That's your end of the story,
I seriously can't change your mind, especially with rigged topics such as inherent meaning lol.
Rigged topics? You're the one tried to rig it by implying inherent meaning and conflating it with biological functions. While making assumptions about nihilism that I already addressed.
That's your end of the story,
I seriously can't change your mind, especially with rigged topics such as inherent meaning lol.
Rigged topics? You're the one tried to rig it by implying inherent meaning and conflating it with biological functions. While making assumptions about nihilism that I already addressed.
False. You implied it on the first page in bold.
I simply say inherent meaning exists in us.
Assigned meaning IS, inherent meaning from there forward, as it's the person place or thing that inherits a meaning created for it. Coming from a creator that instills biological purpose in order to carry out tasks is very profound ways.
I can say the first human was assigned meaning ( Though this concept drives you into mystery ) then came the sons of Adam who were born with inherent meaning.
We're biologically bound to what we're meant for. We cannot breathe in outer space. We're "meant" to survive in this environment from the time we're born.
Now you can say that doesn't mean anything, and you will. But we still can't breathe in outer space, and since we can't breathe in outer space it means we cannot breath in outer space inherently.
What we are and are not capable of has plenty of meaning inherently.
Biologically ?
- The DNA does have components that contribute easier development of talent. Inherently meaningful indeed, some people make a living doing what they're great at. Regardless of a financial system talent brings home the bacon that enriches a family or a tribe.
In the event a family or a tribe has a nihilist in the circle, it's a bit of a drag on prosperity at this member will most likely burn out while souring the moral of the group. Very unfortunate when a inherently assigned member passionaly rejects that any thing and any one matters, though I imagine such a member sings a different tune when exiled from the group ( family, tribe, clan what have you ) and learning "they mattered" while left to hunt and look after oneself in the wild alone.
In my opinion assigned meaning, like being able to roll with who and what matters to a prosperous life is all a part of the grand scheme that is intended from the day we're born. We are unable to survive on our own alone for many years after birth. We are inherently, codependent as one another as a species.
You're all grown up and you can go live in the wild, and there are cases where people do that in solitude, but even they have inherent meaning despite what they make of themselves.
All things in life are borrowed. Nothing truly belongs to us, not even what you call you, when you're done, what you call you, stays here, and what you actually are, is gone.
exhibit #100.000 of tony’s inherent narcissism
fuck him in the ass
Technically you're setting a rule where it'd be okay for me to rail your anus, and if it really came down to it, lol it'll be your preference since you can only do this with your fingers.
You're still shifting between several different meanings of the word "meaning."
Being unable to breathe in space is an inherent biological limitation. It does not mean I was objectively "meant" to live on Earth. That conclusion only follows if you already assume an intentional designer who created humans for a particular environment.
The same applies to DNA, talents, dependence during childhood, cooperation, and biological functions. Those things can explain what organisms are capable of, what helps them survive, and how certain traits developed. They do not by themselves establish an objective existential purpose.
Your claim that "assigned meaning becomes inherent meaning from there forward" also changes the definition. If something receives a purpose from an external mind, then that purpose was assigned. Calling the resulting assignment "inherent" does not make it intrinsic to the thing independently of the assigning mind.
And your description of nihilists is another assumption. Nihilism does not mean someone cannot cooperate, care about relatives, develop skills, contribute to a group, dislike exile, or pursue prosperity. Those are preferences and behavioral tendencies. None require belief in objective cosmic significance.
If I were exiled and discovered that I strongly valued other people, that would establish that those people mattered to me. It would not establish that they possessed a universe-independent purpose.
So the same missing step remains:
Humans possess biological traits, functions, limitations, and social tendencies.
You believe those traits were intentionally created for a purpose.
Therefore you conclude humans have inherent meaning.
But premise 2 is doing all the philosophical work. The biology itself does not establish it.
That's why I keep distinguishing biological function from inherent existential meaning. I'm not denying the functions. I'm denying that the existence of a function logically proves the intention you attach to it.
Spatial Mind said:Technically you're setting a rule where it'd be okay for me to rail your anus, and if it really came down to it, lol it'll be your preference since you can only do this with your fingers.
No they aren't, because they are not as annoying as you so the ass-fuck "rule" only applies to you.
You're still shifting between several different meanings of the word "meaning."
False. We're talking about inherent meaning which is meaning with intrinsic value, and meaning which is assigned. Both have been addressed correctly.
Being unable to breathe in space is an inherent biological limitation. It does not mean I was objectively "meant" to live on Earth. That conclusion only follows if you already assume an intentional designer who created humans for a particular environment.
Body needs oxygen, water and warmth among other things that can be found in THIS ecosystem. This goes for other creatures. A fish cannot breathe or swim in the 0 gravity vacuum of space, nor can a bird fly in a vacuum. As for the rest of us, same thing, plus our insides will gets sucked out in that environment.
On this spec of dust corkscrewing around the traveling Sun, the atheist wonders how anything could've been alive in the first place. I'm not that, we were put here on purpose, just as our body and it's parts each serve a purpose.
What it means to be here cannot be discussed with you, as you're barred from being able to accept what we're doing here.
The same applies to DNA, talents, dependence during childhood, cooperation, and biological functions. Those things can explain what organisms are capable of, what helps them survive, and how certain traits developed. They do not by themselves establish an objective existential purpose.
I quote myself: "The DNA does have components that contribute easier development of talent."
This in itself is an inherent ability and what it means is we can develop abilities inherently. It's an inherent meaning in itself, but what blinds you is dismissing it as nothing more than something we're capable of with no meaning. That isn't the case cause the ability in itself has a purpose and it's for the sake of adapting to the environment we're confined in. What you're doing by denying this is saying having this ability doesn't mean anything, while it does mean something, plus it's inherent with a purpose. Yes it means we can do this, and we do.
Your claim that "assigned meaning becomes inherent meaning from there forward" also changes the definition. If something receives a purpose from an external mind, then that purpose was assigned. Calling the resulting assignment "inherent" does not make it intrinsic to the thing independently of the assigning mind.
You inherited the English Language. Surely something that was invented. The language has assigned meanings, but you're not the one who assigned those meanings, the founders/creators of this language did. The language itself to you has inherent meaning.
Now you can argue this isn't true and how the English language has no real meaning cause it never statically existed when time began, but the meaning in itself to you is inherited.
Language in itself has inherit meaning, just as your vocal chords have inherent ability for the task. Vocal chords have a purpose and there's no separating it from what it inherently means for us as as species.
And your description of nihilists is another assumption. Nihilism does not mean someone cannot cooperate, care about relatives, develop skills, contribute to a group, dislike exile, or pursue prosperity. Those are preferences and behavioral tendencies. None require belief in objective cosmic significance.
I said the nihilist will most likely burn out.
If I were exiled and discovered that I strongly valued other people, that would establish that those people mattered to me. It would not establish that they possessed a universe-independent purpose.
You're making the mistake of assuming humans can separate themselves the nature by denying universally independent purpose. We made of dust, science knows this, and we are a part of the universe. What we do is what we're able to do within our design, which is of course, inherent.
The thing with you is you'll always ask, what is our purpose ? What is the meaning of all of this ?
Unless you open up to what you think is fictitious, you'll never find your answer.
As I said posts ago... You cannot see or understand things the way a theist would. While you think my lense is fictional I think your lense is lost in the dark where you place faith in popular science. That being said I have no interest in appeasing your perspective, I already know your perspective, but you cannot bring yourself to know mine, so once again you cannot see or understand things the way I do. You can't argue the body parts don't have a purpose, no no, those are very loud and obvious.
So the same missing step remains:
Humans possess biological traits, functions, limitations, and social tendencies.
You believe those traits were intentionally created for a purpose.
Therefore you conclude humans have inherent meaning.
But premise 2 is doing all the philosophical work. The biology itself does not establish it.That's why I keep distinguishing biological function from inherent existential meaning. I'm not denying the functions. I'm denying that the existence of a function logically proves the intention you attach to it.
Pretty sure I touched on this.
Yes, everything about us. Eyes, hands, bones, heart, lungs, kidneys, hair, digestive system, teeth, brain, hears, tongue vocal chords, nervous system, immune system, reproductive organs and other things we have. All serve a purpose AND, it's done on purpose.
This gas we breathe, is invisible for light to pass through it, which is what eyeballs are for, as our eyes are useless without light, so we can see as we breathe it and we're submerged in this gas. How insane can this fluke be aside from countless species each having 2 genders.
A cat cannot survive in the wild if it doesn't have claws, especially large cats that need to catch larger prey. The claws have purpose. Everything has what it needs for a chance at survival.
To you all of this is an accident, as if no way any of this is done intelligently. And IS done intelligently, as it inspires us, and we've yet to match the creativeness of this big fluke, even though we're a part of it.
Done on purpose. The plants us creatures and creature need plants. This is a set up. What prevents you from seeing past the magical "Energy cannot be created or destroyed.... Except for the beginning" has you running in circles.
Spatial Mind said:Technically you're setting a rule where it'd be okay for me to rail your anus, and if it really came down to it, lol it'll be your preference since you can only do this with your fingers.No they aren't, because they are not as annoying as you so the ass-fuck "rule" only applies to you.
That would then be a double standard and an act of malignant narcissism if the double standard is to be enforced by anyone.
In actuality, the puppet would enjoy stuffing my anus and would be entertained if I got gang banged by the forum. In my opinion they would enjoy getting railed more than stuffing a dildo in my ass.
You can have the last say. It won't be good enough for me, just denial and misunderstanding. Saying I'm mixing this and that and not seeing things as you explain it. But really I do and I find it nonsensical based on what I know and what I think I do, and what I think I know doesn't come from faith alone, I've seen and experienced things that make me damn sure.
The best I can do is explain how that of what has purpose, points to its inherent meaning, and those things are a part of us and can be seen with evidence. The best you can do is ignore that, avoid arguing that those body parts do indeed have a purpose, but a purpose without a creator. Purpose from nothing isn't possible and not the case here, cause we are something, and something doesn't come from nothing, that would certainly violate the laws of physics.
You still have not bridged the gap I pointed out.
I am not denying that eyes see, lungs exchange gases, claws help predators catch prey, vocal cords facilitate sound, or that organisms possess traits suited to their environments. Those are biological functions. The disagreement is over whether those functions prove that somebody intentionally designed them for an existential purpose.
Saying "the lungs have a purpose, therefore they were made on purpose" simply builds your conclusion into the word "purpose."
There are at least two different concepts here:
A function: what a structure does and why that structure was retained biologically.
An intended purpose: what some mind deliberately created the structure to accomplish.
The first does not logically entail the second.
A heart pumps blood. That establishes a function. It does not independently establish that a conscious agent designed the heart with that intention. To establish that, you need an additional argument for a designer. Repeating that the heart "serves a purpose" does not supply one.
The same issue appears in your argument about Earth. Yes, humans require particular environmental conditions. That shows that humans are adapted to a narrow range of conditions. It does not establish that Earth was intentionally prepared for humans.
You are reversing the relationship.
You say oxygen exists here and lungs use oxygen, therefore the environment and organism were deliberately matched. But organisms that could not function within their environments would not survive and reproduce there. Consequently, surviving organisms are exactly the ones we should expect to observe possessing traits compatible with their environments.
That compatibility is the observation requiring explanation. It is not by itself evidence that your preferred explanation is true.
Your language analogy makes the distinction even clearer.
English words have assigned meanings precisely because humans assigned them. The word "tree" does not contain its English meaning intrinsically. Another language can attach a completely different sound to the same object. If every English speaker disappeared, the physical sequence of letters T-R-E-E would not retain some independently existing semantic property in the universe.
That is conventional meaning, not inherent meaning.
I can inherit a convention without the convention becoming intrinsic.
Likewise, if a creator assigned humanity a purpose, that would establish an assigned purpose originating in that creator. You can call it "inherent" afterward, but you have not changed the logical origin of the purpose. It remains dependent upon the assigning mind.
Your DNA example has the same problem. If genetic traits make certain abilities easier to develop, then those abilities have a biological basis. Fine. But saying that this constitutes "inherent meaning" just substitutes the word "meaning" for "function," "capacity," or "adaptive consequence."
I am not saying the ability "means nothing" in the ordinary descriptive sense. I am saying that a biological consequence is not equivalent to objective existential significance.
Those are different propositions.
You also say that because humans are part of the universe, what humans do therefore has a "universally independent purpose." That does not follow either. Being physically contained within the universe does not make a person's preferences, intentions, or activities objective properties of the universe.
If I value another person, my valuation is itself an event occurring within the universe. That does not make the value independent of the mind producing it.
The statement:
"I value this person"
does not become:
"This person possesses a mind-independent existential purpose"
merely because both of us consist of matter originating within the universe.
And I do understand the theistic position. Understanding a position does not require accepting its premises.
Your position is approximately this:
Biological systems exhibit functional organization.
You believe that organization is too coordinated or improbable to be unguided.
Therefore you infer intelligence.
You then infer that this intelligence intentionally created organisms.
You then infer that intentional creation supplies objective purpose.
That is a coherent chain of claims, but the controversial steps are the inferences from function to intelligence and from intelligence to existential meaning.
You repeatedly point back to the function itself as though it proves those inferences.
It does not.
Calling life a "setup," saying it is "done intelligently," or saying that purpose cannot exist without a creator restates your conclusion. It does not independently demonstrate it.
The same applies to "something cannot come from nothing." I have not argued that something came from nothing. Nihilism does not require that claim, atheism does not require that claim, and modern cosmology does not simply assert "absolute nothing spontaneously produced everything."
Even if it were demonstrated tomorrow that the universe had an intelligent cause, another question would remain: why would the intentions of that cause automatically constitute objective meaning?
If a human creates a hammer to drive nails, the hammer has an assigned function relative to the creator's intention. That does not produce some metaphysically independent property called "meaning." It establishes what the creator wanted the object to do.
Scale the creator up to a god and the logical structure does not change. You have an extremely powerful assigning mind, but still an assigning mind.
So no, I am not avoiding the observation that biological structures have functions. I have explicitly accepted that observation repeatedly.
What I reject is the unstated equation:
function = intention = creator = inherent existential meaning.
Those are four different concepts.
Your argument keeps moving between them as though establishing the first automatically establishes the other three.
That is the exact step you still have not demonstrated.
