A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning • Hacker News Board

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#251

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #250

lisper wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Secular materialism itself is not circular. OK, but this is the claim I was responding to: "Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity," > Secular materialism is an epistemology No, it isn't. Secular materialism is "the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenom…

> It is a falsifiable scientific theory. No, its not. There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal. > You are confusing secular materialism with science. No, I'm not. Secular materialism and science are closely related but different. Science is a method for justifying knowledge, secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge.

> There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal.

Of course there is. Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired. Greater efficacy of prayer to one deity versus a different deity. The Second Coming.

> secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge.

Then you are using the term "secular materialism" to mean something different than what the dictionary says. I refer you to the following passage from Tom Stoppard:

http://web9.uits.uconn.edu/lundquis/Travesties.html

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#252

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #251

dragonwriter wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a falsifiable scientific theory. No, its not. There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal. > You are confusing secular materialism with science. No, I'm not. Secular materialism and science are closely related but different. Science is a method for justifying knowledge, secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge.

> There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal. Of course there is. Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired. Greater efficacy of prayer to one deity versus a different deity. The Second Coming. > secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge. Then you are using the term "s…

> Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired.

Any such communication (and any such afterlife from which communication was possible) would itself be explainable as physical processes. (Obviously, it would require new understanding of what the laws of physics are, but that's not unusual.)

Any phenomenon that involves an observed and predictable relationship between an observable action and an observable result can be explained physically (though it may require new physics.) Any phenomenon that does not is rationalized within a secular materialist viewpoint as either (1) random, or (2) an effect of some as-yet-unknown cause.

Nothing observable can falsify secular materialism.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#253

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #252

lisper wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal. Of course there is. Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired. Greater efficacy of prayer to one deity versus a different deity. The Second Coming. > secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge. Then you are using the term "s…

> Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired. Any such communication (and any such afterlife from which communication was possible) would itself be explainable as physical processes. (Obviously, it would require new understanding of what the laws of physics are , but that's not unusual.) Any phenomenon that involves an observed and predictable relationship betw…

> it may require new physics

But that is exactly what falsification means. When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics.

> an effect of some as-yet-unknown cause

Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity. Science does not rule out that possibility a priori.

BTW, here is an example of an unfalsifiable theory: God is real, but He will not reveal Himself to you unless you believe in Him. If He has not revealed Himself, then you just don't have enough faith.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#254

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #253

dragonwriter wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired. Any such communication (and any such afterlife from which communication was possible) would itself be explainable as physical processes. (Obviously, it would require new understanding of what the laws of physics are , but that's not unusual.) Any phenomenon that involves an observed and predictable relationship betw…

> it may require new physics But that is exactly what falsification means . When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics. > an effect of some as-yet-unknown cause Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity. Science does not rule out that possibility a priori. BTW, here is an example of an unfalsifiable theory: God is real, but He will not reveal Himself to you unless you believe i…

> When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics.

Sure, there lots of things that could falsify our current understanding of physics (and elements of that understanding are falsified all the time without any negative impact on Secular Materialism).

But all that says is that the current models of physics are falsifiable, which wasn't in question. Falsifying them, however, doesn't falsify Secular Materialism.

> Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity.

Not in any non-physical sense.

> Science does not rule out that possibility a priori.

Science does not admit any entity that cannot be reduced to physical mechanism, nor does it need to admit any such entity since its framework allows explaining any predictable relation between observable cause and observable effect as such a mechanism, and it doesn't concern itself with anything other than such relationships.

(Whether this is all there is "in truth" is a question that goes beyond science -- secular materialism is the affirmative answer to that question -- and which is irrelevant to science.)

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#255

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 9:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #254

lisper wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it may require new physics But that is exactly what falsification means . When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics. > an effect of some as-yet-unknown cause Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity. Science does not rule out that possibility a priori. BTW, here is an example of an unfalsifiable theory: God is real, but He will not reveal Himself to you unless you believe i…

> When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics. Sure, there lots of things that could falsify our current understanding of physics (and elements of that understanding are falsified all the time without any negative impact on Secular Materialism). But all that says is that the current models of physics are falsifiable, which wasn't in question. Falsifying them, however, doesn't falsify Secular Mat…

> Falsifying them, however, doesn't falsify Secular Materialism.

That depends on how they are falsified. If your "new physics" is just a minor tweak to the Standard Model -- a new particle, say -- then you're right. But if you can demonstrate something observable that isn't made of matter then that would falsify secular materialism.

Dark matter and dark energy could potentially do this. Notwithstanding that we're calling them "matter" and "energy" the truth is we have no freakin' clue what they are.

> > Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity.

> Not in any non-physical sense.

Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

> Science does not admit any entity that cannot be reduced to physical mechanism

Not true. It just happens to be the case that everything we observe appears to be reducible to a physical mechanism. But that's not an a priori assumption, it is an a posteriori observation. And it's also a pretty recent development. For example, whether or not life could be reduced to a physical mechanism was an open question until Darwin. Whether altruism could be reduced to a physical mechanism was an open question until Dawkins and Axelrod. The jury is still out on abiogenesis, but again, I'll give you long odds that that, too, will turn out to be physical.

> it doesn't concern itself with anything other than such [predictable] relationships

Again, not true. A phenomenon does not have to be predictable to be amenable to scientific inquiry. There are hard limits on our ability to predict, say, the weather. That does not mean that weather is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, it is because of science that we know that there are fundamental limits on our ability to predict the weather.

BTW, weather presents the perfect example of how secular materialism could be falsified: if tornadoes, all else being equal (i.e. controlling for things like geographic location and construction quality), selectively destroyed the houses of worship of one denomination over another.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#256

Post by nibs » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #138

nibs wrote: post #13

Meaning is what you feel when you act and others benefit, regardless of the effect that action has on you. Happiness is when you benefit, regardless of who acted or why. In order to have a happy, meaningful life, you have to contribute to people who accept you and have those efforts reciprocated. Lots of smart people find survival in the selfish sense very trivially easy. If you do not seek out opportunities to contr…

You have no logical grounds for your first sentence. As a result everything else collapses. Meaning is whatever a person defines to have value to them in a material world. They enjoy rape, the it provides meaning. You can't tell them they're wrong because it hurts others abstractly, and can't concretely if that's part of what makes it so meaningful to them. There is nothing stopping someone from being a great white s…

The grounds are scientific, not logical: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1207%2Fs15327558ijbm1202...

What you are describing is the broader context of innate drive for something. Meaning is a feeling you get from satisfying certain (not all) drives.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#257

Post by virmundi » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 1:28 AM UTC

nibs wrote: post #256

virmundi wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no logical grounds for your first sentence. As a result everything else collapses. Meaning is whatever a person defines to have value to them in a material world. They enjoy rape, the it provides meaning. You can't tell them they're wrong because it hurts others abstractly, and can't concretely if that's part of what makes it so meaningful to them. There is nothing stopping someone from being a great white s…

The grounds are scientific, not logical: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1207%2Fs15327558ijbm1202... What you are describing is the broader context of innate drive for something. Meaning is a feeling you get from satisfying certain (not all) drives.

But you're presuming that mostly suicidal is an nonfunctional mode. If a person has been depressed for 15 years, held loaded weapons to their head while they cried, and have a good way to kill themselves, it's good to be good doesn't matter. If that person doesn't care about longevity, but hopes for a fast death soon, meh. There is no meaning. Especially when you have only one drive, a fast death.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#258

Post by meowface » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 11:06 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #207

meowface wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Personally, I think "music" is probably the most succinct example that our existence may not be purely materialistic in nature (... as I crank up my techno of debatable quality lol) Could you describe that in more detail? How is music not materialistic? I would consider it hedonistic and nihilistic, just like recreational drug use for example.

It's nothing like a drug, in my opinion. And it seems to serve detrimental evolutionary purposes, which makes no sense (anyone distracted by music is fodder for predators or accidents). I was once in USAF basic training. One of the peculiarities of that 2 month existence was a total absence of music. This is not normally something people encounter in their lives. I found out that after a while I literally craved musi…

I'm confused by this post.

First you say it's not a drug. Then you say that after 2 months without it, you were craving it like an addict and desperate to get it however you could.

From your description, it still sounds like a hedonistic experience.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#259

Post by bobwaycott » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #239

bobwaycott wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience[0], most religious people use their religion to create and foster a sense of difference with Others, and do not keep the focus internally. American politics is a crucible of religious sources of obligational determinism locked in combat with secular forces. If you genuinely think you've found meaning, it's not selfish to keep it to yourself, until such time as someone asks for your thoughts in their…

>In my experience[0], most religious people use their religion to create and foster a sense of difference with Others, and do not keep the focus internally. Having lived in both religious and secular communities, it seems to me that tribalism is a human universal. Secular people have no trouble judging the religious by secular standards. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just not clear about what the secularist complain…

Apologies for missing your reply till now, first of all.

> Having lived in both religious and secular communities, it seems to me that tribalism is a human universal.

Unfortunately, this is all too true. I did not mean to imply the non-religious were excluded from being tribal and differentiating themselves from Others, as well. I was only responding from my experience that, particularly within the public sphere, religion occupies just as strong a force in identity politics as other personal features.

> Could you clarify what you mean by "obligational determinism"? The only google search results I could find lead me back to this thread.

Thanks for asking. You've caused me to go back to an old text and discover I had, somewhere over the years, inadvertently mis-remembered a particular phrasing. The phrasing I should have used is "sources of religious obligation" or "religious sources of obligation". Basically, minus the determinism—too much time between studying and recalling philosophy led to a pretty boneheaded error. I draw the phrase from the excellent debate between Robert Audi and Nicholas Wolterstorff in Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. My error, over the years, is rooted in a careless recollection of the role religious sources of obligation play in determining what a person thinks should or should not be done, particularly where coercive public policies are concerned.

I apologize for the error.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning

#260

Post by lliamander » Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #259

lliamander wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In my experience[0], most religious people use their religion to create and foster a sense of difference with Others, and do not keep the focus internally. Having lived in both religious and secular communities, it seems to me that tribalism is a human universal. Secular people have no trouble judging the religious by secular standards. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just not clear about what the secularist complain…

Apologies for missing your reply till now, first of all. > Having lived in both religious and secular communities, it seems to me that tribalism is a human universal. Unfortunately, this is all too true. I did not mean to imply the non-religious were excluded from being tribal and differentiating themselves from Others, as well. I was only responding from my experience that, particularly within the public sphere, rel…

Thank you for the response, and for finding the reference.

> I was only responding from my experience that, particularly within the public sphere, religion occupies just as strong a force in identity politics as other personal features.

That is true. In contrast, one of my main points was that there is a significant amount of private, sincere religious practice that is not (primarily) political in nature.

I did not wish to downplay the role of religion in politics (which you correctly point out is significant) but rather the role of politics in religion.

Now, the question of what role religion should play (or should be afforded) in politics is an interesting one; one that I don't have a clear position on at present. I read some Wolterstorff while I was studying philosophy, but I don't recall that specific book. From what I have sampled so far it seems quite interesting.