A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#201

Post by feoren » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

beltsazar wrote: post #190

feoren wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "survival" in terms of Darwinian evolution, you're really talking about survival of specific genes. Why should we choose to be beholden to the primal "desires" (if you'll grant me the intentional stance) of our genes? We are the AI that our DNA invented that turned around and overthrew it. The planet is ours now, not our DNA's. There are many other things that evolve too: ideas, memes, viruses, and many…

> Yes, there is: we all collectively decide properties of the world we'd like to live in, and we try to guess what kind of world future generations would also like to live in, and then we call those actions that ultimately improve those properties "good" and those that lessen those properties "bad" First of all, who are "we"? Second of all, you just proved my point, unless you want to redefine "objective" as somethin…

See my sibling comment for my response to this.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#202

Post by feoren » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #149

feoren wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "survival" in terms of Darwinian evolution, you're really talking about survival of specific genes. Why should we choose to be beholden to the primal "desires" (if you'll grant me the intentional stance) of our genes? We are the AI that our DNA invented that turned around and overthrew it. The planet is ours now, not our DNA's. There are many other things that evolve too: ideas, memes, viruses, and many…

Objective, huh. Anyways, here's a problem in your last paragraph: We ?

Yes, we. See my sibling comment for my response to this.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#203

Post by vacuity » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

feoren wrote: post #200

feoren wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "survival" in terms of Darwinian evolution, you're really talking about survival of specific genes. Why should we choose to be beholden to the primal "desires" (if you'll grant me the intentional stance) of our genes? We are the AI that our DNA invented that turned around and overthrew it. The planet is ours now, not our DNA's. There are many other things that evolve too: ideas, memes, viruses, and many…

People are responding that I'm using the word "we" and therefore I'm not being objective. I think I need to emphasize a point better: there are infinitely many objective measures. Here's one: how many total paperclips humanity produces over the lifespan of the universe. That's a truly objective measure; we can just count them. We can analyze every action any human ever takes and estimate whether it increases or decre…

I'll get straight to the point. Abortion. Controversial topic, yes? People view it as a moral question, and it's a fairly direct reflection of one's moral values. Do you mean to say that a reasonable vision of the world based on everyone's moralities where there isn't a huge conflict? What compromise (if any) would be reasonable?

Abortion is just one, albeit salient, example. People differ in small ways and in big ways. I daresay your idea of a unified course of action is arrogant.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#204

Post by beltsazar » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

comfypotato wrote: post #199

beltsazar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There can be multiple competing objective functions But my whole point is that there can only be one ultimate objective function: to maximize the chance of survival. There might be some other objective functions derived from the ultimate one, but none can be standalone. Other standalone "objective functions" can always be asked "Why is it desirable?" For example, why is minimizing suffering desirable? Pain is just…

You’ve jumped to a conclusion here. If you take a step back further, you will see that your meaning is dependent on the fact that life has evolved. Prior to the existence of life, the “meaning” should be the same. If your meaning is dependent on life, it can’t be axiomatic. You’ve only realized that life is optimized for survival and reproduction. While that’s not wrong, there’s no intrinsic meaning in this. Ultimate…

> While that’s not wrong, there’s no intrinsic meaning in this.

I actually agreed about this. As I said in the first comment, to survive and to reproduce is more of a tautology than a purpose. If the three premises I mentioned in the first comment were true (I'm not arguing they are true), then to survive and to reproduce would be the closest thing to the ultimate purpose of life.

> Ultimately, meaning and purpose are what you make them.

While many, if not most, of us have some purposes of our own life, that doesn't change the fact that life as a whole would probably not have an ultimate purpose. Whether it matters or not is another discussion.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#205

Post by beltsazar » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

chronofar wrote: post #197

beltsazar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There can be multiple competing objective functions But my whole point is that there can only be one ultimate objective function: to maximize the chance of survival. There might be some other objective functions derived from the ultimate one, but none can be standalone. Other standalone "objective functions" can always be asked "Why is it desirable?" For example, why is minimizing suffering desirable? Pain is just…

I disagree that maximizing the chance for survival is the only ultimate objective function, or that it's somehow the only one that can escape "why is this desirable?" questioning, or that it is even coherent as an objective function in the long run (I see no reason to think the we'll run into technological limits that prevent us from deviating from natural evolution in the future for much, if perhaps not most of life…

First of all, thanks for the compelling discussion so far.

> To be honest I'm now a bit confused on your position, as you explicitly brought up points in your previous post that elucidated some of the cracks in attempting to treat survival as the "one true goal": > ... > perhaps first I should ask how this line of questioning doesn't lead you away from survival as the ultimate objective function.

To be clear, I don't hold any strong position. All my previous comments are based on the assumption that the three premises I wrote in the very beginning of the first post are true, but I'm not arguing that those premises are true. I was just elaborating the implications if they were true:

1) To survive and to reproduce would be the closest thing to the ultimate purpose of life.

2) What traits we consider "good" or "bad" would actually be just what traits are beneficial for survival or not.

When at the end of the first post I brought up the fact that morality doesn't always align with beneficialness for survival, I was trying to do reductio ad absurdum.

Maybe the three premises were not all true after all. Maybe there's something beyond the physical universe*, from which some higher being impulsively created the universe out of boredom, in which case there would still be no ultimate purpose. Or the higher being created it intentionally and with some purpose.

This might also elucidate the common argument, originated by C. S. Lewis, that all human beings know something good or bad because God imbued humans that ability. A common misconception interpreting this argument is to say only theists can do something good. Knowing is not the same as doing. All humans have the ability to distinguish good from bad, regardless of what they believe in, or whether they want to do something good or not.

---

* We don't even know if the observable universe is all physical. No one knows what dark energy is, maybe it's not energy after all. In fact, dark energy is just a placeholder—we might as well name it XYZ.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#206

Post by jononomo » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:43 PM UTC

nurettin wrote: post #198

jononomo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was he making fun of it?

I think he was satirizing the public understanding of the theory where people think the universe just magically popped into existence.

No, that was his own objection to it. He ridiculed the theory because he (incorrectly) thought that a theory that implied a God was repugnant to science. It turns out that the science won out, however, and now "The Big Bang" is widely accepted, in spite of its implications.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#207

Post by beltsazar » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

feoren wrote: post #200

feoren wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "survival" in terms of Darwinian evolution, you're really talking about survival of specific genes. Why should we choose to be beholden to the primal "desires" (if you'll grant me the intentional stance) of our genes? We are the AI that our DNA invented that turned around and overthrew it. The planet is ours now, not our DNA's. There are many other things that evolve too: ideas, memes, viruses, and many…

People are responding that I'm using the word "we" and therefore I'm not being objective. I think I need to emphasize a point better: there are infinitely many objective measures. Here's one: how many total paperclips humanity produces over the lifespan of the universe. That's a truly objective measure; we can just count them. We can analyze every action any human ever takes and estimate whether it increases or decre…

Well, where to start..

> I think I need to emphasize a point better: there are infinitely many objective measures.

No one here or anywhere is arguing that there are no objective measures. Of course, there is! The question is whether there is an objective measure from which good or bad is determined. Or in a logical statement, whether this statement is true: There exists something that is an objective measure AND from it good or bad is determined.

> It's objectively true that humans ... It's objectively true that humans ...

There are humans, albeit in minority, that take pleasure from painful experiences. While most of us want to maximize our lifespan, soldiers do not. They consider protecting their nations are far more important than their life. While most of us want to minimize suffering, Mother Teresa was instead experiencing prolong suffering for the sake of, not her family, not her friends, but strangers. Despite all of this, we all agree that what soldiers and Mother Terese did is "good." So no, none of your "It's objectively true that humans ..." statements are true, unless, as I said in the previous comment, you're willing to redefine "objective" as the majority's preference.

> We should seek to perform those actions which minimize the number of rusty nails jammed into eyes and maximize the number of times humans can enjoy nice meals when they're hungry.

I assume this is the objective measure that you think from which good or bad is determined? Say all humans agree with this objective, the obvious follow-up question could be: Which is worse: having 10 nails in each pair of eyes of 10 people, or having 1 nail in either eye of 100 people? Even if everyone agreed with the initial objective, they wouldn't unanimously say one case is worse than the other.

Okay, I suppose what you wanted to say is to minimize suffering and maximize happiness, which is a very common argument. It's a seemingly crazy question, but why? Pain is not inherently bad. If you think about it, pain is just a signal to the brain that something dangerous is happening. From the survival's perspective, it's even good! Unnecessary pain is bad, you might say. Not really, because it doesn't change anything. Only when you argue that excessive pain can be harmful to survival that the question of why can end. Why maximizing the chance of survival? Otherwise, life couldn't survive and we wouldn't have this discussion. Yes, it's a tautology. In fact, I already explained this in my original post [1].

As I explained in my original post [1], if the three premises written in the very beginning were true, "good" or "bad" would be nothing else other than being beneficial for survival or not. But this view of morality is not without its problems. At the end of the post I also mentioned that morality doesn't always align with beneficialness for survival. So, what now? I have written a follow-up in [2] as a response to another commenter.

---

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36729577

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36739559

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#208

Post by nurettin » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 8:04 PM UTC

jononomo wrote: post #206

nurettin wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he was satirizing the public understanding of the theory where people think the universe just magically popped into existence.

No, that was his own objection to it. He ridiculed the theory because he (incorrectly) thought that a theory that implied a God was repugnant to science. It turns out that the science won out, however, and now "The Big Bang" is widely accepted, in spite of its implications.

Of course they had disagreements and Hoyle was voicing his opinion on that. Except, as Lemaitre himself said on multiple occasions, the theory didn't imply any god at all. And his colleagues, being physicists and all, knew that. So it is my understanding that the target of this ridicule is the willfully ignorant public.

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#209

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 12:25 AM UTC

beltsazar wrote: post #205

chronofar wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that maximizing the chance for survival is the only ultimate objective function, or that it's somehow the only one that can escape "why is this desirable?" questioning, or that it is even coherent as an objective function in the long run (I see no reason to think the we'll run into technological limits that prevent us from deviating from natural evolution in the future for much, if perhaps not most of life…

First of all, thanks for the compelling discussion so far. > To be honest I'm now a bit confused on your position, as you explicitly brought up points in your previous post that elucidated some of the cracks in attempting to treat survival as the "one true goal": > ... > perhaps first I should ask how this line of questioning doesn't lead you away from survival as the ultimate objective function. To be clear, I don't…

[deleted]

Re: A Nihilist's Guide to Meaning (2016)

#210

Post by dotnet00 » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

beltsazar wrote: post #193

dotnet00 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one argument about religion I find especially hard to understand is that of needing some higher entity to give your existence meaning. It sort of comes off to me as a lighter way of asking how you can be a moral person without the threat of eternal suffering in the afterlife (not to suggest that you actually mean that). I consider myself agnostic, practically an atheist, I just don't really like associating mysel…

> It sort of comes off to me as a lighter way of asking how you can be a moral person without the threat of eternal suffering in the afterlife This is a very common argument that comes from a misconception of what theists argue. There's a difference between knowing what's good or bad, and doing it. What theists argue is not that only who believes in God can do something good. They argue all human beings know somethin…

Ah that's an interesting explanation I hadn't heard before. It makes a lot more sense than the idea that theists are only moral because of a fear of hell.