

 

[humbleman]

We didn't give ourselves life, then the meaning of life is out of our hands.

We can work for a temporary effort to survive and find a meaning to our lives in a short period of existence. But about life itself, its meaning is greatly better explained from religious sources.

Science can't explain the meaning of life.

 

[bilby]

We didn't give ourselves life, then the meaning of life is out of our hands.

We can work for a temporary effort to survive and find a meaning to our lives in a short period of existence. But about life itself, its meaning is greatly better explained from religious sources.

Science can't explain the meaning of life.

Nor can religion. We can find meaning for ourselves; Or we can delegate that task to other people (who presumably don't know us as well as we know ourselves). Calling those people priests, prophets, or the authors of scripture does nothing to change the fact that they are no more likely to find a meaning for life that is relevant to our actual lives than we are ourselves.

I didn't make my car; But I am FAR better qualified to explain what I use it for than are the guys at Toyota. Making something gives no particular insights into how it is going to be used.

If someone from Toyota tries to tell me where I should drive to, when, and by what route, I would tell him to go fuck himself.

In the unlikely event that a priest actually did represent the creator of the universe, as he claims, I would STILL be justified in telling both him and his invisible boss to go get fucked, if they wanted to tell me how to live my life.

A pot does not tell the potter how it is to be used - unless the pot is a self aware moral agent. If the pot IS a self aware moral agent, then the potter has no more moral right to decide its fate, than a slaver has to decide the fate of his slaves.

If a God exists, then either He is good, and therefore must allow us to make our own meaning for our lives (for to do otherwise would be to enslave us); Or He is evil, and we should refuse to do as he commands. And if no Gods exist, we must also decide for ourselves what meaning our lives have. There is no scenario where it is reasonable or sensible to use a religious source to determine what our lives should mean.

Unless you like slavery (which the Abrahamic God certainly did, if we are to accept the scripture His followers attribute to Him).

 

[George S]

To make your life more meaningful to you, make someone else's life more meaningful to them.
Love Wastefully.