Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

meltingasphalt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 261 posts

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#141

Post by perlgeek »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Science taught me that it's all just atoms and the void, so there can't be any deeper point or purpose to the whole thing; the kind of meaning most people yearn for — Ultimate Meaning — simply doesn't exist. I don't think that is something science can teach you. Science can give you the scientific method, but answering the question "Is the scientific method the only valid means of knowledge?" is philosophy not scie…

> I don't think that is something science can teach you

Science can teach you that "it's all just atoms and the void"; the other part of the sentence is inference. And interestingly a similar inference as I made as a teenager, though I wasn't eloquent enough to really discuss it with anybody.

The basic premise is that if you reject the notion of a deity, there isn't even any standard by which any configuration of the Universe could be more meaningful than any other configuration.

Except if it's your own standard, which leads to meaning being a feeling more than an objective measure.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#142

Post by seanp2k2 »

jokoon wrote: post #67

One thought I have, is that human thinking is just one perspective which is limited to the realm of living thoughts. Meaning our thoughts are biased towards what we can see and think about, so we cannot see anything else. Human thinking has a limited range. That's always what I conclude when I hear about life or intelligent life in the universe. We are made of life, but intelligence may be specific only to the life o…

Totally agree. IMO it's also be amazing if we could create an AI which could evolve itself to the point of understanding things we can't while understanding humans well enough to be able to explain those things in terms we could understand.

Then again, maybe if it found out "higher" "actual" truths, it could see that possibly explaining those to humanity wouldn't be "good", and thus lie / withhold information for our own "benefit".

And now we're back to morals and ethics.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#143

Post by ihaveahadron »

I find this stuff interesting to read and think about. But I think that ultimately all arguments expressed about the subject in words are in the same category: works of fiction. In the end, things... are -- including all the different ways people describe, or attempt, to describe meaning.

I would also add that I am logically correct about this, as things are in fact... are. Which is kind of a stupid thing to say but often times i think that stupid things being said in fact are smart things when they are said in a context of being a response to stupid things.

Add #2:

I also think that this falls under "philosophy" which is an academic discipline that became outdated and was superseded by science about a century ago now.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#144

Post by crusso »

DigitalJack wrote: post #60
crusso wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based upon how you used it, I doubt that you and I could even agree on something simple like the meaning of the word "objective".

What was the point of your comment?

In religious discussions, people go around in circles arguing within the narrow space of each person's belief system. When even simple terms like "objective" are used in radically different ways, the conversation is doomed from the beginning.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#145

Post by drjesusphd »

seletskiy wrote: post #4

I think, that meaning can be only defined in the case, when one is immortal. If I'm mortal, everything I do, good or bad, is meaningless for consciousness, because it will cease to exist and everything that will happen after death will have no effect on it. Any meaning, that's is defined while one is mortal is no more than illusion, in which people immerse themselves for whatever reason.

Not necessarily. We still have no evidence that consciousness exists off of Earth. The scariest solution to the Fermi paradox is that we are in fact alone, or at least first.

One can even stop just short of solipism and consider the possibility that humans are the only consciousness in the universe.

Granted, this is just a possibility, perhaps a very small one. But we know so little about such things.

My point is that you may have far more of an effect on Consciousness than you think.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#147

Post by lliamander »

rimantas wrote: post #63
jonstaab wrote: post #47

Really enjoyed this. I love how practical, humble, and respectful (even of religions, which I really appreciate) uncompromising nihilists tend to be. I happen to be a Christian, so I could go on all day about meaning, but if I could say one thing, it's this: We all die, and it's more than likely even humanity will die out as well (even if it's at the heat death of the universe). You've pretty much rejected the possib…

One can find much more objective meaning to existence without outsorcing it to some imaginable friend. > Christians believe that for folks who don't know Jesus, > nihilism is essentially true And folks who don't give a rat ass about what Christians believe do know that nobody has monopoly on meaning and don't see the need to reduce everything else to nihilism. It would be much nicer if religious people would only use…

> It would be much nicer if religious people would only use religion to measure those who are part of it, not those who are outside.

In my experience, they do focus most of that measurement internally. Christians attend Sunday morning sermons, weekly Bible studies, confess their sins to one another, read the Bible, read books on Christian living, etc. all in an attempt to measure themselves against the tenets of their faith. The Christian faith even talks about the ways in which Christians should be more strict on fellow members of the Church than on outsiders.

But if you genuinely think you've found salvation and meaning, isn't it kind of selfish to keep that to yourself?

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

drjesusphd wrote: post #145
seletskiy wrote: post #4

I think, that meaning can be only defined in the case, when one is immortal. If I'm mortal, everything I do, good or bad, is meaningless for consciousness, because it will cease to exist and everything that will happen after death will have no effect on it. Any meaning, that's is defined while one is mortal is no more than illusion, in which people immerse themselves for whatever reason.

Not necessarily. We still have no evidence that consciousness exists off of Earth. The scariest solution to the Fermi paradox is that we are in fact alone, or at least first. One can even stop just short of solipism and consider the possibility that humans are the only consciousness in the universe. Granted, this is just a possibility, perhaps a very small one. But we know so little about such things. My point is tha…

> We still have no evidence that consciousness exists off of Earth.

We still have no objective definition of consciousness that would let us determine what it is that would be evidence that consciousness exists, on or off of Earth.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#149

Post by dahart »

I found it interesting to have a discussion about the meaning of life that mentions children and mentions marital affairs and concludes with the hope of science, and still never quite touches on our biological foundation. Shouldn't that be the jumping off point? All life is built to be physically and biologically dedicated to reproduction and the furthering of more life.

"children create meaning for their parents because (in most cases) they outlive their parents and become part of their legacy."

While true for (perhaps) most people, to me that seems to miss the mark a little, it feels slightly awkward to me. Children also create meaning for their parents because their parents satisfy their inherent biological mission to futher the species. Science has proven (as if we needed proof) that we have built in mechanisms that seek out and reward us for mating. It's the same reason affairs happen (another arrow, thus more meaning!): the biological mating mechanisms are strong enough to override our better judgements, we're driven to mate even if it has big risks.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#150

Post by titzer »

squidlogic wrote: post #87
njohnson41 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially if you assume that the scientific method is always valid--that all true statements can be determined empirically--you can't make statements like "Ultimate Meaning doesn't/does exist". If Ultimate Meaning cannot be defined, it cannot be tested for or measured, so no statements about it can be true or false. The answer to meaning would not be false, but null (or maybe 42). Just like 42, "atoms and the void"…

Positivism has fallen out of favor precisely because it cannot withstand its own criteria for meaning. For example, the statement that "all true statements can be determined empirically" is not itself verifiable by empirical means.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem already rules this out for mathematics, so why should we believe it about the universe?
Post reply on HN