The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?

@ James S. Saint.

Exactly.

I’m sorry. I missed that post.

To know if something is conscious first requires that you personally decide what being conscious really means. Once you decide what it means and learn how it works, it is easy to determine where it is or isn’t. Until then, one cannot be certain if a machine is conscious or not, nor a tree, nor a paper towel. It is much like the discussions of “God” in that if you never decide what the word “God” really means, define it, then no discussion or thought concerning is actually relevant nor certain.

Never mind.

The problem is that “being conscious” is defined differently.

I know, you define “consciousness” as “remote recognition”.

It is always up to you to decide what it is that YOU mean when YOU say “consciousness” (or anything else). So just precisely and unambiguously explain what YOU mean by the word. If it isn’t too much different than what others seem to mean, maybe they can get their answers too.

Life by definition makes sense, it makes sensory qualia information, life’s function is to make sense. life=make sense.
That is my setting the table, starting the game, neuronal calibration, language calibration.

Now, I will await for someone to contribute something interesting.

I define consciousness as the basic feature of a biological organism and nothing else so it does not have to
be capable of abstract thought or self aware. It simply has to be a life form which is alive. So all members
of the animal and plant kingdom. And bacteria as well [ since it is from the latter that all other life came ]

It does not have to be capable of it, but it does anyhow. Should it?
Does it make any difference?
If it makes no difference, then humanity should not have evolved anyways.

Because it makes a difference it has become a tautologically oppressive anti-power, argued differentially, from the flatlined reasoning of pure logic.

That is the difference between Frege/Wittgenstein and Russell, besides the primary difference of the definition of substance.

Do you really think that there is such a difference between them?

Remember:

Yes I do. The source is the same, but the effect is different with them.
Russell held to a material substantive, whereas Frege, et. al held to a non material, essential substance.

The significance lies in how this difference influenced people like Quine, and those in the behavioral sciences, who saw a focus on behaviorally based pragmatic-empirical determinants, versus those who sought analysis through linguistic determinants.
There was dissent within the Vienna Circle in respect to it.

Russell was opposed through his upholding a synthesis, as a neo-Kantian idea of his ‘sense-data’, which is a literal equal of an idea as representation. Critiques reduced this into the absurd notion of the sense(of the sense((of the sense(((of the sense…of…data) )) )))…unto an infinite sequence. This reduction, they claimed totally destroyed the sense of data as material. The detractors, therefore, counter claimed, that the material was essential a representation of pure logic.

And science has never resolved this issue. Absent any formal conciliation, beyond certain limits, the exactness of applications beyond those limits remain in exact.

in case at hand are certain mathematical-logical paradigmns to which data should be expected to ascribe to.

Gottlob Frege influenced everyone, also Edmund Husserl who followed Frege especially by adopting his distinction between logic and psychology (cp. Frege’s “Sinn und Bedeutung”) which led Husserl to his kind of phenomenology.

And this is partly why the split between Continental existentialism, and Anglo empiricism, post WW2 became (mind) set.

No. (1.) I would not go so far and speak of a “split”, and (2.) there was not only an English or, as you say, an Anglo empirism but also a German or, as you say, a Continental empirism. The Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) and the Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism), also known as Logischer Empirismus (Logical Empirism).

Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.

Immediately findable total content…”
Ummm…?? :confused:

The term “immediately findable total content” means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Not all content is always present. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, … and so on.

So consciousness, “spiritual and emotional content”, is “found” … by what?

JSS,

By what? The soul, the seat of consciousness.

“Soul” is too vague to be used in an analytical definition (but then so is “spiritual experience”).

I did not say “is found” but “can be found” or “is immediately findable”, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.

Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.

The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).

But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.

“The owner” and “the soul” are pretty much the same terms and don’t really tell us much of anything. Are you certain that the consciousness is not “the owner”? If not, who/what is “the owner”? Precisely what is it that is potentially finding that emotional content? What is it doing when not finding it?