4 ms·

> Human-created meaning Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? A human (and possibly other animals') instinct to create meaning

by stared 5y ago

> Human-created meaning Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? A human (and possibly other animals') instinct to create meaning might be not different from a spider's instinct to make a web. "Meaning" looks like an evolution-selected motivation tool for long-term goals. If it is true, it is an ill-motivated question whether there is some universal meaning. The same as if there is an objective cobweb. Still - yes, it might be sad for us that "meaning" does not extrapolate beyond our human psychology.

NL807 5y ago
> Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? There is none, and that is the point. "Human-created" is just an emphasis that meaning is a fabricated construct by the human mind.
- rendall 5y ago
  You got it
svcrunch 5y ago
> Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? Without providing a more objective definition of "meaning", this question seems circular. Hypothetically, if someone gave you the example you seek, I see two possible responses: 1. You see the "meaning". You'll then say that it implies the meaning is "human-created" (since it was *you* who found it meaningful). 2. You do not see meaning in it, so you remain unswayed. Neither outcome would cause you to change your position, which implies your position is actually just a definition. If you argue that meaning is inherently subjective, then there is no point in asking for meaning which is not "human-created". I will make a proposal for an objective definition of meaningful: something is meaningful if it is non-random, in the sense defined by Kolmogorov, i.e., it is compressible. Using this definition, there is meaning all around us, very little of it human-created. Statistical reasoning, which drives the scientific endeavor, is among our most powerful tools for discovering this meaning. The question really is: where does all this meaning point? Unfortunately, even our best statistical methods fail badly in answering such questions. A concrete and convincing example is presented here: Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5230747/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5230747/)
rendall 5y ago
> "If it is true, it is an ill-motivated question whether there is some universal meaning. The same as if there is an objective cobweb." Perhaps. And yet, the only easily accessible answers to the question why am I here are "I know why, and if you attend my seminar I can tell you more about it" It's also not a helpful answer. Imagine: Dad, why are we here? Son, that is a ill-motivated question. Might as well ask if the is an objective cobweb. Now take the garbage out

by stared 5y ago

NL807 5y ago

> Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? There is none, and that is the point. "Human-created" is just an emphasis that meaning is a fabricated construct by the human mind.

rendall 5y ago
You got it

svcrunch 5y ago

> Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"? Without providing a more objective definition of "meaning", this question seems circular. Hypothetically, if someone gave you the example you seek, I see two possible responses: 1. You see the "meaning". You'll then say that it implies the meaning is "human-created" (since it was *you* who found it meaningful). 2. You do not see meaning in it, so you remain unswayed. Neither outcome would cause you to change your position, which implies your position is actually just a definition. If you argue that meaning is inherently subjective, then there is no point in asking for meaning which is not "human-created". I will make a proposal for an objective definition of meaningful: something is meaningful if it is non-random, in the sense defined by Kolmogorov, i.e., it is compressible. Using this definition, there is meaning all around us, very little of it human-created. Statistical reasoning, which drives the scientific endeavor, is among our most powerful tools for discovering this meaning. The question really is: where does all this meaning point? Unfortunately, even our best statistical methods fail badly in answering such questions. A concrete and convincing example is presented here: Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5230747/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5230747/)

rendall 5y ago

> "If it is true, it is an ill-motivated question whether there is some universal meaning. The same as if there is an objective cobweb." Perhaps. And yet, the only easily accessible answers to the question why am I here are "I know why, and if you attend my seminar I can tell you more about it" It's also not a helpful answer. Imagine: Dad, why are we here? Son, that is a ill-motivated question. Might as well ask if the is an objective cobweb. Now take the garbage out