 |
Duration: 06:47 minutes Upload Time: 2007-10-12 07:39:45 User: ReductioAdAbsurdum :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: --) WHAT??? the ability to feel you ignorant --) FUCK.. your patronizing crapola is getting --) sickening. *lol* It's a relief to be officially done with this. I'll go ahead and respond to your final comments here, so I don't have to make another video. --) You are saying meaning isn't a reality that can be --) intellectually modeled like any other "invisible --) force" of the universe because you say so. It's not that meaning cannot be intellectually modelled, it's that it is ONLY an intellectual model. That's a huge distinction. Our intellectual model of gravity, and gravity itself, are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. They are utterly distinct entities. One exists in the mind, one exists outside the mind. One is represented by chemical/electrical activity in a brain, one is represented by the curvature of spacetime. There are any number of concepts that DON'T correspond to things outside the mind, FICTIONAL concepts like "ghost", "god", "telepathy", "telekinesis", etc., or QUALITATIVE concepts like "good", "bad", "significant", "just", etc. If not for humans to conceptualize them, things like "ghosts" or "fairies" do not exist. Without humans to conceptualize them, things like "fair" or "bad" do not exist. You've conceded this half a dozen times already, every time you admit that meaning is contingent on consciousness. You've even gone as far as to say that consciousness "gives the universe meaning". Why you can't connect the remaining dots is a mystery. Maybe it's because you already reached your conclusion, as you said, at an early age. --) If the speed of light, is not measured by a son --) or a moon it still exists as a fact nonetheless... --) Likewise, the fact that the inanimate universe does --) not contemplate meaning does not change its reality The speed of light is the same everwhere in the Universe, irrespective of frame of reference. Meaning is not. Any question in the form "What does X MEAN? What is the significance of X?" is not answerable without also knowing Y: what frame of reference, who's perspective, are you asking from? Even if the perspective is "the human race", it's still not universal. My son's birth was the most important event in my life. It was the culmination of my biologically mandated purpose, and let me tell you buddy, natural selection has seen to it that there's a HUGE payoff. It triggers machinery within you that you didn't even know was there. Ask any parent. The concept of dying for someone else was ludicrous to me before I had children; I wouldn't trade my own life for anyone's, not my mother, not my brother, but I would throw myself in front of a bus to save one of my kids. I wouldn't have a choice. That shit is hardwired. It is in that sense that morality is completely objective. PaulsEgo states it eloquently here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txxOb75Ag6M. Morality is coded in our DNA, so it's part of objective reality. But that doesn't contradict what I'VE been saying, which is that morality is not part of the laws of nature, it comes from a set of valuations hardwired into our consciousness (via our brain design) because they have survival value; those valuations do not correspond to anything in the extra-mental universe. We value life, we believe in justice, fairness, right, wrong, etc. The Universe doesn't. --) The ability to feel is a 'significant' manifestation of --) the evolution of matter, regardless of whether you --) individually, or a rock, has the intellectual competence --) to recognize that obvious fact. Once again, you misread/mischaracterized what I said. I agree that it's significant! I've said so MANY TIMES. But 'significance' itself is a concept that corresponds to nothing extra-mental. The 'significance' of something is 100% a function of how it affects humans, or how it affects other things that we consider significant. It does not have an extra-human meaning. It is a product of consciousness, just like consciousness is a product of brains. --) Your claim of meaninglessness or 'insignificance' is the --) extraordinary one, and you in this circumstance have the --) greater burden of proof. And again, you misread/mischaracterized what I said. I didn't say are meaningless or insignificant. I said the opposite. Many times. My point is that 'meaning' and 'significance' are mental concepts that do not correspond to laws in the physical universe. You claim they are not, you claim that we value ourselves because the UNIVERSE values us, that somewhere written in the laws of nature, just like the speed of light, is an additional screed that says LIFE IS VALUABLE. That's an extraordinary claim, given that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT IT, so the burden is entirely on you. |
|
Comments | |
| ReductioAdAbsurdum ::: Favorites 2007-10-13 06:08:56 Response over there ---> __________________________________________________ | |
| inmendham ::: Favorites 2007-10-12 10:10:53 The ability to feel is a "significant" manifestation of the evolution of matter, regardless of whether you individually, or a rock, has the intellectual competence to recognize that obvious fact. Your claim of meaninglessness or "insignificance" is the extraordinary one, and you in this circumstance have the greater burden of proof. __________________________________________________ | |
| inmendham ::: Favorites 2007-10-12 10:10:40 WHAT??? the ability to feel you ignorant FUCK... your patronizing crapola is getting sickening. You are saying meaning isn't a reality that can be intellectually modeled like any other "invisible force" of the universe because you say so. If the speed of light, is not measured by a son or a moon it still exists as a fact nonetheless... Likewise, the fact that the inanimate universe does not contemplate meaning does not change its reality. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment