A Conversation With Daniel

[Daniel]

I would have started this in the Personal Blog pages, but I already have a thread there, and I'm not certain that this will fit in with the other things on that thread. It is mostly about presentation. This one is about interaction. So let's begin, shall we? The main point here is to engage in dialogue. One point bouncing off another's, and so on and so forth. It can be great fun for those of us that relish the challenge of communication (such as myself), and certainly is likely to spawn some interesting ideas.

I am wondering if someone would like to ask me a question... something that I can take a little bit of time answering... so that we can get this show on the road?

[Front-Ranger]

Certainly, I would be happy to ask a question...this one is not very deep. Sorry, but you know, it IS Friday afternoon after all. My question is, could Jack be happy living in the panhandle of Texas as a single gay man if he were there today?? How could he make a decent life for himself? Would he be goin to Mexico two or three times a year??

[moremojo]

Hi, Daniel, my fellow Texan and the best Jack portrayer after Mr. Gyllenhaal! I wish you the best on your newest project, and commend your unusual approach at emphasizing dialogue over (though not at the expense of) presentation. I find for myself that presentation tends to be easier than a true give-and-take exchange of ideas.

So I'm racking my brains now to come up with some profound question to pose to you. Something, as you write, that you can mull over and refine over time. How about this: Do you believe there is a purpose or meaning to life? If so, do you have any sense of what that purpose or meaning would be?

Cheers,
Scott

Update: I couldn't read FRiend Lee's post before I submitted my own, but I'm not trying to preempt her own query in any way. Perhaps we can create an archive of questions for you here, Daniel, that you can respond to (or not, as the case may be) as time and your own interest permit.

[Daniel]

Thank you, both Lee and Scott. In the interest of creating a dialogue, I think I will start with Scott's question first.. We may eventually come back around to your question, Lee, and I know that your question is an important one, but Scott's question is a good one to begin a dialogue with.

Scott: Do you believe there is a purpose or meaning to life? If so, do you have any sense of what that purpose or meaning would be?

Daniel: Yes, I do believe that there is both purpose and meaning in life; that can be found in both the smallest part of material existence and in the greatest complexity of a galaxy. Now I know that you will be interested in how or why I think that way, so I will attempt to demonstrate. Without getting into too complex physics, I believe I can demonstrate that light and subatomic particles behave in strange ways... ways which are difficult to both comprehend and foretell. Of course, we could hypothesize that a mirror curved at such and such a degree, and tilted at such and such an angle would reflect light in a specific direction. And we can see that this is indeed often the case. But that is not all. Although a majority of the light captured and harvested in this way might indeed be sent off in another direction, we can still see that light.... which means that not all of the light is being controlled. I am not sure if this is a good way to answer this question, or that you understand the relevance to the question you asked with this example... It might not be a good idea to continue if it's not.  The point I will eventually be making is that:

A. Not everything in the Universe can be controlled by scientific measures.

B. Consider that scientific measures represent one of the strongest forces of manipulation, namely in that the scientific method is mostly an ironclad process in identifying cause and effect, among other contingencies.

C. Even though science cannot control or reproduce certain harmonic effects of the Universe, which lead to life and the pursuit of diversification of life, their presence is an indication of forces which are not yet understood by scientific disciplines. (I will be coming back to this later, for I am sure it will haunt me.)

Now all this is to me a major indication that life (animal, vegetable, and mineral) and the organized structure of the subatomic particles and atoms which help to make up the grand network of life, is a miracle. There is no plausible scientific explanation that excludes some type of intelligent force at work. Perhaps we can better understand this by understanding the complexity of what it means to be "intelligent".

[Daniel]

I suppose, as in all good dialogues, I will respond to your question with a question.

What are purpose and meaning?

We might be able to agree that purpose is an emotional sense of intention, that is of moving toward a specific goal. And likewise that meaning is an emotional or intellectual awareness of a reason or underlying basis for an activity or series of activities. Both of these indicate something which I have not yet really discussed, since we are discussing all life, and it is uncertain whether all life indicates this one factor... consciousness.

[moremojo]

You may be too quick for me, friend! Your intelligence is obvious, but I did not foresee you would articulate the first glimmerings of your response with such lightning speed. You must forgive if I am a bit slow in keeping up, but as we are just beginning here, let me throw out a few immediate responses to some of what you wrote:

A. Not everything in the Universe can be controlled by scientific measures.

Agreed. I read once in a book (by a scientist) that science can teach us how to develop a laser, but cannot tell us where to point the laser--an elegant example, among many possible ones, of the distinct limitations of science when trying to discern ultimate truth.

Now all this is to me a major indication that life (animal, vegetable, and mineral) and the organized structure of the subatomic particles and atoms which help to make up the grand network of life, is a miracle.

A miracle could be defined as that which science cannot, or least presently does not, explain or predict.

We might be able to agree that purpose is an emotional sense of intention, that is of moving toward a specific goal. And likewise that meaning is an emotional or intellectual awareness of a reason or underlying basis for an activity or series of activities.

These are as good definitions of these concepts as I have encountered anywhere.

I think we're off to a grand start. And this topic cuts to the very heart of everything else, don't you think?

[Daniel]

I will try to slow it down a bit, Scott. But I agree with you... (these are the types of conversations I enjoy the most, for some reason).

But now to get to the question at hand, I mentioned two aspects in my earlier threads that we can continue to explore: consciousness, and intelligence. They are of course, interrelated, but not necessarily united... I think they are very important in exploring the question of meaning and purpose in life, and if perhaps we might want to limit the scope of meaning and purpose to human life, animal life, or all life in general.  Once we've got that in hand, then we can attempt to understand what that life is and what the qualities of it are.

[moremojo]

Yes, what is consciousness? Animals besides human beings clearly possess some degree of awareness (they react to stimuli, and can even be conditioned to expect certain conditions to be met), but are they conscious in any comparable way to what we humans know we possess inside ourselves?

Human consciousness seems very much tied in to the notion of time. We are ever living in the present moment, but we more often than not dwell in the past, through our memory, or anticipate the future, through our dreams and fantasies. Consciousness seems to be that which binds all our experiences and perceptions into one temporal matrix. Non-human animals seem limited, for the most part, to only living in the moment.

Was there consciousness before human beings evolved? What was it like? What was the temporal quality of time before there was anything to perceive or record it? The fact that we can infer vast domains of time having existed before human beings entered the stage might suggest a consciousness that was present all along, certainly if we subscribe to the insights of quantum mechanics which indicate that reality and consciousness are co-dependent.

[Daniel]

Not all animals are limited to their specific temporal awareness. Some animals are aware that certain events happen at certain times throughout the day, and can plan their day accordingly. Usually mammals, but some birds and reptiles. This seems to indicate that the growth of consciousness, or the growth of complexity of awareness, we might say, is a natural result of biodiversification. We could use the Tielhardian concept of Noontological growth, here, but that could potentially endanger us in the acceptance of a religious viewpoint, and that I am not willing to do yet. But in the Tielhardian view, Noontological growth was the main drive of evolution...

And that is what I meant, in part, by intelligence. An increasing complexity of mineral and biological forms, and of consciousness. Perhaps it is too easy to quote Tielhard here, but I find the view refreshing and sensical: that the increasing complexity was a result of the inner complexity. We see the same effect when we look at some of the chaos theorists mathematical constructs: a pattern repeating itself, moving from simple to complex, and then recreating the same pattern in a larger forum. (There's a word for these types of drawings, but I forget what it is.)

[moremojo]

Certainly, intelligence is tied in with consciousness, which has its roots in awareness. When it comes to sentient beings, there seems to be a continuum of this phenomenon, with fleeting or minimal awareness on one end and complex intelligence on the other.

the increasing complexity was a result of the inner complexity

This made me think of fractals, of how how one piece of a puzzle could somehow contain the whole puzzle. Outer complexity would be the natural and expected flowering of an inherent complexity, as I understand this expression. And such a flowering would require time, would exist or be made manifest within a temporal framework.

Chaos has proven to be such a paradoxical entity, in that chaos theorists are discerning pattern within that concept or phenomenon. There seems to be method to the madness! And don't both method and madness presuppose some kind of consciousness?

Am I responding in a constructive way to your posts, Daniel? My mind goes off on tangents a lot, and I know I sometimes lose sight of the pertinent topic in a discussion.

[moremojo]

I was just wanted to make sure that everyone checking in on this thread feels welcome to join in the discussion. I'm sure that's what Daniel has in mind...that the conversation shouldn't be limited to only him and the person to whose question he's responding.

[injest]

you don't put a Shetland in the Kentucky Derby...I think I will just watch...

[moremojo]

you don't put a Shetland in the Kentucky Derby...I think I will just watch...

Jess, I love ya!

[Aussie Chris]

My question for you Daniel builds on Scott's question about the meaning of life and your response in reference to science.

The context for the question is the experimental scenario of a sheep in isolation within a room.  The sheep has been "trained" to press a lever with a light blue circle over it to obtain sustenance.  Later the sheep is introduced to a second lever, this one a deep red square over it but this one sets of a loud noise that scares the sheep.  The location of the levers changes every few days and in time the sheep learns to accurately associate the symbols above the levers with either sustenance or danger until it no longer mistakenly presses the lever with the red square.  In fact, eventually it avoids all areas of the room where red squares are located whether a lever is there or not.

My ruminations at this point of the conversation is from the perspective of the sheep.  The gender of the sheep is not relevant for this discussion, but for the simplicity of writing I will say "him".  So the sheep thinks to himself that he has finally figured out the nature of the universe.  He has experimented for a long time and has figured out that light and round edges means food while dark and pointy edges means monsters.  He has learnt that he must remember this because nature is not fixed and so what was light and smooth today can become dark and sharp tomorrow.  He wonders, is it because of his actions that these changes occur?

Here are some rhetorical questions about the passage for consideration:

1) What is the meaning of life from the sheep's perspective?  Is he mistaken?
2) The sheep has learnt to experiment through trial and error the nature of sticks, light and dark, and edges.  How does this relate to the sheep's "purpose in life"?
3) The sheep sees the science in nature but doesn't get it exactly right (from the perspective of the human observer) because he excludes colour and geometry.  Is this significant?

Here is my question then Daniel:

What has science got to do with the meaning or purpose in life?

[injest]

My question for you Daniel builds on Scott's question about the meaning of life and your response in reference to science.

The context for the question is the experimental scenario of a sheep in isolation within a room.  The sheep has been "trained" to press a lever with a light blue circle over it to obtain sustenance.  Later the sheep is introduced to a second lever, this one a deep red square over it but this one sets of a loud noise that scares the sheep.  The location of the levers changes every few days and in time the sheep learns to accurately associate the symbols above the levers with either sustenance or danger until it no longer mistakenly presses the lever with the red square.  In fact, eventually it avoids all areas of the room where red squares are located whether a lever is there or not.

My ruminations at this point of the conversation is from the perspective of the sheep.  The gender of the sheep is not relevant for this discussion, but for the simplicity of writing I will say "him".  So the sheep thinks to himself that he has finally figured out the nature of the universe.  He has experimented for a long time and has figured out that light and round edges means food while dark and pointy edges means monsters.  He has learnt that he must remember this because nature is not fixed and so what was light and smooth today can become dark and sharp tomorrow.  He wonders, is it because of his actions that these changes occur?
Here are some rhetorical questions about the passage for consideration:

1) What is the meaning of life from the sheep's perspective?  Is he mistaken?
2) The sheep has learnt to experiment through trial and error the nature of sticks, light and dark, and edges.  How does this relate to the sheep's "purpose in life"?
3) The sheep sees the science in nature but doesn't get it exactly right (from the perspective of the human observer) because he excludes colour and geometry.  Is this significant?

Here is my question then Daniel:

What has science got to do with the meaning or purpose in life?

when I got to here what I thought you were going to talk about was religion. Because to me this is the beginning of a religion.

Yesterday I did X and Y happened. the day before I did X and Y happened...today I did X and Y did NOT happen. Did I do X wrong?

One thing that I think about the instinctive reaction most children have is to blame someone else...."It wasn't me!" so the next logical step is to say "Well, I did X the exact some way so .....some other force is making the Y not happen. I will change how I do X and maybe this force will let Y happen..."

from there it is a small step to telling others about this nameless faceless force....and give it a name..

*Jess limps off the course to keep from getting run right over!*

[injest]

I kilt the conversation thread!! 

[Daniel]

yes hello everyone.  my computer did go down..... i just now got it to start working again.

the keyboard does not work though, so will still need to have it repaired...

am using the on-screen keyboard right now... slow going - but better than none.

[Daniel]

Scott: Tangents are alright in this thread... we can always scroll back up and see what we were originally talking about.

Chris: I find it interesting that you used an example of psychological science to question meaning and purpose.  But as to science having anything to do with meaning, the short answer is this... It doesn't. The long answer: Costructed awareness (facts) does not always trump experiencial knowledge. It seems as though working from a basis of experiencial awareness is more flexible than working with facts... Likewise, experiencial knowledge does not always trump nonexperiencial knowledge. If we have seen nothing else as a result of our species evolution, I hope we acknowledge that diversity depends on flexibility, and that noodiversity is as important as biodiversity. I wll come to your other questions and example a little later... This feels like I am doing a crossword puzzle, putting in one letter at a time.

Jess: What you are describing is the type of cause/effect relationship science seeks to understand. For the most part, it is successful... but there are stll X/Y events where science has not yet proven cause, only correlations.

[Aussie Chris]

Daniel.  About the only thing I understood in your explanation was this:

But as to science having anything to do with meaning, the short answer is this... It doesn't.

I'd like to think that I am reasonably intelligent, but I've not done university psychology so I'm unfamiliar with your terminology.  Could you please explain: Costructed awareness (facts), experiencial knowledge, nonexperiencial knowledge, and noodiversity?

[Daniel]

Chris:

Most of the terms I use are made up on the spot - usually combining two concepts to create another one.

Constructed Awareness: A specific thought form or pattern that is drilled into us at a very young age and which we always believe to be true and logically sound. These are the thoughts we recognize as being real without having to think it out.  (i.e. 2+2=4... the fire truck is red...etc.) These awarenesses are already constructed when we mentally register them, so there is no specific act of cognition or process of knowledge.

Experiencial knowledge: Knowledge based on personal experience or observation of events.  (i.e. This is a shortcut... It is easier to do it this way... If you thrust your hand through a pane of glass, it will hurt and bleed in thus manner.)

Nonexperiencial knowledge: Knowledge based on some other reality than factual awareness or experience, usually intuitive or deeply emotional in nature. (i.e. I feel like we should go this way... It feels like I'm doing this wrong for some reason... This doesn't seem right.)

Noodiversity: This is a word I invented based on the idea of noontological evolution, I think perhaps it should be noontodiversity. Either way, it refers to the growth in amount and variety between various modes or styles of consciousness, much like biodiversity references variety among lifeforms.

[Aussie Chris]

Most of the terms I use are made up on the spot - usually combining two concepts to create another one.

and this is ok in your book

[Daniel]

If the shoe fits, who cares who designed it...?

We do it all the time in our verbal conversations, anyway.  It's important to have shortened terms for the sake of discussion, and if we don't make them up, who will?

[moremojo]

I think it's okay to coin words to clarify our arguments, as long as we define our terms. Neologisms are part and parcel of a living language, and they truly are created all the time. I for one sometimes struggle for the words to express a subtle nuance of thought or feeling that my native tongue doesn't seem capable of describing, or at least I haven't encountered the pertinent vocabulary yet.

Peace,
Scott

[Daniel]

In a language like English, it is very easy to create terms and new vocaulary, particularly when the roots are known well enough.

[Aussie Chris]

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/neologism
Main Entry: ne·ol·o·gism
Pronunciation: nE-'ä-l&-"ji-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French néologisme, from ne- + log- + -isme -ism
1 : a new word, usage, or expression
2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic

So when do you think the first definition ends and the second one begins?  Or is it: "a little from column A and a little from column B"?

[moremojo]

I learned of the second definition when consulting the dictionary while preparing my post (wanted to make sure I wasn't being a Mrs. Malaprop), but in my post I entirely meant the former meaning.

[injest]

inventing a word...or constructing a new one from common roots....is fine. As long as the people in the conversation understand the words..

So if you would like to converse and want to include others; just make a point of saying "I like to call this set of circumstances 'xyz'" then everyone is clear on what they are talking about.

Using words you make up without filling in other people is counterproductive.

[Daniel]

Hmmm, I suppose it makes it more difficult when the root terms are poorly defined as it is...

Anyway, I thought I would tell you that there would be a momentary hiatus in our conversation, I will be going away for about a week. So, I will have to reenter the conversation at that point, feel free to continue on in my absence, I'm sure things can get more interesting.

[moremojo]

Take care, Daniel. I  hope you have a nice trip.