Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions (perhaps somewhat off-topic)

[OKIsItJustMe]

47. “the only meaning (the universe) has is what humans impute to it"

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

If humans have no “free will” the idea of us perceiving a meaning to anything (imputed or innate) seems counterintuitive to me (at best.) How can you decide whether something has meaning or not, without “free will” to make that decision?

Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that a hallmark of intelligence is the ability to intentionally alter one’s own behavior. (I was thinking about “Artificial Intelligence” at the time.) Instinctual behavior (or following programming) in my opinion, is not intelligent behavior.

How preposterous is it that we can communicate by typing on a keyboard, attached to a computer, attached to a network to leave messages on a web site? (Which of our instincts prepared us for this behavior? How was typing useful in the African Savannah?)


Our ability to disobey or augment our programming, to transcend our basic instincts, suggests to me a more profound level of existence. Call it “the ghost in the machine,” “Buddha-nature,” a “soul” or some other term, as you like..

Continuing along on that line of reasoning, people have engaged in various practices over the years, intending to strengthen their souls (e.g. fasting i.e. intentionally eating less than one could.) These practices, it seems to me, would strengthen the “free will” they have over their own bodies.

There are all sorts of things you can conclude from the very fact that you are able to contemplate them “cogito ergo sum,” is just one. We can also conclude things about the universe from the simple fact that we exist and are able to consider the universe. (See "the anthropic principle.”)

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”