The Limits of Objectivity: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Existence

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@LRT

The word “merely” is important when we think about how our understanding of consciousness has changed over time. In the past, consciousness was seen as something divine or mystical—a life force that went beyond the physical. Today, it’s largely understood as a product of brain activity, a result of synaptic firing. In this view, consciousness is just that—an outcome of the brain’s physical processes, with no deeper essence or connection to something beyond the material world. Yes, it is now “merely” that.

The universe, after all, came from nothing. Evolution is a random, blind process driven by genetic mutations and natural selection with no purpose other than survival. Life, at its core, is just molecules interacting randomly, and our sense of self is an illusion shaped by chemical reactions in the brain. So, while we may “create meaning” in our lives, it’s a mental construct.

All ideas are mental constructs regardless of whether their mind is generated by a material process, or whether it is a property of an immaterial soul/spirit.

You seem to be saying that if ideas are mental constructs then they are without meaning or value. Or if the mental construct is non-physical then suddenly it has meaning or value that it couldn’t have it if had been physical.

But that just doesn’t make any sense. What is it about the non-physical that gives it more or any meaning or value over and above the physical? Why does it have that, and the material/physical does not?

@LRT

To think that this kind of purpose could be as meaningful as something given by a purposeful universe seems questionable—perhaps even nonsensical.

Not in the least. Why would that be the case?

You are the person you are, you have the feelings that you do, you evoke the emotions in others and you affect their lives regardless of what the fundamental nature of your constituents are like or how your mind came into being. Your feelings don’t stop existing just because they might ultimately be based on neuronal firing patterns in your brain. Why would they?

And why would they matter less, or be worth less, than if your feelings are ultimately made of ecoplasm? Soul-stuff? Immaterial? Either way, the feelings you have are real. The relationships you have are real. The effect of your existence matters to you and your relationships. So what if they are somehow based on protons, neutrons, and electrons? How is that of less value, mening, worth, or significance than if you had immaterial souls? You still have those feelings. Why would that subtract from your meaning or value? Why would your mind being made of something non-material give it value, meaning, or purpose it couldn’t otherwise have?

I think you’re making a basic error in logic. It doesn’t follow. You are confused about what meaning and purpose is, and have given no reason or explanation for why it’s validity or existence should be tied to it’s fundamental nature of it’s constituents.

@LRT

This purposelessness is reflected in the very processes that brought us here. Evolution, the development of our neural networks, and the rise of consciousness are all blind, purposeless processes that don’t have a greater meaning beyond survival. Meaning, therefore, must be something we invent or impose on our lives.

It would be that no matter how we or anything else came to be. And the screwdriver explanation shows this perfectly. It doesn’t matter whether the screwdriver is wished into being with magic, or is created with your hands and fashioned out of some pre-existing material. Either way, purpose, value, or meaning isn’t a “thing” the screwdriver has. It’s in the mind of it’s creator and couldn’t possibly be anywhere else.

The screwdriver being created through some magical instantiation and wishing doesn’t somehow gives it a property it wouldn’t otherwise have, and a simple thought-experiment illustrates this: Suppose the exact same screwdriver sponatenously assembled through a blind physical process. Would it be any different? Obviously not. It would still just be a screwdriver. It would function just as well regardless of how it came into being. Nothing would be different about it or what it could be used for. The only difference would be whether the idea of what it was for existed in the mind of it’s creator or not. But then it isn’t the screwdriver that is different, it’s the idea in the mind of it’s putative creator that is.

@LRT

The screwdriver analogy helps clarify this. We assign meaning to a screwdriver—not the universe. The tool’s purpose is a human construct, just as the meaning we give to our lives is.

The exact same would be true for a created universe. It would be “assigned” to the universe, but not be somehow “in” or inherent to it. It would be a mental construct in the mind of the creator.

@LRT

If meaning were inherent in the universewe would discover it rather than create it.

Meaning can’t be inherent to anything. It is literally a nonsensical statement since meaning is by definition a mental construct. What does it mean to say “X has a meaning”? It means to say that someone thinks of it as being for something. Being for something is not a thing that can be intrinsic to a thing (like having volume is intrinsic to a sphere), it can only ever be an idea in someone’s mind.

@LRT

The universe would have a purpose, and we’d be uncovering that purpose, which would be far more profound than inventing one ourselves.

Why would that be more “profound”? Why would a meaning invented by someone else be more profound than one invented by you?

@LRT

If there were a soul—a non-material essence beyond the body—it could imply that life has a deeper, more lasting meaning independent of our personal experience.

Why? Since meanings only exist in minds, life can’t have a “deeper” meaning than that. There isn’t anything that makes meanings existing in the minds of others any deeper, any more objective, or any more true or valid, than those in yours.

If the universe “has” a purpose, that purpose can only be in the mind of someone. It’s not the universe that really “has” it, as if it is somehow a part of it or intrinsic to it (like volume would be intrinsic to the sphere).

It would just be an idea in someone’s thoughts, then. Like with the screwdriver, it doesn’t matter how it came into being. You can do the same thought experiment, imagine a universe that was created by someone intending in for a purpose, and then the same universe but it just is for no reason. Either way, it’s the same universe. It has the same size, the same age, the same natural laws, same number of stars etc. etc. How is the universe that was “created for a purpose” any different? It isn’t. The universe itself doesn’t have a “purpose” attribute. The purpose is still just an idea in the mind of it’s creator.

@LRT

In short, meaning is something humans create, rooted in our consciousness and the physical world. It doesn’t come from the universe itself. Even though we can create meaning, it remains a product of our minds, shaped by our need to find purpose in a world that seems indifferent to us.

That would be true for any and all meanings, even one purportedly of the universe. It would just be created by someone else and only exist in that beings mind. It would not be inherent to the universe. It couldn’t be since meaning just isn’t the sort of thing that can be intrinsic to a thing.

[LRT]

@Faizal_Ali

It would? Why?

Would you live your life any differently if it were known that your consciousness might survive death? Would the question of life’s meaning not then be framed within a broader philosophical context? At the very least, there would be more “options” available to the reason for life than procreate and survive.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@LRT

Would you live your life any differently if it were known that your consciousness might survive death? Would the question of life’s meaning not then be framed within a broader philosophical context? At the very least, there would be more “options” available to the reason for life than procreate and survive.

Sure if we had good reason to believe the mind somehow survived the physical destruction of the brain and body, we would probably change our perspectives and behavior. I don’t think that’s something anyone here disputes.

What is being disputed is the idea that a short life, or one where your conscious experiences are ultimately due to physical processes, are somehow intrinsically of less worth or value, than if they had been based on something immaterial, or that lasted longer?

And we are disputing the claim that if life is produced by a blind physical process then that would render it somehow less meaningful or profound than if it had been created with intent.

[LRT]

@Rumraket

All ideas are mental constructs regardless of whether their mind is generated by a material process, or whether it is a property of an immaterial soul/spirit.

Yes, all ideas are mental constructs, yet some are rooted in the brain, while others are thought to span both the mind and the external world. The former serve personal purposes, while the latter might fulfill a broader, collective role.

[LRT]

@Rumraket

You seem to be saying that if ideas are mental constructs then they are without meaning or value. Or if the mental construct is non-physical then suddenly it has meaning or value that it couldn’t have it if had been physical.

There is personal meaning, certainly, but not a meaning that extends beyond the individual or the society one belongs to. The latter, on the other hand, could have a broader, more universal significance.

[LRT]

@Rumraket

But that just doesn’t make any sense. What is it about the non-physical that gives it more or any meaning or value over and above the physical? Why does it have that, and the material/physical does not?

If consciousness exists beyond the brain, it might pervade the entire universe. This would significantly expand its scope and potential beyond an individual. Acts of kindness, for instance, could reverberate on a larger scale, amplifying the meaning behind our actions. Again, I’m not claiming that consciousness resides outside the brain; I’m merely pointing out that we still lack a full understanding of how the brain gives rise to thought. This conversation is bringing me in uncharted territory.

[LRT]

@Rumraket

The screwdriver being created through some magical instantiation and wishing doesn’t somehow gives it a property it wouldn’t otherwise have, and a simple thought-experiment illustrates this: Suppose the exact same screwdriver sponatenously assembled through a blind physical process. Would it be any different? Obviously not. It would still just be a screwdriver. It would function just as well regardless of how it came into being. Nothing would be different about it or what it could be used for. The only difference would be whether the idea of what it was for existed in the mind of it’s creator or not. But then it isn’t the screwdriver that is different, it’s the idea in the mind of it’s putative creator that is.

The screwdriver is not conjured by magical incantations, but its purpose is a construct of the brain, according to my understanding—though it may also be a product of the mind in an expanded version of reality. Either the brain creates thought, or the mind uses the brain to produce it. The distinction may be subtle, but, I suggest, it carries profound implications.

[LRT]

@Rumraket

Meaning can’t be inherent to anything. It is literally a nonsensical statement since meaning is by definition a mental construct. What does it mean to say “X has a meaning”? It means to say that someone thinks of it as being for something. Being for something is not a thing that can be intrinsic to a thing (like having volume is intrinsic to a sphere), it can only ever be an idea in someone’s mind.

I could suggest that life holds meaning beyond just survival of the fittest, if it weren’t for the fact that, based on our current knowledge, that’s the only purpose that fits within the framework of evolutionary theory. The other meanings we ascribe to life might ultimately be nothing more than illusions.

Can I at least say that science isn’t painting a rosy picture of life?

[LRT]

@Dan_Eastwood

I confess to asking for an AI summary of this, and near-death experiences were one of the topics mentioned. This is a topic that has come up before, and you might be interested in those previous discussions.

I’ve read extensively on this subject, exploring both sides of the issue, but I remain unconvinced either way. However, if one version proves true, it could turn science on its head. We’re not there yet… and we may never get there. But I’ll continue to read with keen interest.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Dan_Eastwood

@LRT

Science must remain open to the possibility that there may be aspects of reality beyond the material world, and that exploring these dimensions may require more than just scientific methods. Given its inherently subjective nature, such phenomena may not be fully accessible through empirical observation alone, and a broader, more interdisciplinary approach might be needed to study them.

Do you realize the contradiction here? You are asking that science become something other than science. You are hardly the first person to bump into this problem.

I don’t agree that there is necessarily a contradiction here. If it turns out that gods, angels, ghosts, spirits etc. exist, they might not obey the the same laws that describe how the physical things with which we are now familiar behave. However, if their behaviour was still predictable and orderly, then they could still be understood thru the scientific method.

[Faizal_Ali]

@LRT

Would you live your life any differently if it were known that your consciousness might survive death?

Sure. I also live my life differently knowing that micro-organisms exist than I would if I did not possess that knowledge. That does not mean my life is any more or less meaningful with or without that knowledge.

If I knew that my consciousness survived the death of my body, that would just be another piece of knowledge. It would affect my understanding of the world, but it wouldn’t make my existence any more meaningful. Why do you think it should?

@LRT

Would the question of life’s meaning not then be framed within a broader philosophical context? At the very least, there would be more “options” available to the reason for life than procreate and survive.

Well, I don’t see those as the only purposes of my existence as it is. But, in any event, with exactly what purpose or meaning is life imbued if dualism is true, vs. the contrary?

[John_Harshman]

@Dan_Eastwood

My counter example (which you surely know already) is a concept.

Counter example to what? I’m not seeing the relevance of this to an argument about whether there’s a need, or even a possibility, to go beyond science in order to find reliable knowledge of the world.

[John_Harshman]

@LRT

Given its inherently subjective nature, such phenomena may not be fully accessible through empirical observation alone, and a broader, more interdisciplinary approach might be needed to study them.

Still don’t understand. What sort of approach, exactly? Perhaps a concrete example would be good. And would this study produce any reliable knowledge?

@LRT

You mentioned in your post that epigenetic inheritance is not an evolutionary factor, but I pointed out that in plants, epigenetic inheritance is indeed recognized as an important evolutionary factor.

You “pointed out” as in you made an unsubstantiated claim. I was looking for something better.

@LRT

While the majority of neuroscientists still focus on the brain as the source of consciousness, a few are beginning to explore alternative explanations beyond just brain activity to understand where consciousness truly comes from.

How would these alternative explanations be tested?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Dan_Eastwood

My counter example . . . is a concept.

I don’t have a counter example but I have a concept of a counter example. (Someone famous said something similar to that.)

[Faizal_Ali]

@Dan_Eastwood

My counter example (which you surely know already) is a concept. Concepts are not material, but some have the power to influence thinking and behavior in the material world. They can be useful. We can test certain hypotheses about concepts, collecting material data to test the hypothesis. That does not make a concept a material thing, unless we count ideas as being material (and I think they are not).

I confess, I don’t understand how abstract concepts are integrated into physicalism. But, at the same time, I don’t see that as a particularly difficult problem for the physicalist, at least when it comes to the issue of consciousness. It seems to me one could bit the bullet and admit that physicalism is false because abstract concepts exist and are not physical. However, there is no reason to believe these have can have causative effects in the world in the way that physical forces do, and therefore the physicalist worldview is left essentially unaffected by the concession. There just happens to be a number of things that fall into the category of “non-physical” as a matter of metaphysical bookkeeping.

[LRT]

In the mechanical worldview, existence holds no meaning or purpose beyond the biological need to pass our genes to the next generation. Yet even that purpose is fleeting. Eventually, all meanings, achievements, and legacies fade into nothingness. Everything is ephemeral. Meaning is made up.

In contrast, a dualistic worldview opens the door to endless possibilities of purpose and meaning. Within it, our actions, experiences, and accumulated knowledge may endure beyond the physical realm; perhaps preserved and utilized indefinitely. Meaning might be real.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@LRT

Can I at least say that science isn’t painting a rosy picture of life?

Not with any credibility, because you aren’t looking at the pictures being painted.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Faizal_Ali

Consider a group of researchers who are tagging animals. They then use these tags to determine migration patterns, population trends, etc. But all they are doing is collecting data…

OK, let’s consider them. Who are they, exactly, other than figments of your imagination?

I know plenty of real wildlife biologists, but none that would gather data like these in the absence of any hypothesis. I know of no agency that would fund it.

While there are data-gathering operations such as the Human Genome Project, they are done at large scales.

I challenge you to find a single NSF abstract that describes such behavior in the absence of any hypothesis testing.

Who was it that was going on about the importance of evidence?

[Tim]

@LRT

In the mechanical worldview, existence holds no meaning or purpose beyond the biological need to pass our genes to the next generation.

No. “In the mechanical worldview, existence…” can hold any “meaning or purpose” the individual possessing that existence wishes to assign to it – be it creating great art, making scientific discoveries, doing your best to make sense of the world around you, or an infinite number of other possibilities.

The universe does not have to have a meaning or purpose ‘baked in’ for us to have one.

In the same way, the original reason for designing a screwdriver might have been to drive screws, but that does not mean that this must be its only purpose. My father had a large, flat-head screwdriver that he tended to use to open paint-cans, to the extent that its head eventually got worn down and rounded to the extent that it could no longer drive screws.

There is nothing that requires meaning or purpose to be immutable.

It’s just that some people’s thoughts on the subject tend to be carved in stone.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@LRT

@Rumraket

Meaning can’t be inherent to anything. It is literally a nonsensical statement since meaning is by definition a mental construct. What does it mean to say “X has a meaning”? It means to say that someone thinks of it as being for something. Being for something is not a thing that can be intrinsic to a thing (like having volume is intrinsic to a sphere), it can only ever be an idea in someone’s mind.

I could suggest that life holds meaning beyond just survival of the fittest

I could suggest survival of the fittest isn’t the meaning of life either. The fact that life evolved is, again, not a meaning-transferring property. The mechanism or process that spawned our species does not transmit meaning. It isn’t heritable. We are not somehow “infused” with survival of the fittest as the meaning of our lives.

Because meanings are mental constructs, life can’t have intrinsic meaning. If we want meaning we must make one up in our own minds and act accordingly.

@LRT

, if it weren’t for the fact that, based on our current knowledge, that’s the only purpose that fits within the framework of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory makes literally zero pronouncements on meaning. The theory doesn’t tell you the meaning of life. It is a blind physical process, not a meaning-generating process. Since meanings are mental constructs.

The idea that you have to find a meaning that “fits” within the framework of evolution is completely misconceived. Your entire problem here seems to stem from not really understanding what meaning is or where it comes from.

@LRT

The other meanings we ascribe to life might ultimately be nothing more than illusions.

The value of money is a mental construct and you might want to call it “illusory”, but it has real-world effects. By us all agreeing to assign value to money (treat it as if it has a certain level of value) so we can exchange it for goods we find desirable at some rate of exchange, we are able to make a living and construct a functional society with an economy we can all benefit from in various ways (food, a place to live, various other consumer goods). You might want to call this “illusory”, but then I think your problem is you have some weirdly pessimistic pespective about mental constructs.

It’s rather ironic since, in a way, many often take mental constructs to be fundamentally immaterial, and yet here you are then effectively arguing that the immaterial is without value. I seem to detect a strange kind of tension between two aspects of your argment here.

To me it makes no difference what the fundamental nature of thoughts, or living organisms, are. Material/physical or not. It makes no difference. Either way, meaning is an idea in the mind. It is no more or less valid either way.

@LRT

Can I at least say that science isn’t painting a rosy picture of life?

I think your mistake is taking science to be painting any picture of life, if by “painting a picture of” you mean it to be selling you a particular story about what life’s meaning is. It simply doesn’t. There is no statement about how life emerged or evolves from which it follows what the meaning of life is, since meanings can’t by definition be inherent to anything at all.