About divine love
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: About divine love
Hello again, EvolutionKills, I'm sorry I skipped your post.

(28-05-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Of course our existence has meaning as far as we are concerned, it's meaning however is not an intrinsic aspect of reality nor is it derived from any deity. 'Meaning' is only a meaningful concept to conscious creatures. A universe filled with nothing but rocks would have nothing in it to give meaning to anything. The concept of 'meaning' is likewise inapplicable to a fork; we may place meaning onto the object or with the name and concept of a 'fork', but meaning doesn't mean anything to the fork itself because the fork lacks a sense of self. A fork lacks the means to apply, utilize, create, interpret, remember, or appreciate 'meaning'.
I think I may see what you are saying; only conscious beings have the ability to understand meanings.

But when I view meanings as implications, even though only conscious beings have the ability to understand those implications, conscious beings are not a requirement for things to convey implications.

For example, in a water molecule, a central "atom" of oxygen is flanked by two "atoms" of hydrogen covalently linked to it, the three of them forming an angle of slightly over one hundred degrees. For reasons beyond the scope of this paragraph, the central oxygen attracts the shared electrons of the covalent bonds towards itself with a greater intensity than the hydrogens do, causing the central region of the molecule to be slightly negatively charged, and the sides slightly positively.

Many living processes are based on this feature, but living processes are not a requirement for water's slightly asymmetric distribution of electric charge to occur. However, this polarity implies that molecules of water can be attracted to each other electromagnetically; it means that water molecules can form relatively rigid complex structures stabilised by electromagnetic interactions. And this implication, this meaning, has nothing to do with living beings, let alone conscious beings.

So I am not disagreeing with you; I also think that only conscious beings are equipped to understand the implications conveyed by things. It is just that I don't think conveying implications and understanding conveyed implications reflect the same notion. Things can have meanings even if no conscious entity is aware of those meanings; even if all conscious forms of life suddenly died at this very moment (that'd be shit, though) the material structure of forks would still mean that they are attracted more or less towards the planet's centre of gravity. Do you see what I am trying to say?

Thanks once again for your valuable contribution to the thread. Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 04:42 PM)Dom Wrote:  I do see what Kim means.

You don't act like the rest of the heathens here. Smile
We all have our unique perspectives on which we may base some of our behaviours, so I expect that we are all different in the way we act; I don't think I'm different at being different.

We are all extremely similar individuals (we share over 99% of our genetic material) but we are unique individuals; a small percentage of our genes and the context in which they are all expressed are different for all of us. But I like that common uniqueness, if I may put it that way, because if we were all truly equal, humanity would be terribly boring.

(28-05-2014 04:42 PM)Dom Wrote:  May I ask what your profession is?
Of course you may, you don't need my permission to do stuff, remember? But I'll keep the answer to myself, if you don't mind. I don't think it is relevant for the topic under consideration.

Thanks for coming back. Enjoy!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 05:56 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 06:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  Things can have meanings even if no conscious entity is aware of those meanings; even if all conscious forms of life suddenly died at this very moment (that'd be shit, though) the material structure of forks would still mean that they are attracted more or less towards the planet's centre of gravity. Do you see what I am trying to say?

Thanks once again for your valuable contribution to the thread. Have fun!

Yes I do see what he's doing. It's called the Equivocation Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

mean·ing
ˈmēniNG/
noun
noun: meaning; plural noun: meanings

1.
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
"the meaning of the word “supermarket”"
synonyms: definition, sense, explanation, denotation, connotation, interpretation, nuance More
"the word has several different meanings"
implied or explicit significance.
"he gave me a look full of meaning"
synonyms: significance, sense, signification, import, gist, thrust, drift, implication, tenor, message, essence, substance, purport, intention More
"the meaning of his remark"
expressiveness, significance, eloquence, implications, insinuations
"his smile was full of meaning"
important or worthwhile quality; purpose.
"this can lead to new meaning in the life of older people"
synonyms: value, validity, worth, consequence, account, use, usefulness, significance, point More
"my life has no meaning"

What forks do, is not "meaning", and not one other person on the planet agrees with that crap, which is why I insisted he define his words at the outset. Something he still has yet to do. There's something vaguely familiar with this. Hmmm. I *predict* this thread will go, what, 100 pages ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-05-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: About divine love
(21-05-2014 04:49 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It means that he is going to troll and show his ass all over this forum, and call it "love". Hobo


War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Prophetic

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 06:53 PM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I *predict* this thread will go, what, 100 pages ?
What kind of prediction is that if it ends with a question mark? If you were really predicting anything, one would expect a positive or negative statement, not an interrogative one.

I don't think this thread will go anywhere near 100 pages because the topic covered is not interesting enough for it to go on by itself, and I am increasingly less likely to read your posts, so I don't think this will go on for over 90 more pages.

However, you have once again complained about me not providing the definitions I attach to the words I use, and I would like to point out that I did provide my definition in post #48, as soon as I became interested in drawing EvolutionKills' attention towards the notion. The definition I suggested was "the set of implications conveyed by some form of information", and I have since used the noun as a synonym for "implication", which is one of the synonyms you have provided yourself in your reference to the dictionary.

Why is it that "meaning" can be a synonym for "implication" in your posts, but it cannot be in mine?

Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 06:53 PM)living thing Wrote:  I don't think this thread will go anywhere near 100 pages because the topic covered is not interesting enough for it to go on by itself, and I am increasingly less likely to read your posts, so I don't think this will go on for over 90 more pages.

So you keep saying. Yet prove yourself dishonest, repeatedly.

(28-05-2014 06:53 PM)living thing Wrote:  However, you have once again complained about me not providing the definitions I attach to the words I use, and I would like to point out that I did provide my definition in post #48, as soon as I became interested in drawing EvolutionKills' attention towards the notion. The definition I suggested was "the set of implications conveyed by some form of information", and I have since used the noun as a synonym for "implication", which is one of the synonyms you have provided yourself in your reference to the dictionary.

bla bla bla

No one says a fork has meaning. Cut the crap.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 05:41 PM)living thing Wrote:  Of course you may, you don't need my permission to do stuff, remember?

Hmm, isn't that a bit condescending?

"may I ask..." is simply a courteous way of asking something, it's not really asking for permission.

Why won't you tell us what your profession is?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
29-05-2014, 03:37 AM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 07:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 05:41 PM)living thing Wrote:  Of course you may, you don't need my permission to do stuff, remember?

Hmm, isn't that a bit condescending?

"may I ask..." is simply a courteous way of asking something, it's not really asking for permission.

Why won't you tell us what your profession is?

Professional troll.
I call sock.

childeye

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 04:01 AM
RE: About divine love
Hello Dom, how are you?

(28-05-2014 07:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 05:41 PM)living thing Wrote:  Of course you may, you don't need my permission to do stuff, remember?

Hmm, isn't that a bit condescending?

"may I ask..." is simply a courteous way of asking something, it's not really asking for permission.
I duly apologise, I didn't mean it condescendingly, but in a rather opposite way.

Please feel free to correct my use of the language, but when I was learning English I was explained that "can" is used when asking about an ability, whereas "may" is used when asking about authority; "can I do this?" generally means "am I able to do this?" whereas "may I do this?" generally means "do I have the authority to do this?"; at least that is the impression I had, but I am sorry if I had it wrong.

I have no authority over anything else. I am just a tiny living thing in a vast everchanging universe and the universe, along with the rest of the things it contains, does not need my permission to do stuff. You and every other person have your own brains attached to your own muscles, so your behaviour is for your brains to decide; mine has nothing to do with your actions. I would find it condescending if I thought you or anyone else have to ask me before acting, but I was trying to point out how you don't.

Although I think I now see how you didn't mean it as "am I allowed to ask..." but as "would you mind if I asked...", so I wasn't being condescending; I was simply being mistaken. Please accept my apologies.

(28-05-2014 07:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Why won't you tell us what your profession is?
For one, because it is not the thread's topic and I have already complained about someone else staying repeatedly out of topic; I'm not in a position to stay out of topic myself. This thread is about how believers in deities understand the concept of "love", not about me.

Also, because my profession matters in my daily life outside this forum, where I have to earn a living, but not here. I view online forums as places for the exchange of ideas and, as such, I am interested in the ideas exchanged; not that much in the biographies of their sources. Please don't get me wrong, I am interested in people, but in real people, material structures I can bump into as I move along the surface of this planet. When I read a collection of words written on a web page, my attention shifts primarily to the ideas they convey. Likewise, when I describe what the universe looks like from my perspective, I try to focus on my views, not on my person; my person is only relevant in my immediate surroundings. Would my words be easier to understand if people knew what I do in exchange for my food?

Thanks for coming back, Dom, and I am once again sorry if I managed to misrepresent my own position.

Have a great time!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 04:24 AM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  Hello again, EvolutionKills, I'm sorry I skipped your post.

(28-05-2014 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Of course our existence has meaning as far as we are concerned, it's meaning however is not an intrinsic aspect of reality nor is it derived from any deity. 'Meaning' is only a meaningful concept to conscious creatures. A universe filled with nothing but rocks would have nothing in it to give meaning to anything. The concept of 'meaning' is likewise inapplicable to a fork; we may place meaning onto the object or with the name and concept of a 'fork', but meaning doesn't mean anything to the fork itself because the fork lacks a sense of self. A fork lacks the means to apply, utilize, create, interpret, remember, or appreciate 'meaning'.
I think I may see what you are saying; only conscious beings have the ability to understand meanings.

Because it is a concept born from consciousness, it is inherently dependent upon it.


(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  But when I view meanings as implications, even though only conscious beings have the ability to understand those implications, conscious beings are not a requirement for things to convey implications.

im·pli·ca·tion

1 - the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated
2 - the action or state of being involved in something.


Please explain how an 'implication' can be conveyed to something without any consciousness and somehow retains any 'meaning'. Consciousness is not a requirement to convey meaning, it is a requirement for interpreting it. Different conscious creatures will apply different interpretations to different stimuli, but the consciousness is still required for the whole concept to work. Meanings and implications are meaningless without consciousnesses; simple as that.


(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  For example, in a water molecule, a central "atom" of oxygen is flanked by two "atoms" of hydrogen covalently linked to it, the three of them forming an angle of slightly over one hundred degrees. For reasons beyond the scope of this paragraph, the central oxygen attracts the shared electrons of the covalent bonds towards itself with a greater intensity than the hydrogens do, causing the central region of the molecule to be slightly negatively charged, and the sides slightly positively.

Right, this is how we describe with words our current understanding of how the universe works on this scale and in this instance. The laws of physics however operated just fine before the rise of conscious life forms, and one can imagine they'll continue to operate just fine in the inevitable heat-death of the universe.


(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  Many living processes are based on this feature, but living processes are not a requirement for water's slightly asymmetric distribution of electric charge to occur. However, this polarity implies that molecules of water can be attracted to each other electromagnetically; it means that water molecules can form relatively rigid complex structures stabilised[sic] by electromagnetic interactions. And this implication, this meaning, has nothing to do with living beings, let alone conscious beings.

You are misusing the word 'meaning'. We choose to apply meaning to this, but the fundamental forces of the universe would continue one without our musings about them. They can function without us applying meaning to them, but without us (or other conscious creatures) they have no meaning. They would continue on, as functions of the laws of nature, without anyone assigning meaning to them. Meaning is not inherent in them, we choose to apply meaning to it. Meaning is not an inherent, fundamental property of the universe; it is an entirely subjective valuation.


(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  So I am not disagreeing with you; I also think that only conscious beings are equipped to understand the implications conveyed by things.

But once again, 'implications' are not 'meanings'.


(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  It is just that I don't think conveying implications and understanding conveyed implications reflect the same notion.

They do not. Understanding requires consciousness.


(28-05-2014 05:04 PM)living thing Wrote:  Things can have meanings even if no conscious entity is aware of those meanings; even if all conscious forms of life suddenly died at this very moment (that'd be shit, though) the material structure of forks would still mean that they are attracted more or less towards the planet's centre of gravity. Do you see what I am trying to say?

I see what you are saying, and you are misusing the word 'meaning'. We give meaning to things (once again, it is not an inherent property of the universe, it is a subjective valuation created and applied by conscious creatures), and our consciousness allows us to attempt to predict the future and understand connections and implications as best we can approximate. But that doesn't mean that sans intelligent life, the fundamental force of gravity has any meaning.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: