Famous(?) Atheists answer: How does your life have meaning?

I don't know if this relates to you but a lot of people claim to be certain of all types of things but have difficulty explaining it in ways that makes sense to others. So when questioned about such contradictions in their explanations, they just decline to answer. These people often don't really know what they are talking about but are emotionally invested in making out they do. How might I differentiate you from those types of people?

Punjab already refuses to answer any of my questions. I think he was upset about my questions in another thread where he was saying quantum mechanics should be ditched because some yogis claimed to use psychic powers to see the structure of the atom.
 
Pure abstract existence with the capacity for experience reminds me of an amoeba or something like that. But maybe I'm just amoebomorphizing it. Could it be that some find comfort in an impersonal view of God to make sense of the existence of suffering?

Could it be that some find comfort in that? Well sure, but my reasons aren't about comfort.
 
I don't think we are limited to only that which can be grasped by the intellect.

I will be more explicit at what I am getting at here. This is my idea that is based on some different assumptions (although not casually), so take it for what it is worth. At the very least, I hope it creates some thought that isn't limited by either some imposed external meaning or a self-imposed subjective meaning.

What if the Mystics were right? What if, by quieting the mind completely, one could directly experience pure consciousness? Tononi even mentioned this in Integrated Information Theory, where perhaps experience of pure consciousness could be possible with no activity because of the potential to discriminate from a vast repertoire of states.

Are you talking about the part where he writes about integrated information being conscious as a self contained system with no need for anything to exist outside of the system? What you lay out below is very different, on my reading, from what Tononi sets out. Tononi talked about different degrees of consciousness depending on how much information is being integrated - but remember in IIT, integrating information is not a path to conciousness, it is consciousness.

This is kind of an aside for your main point though and probably a digression for this thread, but it might be something for us to explore in the other thread.

Now what if there is really one one consciousness? There are reasons I think this based on parapsychology evidence and also the von Neumann interpretation of quantum theory. If one could directly experience pure consciousness as described with IIT, could it be that what is experienced is the unitary consciousness? This would exactly describe the experience of the mystics, and this would be the one way to directly experience reality, contrasted to how we normally are limited by perception through our mind and senses.

In vedantic texts it is stressed that intellectual knowledge of the pure consciousness cannot replace the direct experience of that pure consciousness. This is like how in science it is said that science describes things, but doesn't explain experience itself (like related to consciousness).

So what if this direct experience of reality has meaning? It is not externally imposed because in this monistic idealist view there is only the one consciousness.

perhaps life is a means to evolve the ability of self-awareness, with a complex enough level of conscious awareness to be able to self reflect to the point of directly perceiving that pure consciousness. And as the Mystics say, this experience is ineffable, and beyond the grasp of the intellect. Perhaps that meaning is realized in that direct experience, and while I can perhaps describe it here, no one would really understand it unless directly experienced.

Ok, so let's accept this.

First of all, when I wrote "if we can't grasp it", I hadn't caught your dinstinction between intellectually grasping it and grasping it in other ways. For my point I don't think it matters.

For something to have meaning to you, you have to grasp that meaning, no matter which "you" you are.

You're positing an idealistic Bernardo-style Mind-at-Large base unitary concsiousness that splits itself into many localised centers of consciousness. When talking about meaning, I think we have to approach it from each entity. That is MAL will have its own meaning, as will each localisation.

What you seem to be describing here is individual localisations keying into the meaning that MAL has of itself and for each localisation.

Perhaps the meaning of life could be so that the universe can know itself, and it can only know itself through being limited by beings like us,

So accepting this as MAL's meaning for us (as instruments of knowning itself) what is the impact on the localisation (ie: what is the impact on us.)

Many: won't have had the mystical experience that you describe, this direct access to MAL's meaning - in which case they will either have:
1) heard about MAL's meaning through some other means (reading about it or being told about it)
2) have come up with the similar idea just through intellectual means
3) have no conception of it at all.

Of those who have no conception of it it simply won't play a meaningful role in their lives (life being defined I think as our incarnation here on earth).

Of those who do have a conception of it, some might be on board, and it serves as a driving force for them (which I think is really what we mean when we ask: what gives your life meaning).

Some might be appalled by it, or indifferent to it - rejectiing it as a driving force for their lives.

We could lay out inumerable different reactions - therefore innumerable different meanings.

My point above is: just because MAL has a particular meaning for us, should we localizations necessarily adopt MAL's meaning - or can each localization have their own meaning for their lives?

For example, should I have to worry about how I'm contributing to MAL's expansion of knowledge about itself. If I'm just a cog, never really doing anything extroadinary, never really doing anything novel. Just living my life. Should I feel guilt and bad about myself because I haven't really pushed MAL's knowledge of itself further? Should I constantly be seeking novelty? Should I value my life primarily in terms of knowledge generation?

For that matter, won't people interpret how to contribute in different ways? And isn't it possible that we contribute to MAL's knowledge of itself no matter what we do? In which case, how does it serve in a meaningful way?

This isn't an argument against the scenario you painted. I'm just questioning what role it plays in terms of giving our lives meaning.
 
Why should the meaning be something that can just be written down? Why does the meaning have to be something that can be grasped by our intellect? I don't see why these should be expected if there is a meaning.
If we can't grasp it, how can we possibly know there is any cosmic meaning? We can just make up anything we want.

~~ Paul
 
Are you talking about the part where he writes about integrated information being conscious as a self contained system with no need for anything to exist outside of the system? What you lay out below is very different, on my reading, from what Tononi sets out. Tononi talked about different degrees of consciousness depending on how much information is being integrated - but remember in IIT, integrating information is not a path to conciousness, it is consciousness.

No, I was not referring to that concept. I will quote from his paper "From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0":

Thus, IIT predicts that, even if all the neurons in a main complex were inactive (or active at a low baseline rate), they would still generate consciousness as long as they are ready to respond to incoming spikes. An intriguing possibility is that a neurophysiological state of near-silence may be approximated through certain meditative practices that aim at reaching a state of "pure" awareness without content. This corollary of IIT contrasts with the common assumption that neurons can only contribute to consciousness if they are active in such a way that they can "signal" or "broadcast" the information they represent and "ignite" fronto-pariental networks. This is because, in IIT, information is not in the message that is broadcasted by an element, but in the shape of the MICS that is specificed by a complex.

-Page 17-18 (emphasis added). Link to full paper: http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588

Arouet said:
Ok, so let's accept this.

First of all, when I wrote "if we can't grasp it", I hadn't caught your dinstinction between intellectually grasping it and grasping it in other ways. For my point I don't think it matters.

For something to have meaning to you, you have to grasp that meaning, no matter which "you" you are.

I would agree with you. The meaning is only grasped through the direct experience itself, but it is not something that can be fully grasped intellectually, or fully expressed through language since it is an experience. In a way, it would be similar to, say, trying to explain the smell of cinnamon to someone that has never smelled it before.

Another example is the NDE. Many of us here have read a lot about NDEs and have an idea of what the experience might be like, and for some of us it may have changed our views or beliefs to a degree. But now compare that to someone that has actually experienced an NDE--these people have their lives changed essentially permanently. The attempt at an intellectual grasp is really nothing like the experience.

Arouet said:
You're positing an idealistic Bernardo-style Mind-at-Large base unitary concsiousness that splits itself into many localised centers of consciousness. When talking about meaning, I think we have to approach it from each entity. That is MAL will have its own meaning, as will each localisation.

What you seem to be describing here is individual localisations keying into the meaning that MAL has of itself and for each localisation.

The meanings would not be split because any time a being reaches that state described in the quote above by Tononi, and described in mystical texts, it would be "unified" with the single consciousness. "Unified" is a bad word, since everything is always unified, but it's more that obstacles to that realization are removed, allowing for the direct experience, and in this case, this is a direct experience of reality compared to how it is normally experienced through the senses and mind.

Now each individual would come back and try to express the experience differently, which I think you see in various religious texts, and within Hinduism especially because of it's lack of structure. In Hinduism you see canonical texts like the Upanishads that are from various authors and each one has a unique way of expressing their experience in words. This wouldn't mean that the meaning they experienced is different, but rather that their attempts to express it differ.

The other thing is that I am careful to say that the unitary consciousness would have it's own meaning. I haven't read Bernardo's book yet (although I have it sitting on my desk), so I am not familiar with the exact usage of his MAL idea, but to me the unitary consciousness itself doesn't have it's own meaning, but rather through us, and through that direct experience, there can exist meaning.


Arouet said:
So accepting this as MAL's meaning for us (as instruments of knowning itself) what is the impact on the localisation (ie: what is the impact on us.)

Many: won't have had the mystical experience that you describe, this direct access to MAL's meaning - in which case they will either have:
1) heard about MAL's meaning through some other means (reading about it or being told about it)
2) have come up with the similar idea just through intellectual means
3) have no conception of it at all.

Of those who have no conception of it it simply won't play a meaningful role in their lives (life being defined I think as our incarnation here on earth).

Of those who do have a conception of it, some might be on board, and it serves as a driving force for them (which I think is really what we mean when we ask: what gives your life meaning).

Some might be appalled by it, or indifferent to it - rejectiing it as a driving force for their lives.

We could lay out inumerable different reactions - therefore innumerable different meanings.

My point above is: just because MAL has a particular meaning for us, should we localizations necessarily adopt MAL's meaning - or can each localization have their own meaning for their lives?

I do not accept the idea of MAL having some meaning that is imposed on us. Through the conscious state described above, the experience is that of unity. There is no MAL imposing a meaning on individual beings in that state. There is no transfer of information or meaning. It is simply a state that is experienced and through us gains meaning.

But what you described is basically what you see within Hinduism, where mystics have a prominent role, and many texts attempt to describe their experiences for the benefit of others, yet of course you run into the problems you mentioned. Within Hinduism you have schools that are over 2000 years old that reject these ideas and claim that everything is a result of matter. This carvaka school is essentially an old materialist school. But what can you do?

However, I do think that it is possible that science could eventually point us in this direction to reduce the disagreement and rejection. What if through quantum theory, IIT, parapsychology, NDE research, reincarnation research, etc., there begins to be a scientific consensus that consciousness is fundamental and unitary? And that the direct experience is not only possible, but scientifically verifiable through analysis of qualia spaces ala IIT? If specific shapes in qualia space could be pinned down, and the people coming back from that state report the subjective experience of nirvana (or nirvikalpa Samadhi), then we now have much more significant evidence to support this. I am not saying that this will happen, but rather thinking that if this were to happen, it could have an enormous influence on peoples' lives in the same way science has had an enormous influence today to create ideas of atheism and no meaning.

And what if technologies could be developed to help achieve these states? And through scientific support, negative beliefs about the possibility of this occurring could also be reduced, which would be conductive to achieving these states. Perhaps through better scientific understanding of these states and what is actually experienced (again assuming this is correct), then these states could become more accessible and many more people could then have the experience.

Arouet said:
For example, should I have to worry about how I'm contributing to MAL's expansion of knowledge about itself. If I'm just a cog, never really doing anything extroadinary, never really doing anything novel. Just living my life. Should I feel guilt and bad about myself because I haven't really pushed MAL's knowledge of itself further? Should I constantly be seeking novelty? Should I value my life primarily in terms of knowledge generation?

I am going to borrow a line from one of my favorite mystics, Ramana Maharshi: Realize that state first and then ask those questions. The point is that these questions arise from your current intellectual perspective, but with the direct experience of the unitary consciousness, the questions will not even arise.

Some might say that this is dodging the question, but in the case of Ramana Maharshi, he claims to have experienced this state, and his life seems to indicate that it probably was genuine, and he says that these questions are essentially "answered" by the experience. To me it makes more sense for some deep meaning of the universe to have this sort of nature. Does anyone really expect that digging deep into the nature of reality, we would then come back with some meaning like "the meaning of life is to love" and then be like, 'oh, cool, so that's the meaning'?

Arouet said:
For that matter, won't people interpret how to contribute in different ways? And isn't it possible that we contribute to MAL's knowledge of itself no matter what we do? In which case, how does it serve in a meaningful way?

This isn't an argument against the scenario you painted. I'm just questioning what role it plays in terms of giving our lives meaning.

It's not about accumulating knowledge or information. Once the experience is had, the actions will take care of themselves, as will the questions of meaning.

Now this is just my idea and I could be wrong. But like I said before, I hope to at least create thought that goes beyond the normal subjectively created or externally imposed intellectual meanings that could be found on fortune cookies.
 
Last edited:
You're assuming that one can only grasp something intellectually. Check out my post immediately before this one.
At some point you have to think "this is the cosmic meaning." Even if it is primarily some sort of experience, as unitary consciousness is supposed to be, eventually it has to become a thought. Would I trust that thought? Possibly, but it sounds dicey.

Does anyone really expect that digging deep into the nature of reality, we would then come back with some meaning like "the meaning of life is to love" and then be like, 'oh, cool, so that's the meaning'?
No. But if the questions do not even arise, as Ramana Maharshi and others have said, then I'm not sure it's legitimate to talk of cosmic meaning at all.

~~ Paul
 
At some point you have to think "this is the cosmic meaning." Even if it is primarily some sort of experience, as unitary consciousness is supposed to be, eventually it has to become a thought. Would I trust that thought? Possibly, but it sounds dicey.

The whole idea of a "cosmic meaning" is still stuck in the false dichotomy of subjective created and externally imposed meaning. Through us, meaning becomes possible, and it is directly understood. I am making a distinction between an informational knowledge and understanding.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
No. But if the questions do not even arise, as Ramana Maharshi and others have said, then I'm not sure it's legitimate to talk of cosmic meaning at all.

~~ Paul

The questions do not arise because there is understanding.
 
The whole idea of a "cosmic meaning" is still stuck in the false dichotomy of subjective created and externally imposed meaning. Through us, meaning becomes possible, and it is directly understood. I am making a distinction between an informational knowledge and understanding.
I believe it becomes possible from within, but I'm not convinced we could distinguish "becoming understood" from "making our own meaning."

The questions do not arise because there is understanding.
Or perhaps because there is nothing to be understood.

~~ Paul
 
I believe it becomes possible from within, but I'm not convinced we could distinguish "becoming understood" from "making our own meaning."

"Making our own meaning" is an intellectual effort. The understanding arises as a result of the intellect not operating.


Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Or perhaps because there is nothing to be understood.

~~ Paul

I will take the perspective that a mystic like Ramana Maharshi might have here: Realize that state and then tell me if there is nothing to be understood.

The whole idea is that with my idea here, there are scientific reasons to think there is something to the mystic experience, and the direct experience itself confirms this and then allows for the understanding to these meaning questions.
 
"Making our own meaning" is an intellectual effort. The understanding arises as a result of the intellect not operating.
I don't think I intellectualized about everything that has meaning in my life. And I'm not sure how I understand things without using my intellect. I expect there is no crisp boundary here.

I will take the perspective that a mystic like Ramana Maharshi might have here: Realize that state and then tell me if there is nothing to be understood.

The whole idea is that with my idea here, there are scientific reasons to think there is something to the mystic experience, and the direct experience itself confirms this and then allows for the understanding to these meaning questions.
Perhaps. I'll let you know if and when I reach any conclusion about this. ;)

~~ Paul
 
I don't think I intellectualized about everything that has meaning in my life. And I'm not sure how I understand things without using my intellect. I expect there is no crisp boundary here.
~~ Paul


How is mathematical intuition used? You cannot intellectually or logically justify the intuitive understanding of certain mathematical truths.
 
How is mathematical intuition used? You cannot intellectually or logically justify the intuitive understanding of certain mathematical truths.
You mean like set axioms? Well, you can certainly cogitate about them from many different angles, and you have to employ your intellect to understand how to use them. I agree that at some point you simply have to take them as given. But would we consider them to have some sort of cosmic meaning? Possibly. But then we have to take the alternative set theories to have cosmic meaning, too. Perhaps ZFC has the most meaning. :eek:

~~ Paul
 
You mean like set axioms? Well, you can certainly cogitate about them from many different angles, and you have to employ your intellect to understand how to use them. I agree that at some point you simply have to take them as given. But would we consider them to have some sort of cosmic meaning? Possibly. But then we have to take the alternative set theories to have cosmic meaning, too. Perhaps ZFC has the most meaning. :eek:

~~ Paul

The point is about the understanding. There is an understanding that transcends the logic. And what is understanding without meaning? Do you see what I am getting at?
 
The point is about the understanding. There is an understanding that transcends the logic. And what is understanding without meaning? Do you see what I am getting at?
I'm not sure the understanding transcends the logic. And in the case of set theory, I'm not sure there is any meaning to the ultimate axioms, except in how they are used to do math. But I don't feel qualified to say for sure.

~~ Paul
 
I'm not sure the understanding transcends the logic. And in the case of set theory, I'm not sure there is any meaning to the ultimate axioms, except in how they are used to do math. But I don't feel qualified to say for sure.

~~ Paul

There are certain mathematical truths that we can understand that cannot be proven logically. Euclid's 5th postulate is a good one. You look at it and say "duh, that's obvious," but it cannot be proven.

What is it about our ability to understand certain mathematical truths? Our understanding seems to transcend the pure logic. How does this non-computational understanding arise? And again, understanding involves meaning. I am getting at intuitive understanding, and coming back to how this may relate to intuitive understanding of meaning in a mystical experience.
 
Could it be that some find comfort in that? Well sure, but my reasons aren't about comfort.
I just ask because for a lot of people the senseless suffering of innocent children like right now in Syria who experience unimaginable trauma just because they happened to be born at the wrong place / in the wrong time is very hard to reconcile with a personal loving creator. Some consider this enough reason to say God is a nutty idea. Others rather look at different ways to conceive of God and the suffering of human experience. For those it might feel more palatable to say if a creator exists, it must be an impersonal one. Seems to be innumerable ideas around what that God is, many are akin to energy or an information provider and receiver. The premise is there's no concept of good or bad for this awareness, it doesnt define between pain or pleasure, simply collects experiences indiscriminately and we might say it does this "learn" about itself for example, or we might say it just does it for no reason at all, or that the reason is beyond our grasp, or maybe we'll get it when we are enlightened but for now we just don't get it.

Aren't we simply guessing with all this?
 
I just ask because for a lot of people the senseless suffering of innocent children like right now in Syria who experience unimaginable trauma just because they happened to be born at the wrong place / in the wrong time is very hard to reconcile with a personal loving creator. Some consider this enough reason to say God is a nutty idea. Others rather look at different ways to conceive of God and the suffering of human experience. For those it might feel more palatable to say if a creator exists, it must be an impersonal one. Seems to be innumerable ideas around what that God is, many are akin to energy or an information provider and receiver. The premise is there's no concept of good or bad for this awareness, it doesnt define between pain or pleasure, simply collects experiences indiscriminately and we might say it does this "learn" about itself for example, or we might say it just does it for no reason at all, or that the reason is beyond our grasp, or maybe we'll get it when we are enlightened but for now we just don't get it.

Aren't we simply guessing with all this?

What you mentioned is a consequence of the idea of an abstract God, not a reason that led to it.

I have laid out pretty detailed reasoning for many areas that lead to this idea. I'm not sure why you would ask if it's just guessing.
 
What you mentioned is a consequence of the idea of an abstract God, not a reason that led to it.

I have laid out pretty detailed reasoning for many areas that lead to this idea. I'm not sure why you would ask if it's just guessing.
What I'm getting at is many people form detailed reasonings behind all sorts of stuff and the complexity of reasonings can build up upon itself, and refer back to itself or similar as some kind of confirmation. But if the idea is at its base just guessing at something beyond our grasp and its simply more emotionally comfortable than other alternative guesses, no amount of complexity will make it a better guess. But when we get to those levels of complexity, the emotional investment is so deep that espousers deny it in themselves to uphold this self delusion. Of course this is same for skeptics or proponents of anything. That may or may not fit your reasoning to get to what appears to be a certainty of there being this abstract God but if you're in the midst of it, its likely you wouldn't be able to tell otherwise. But if you have first hand knowledge of this direct experience as you say is possible, then I don't know perhaps you're right.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top