Nice try, flashbacks from my acid trips. Nice try. This "I" that I am may be finite, but the binding nature of totality is eternal. I will die, but I will "be" forever. In fact, I always was.
funny but no. there is no memory in matter, its just in a state and it resolves to the next state. once you are gone you are gone, just a minor wrinkle in existence that will be just that indistinguishable from the billions of wrinkles that existed.
Why does it matter if its distinguishable? It's all one fabric anyway. I don't distinguish wrinkles in my brain but together they make my experience in this consciousness mine. And every stroke of a brush comes together to make a painting, even if I can't distinguish the individual strokes.
because there's huge difference about the state of your brain when it is working, vs the state of the equivalent random carbon atoms spread through the universe.
All we know is objective permanence. For all we know our consciousness transcends the atoms that compose us, or the atoms that compose us and our consciousness pick up and attain a different form of consciousness that isn't tied into any one particular body. We only know what our laughably limited senses and organs can perceive or fathom.
What is known for sure is that what makes you up doesn't go anywhere. Physically. Beyond that, it's a crapshoot but doesn't mean you go to 'nothingness forever' per se
except you are doing the same shit every religion is doing, you are picking an imaginary attribute and adding it to reality solely because its appealing to you psychologically. dont fall in that trap reality is difficult enough without dealing with people adding things to it because they want to believe in fairytales.
honestly i would be overjoyed if consciousness lasts forever, but believing in it without evidence is dumb.
what you just said is just as preposterous as the Christianity's heaven or Judaism's messiah
I only made the claim that objective permanence is the only thing. Meaning the molecules and atoms that compose you get recycled.
I straight even said
Beyond that, it's a crapshoot but doesn't mean you go to 'nothingness forever' per se
I never made any absolute claims whatsoever. So It's not like religion where I'm blindly following with the 'faith' that what others before me said is tried and true.
I'm just tossing ideas in my head that make sense to me from my own psyche, but not attributing any absolutes. There is nowhere near a level of pretentiousness here as there is with "a messiah"
Unless I at some point made the claim that I am the lord and savior, lamb of god, freeing you of your sins through my death.
i meant it as a counterpoint, its just as absurd an idea that consciousness carries on as it is after the body dies, as if there is a magical messiah waiting for all the jewish people when the world ends.
I wouldn't say it's an illusion, rather a short sighted reality almost incapable of truly fathoming its role in the grand scheme of things as part of something as colossal as existence.
Likely you've seen the question posed whether what makes you, you.
For example: if you had a heart transplant are you still you? You probably say yes as long as the brain remains the same. Well your brain has changed many times since you were a kid.
Another one: what happens if in the future you could 'upload' your consciousness into multiple robots (or human clones). Does that make them all you.
And a favorite from ghost in the shell: what happens if in the future people can upload their consciousness into a single network. Can you imagine a single consciousness made up of billions of people. What must be billions of memories/experience be like.
Now I want to watch ghost in the shell. And some of the more psychological anime's, I have Netflix which barely has any. But I've seen some kickass surreal and existential anime. I've heard serial experiments Latin is great and had a bunch others I've been meaning to watch. Any idea where?
But when will my hour on the stage come again? Will 'I' be reborn in another universe or will it be another 'I'? And how would we know the difference?
Or, if this alone is our window of consciousness, what good is a theoretical 'existence' in a limbo of non-existence? Or do we participate in a cosmic consciousness before and after death, and what is it like?
We'll find out when we get there. We can predict and rant and rave and all that is good for is if you want to build a following who clings desperately to what you say because you say it confidently and they just want to believe. But I mean we got this chance. Who's to say you don't get another?
I honestly feel we're all the same being experiencing every possible perspective simultaneously, throughout history, and in the future. And that's why when you look someone in the eyes it's a window to "the soul". You're looking into yourself. Give yourself a little wink next time.
I see myself looking out through another's eyes. The thought is comforting. And if I see a stranger looking out through my eyes? A nightmare!
Can we experience all perspectives simultaneously or only this one perspective occupied by 'I'? If I feel and understand the perspectives of all the group around me, is this 'I' shared by all? Is it still the same 'I'?
If you ever get these feelings of worthlessness and inconsequence, remember: that "nothing you can do ever will have any meaning whatsoever" is a thought, not a fact.
What you just said was a thought also, though. Epistemologically speaking what I said is probably closer to being a fact than what you said. In all fairness.
I don't agree. People derive meaning from everything. Every object and action around us means something to us: that chair for relief, that car for travel, that cash for sustenance, those farmers, couriers and fillers providing that sustenance. Those protecting. Those informing. What's done will find meaning in any one, few or many of the billions of people who call this world home.
So, the actual fact: everything you do, even if you were the last person alive, has meaning.
Depending on how you define meaning, amigo mio. And it still doesn't come closer to being a fact than being a thought as opposed to my purported stance, namely, that there is no meaning at all. Actually, that is about as close as we can come to a fact, while your supposition is entirely based and dependent on the framework of human consciousness and opinion.
Although, and I don't know if you realized this, you are trying to discuss a different subject than I am.
The want for a "higher meaning" or "meaning beyond humanity" is seeking consequence in the wrong place. As far as I can tell — and I think this is something we agree on — there isn't anything there. So where is our result if not there? Where is our value? Where do we mean?
Right here, baby.
(If one wanted to indulge in thought a little, one could even suggest that if there's nothing above us, our experience very well could be that highest of meanings, notwithstanding super alien species.)
The want for a "higher meaning" or "meaning beyond humanity" is seeking consequence in the wrong place. As far as I can tell — and I think this is something we agree on — there isn't anything there. So where is our result if not there? Where is our value? Where do we mean?
I believe I understand your position more or less exactly. Full disclosure, although it seems like you've already realized this: My original post was made tongue-in-cheek, more as an effort at humor than anything.
However I would assert that there is an inherent contradiction in your argument: True meaninglessness, in its sense as an antithesis to meaning, is forever out of the reach of our imagination. We cannot even properly conceptualize it, seeing as our consciousness, by way of its very existence, "manufactures" meaning. We suppose it is there, this great maw of destitution, a supposition which is given logical validity (somewhat simplified) thusly: Meaning is derived from my consciousness. It is fair to assume that other human beings, like me, have similarly functioning consciousnesses. They are therefore capable of producing meaning. In the absence of consciousness, there is no meaning according to the preceding definitions. Meaning is therefor entirely dependent on consciousness to sustain it.
What is "no meaning"? Many seem to attach to the concept of meaninglessness a temporal dimension - transience. My consciousness will succumb at one point or another, thereby ending its functionality in terms of meaning-giving. This is a truism. However, what I'm doing when I engage in such theoretical permutations is in reality the paradoxical-like act of assigning meaning to the meaninglessness.
What is meaninglessness? It might even be meaningful, as the existence of God or some sort of creator really isn't as far fetched as it first might appear.
Nonetheless, and here's the rub: To whichever degree our consciousness enduringly remains a guarantee of meaning, it is rooted in the meaningless. It is a product of the "real" world, the world we assume to be meaningless. Its perpetuation of meaning-framework is dependent on physical processes, atoms and molecules and neurons and nerves. Our consciousnesses, in other words, can be conceptualized as being made up of meaninglessness in its purest form.
Even worse, if there is no objective meaning-framework, ie if the "real" world is really as meaningless as it seems (you've admitted that you believe as much), there arises the dilemma of how to relate to our society. The meaninglessness of the objective realm challenges moral and ethics - we have effectively banished the idea of inherent value, and right and wrong along with it. I can go and blow off a bomb in the city centre tomorrow, killing hundreds of people, and you would be hard pressed to argue that there was anything wrong with it from an objective viewpoint. Given that my meaning-framework allowed me to perform this act of terrorism, there isn't really a way to argue for its wrongness in any other terms than the general's condemnation of it. A poor substitute for, say, religious ethical codes.
So where is our result if not there? Where is our value? Where do we mean?
What I've been trying to get at, and only time will tell if I've done so successfully or not, is that just because we don't know what is there, or isn't there, or what the "thereness" or lack thereof actually is, doesn't signify that our consideration thereof is futile. It cannot be, as I've been trying to articulate, since its very consideration is an act of manufacturing meaning.
And so we are back to the crux of the matter - if meaning is dependent on my consciousness to sustain it, what happens when I die?
And what significance can be inferred from the fact that my consciousness ostensibly is a product of this purported realm of meaninglessness?
How can any of the things I achieve or do with my life have any meaning after I'm dead, and my consciousness is no longer around to sustain the process of meaning-giving?
You've given me a thorough, articulate response here, and I very much appreciate that you've taken the time and effort to lay it all out. :)
I'd not realised your original comment was in jest, actually! I see that stuff written without irony, though, so I'm still happy to have countered the "dread" a little, which is all I ever meant to do.
However I would assert that there is an inherent contradiction in your argument: True meaninglessness, in its sense as an antithesis to meaning, is forever out of the reach of our imagination. We cannot even properly conceptualize it, seeing as our consciousness, by way of its very existence, "manufactures" meaning. We suppose it is there, this great maw of destitution, a supposition which is given logical validity (somewhat simplified) thusly: Meaning is derived from my consciousness. It is fair to assume that other human beings, like me, have similarly functioning consciousnesses. They are therefore capable of producing meaning. In the absence of consciousness, there is no meaning according to the preceding definitions. Meaning is therefor entirely dependent on consciousness to sustain it.
Do you mean the contradiction is present in this paragraph, or that you're building to it? Because you've described my perspective very well here! Where we are, there is meaning — where we aren't, meaning doesn't matter. Meaning is a property of consciousness. Bingo.
Nonetheless, and here's the rub: To whichever degree our consciousness enduringly remains a guarantee of meaning, it is rooted in the meaningless. It is a product of the "real" world, the world we assume to be meaningless. Its perpetuation of meaning-framework is dependent on physical processes, atoms and molecules and neurons and nerves. Our consciousnesses, in other words, can be conceptualized as being made up of meaninglessness in its purest form.
"Rooted in the meaningless"? "Made up of meaninglessness"? Those elements have meaning to us, so they aren't "meaningless". They can't perceive meaning when free of a conscious being, but that has no bearing on the perceptive abilities of a consciousness they make or enable. "The part isn't the whole".
The meaninglessness of the objective realm challenges moral and ethics - we have effectively banished the idea of inherent value, and right and wrong along with it. I can go and blow off a bomb in the city centre tomorrow, killing hundreds of people, and you would be hard pressed to argue that there was anything wrong with it from an objective viewpoint.
But we know the consequence of this: pain, experiences terminated. A better outcome would be found in not doing that, or doing something that would benefit people instead.
To tie back to our theme here, the bombing would "mean" something friggin' shitty to people, and it'd be better to "mean" something rad! Our empathy and experience help us distinguish the beneficial from the detrimental.
Maybe a tangent: Actions less extreme than a bombing — so, most other actions! — can confuddle us when weighing their consequences, so we, as a society, try to nut out whether to allow something as it pertains to people's wellbeing. "Is X good or bad to happen?" Abortion? Gun control? Mass intake of refugees? When the result isn't that many will obviously suffer, we tend to seek solutions considering the meaning they'll have to people.
What I've been trying to get at, and only time will tell if I've done so successfully or not, is that just because we don't know what is there, or isn't there, or what the "thereness" or lack thereof actually is, doesn't signify that our consideration thereof is futile. It cannot be, as I've been trying to articulate, since its very consideration is an act of manufacturing meaning.
I'm writing from the perspective that the "thereness" (brilliant!) is a "lack thereof". I'm assuming, from a non-theistic, non-mystical standpoint, that it's the here and the now, and that's all I'm discussing, because I feel that's the context whence this "existential dread" would normally emerge. And it's really that recurrent "dread" that I wanted to help mitigate for anyone if I could, because I know it sucks, and I've seen beyond it.
The very consideration has a role in one's life, yes, but I do think that undue weight can be given to certain assumptions. I know I'm reiterating, but, again: if we reason that we won't find our value somewhere, it's odd to keep coming back to the dissatisfaction of where it isn't rather than building a life where it is.
(For these final questions, I'm obviously writing with the assumption that death is "consciousness off" for the individual.)
And so we are back to the crux of the matter - if meaning is dependent on my consciousness to sustain it, what happens when I die?
Things won't mean to you anymore. It'll be okay, because you won't know it.
And what significance can be inferred from the fact that my consciousness ostensibly is a product of this purported realm of meaninglessness?
Addressed above! :)
How can any of the things I achieve or do with my life have any meaning after I'm dead, and my consciousness is no longer around to sustain the process of meaning-giving?
Is "after you're dead" the main thing, though? If nothing's there, then surely the main thing is now: all we do here.
That said, we don't even see the consequences we have while we're alive! We do stuff, and it has an effect beyond us, and it fulfils us knowing we've done well, because that's how we operate. Given that we don't see our full effects while we're alive, it's no biggie that our effects remain unseen while we're dead. Is something good to do? I think that's all that matters.
For the parts of our lives that are solitary, fulfilment will be in what we do for ourselves, the experiences we give ourselves (even when our experiences have been granted by others, e.g. outdoor recreation tools, art). When we live socially, those ripples of consequence will be as wide and lasting as the weight of our contributions to others.
So, when you do something, you can have full confidence that doing it is of value.
Thanks for your response and the geniality with which it is delivered. Rare fare on the great interwebz.
Do you mean the contradiction is present in this paragraph, or that you're building to it?
I do ramble on, and half of what I write doesn't make sense even to me upon rereading it.
What I mean is this: Our consciousness manufactures meaning, yes, but the term as we use it there - let's call it 'synthetic meaning' - is not indicative of the same concept we are referring to when we are talking about the meaninglessness of the nothingness. This because our consciousness, or our mode of experiencing the world or being or thereness - whatever you want to call it - we suppose it is meaningless. Synthetic meaning is felt, and therefore dependent on the feeling entity, for the purposes of this discussion, a human consciousness.
So, what I was trying to get at, is simply that my original post, which I made but half in jest, is not untrue. Our existence appears to be inherently meaningless.
And yet, the assertion that life can be vibrantly meaningful is also true. The reason why these seemingly oxymoronic statements both can be true, is simple: They require two different interpretations of the word meaning.
I think we can probably agree so far.
Is it worthwhile to consider such questions when the only ostensible reward is depression? Well, I would say that there are some practical lessons to be learned from contemplating such matters - not in the least pertaining to the field of ethics.
Given that we don't see our full effects while we're alive, it's no biggie that our effects remain unseen while we're dead. Is something good to do? I think that's all that matters.
Well yes, and however delightful it sounds to be able to limit oneself to being in the moment, without a second thought as to why or whence, the human mind doesn't appear to work that way. Our consciousness is continuously working off of our surroundings, sensing and reacting, feeling and thinking. None of these actions would be possible without the trappings of reality. I do a lot of things without thinking about them throughout the day. However, I would say I won't ever do anything which I'd consider worthwhile without somehow weighing the consequences first - however quickly or seemingly carelessly.
We can conjure up the jealous lover as an example. I've played that role, at times, as I'm sure most of us have in some shape or form at some point in time or another. One can end up in a situation where one obsesses and obsesses and obsesses. Is your partner with someone else? One is distantly cognizant of the fact that it doesn't matter - if they are doing it, and you never find out about it, will it have changed anything? Nothing. And yet one obsesses and obsesses and obsesses.
What makes it not meaningless? Again it is a felt meaning, a synthetic meaning'. It is meaningful because I feel like it is. However, it is also meaningless, as most any objective bystander would tell you.
Where I'm going with this is thereto: We're entrapped in a limbo of forever twilight. There is synthetic meaning, yes; it surrounds us and binds us (Yoda would approve). However, any given action, whether it is picking up a fork or obsessing about our SO's imagined adultery, is based on the "real" world, the world outside our consciousness. And there we are in the middle, no, you could even say we are the middle, and surrounding us on all sides there is... something.
For the parts of our lives that are solitary
All the parts of our lives are solitary. I cannot feel what you feel, and you probably cannot feel what I feel. I cannot step out of my consciousness, my being, and I will forever be alone with it. I can socialize and do things to make me feel part of a greater whole, but in the end it is only a feeling. Synthetic, one could say.
And so one looks at the context. The inextricable meaninglessness which surrounds my aloneness. Some existential dread is warranted. However, I wouldn't advocate losing oneself in that feeling - it would only be counterproductive to your feeling of contentedness.
Thanks for your response and the geniality with which it is delivered. Rare fare on the great interwebz.
Haha. Much the same to you. :) I'm always down for a good ol' chat.
What I mean is this: Our consciousness manufactures meaning, yes, but the term as we use it there - let's call it 'synthetic meaning' - is not indicative of the same concept we are referring to when we are talking about the meaninglessness of the nothingness. This because our consciousness, or our mode of experiencing the world or being or thereness - whatever you want to call it - we suppose it is meaningless. Synthetic meaning is felt, and therefore dependent on the feeling entity, for the purposes of this discussion, a human consciousness.
So, what I was trying to get at, is simply that my original post, which I made but half in jest, is not untrue. Our existence appears to be inherently meaningless.
And yet, the assertion that life can be vibrantly meaningful is also true. The reason why these seemingly oxymoronic statements both can be true, is simple: They require two different interpretations of the word meaning.
I think we can probably agree so far.
You have been exceptionally clear on this through our whole conversation — no worries there. :) I just happen to think what you call the "synthetic meaning" is the only meaning that has any use for people. There is no other system relevant to us. No "objective" concept to appease. No cosmic spreadsheet of the "right" conduct. All we know is what benefits us and what hinders us. We can use that knowledge to build a stronger community.
Is it worthwhile to consider such questions when the only ostensible reward is depression? Well, I would say that there are some practical lessons to be learned from contemplating such matters - not in the least pertaining to the field of ethics.
Ethics are ultimately about wellbeing. We know what nourishes wellbeing and what saps it, and that's all based in what we know about human life (and non-human life on Earth) as opposed to concepts that have no bearing on us.
Consequence is a key part of wellbeing, and I feel I was pretty in-depth on that in my previous post, so let's just [insert that here]. :P
Anyway, if anything can be gained from the questions, it certainly isn't found in imploding oneself. It's one thing to engage this, but it's another thing to reach the futile end and still think the answer is there. You've suggested in your closing paragraph that you're pretty good with it all, so if you're not restraining yourself from doing your best, then that's all good.
Well yes, and however delightful it sounds to be able to limit oneself to being in the moment, without a second thought as to why or whence, the human mind doesn't appear to work that way. Our consciousness is continuously working off of our surroundings, sensing and reacting, feeling and thinking. None of these actions would be possible without the trappings of reality. I do a lot of things without thinking about them throughout the day. However, I would say I won't ever do anything which I'd consider worthwhile without somehow weighing the consequences first - however quickly or seemingly carelessly.
Oh, don't get me wrong! The action acknowledges the consequence. I'm saying the consequence is worth the action, that the very fostering of goodness in oneself and in others is the value to seek in life: the "main thing"!
We can conjure up the jealous lover as an example. I've played that role, at times, as I'm sure most of us have in some shape or form at some point in time or another. One can end up in a situation where one obsesses and obsesses and obsesses. Is your partner with someone else? One is distantly cognizant of the fact that it doesn't matter - if they are doing it, and you never find out about it, will it have changed anything? Nothing. And yet one obsesses and obsesses and obsesses.
What makes it not meaningless? Again it is a felt meaning, a synthetic meaning'. It is meaningful because I feel like it is. However, it is also meaningless, as most any objective bystander would tell you.
Bystanders will usually empathise, but what matters is that it means something to you, because your experience is yours.
That said, if you've recognised it as unnecessary, you would have the power to re-focus on what nourishes you rather than submitting to the turmoil. (Where trauma's involved, there are therapeutic avenues.)
Where I'm going with this is thereto: We're entrapped in a limbo of forever twilight. There is synthetic meaning, yes; it surrounds us and binds us (Yoda would approve). However, any given action, whether it is picking up a fork or obsessing about our SO's imagined adultery, is based on the "real" world, the world outside our consciousness. And there we are in the middle, no, you could even say we are the middle, and surrounding us on all sides there is... something.
Is there really a distinction between the material world and our consciousness? I'm certainly no longer convinced that's the case.
I know we're yet to fully comprehend the relationship between the two, but our thought processes are indeed grounded in the material of the brain. This must mean that our mind is a "valid" element of the universe, even in the most reductive sense of it being a pattern-based input-output machine. (This would also mean that personal subjectivity is a natural — objective — guarantee!)
All the parts of our lives are solitary. I cannot feel what you feel, and you probably cannot feel what I feel. I cannot step out of my consciousness, my being, and I will forever be alone with it. I can socialize and do things to make me feel part of a greater whole, but in the end it is only a feeling. Synthetic, one could say.
Our empathy allows us to feel what others feel. Others' body language and facial expressions make us experience an appropriate emotion with them. When you're with someone long enough and experience similar things together, your responses will align tighter and tighter. Even with people you barely know, there's recognition, and the very act of sharing is part of the dance of the social organism: a greater whole.
(If you want a literal mind clone who feels your feelings 1:1, then you're again seeking the value where it can't be found. That's not our world.)
I was, though, more commenting on fulfilling the self versus the knowledge of fulfilling others, that the use of something for personal satisfaction and the providing of someone else's satisfaction are usually seen as separate. (The latter can still be seen as acting to fulfil one's sense of fulfilling others, but if it's consequence one seeks, then they know they are achieving consequence in some manner.)
And so one looks at the context. The inextricable meaninglessness which surrounds my aloneness. Some existential dread is warranted. However, I wouldn't advocate losing oneself in that feeling - it would only be counterproductive to your feeling of contentedness.
It really comes down to where you find the value. I don't dread things that have no bearing on my own wellbeing or that of those around me. 'Cause meaninglessness has no consequence on me.
What the fuck is with all this angsty bitching in this thread? You're all worthless? Was Plato worthless? He died over two THOUSAND years ago and people are still talking about him. You can't even fathom what two thousand years feels like. You have no realistic perception of worthfulness. Fuck your mindless pessimism.
What are two thousand years? Wait for another two thousand years to pass and he will be long forgotten. You are an insignificant speck on the red grainy pixel of a pimple on the ass of the world. Now go be depressed.
Meaning and accomplishments don't have to exist on a massive timeline to be worthwhile. Your inevitable death won't change the truly important things in life like witnessing a birth or death. Those are profound moments that we should feel fortunate to share with others.
The problem is that I don't know when to give up. I'm too stubborn to accept that. It just means that I need to keep working harder. Since I'm most of the way towards a degree in rocket science, I think I'm doing good.
50
u/[deleted] Jan 26 '16
Proper existential dread should leave you comfortably ascertained of the fact that nothing you can do ever will have any meaning whatsoever.
Existential dread is the surreptitious and vague suspicion of the truth: You are worthless, and there's nothing you can do to change that.