We Give The Universe Meaning, Like Nothing Else

MTW, you're SO right. No revelations for me, but a pleasure to see someone else's exposition.If you need help shaking critters off your feet.......but I don't expect you do.Edited by beachcomber, : No reason given.

Thanks, I'm glad someone actually finds worth in my post. These comments are rare.You can take over critter sweeping if you want. I'm quite busy.

you're argument falls apart in one very important place. this relies on us being the only ones that acknowledge it exists, the only ones to percieve it, the only ones conscious of it.tell me, what of the cheetah who mourns the death of her cubs? Can she, then, percieve, and be conscious, and acknowledge this death? I say yes. othweise, why would she mourn? This means that the cheetah can acknowledge, percieve and be conscious of existence.What of the other possibly sentient species? How about those that can percieve of their own existence, and that the reflection of the mirror is actually them, and not someone else? Can they, suddenly, not acknowledge, not percieve, not be conscious of, existence?How about life we don't know about. You can't rule out intelligent life in other parts of the universe. They too, could be capable of giving "meaning" to the universe.In the end, this means that we are not the sole givers of existence to the universe, because apparently, it does matter to others.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This idea is another example of how we as humans assume we are the center of everything. It is a..."if a tree falls in the forest" kind of thing. To me we are simply child humanity coming to know existance one step at a time. Like any child we fumble and like any child.....it's all about us.

Only mind can give meaning, and meaning comes in layers: A bunch of ink molecules becomes a word when a human sees them, groups them and remembers the sound the word makes. The sound is one level of meaning, which the ink only appears to possess if the human can read. If the person knows the given language the sound goes on to remind one of an object, action, attribute, etc.Similarly, an object has no intrinsic meaning, but is percieved by an individual who is able to discern the object from its environment, with reference to information gathered and assimilated previously. Meaning is subjective. This is why babies are less inteligent than adults. Familiarity "means" good. The sights, smells and sounds of the primary carer "mean" safety. Babies have got a lot to learn.I'm trying to develop these thoughts into words that make sense. Please forgive my clumsiness - I realy do know what I'm trying to say, but its not easy to put in words.Have a good day.

---

Human Evolution in 42 Steps

Thanks for your helpful reply. I hope you will continue to try to clarify this. I am still puzzled by your ideas.One often encounters the word meaning used in this context. I am not yet convinced that it conveys anything.

I think I understand 42's thesis. Please check me on this, 42--and welcome to EvC.We are a symbol-making creature. It's a function of how our minds work--the most recently evolved portions of the human brain. We make pictures stand for reality. We make an image and say 'this is that.'Paint on a cave wall, in this particular shape, means a rhinoceras. Vocal sounds, in this particular series, mean 'water.' A picture I hold in my head, with this particular characteristic, means 'three.'Our ability to make one thing stand for another is the basis of all conceptualization. It is the basis of language, art, and theory of any kind.This habit of thought gives us a way to apprehend and contemplate our environment, even in the physical absence of the phenomena being considered. It makes it possible to share what we learn so that the community gains collective knowledge.As soon as our ancestors began putting one thing in place of another they invented the idea of meaning. They postulated that a drawing, a sound, or a mental picture 'means' this or that thing.It worked out well for our ancestors. The smartest among them lived a little longer and made more babies. Their descendants developed larger brain cases to house bigger cerebra that enabled them to take this ability further. Their practice of putting one thing in place of another acquired deepening levels of sophistication. Now we sit down at computers and argue the definitions of words with each other in regular mental jousts.We are so used to making one thing stand for another that the process is transparent to us most of the time we do it. We talk about speaking 'literally' and 'metaphorically' as if every word we exchange wasn't a metaphor at bottom.It's inevitable that our species would ask a question like 'What is the meaning of me'? Our survival has depended on considering everything around us and seeking meaning. What does it mean when the sky looks that way? When that smell comes from an object? When an animal makes that sound? It follows that we would look at our own existence as a crucial feature of our environment and ask the same question. We say 'If this means something else, as other things do... what is that?''Meaning' is how we think. It's built in.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : Revision.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I think I see at least three uses of "meaning" here: a) one idea or thing as a placeholder for another (eg a drawing standing in for an animal), b) the consequences following from an observation (eg what will happen if the sky has a certain appearance) and c) some kind of assumption that every thing is a placeholder for something else.Is that what you wanted to convey? Are all of these legitimate?

You're talking of them -- assigning them the same meaning as us; and talking for them.
How does that not place you at the center of the universe?And remember -- you assigning a universe value doesn't mean it has an objective one.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

A man decorates a room for a child. The child arrives. And you ask why the room doesn't care?It is very unlikely that there are conscious beings like us, unless they took the same evolutionary path that we did. What are the chances of that?The argumentum ad ignorantium Kuresu mentioned, doesn't mean that he proved anything, because not being able to know if a cheetah thinks as we do, doesn't mean it does or that I should prove it doesn't.The evidence suggests that we think as we do, and nothing else..We are the only one being KNOWN to contemplate the universe, unless you are suggesting that animals have telescopes and they just haven't shown them to us.

I'd say somewhere in the vicinity of 100%.If there are other conscious beings, they are a great deal like us. The other conscious beings on this planet clearly are.Many traits are arrived at by convergent evolutionary paths because they are invaluable to the organism. I can't think of a better candidate for convergence than consciousness. Many fictional or theoretical treatments of alien consciousness involve conceits of incomprehensibility, but in fact this universe is THE shared environment, and the notion of our uniqueness more arrogance than conceit. The spectra available to our senses and sensors, and the laws that determine cause and effect, would be the same. We would understand the Alpha Centaurians just fine, I think. Do you think we only began to contemplate the universe with the invention of telescopes?When thunderstorms fork lightning over the savannah, chimps gather on hilltops, sit quietly together, and watch the light show.One turns to the other and says, "Wow." The other answers, "Yeah."Isn't that what we do?

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

What I can ask is irrelevant.How does you assigning all meaning in the equation not place you at the center of the universe?

Within this statement lies much. You must accout for human arrogance/ reluctance to concede to "animals". You must account for our lack of knowledge about ourselves let alone our ability to accurately assess other intelligent beings. Below you have provided a good example of both.

For the purposes of that post I'd call B (with some chagrin) an inadequately chosen example. The other two definitions, certainly. C would arise in time from the mental habit of A.All three ideas are related, though, and in the consciousness of our ancestors would tend to run together.For them to paint a picture of a rhinoceras on the cave wall would set up 'meaning' by definition A. To stab at that picture with a spear the night before a hunt would extend the meaning according to this same definition. But they would also see the latter act as one that affected the world of consequences in the manner of definition B. To stab at the picture was to help ensure a good result in the next day's hunt. And to the extent that they had come to postulate the existence of spirits who enabled good and bad results in hunts, they would view the animal itself as an living emblem of these forces. The creature itself would acquire meaning in a manner analogous to the meaning its picture had. At that point the ancients would be on their way to assigning meaning by definition C.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.