From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-04-28, D  wrote:   
      
   >> I was looking for *your* take. :-)   
   >   
   > Booh! I play the game of somewhat disinterested   
   > philosopher! ;) But my take is that some people do have   
   > intrinsic meaning in their life and that this is something   
   > which we can learn from, and draw conclusions from, which   
   > will help other people find _their_ meaning.   
   >   
   > It might not be a 100% sure fire way to replicate   
   > meaning, but at least it will give us pointers. In   
   > positive psychology, there's been lots of research that   
   > tells us that having social relationships, eating right,   
   > sleeping right, exercising, remaining mentally active,   
   > having friends etc. etc. are all conducive to increased   
   > happiness in life.   
   >   
   > So as long as we insist on having governments and planning   
   > peoples lives (which I am against btw,   
      
    :-)   
      
   > in case there are any new readers) we could learn from that   
   > and design our institutions to try and spread those things   
   > and make it easier for people to tick off the happiness   
   > indicators in their lives.   
   >   
   > But!   
   >   
   > A distinction I always like to make is worldly meaning   
   > and transcendent meaning. With wordly meaning, I imagine   
   > a doctor who saves lives. He is happy with his life,   
   > since saving lives makes him feel good. Or the stock   
   > broker who makes our lives better by making stock   
   > markets more liquid and well functioning thus benefitting   
   > billions. Or the socialist who enjoys paying lots of taxes,   
   > since those taxes will go to state of the art educational   
   > institutions and salaries to our hard working and competent   
   > politicians. ;)   
   >   
   > Jokes aside, those are examples of meaning that people   
   > find "in the world" and that type of meaning does work. A   
   > danger with that kind of meaning is that happens the day   
   > you retire, and I think we all have heard of people who   
   > retired and died within a few years. Their reason was over   
   > night, taken away from them.   
   >   
   > How do we avoid that? Beats me.   
   >   
   > Then we have the transcendent meaning of religious people,   
   > hermits and monks. Their meaning is beyond our world,   
   > always unprovable and always uncommunicable. This is   
   > an extremely strong kind of meaning that can completely   
   > redefine you as a person and shift your own deeply held   
   > core values.   
   >   
   > So if you think about Maslows hierarchy of needs, this   
   > would be the top of the top. But I actually don't like to   
   > put this on Maslows pyramid, since I believe this one is so   
   > fundamentally different from the basic needs. That's why I   
   > divide it up into wordly meaning and transcendent meaning   
   > or intrinsic (to the world) and extrinsic (to the world).   
   >   
   > So, in terms of AI, are the intrinsic values enough to give   
   > us happy people in a post scarcity, AI-fueled world? Could   
   > we by becoming better parents and design institutions that   
   > enable the strategies of positive psychology be happy when   
   > we have 1, 2 or 3 day work weeks?   
   >   
   > Or can we somehow get a firmer "grasp" of extrinsic   
   > meaning, and is that what will be needed?   
   >   
   > Or!   
   >   
   > Is extrinsic meaning something that could even be damaging   
   > to the world?  If we look at the population today, and   
   > throughout history, the deep spiritual kind of meaning   
   > is very rare. And those people cut them themselves off   
   > from the world becoming less "productive" citizens and   
   > workers. Would a world if saints basically cease to   
   > be? Would a world of saints stop having children and be   
   > the last generation?   
   >   
   > Is _this_ the solution to fermis paradox? That   
   > civilizations sufficiently advanced, all reach this state   
   > and just "stop" because their values lie in a world beyond   
   > this (unprovable)?   
   >   
   > Ok, that's some personal views for you. Happy now? ;)   
      
   Yes! I just had the best sleep I've had in weeks!   
      
   *** KIDDING! ***   
      
   :-)   
      
   BTW, I'm write-in-candidate voting for you as Precedent   
   of the United States. ;-)   
      
   >>> Well, I we look at Maslow and his upper hierarchy of   
   >>> needs as well as Frankl and his mans search for meaning   
   >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl#Man's_Search_for_Meaning)   
   >>> I think we have a pretty good starting point of saying   
   >>> something about meaning.   
   >>   
   >> Peoples' opinions/theories are good starting points?   
   >   
   > Yes! In science takign peoples opinions and theories as   
   > starting points, if you agree with them, I think is an   
   > excellent idea! Then you discuss, modify, devise strategies   
   > for disproving/confirming them, modify again, and slowly,   
   > over time, you develop better theories that will enable   
   > us to navigate our world better and better.   
   >   
   > The problem is with pure philosophy, because not much   
   > testing can be done there. But as the handmaiden   
   > of science, philoosphy can explore the fringes of   
   > science, or areas which are not yet science and still   
   > be philosophy. Consciousness I think is one such area,   
   > and the meaning of life is another.   
      
   That sounds like a lot of work that I've no longer time   
   or energy for, especially knowing the forces that would   
   oppose such happening for their own selfish reasons.   
      
   The only kind of solution that ever makes sense to me is   
   the transcendent kind, because it makes sense to me that   
   when the being *itself* is the problem, no amount of that's   
   being's doing could ultimately lead other than to more   
   problems. So either that (way of) being is transcended,   
   or We Can't Have Good Things, because said being seems   
   incompatible with Good Things.   
      
   We say "shit happens" because what's wrong with us won't   
   let us see that the more accurate phrase ought to be   
   "shit begets shit".   
      
   Note that when I say "we", I don't mean everyone, because   
   some have *transcended* shithood. Maybe they're the one's   
   with what you've been calling "intrinsic meaning"?   
      
   > Well, as long as you are happy, I am happy! ;)   
      
   Now there's some powerful transcendence!   
      
   >>> For the sake of this discussion I'm placing myself 100%   
   >>> square in the materialist camp, where I am certain that an   
   >>> external world exists, and that we humans can meaningfully   
   >>> convey truths about the world to each other.   
   >>   
   >> I can't go as far as "truths" - online as far as beliefs /   
   >> opinions / theories.   
   >   
   > I respect that. In my case, I find my stance for this   
   > discussion (as above) a good tool to keep the discussion   
   > "stringent" and on point. Arguing from a non-truth,   
   > relativist or idealist stance does in my opinion tend to   
   > lead to people just speaking past each other and eventually   
   > just give up and go silent.   
      
   Exactly! Surely you remember hearing/reading that there's   
   something golden about that state! ;-)   
      
   >>>> Is it back the good 'ole "the purpose of life is to realize   
   >>>> and, more importantly, accept there's no purpose to life"   
   >>>> thing?   
   >>>   
   >>> Depends on the philosophical starting point, see above. ;)   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)