If humans create meaning, can we not say that meaning itself is an emergent property of the universe? In other words - is it even possible that humans can create something that doesn't already exist as nascent potential in the cosmos itself?
3
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.So let's pose the most basic question; Why is there something, rather than nothing? This question immediately presupposes that meaning exists. Asking "why" implies both the existence of meaning, and the human desire to have it. Even the idea of epistemology assumes meaning. This human ability, and perhaps even innate drive to ask such questions is strong evidence that there is some kind of meaning, and that it can be apprehended, understood, grasped and experienced. Whether that is simply through the pursuit of pleasure (art, music, nature, sex, etc.) or something more esoteric (spirituality, ritual, religion, etc.), there seems to be something hardwired in humans to need and search for meaning of some kind. Which may often seem like we are creating it, but in the true sense of creating, we're not creating, we're searching and deciphering, as MarPep said. We also see a dualism at play; there is an inward search for meaning through the physical senses, and an outward search for meaning through the non-physical senses, although it can easily be argued that there is tremendous overlap in areas such as art and music. Since the human search for meaning is universal, and since humans can ask such existential questions (as first posed above), it seems that other questions then arise; if meaning truly exists, does it exist for it's own sake? Or does it exist for the sake of humans? If for humans, then we return to the first question, why? And how is it that humans both sense, and desire meaning if it's not something real that exists? There's good reason to believe that meaning is an inherent property of the cosmos - the universe as a whole, but not in the material sense - in matter. Meaning seems to be a unique and specific phenomena of humans, as part of the cosmos. What I don't believe, is that meaning is a property, function, essence, or something to be tapped into that exists ubiquitously throughout space and time. It seems more reasonable to believe that it's specifically a human characteristic, part of our consciousness if you will, the essence, or spark of life. While it's true that meaning can take on a plethora of definitions, it also seems logical that there is a hierarchy of meaning, from ultimate to fleeting. This would also explain why some humans are incredibly dissatisfied while others are fulfilled. I have more thoughts, but will be interested in any thoughts on this. Very interesting thread.
Ardene
Level 3
Mar 13, 2019
2
Excellent response, very educated. (1) something rather than nothing - exactly. To me, the burden of proof is on those who claim there is "no meaning". An absolute negation is the weakest kind of argument there is - a classic "back swan" argument (i.e. all I need to do is show one instance of some meaning, and the absolute negation is invalid); (2) confining "meaning" to humans is probably correct, but then begs the question, can there be other forms of meaning for non-human entities? And do humans even have the standing or knowledge (and CAN they ever have the knowledge) of denying this, when we KNOW that there are at least SOME forms of meaning out there, for some people, some of the time? (3) in terms of "meaning as a feature of the cosmos" - I go back to the point of anthropomorphism - can humans even discuss these things? Is it not above our pay grade? Is our machinery not limited to what we happen to be able to perceive and conceptualize, which is inherently limited? That's my core issue with the negation of "cosmic meaning" hypothesis ... at the very least we can agree it is PART of the cosmic experience, as our entire existence is but merely one little sliver of the potentialities of the cosmos; (4) if we will stop at reason or logic, I think a way better proposition is what I call "humble agnosticism" - a simple statement of "I don't know" when it comes to questions that seem to escape the confines of the human mind. To me, such a stance is indistinguishable from that of "humble faith", with one exception - the humble believer hedges their bets in favor of affirming that there is meaning (since there is something rather than nothing, is it not a small leap of faith to affirm that this something must have had, at its source, something resembling intentionality, a "this here, but not that there" quality to it? A leap of faith yes - but a rather small one ... and I'd say, quite smaller than the absolute affirmation that there IS nothing, taken as an article of faith! (5) Again, I go back to early science's rejection of Christian dogma. Is this not at the root of modern atheism's "strong faith in nothingness"? And if so, are atheists not still suffering from having given the Christian Church a monopoly on defining meaning in the universe, a monopoly it probably never deserved in the first place?
I feel like it has to be possible not too familiar with nascent potential, but its a fair question
Rus-T-Balls
Level 7
Mar 12, 2019
1
I'm not convinced that humans can actually "create" meaning at all, so your question is interesting. But it seems to me that the question you're really asking is this; if there is such a thing as meaning, does it exist outside of ourselves, and if so, do we find it in the material world/cosmos? I'd definitely like to hear more about your idea of cosmic nascent potential, where that comes from, and how it can be accessed by humans to ostensibly "create" meaning for ourselves. Let me pose another possibly related question; in a bio-centric universe scenario, is it just the urgency of passing time that inherently motivates humans to seek meaning as a way to justify our short individual existences? If so, is the human search for meaning actually real, or is it simply a subjective, self-centered desire for validation in an otherwise meaningless universe? Which begs the questions, what is meaning exactly, and why do we seem to need it so badly?
Ardene
Level 3
Mar 12, 2019
2
From a purely down to earth pragmatic perspective, humans "create" meaning any time they find a broader significance, pattern, or direction in their lives. The diversity of "meanings" is staggering - some find it in creating great art, some in just enjoying the moment, some in a relationship, some in an idea, some in religion, some in family, etc etc. .. the question is, if at lest some human beings find some meaning some of the time, which clearly seems to be the case (since their subjective experience and opinion must count as a fact in this context), then is the POSSIBILITY for meaning an inherent property of the cosmos as a whole? I ask because the alternative view - that the cosmos IS meaningless and that humans only create "imaginary" aka "invalid" meaning - is both (a) very popular among new atheists and anyone espousing a scientific ethos, and 
appears to me to be a bit of an immature and primitive view. In other words, even if it were just a self-centered, purely subjective exercise, the very fact that meaning ties humans to a broader set of phenomena (other humans, ideas, ideals, other creatures, a general sense of worth, a productive relationship with the future, etc.) seems to strongly imply that the reality of meaning is an inherent part of the cosmos (and therefore, not fake), and that the subject MAY plug into it, or not. Which, if accepted, puts us back in a space where spiritual doctrines and ambitions can be re-apprehended, but in a way that does not deny the importance or validity of science, reason, or logic. I think a big part of the opposing view is the very valid idea that organized religion have made a mint on hoodwinking humans into believing certain stories literally, with the purpose of manipulating them. So ok, THEY were bullshit ... but that doesn't mean we have to do away with the concept of valid meaning altogether ...
@fpinto If meaning comes largely from patterns, while the meaning we feel may be man made and inherently emotional, maybe there is a logical sort of meaning to the universe.
The patterns we see in nature add up to something. We see people recreating natural intelligent design into homes and still don't know the extent of intelligent patterns that are right under our noses.
If we know 2+2=4 we could say logicly or emotionally say that has meaning, it shows significance within the universe. We might feel more or less than its meaning adds up to but we can deduce that means 4+4=8 and so one thing having substance inherently gives meaning to the things we compare it to when there is patterns to be observed. If those patterns are still there but we where not observing them would they loos meaning?
Our emotional ties to meaning are man made I think, at least as far as each individual has unique personality and life circumstance as this shapes the meaning we see in the world. Leading to one person thinking another's meaning is trite or less than their own. This would be purely emotional meaning for the sake of personal or communal growth.
Intelligent design has meaning... by definition it is intelligent and the patterns themselfs do add up to something. The meaning is what they add up to so I suppose we likely have the power to create meaning as we are intelligent and we can create our own patterns, over time this would derive it's own meaning?
Or this could all just be semi coherent ramblings, maybe it means nothing at all.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.