What is meaning? And what is stupidity relative to the lack thereof? Do you even have a basis for what you're saying here? And yet you insist on saying it. Why?

Life has no meaning. It's all arbitrary. This is a perfectly valid assessment is it not? But why bother to use the word "perfection" if perfection doesn't exist? Isn't that the least bit strange? And yet it seems to describe the situation PERFECTLY!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

In what sense do you use the word?

If it is an unachievable goal, then the word acts as an abstract ideal, as a "carrot" hanging always just out of reach, but motivating the climb from good to better to better to better...We need not have an achievable "perfection" for the concept to be very useful in this sense. So that would be one reason to "bother to use the word".

If you use the word in another sense, then your assumption that perfection does not exist is called into question. An evening spent with that special someone could be perfection, as could that wonderful foie gras you shared. For some, the outcome of a football game, or a hard day's work, or an afternoon in the garden, is perfection. I have heard, on many occasions, people exclaim "it just doesn't get any better than this!" What else is perfection? This would be another reason to "bother to use the word."

Oddly, neither of these uses implies any Platonic Ideal concept of "perfection", which it seems to me you wish to imply. Instead, both of these uses underscore the way our language works, by the agreement of the speakers as to the use of the vocabulary. There is no "meaning" as an entity that is transmitted, there is simply the agreement that we use this word in this situation, another word in another. It is imperfect, of course, but far from incoherent.

However, why is the notion of it so readily understood? Is it possible that it represents a transcendent quality or, higher ideal?

If perfection was merely relative, then we have to ask "relative to what?" In which case the notion of it is clearly there.

If an absolute reality exists, which is God, then that absolute reality must be perfect. Just think, that without a sense of absoluteness, the Universe would not be able to hold itself together and would come unraveling all over the place. So much for the idea of "no coherence," right?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Is it readily understood? I don't think so. Any conception we have of "perfection" is imperfect, and based on our observations of our world. We abstract "perfection" from this, in the same way we can look at longer and longer distances and abstract "infinity" from it. Our concept of infinity usually is merely the longest distance we can imagine; I would argue that few if any of us actually have a good grip on infinity. Same with perfection (as used in this absolute sense). Ah, but this is the other use of "perfection", one which recognises that we cannot see an ideal, but only what is around us. In this case, as above, we see perfection relative to the things we see around us. It is no great mystery. We see variability in everything, and simply extend the limit of that population and infer "perfect" some distance off one end (or "perfectly awful" off the other end!). Again, no mystery at all; it is simply the way we use our language.A big if, and completely unsupported.this is your assertion, also unsupported.Why? What meaningful definition of "perfect" do you use here?What is a "sense of absoluteness"? What does that mean? Do you suggest that the Universe senses things? How?Does it? "Hold itself together" implies an active process, rather than simply a function of the matter itself. Can you support that? What evidence is there that the universe does anything intentionally?Entropy? Or do you mean some other sort of "unraveling"? If you go back and support all your contentions and ifs, maybe. Or do you, by "no coherence", refer to your ideas?

Both of these ideals are just a further (furthest) extension of the here and now, in which case we need not focus on them exclusively. However, that isn't to say they don't exist.

So, what is everything at variance with then, if not some set ideal? At variance with yet another variation? Don't you see the problem here? How is it possible that the Universe can even begin hold itself together if everything was at variance with everything else? There has to be certain things which are set and invariable. I believe these are called the laws of physics.

It's supported by the fact that we exist and, that life is not convoluted with all sorts of anomalies.

Certainly one that cannot be supported alone.

Isn't it asserted elsewhere that God is perfect? And certainly if there was such a being Who was responsible for the absolute ground of existence, what other word would best describe Him?

No, I mean in the sense that we understand it. However, it's not beyond the possibility that the Universe can sense it as well if, in fact God exists.

Because human beings exist perhaps, and human beings do things intentionally. Or, are you referring to a different Universe here?

I mean if there's a flaw in anything, it usually doesn't take long before things begin to unravel and come crashing down.


And now that I have? ... What do you think?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This was something I posted on another board by the way, and is more relevant to the original post.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

If you look at the history of biology, you will see a major change in perspective, from the Linnaean to the Population Genetics models (not certain of the name of the latter); the Linnaean system looked at variability within a species as you do, as error around an ideal (or "set ideal", as you say). Modern models do not; they look at variability as an inherent characteristic of a population, a population which cannot be described with some archetypal ideal but which must be described in a manner which includes the variability. Variance, after all, is not (statistically speaking) just the variability from a mean, but due to the mathematical definition of the mean, variance is the variability from each and every other member of the population. So, no, there is no reason to claim that variation is from some set ideal whatsoever.

Another small point. There may well be things in the universe which are set and invariable. I do not, myself, know this as incontravertable fact, however. Let me explain (rather than merely asserting or merely asking questions-hint, hint): First off, even the whole of human experience, let alone the fraction of it in which science has been our tool, is but a near-infinitessimal slice of the actual time the universe has been around. Even with our most powerful telescopes, we can look only so far into our universe's past. We literally cannot say whether there are things in the universe which are set and invariable, nor can we say with certainty that the conditions of the universe will allow those things to remain set and invariable. Secondly, the "laws of physics" are our attempts to describe the way the universe works. As such, the laws of physics are anything but set and invariable. As we learn more about the universe, we revise our understanding, and thus our descriptive laws. Do not make the mistake of conflating the characteristics of the universe with the laws with which we describe these characteristics. Even if the first are immutable, the second are subject to change as we learn more about the first.Tell me how this supports "absolute reality". And how is it that life is not convoluted with all sorts of anomalies? For any useful definition of "anomalies", of course they exist! (I myself am a successful mutation, as you can see.) If you wish to suppose that, because they exist ("in the moment"?), they are not anomalies, then you render the concept of anomaly meaningless.Which god? Why does creating something (anything) mean that the creator must be perfect? The ancient Greek pantheon certainly had their share of problems, and yet they were gods.

And suppose we take your statement at face value. If there was a being who was responsible in this manner, and this being was perfect...wouldn't the being who created that first being be even more perfect? And the one who created this second one yet more perfect? Turtles all the way down or gods all the way up, asserting that god is perfect does not make god perfect, and does not in fact make a god at all.So which are you doing here--are you limiting your definition of "universe" to "that which humans do", and thereby rendering the word "universe" obsolete, or are you claiming that the vast universe has exibited intention by creating human beings (despite the evidence that natural selection is responsible, and not intentional creation)?

Remember, what you were supposed to support was the claim that the universe does things intentionally, not that some tiny subset of the universe speaks of itself as acting intentionally.How long is long? And who said "flaw"? Is everything that is less than perfect "flawed"? When a star goes supernova, has it unraveled and come crashing down?Now that you have tried, I respect you for your effort. As for your results, I suggest you have not supported your ideas adequately, in part because you mix technical and colloquial terms and do not adequately define them in context.

And yet it all came from the same source didn't it? Was there an original unvariance before variance came about?

Of course this is merely approaching it from the Scientific standpoint which, is not how God is typically portrayed. In order for it to have meaning it has to be something intrinsic with who we are which, we should be able to establish within ourselves. Which isn't to say Science cannot back this up however.

Well, we don't see coffee cups turning into hamsters now do we, and all kinds of weird stuff like that?

The Greek gods were more anthropomorphized which, doesn't make it any less real however. In fact they make great psychological profiles which, would make more sense when we speak of a god(s) that interacts with human beings. In which case the imperfections we perceive are merely our own.

If you took perfection and considered it as a whole, and then begin to break it up into little pieces, it shouldn't take long before you begin to realize that none of these pieces are perfect, in relation to the whole that is.

Without order and stucture in the Universe there would be no intelligence, by which intelligence is the ultimate outcropping. So yes, intelligence is directly related to the fact that the Universe is the way that it is.

I would suggest that the Universe is strictly here for the sake of establishing intelligence, either that or, it was established by means of intelligence ... which of course, the one really can't exist without the other.

Everything oscillates, and comes and goes in cycles. So I wouldn't consider that a flaw.

Well, if we were to approach God, how do you think He would expect us to approach Him? From a purely technical stanpoint or, perhaps more colloquially? In other words is it just a matter of establishing something exists or, a bit more to it than that? Say like the relationship you would have with certain members of your family?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I do not know. Nor do you, nor does anybody. There is no shame in saying "I don't know"; we do not have to make up a god and pretend to know that he, she, it, or they did it."In order for it to have meaning"...which version of meaning are you using this time? You have consistently mixed your usages of this word. Oh...and there is a reason god is typically not seen in a scientific explanation. We only add as many variables as are needed, and eliminate those for which there is no need. Thus far, there is no evidence to suggest a god.Depending on what your definition of weird is, I'd say we may see weirder stuff than that. And...to stretch a bit...a coffee cup was once clay, mere inorganic matter...I have read serious suggestions that clay acted as a substrate in the original development of DNA from simple amino acids. If there is anything to that...and I do not pretend to know (so this "if" is used properly), then in a very real sense, we do see coffee cups turning into hamsters. It is just that the time frame is well beyond our individual experience. It is our anthropocentric view which says it does not happen.Every god has been the result of anthropomorphism. Even the very idea of a "creator" is simply an extention of a recognition that we create things (tools, weapons, textiles, etc.). If the things we create needed a creator, the things we did not create must have had one, too. Despite the fact that there is no evidence at all for a creator. And while you may argue that it does not make them less real, I must remind you that it also does not make them more real. Very realistic fiction is fiction. It may contain great psychological profiles, it may speak to your heart, and still be fiction.I can understand this view, but it is by no means the only one. It makes every bit as much sense to suggest that if something is perfect, all its pieces must also be perfect--otherwise, how could a collection of imperfect things be called perfect? If the whole is made up of imperfect parts, it cannot possibly be perfect! (note: I think the whole idea of a larger perfection and divisions thereof is another "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type of question, but offer this alternative merely as an equally plausible argument as yours.)How do you know this? If you see order and structure in the universe, how can you suggest that you know what it would look like (and whether there would be intelligence) without this order and structure? (answer: you cannot.) The only relation between intelligence and the structure of the universe is that you claim to see both. You have no non-structured universe (either with or without intelligence) to compare it to, nor do you know for certain that a structured universe would necessarily produce intelligence. I would suggest that this is a wholly unsupported assertion. See above for why. You simply do not have the evidence it takes to make such a claim. You should see that.Everything does? Tell me...what would you consider a flaw? Or is it the case that, if it exists as part of the universe, it is by definition not a flaw? In which case, the universe is by definition flawless...by completely useless definition.Ah, you make my point again. Our gods have always been anthropomorphized--no matter which god you speak of.

How do you think it would expect you to approach it? And, what is much more important...why do you think that? What is the evidence that convinces you to hold that belief?

And what is this notion that you folks keep repeating? "Reality is that which remains once you stop believing?" Doesn't that in itself suggest a sense of absoluteness or, invariance? It sounds to me like you want to have it both ways now.

Is there any need to bring up the oxygen that we breath in our daily conversations? No. It's just something there as a backdrop which sustains us.

Things just don't happen arbitrarily is what my whole point is. There have to be some ground rules to go by, of which there are more than just a few.

Reality is absolute. It's only our perceptions which are relative. So, if in fact it is possible to perceive of the notion of God, does that make the reality of it any less absolute? Not in the least. It may just mean this is the way we've come to adapt to it.

In general though, it speaks of everything in terms of the functionality of the whole, of which the Universe itself is indivisible.

Yes, and look at all the order and structure (layer upon layer in fact) which we've designed into our computers. Aren't these in fact considered a sign of intelligence?

Well how did we get here then, if it wasn't for the inherent structure and design of the Universe?

Yin and Yang. Which is a sine-wave (signifiying oscillation) within a circle (signifying that which is Universal or complete).

It doesn't make them any less perfect, just more approachable.

How do I think God would expect me to approach Him? From the standpoint of who I am. Otherwise that would be like the creation taking the purpose of the Creator which created it out of context. In other words I can only operate within the parameters of the function of my design.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You missed my point entirely. You are claiming inherent structure and design as necessary to your existence, while also claiming that such structure and design are pervasive in the universe, which is an indivisible whole. All this taken together means you simply cannot, by your own description, have any notion whatsoever about whether structure and design are necessary for existence, let alone for intelligence (which was your earlier claim--you shifted again). It is not merely an unknown in your worldview, it is unknowable. And yet you don't hesitate to claim it. Unless you can examine the case wherein there is no structure or design (which, by your view, is impossible, as such a case does not exist), you cannot know that intelligence could not arise under such conditions. And so, your question above is not answerable under your framework. Not that that will prevent you from asking it again and again.

Yes, this is why we have a whole slew of mathematical calculations to define everything down to the last detail, right? Otherwise what are you suggesting, that everything is based upon nothing?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Once again, you say something that has absolutely no relation to what I just said. Is this intentional? Do you read my post, give up, and decide to punt? Is it, perhaps, a strategy designed to confuse me and make me give up? Is it really the best you can manage?

*sigh*

Hey, I'll address your post, even though it fails to address mine...

No, we do not define everything by mathematical equation. Not even close. If we did, though, such "definitions" would be descriptive, not prescriptive--that is, they would merely describe the rules we infer from what we see; they would not describe inviolate rules which reality must follow. The order we describe is that which we see...it is our interpretation, not what must be. Even if it is considered a rule, it is not a rule in the same sense as speed limits or drinking ages.

Everything based on nothing? Could you please tell me the line of reasoning that leads from what I said to that conclusion? I must admit I am at a complete loss; I cannot fathom what you must be thinking. I would be happy to address the concept, the very moment that I know what you mean.

Tangentially, another thing is suggested by your post. Since I see no relation between your post and mine that ostensibly inspired it, perhaps this tangential concept is what you meant...I will include it on that chance. "Defining everything" is a crucial portion of science. Not by mathematical equation (sometimes, perhaps, but it is certainly not necessary), but rather by precise description. The concept I am getting at is the operational definition. In order to say that A impacts B, we must (not should, not may, but must) define both A and B in a replicable fashion, such that anyone who wants to repeat the experiment knows exactly what has been manipulated, what has been measured. Since the operational definition of any concept may vary (as simply as measuring temperature in F versus C, or as complexly as measuring personality via the MMPA or the Meyers-Briggs), the results of an experiment depend tremendously on what operational definitions are used. (It is for this reason that a community of scientists, with similar but not identical operational definitions, is our best tool for really getting at the meat of any problem; any one scientist may be led astray by the choice of a particular operational definition.)

Now...all this talk of non-identical operational definitions may tempt you (and I do mean you, Iacchus) to think that each definition is meaningless. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of them is perfect, certainly, and none can be perfect. They are not intended to be perfect; they are intended to be practical. In this, they reflect our language and its relation to the real world. The scientific community, in its use of operational definitions, converges on a practical representation of reality.

(In contrast, the way you use definitions is to stretch them to the breaking point, to be as non-specific as possible, to make one word do double and triple duty. Rather than converging on reality, your use of language seems intended to obfuscate. Words that are understood to have multiple meanings are used as if all meanings were combined, and other words appear to be used with meanings spun freshly for them. I urge you to use your words as the scientific community does--specifically, precisely, accurately. If you wish to make any progress, that would be a good place to start.)

Baloney! This is evidenced by virtue of the fact that we're here, and very well aware of the procession of events which had to occur, in order for it to be this way.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Nonsense. What are you suggesting that there's nothing there to interpret? And, while we may not be able to describe something perfectly, in our relative approach, does not mean it does not exist in the absolute sense, to say the least. Otherwise there would be nothing to assess, right? In which case the assessment of an absolute reality becomes a perfect assessment. And yes, if everything exists in this sense, and it does, then perfection can be used as a means of describing everything which is.

Very interesting choice of words here. Are you implying there's a relative sense with respect to an absolute sense? Yea or nea?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Ah, but there is the rub. There is no reason to assume it had to be this way. You are standing at the endpoint and saying "look at what had to happen to get me here." And yes, the probability of that particular path is near infinitessimal. But the inverse of this is that there are literally countless other possible endpoints that did not happen (in which case you are not asking the question), and of course the possibility exists that some entity somewhere, breathing in methane, skeleton made of silicon, wonders how it is that the exact things came together to make him.

You would do well to study probability and statistics. What is the probability of someone being exactly your height? It depends on how specifically we measure your height. Measured to the inch, you might be common. To the thousandth of an inch, far fewer people are exactly your height. To the trillionth of an inch, and now the probability of someone being exactly your height is so vanishingly small that you might be tempted to think "wow, what procession of events had to come together to make me exactly this height--it must be evidence of intelligent creation."

The perspective you use in asking your question is leading you astray. The fact that we are here, as you open your post, is not evidence of anything. It is a given, without which the rest of the questions would not be asked (although they would still be every bit as meaningful--there would simply be no advocate for them. The question of our own existence is not any more meaningful than these unasked questions, it just happens to be important to us from our given perspective at the end of this particular chain of events.)

Which would lead me to ask the question, "How tall are you, Iacchus?" By the way, Iacchus is not common by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, Iacchus--must you say "nonsense"? It is so unlike you...and it underscores your lack of understanding. How on earth you interpret my meaning as that there is nothing there to interpret is beyond me. (I think maybe you really do not understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive rules--is that it? If you break the latter, say, by speeding, you have not violated anything but an arbitrary rule. You don't automatically blow up, or go to hell, or anything of the sort. If we catch you, we might fine you or otherwise punish you. You broke the rule, after all. If, on the other hand, you break a descriptive rule, like gravity, and do it reliably and provably, we must change the rule! It is, after all, only a description of what we observe. So, laws of inertia, gravity, the laws of physics as we know them, are all descriptions of our observations. When we observe something new (as when we observed light bending in response to gravity), we cannot give light a fine or throw it in jail...we must alter our rule.)Ok, now, this is nonsense. There is no reason at all to think this. We can easily come up with imaginary entities or qualities, which we can describe in relative terms...and which do not exist in any absolute sense. And remember that language merely is a means of us as a community reaching a rough, practical agreement on meanings--it is useful, but by no means perfect. (As dating couples may find out when she asks "when you say you love me, how do I know you mean what I mean when I say I love you?" The statement "I love you" is not meaningless, it is not arbitrary--no one will mistake that sentence for "pass me the adjustable spanner please"--but it is not perfectly defined. It cannot be, since each of us has learned our vocabulary in a necessarily different situation. I have never, not for an instant, seen the world as you see it--how, then, could my definition of "dog" be the same as yours? Mine includes being bitten on the face by a german shephard, at a lake in Michigan when I was 9--I doubt your definition of dog includes that incident. Yet there is no confusion when you refer to a dog and tell me to be careful, this one is dangerous.)"in which case"...ah, take the assumption and run with it. But no, this is not the case, so your perfect assessment is irrelevant, as well as impossible."if everything exists in this sense"....um, no it does not. And perfection is a man-made construct which was merely extrapolated as the endpoint of the good-better-best continuum. Are you implying that your question makes sense? Yea or nay? (see my above discussion on the 2 types of rules for a serious answer to your question. There is nothing illogical whatsoever about my choice of words. Your understanding of them, on the other hand, may be lacking.

I am as tall as I am, always, even if it varies from one moment to the next which, it no doubt will.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Ah, then, you are exactly one Iacchus tall.