The Good Place

Me neither.  The simple fact that feelings exist in both us and others and that we have an awareness of "meaning" gives meaning to life.  I get materialism, I really do.

How does materialism explain feelings - the simple fact that we have them? It seems to me materialism really doesn't explain very much at all.

How does materialism explain feelings - the simple fact that we have them? It seems to me materialism really doesn't explain very much at all.

That's the difficult part and I don't have an answer but it is feelings that ultimately give meaning to life.  Absolutely everything that is purposeful relates to them one way or another and materialists also have them so they also have a sense of meaning and purpose.  That is the only point I was making.

Me neither.  The simple fact that feelings exist in both us and others and that we have an awareness of "meaning" gives meaning to life.  I get materialism, I really do.

Heresy!

That's the difficult part and I don't have an answer but it is feelings that ultimately give meaning to life.  Absolutely everything that is purposeful relates to them one way or another and materialists also have them so they also have a sense of meaning and purpose.  That is the only point I was making.

That's fair enough. I've no wish to extend this discussion, since it could be interminable. I suppose that if one takes the view, as you stated here, that feelings give meaning, then that would make one a feelingist (I'm sure there's a better word - probably a Latin or Greek version) and the material world becomes immaterial to the topic.

I'm not trying to start another of those materialism versus immaterialism arguments.

What I'm asking is why - if materialism were true - life would be less meaningful than it would be if it wasn't true. Why do people assume that? Is it to do with beliefs about free-will, or God, or something else?

Great question. And exactly the one that philosophy used to explore when it had any use at all. It used to look outwards instead of in; how to live a fulfilling life in a community rather than self absorbed, dead end ponderings on experience and inner life.

There is a strong argument that any act of altruism performed by an atheist is purer than that done by a religious devotee, out to appease an all-seeing, judgmental father figure.

I suspect we learn early through our experiences that being a dick isn’t conducive to a happy life.

I suspect that there is little difference between atheists and religious devotees with respect to performing acts of altruism. People seem to do good and bad regardless, and the only thing which differs is what sort of post hoc justification is offered. Appeasing an all-seeing, judgmental father figure may be the post hoc justification a religious devotee uses to explain their behaviour. But the underlying cause probably doesn't differ. We all find meaning and beauty in the same things (family, sunsets, etc.), we all find pleasure in acts of kindness, etc. 

Linda

Great question. And exactly the one that philosophy used to explore when it had any use at all. It used to look outwards instead of in; how to live a fulfilling life in a community rather than self absorbed, dead end ponderings on experience and inner life.

There is a strong argument that any act of altruism performed by an atheist is purer than that done by a religious devotee, out to appease an all-seeing, judgmental father figure.

I suspect we learn early through our experiences that being a dick isn’t conducive to a happy life.

Yes to the second paragraph (arguably) but I don't think you're really seeing the underlying problem. (I'm not even sure that it's the correct thing to do, to point it out to you (again) because you seem to be such a "happy chappie" and there's nothing wrong with that)

But, however you consider your existence, either wonderful, mediocre or terrible, in no time at all ( relatively that is) you won't be here anymore. And in your philosophy, you won't be anywhere...except in the memories of your offspring and/or friends who also won't be here in what amounts to no time at all.

I've recently (within the space of two years) seen four family members "go through the curtains" (crematoria). I still find it hard to believe that they don't exist anymore and this is the big problem with life/existence. It's a highly unsatisfactory situation, one that would soon be apparent if reproduction suddenly became defunct.

I'm not trying to be maudlin or depress you, Malf and furthermore this in itself is not a reason to believe in fairy tales (the afterlife). I "believe" because of the evidence and my own experience, not because I can't cope with oblivion. But I just can't understand how you can't see this.

What I'm asking is why - if materialism were true - life would be less meaningful than it would be if it wasn't true. Why do people assume that? Is it to do with beliefs about free-will, or God, or something else?

Or maybe - judging from Tim's comment - the assumption is that life is more meaningful if it continues after physical death?

I'm not trying to start another of those materialism versus immaterialism arguments.

What I'm asking is why - if materialism were true - life would be less meaningful than it would be if it wasn't true. Why do people assume that? Is it to do with beliefs about free-will, or God, or something else?

If Materialism/Physicalism is true - then we have no rule-based natural processes that puts the mental environment on the reality map.

If Informational Realism is true - all of physics stands in its ongoing evoltuion and then we can address the other two measurable categories.  We do address formal information, as defined by the equations of Information Theory.  Then we just have the category of "meaning" left out, but in reality - linguistics - is the science of communicated meaning.

So is all of linguistics, psychology and ecological studies not describing processes like energy and matter reactions?

I surely think they do.

If real-world meanings are part of objective reality and cause measurable changes; then the idea that information objects are only subjects in our minds must be scrapped.  Meaning (both correct and incorrect meanings) are in the environment just as much as matter.  Years ago, we did not understand how matter was structured.  When we understood that living materials were part of the same chemistry as the environment - people got the idea that we absorbed material and did not make new self-generated materials as living tissue.  We just transform materials following the laws of chemistry.

But even with that example from physics - we still think that all meaning is made by our subjective selves.  When in fact - information and meaning can be viewed reductively, just like matter and energy.  And the idea we make-up all meanings individually and not transform them from what is in the environment, is as stupid as thinking living things make their organs from anything else than ingested/inhaled material from the environment.

First, thru science, we found out we are not the center of the universe.  Later we learned that our "blood" is not the source of our heritage.  Now, we need to give up the conceit that we are the center of all meaningful ideas.  We are just transformers of formal information and meaning - just like we are transformers of materials and energy potentials.

And what is named paranormal, will turn out to be just natural information processing effects.

If Materialism/Physicalism is true - then we have no rule-based natural processes that puts the mental environment on the reality map.

If Informational Realism is true - all of physics stands in its ongoing evoltuion and then we can address the other two measurable categories.  We do address formal information, as defined by the equations of Information Theory.  Then we just have the category of "meaning" left out, but in reality - linguistics - is the science of communicated meaning.

So is all of linguistics, psychology and ecological studies not describing processes like energy and matter reactions?

I surely think they do.

If real-world meanings are part of objective reality and cause measurable changes; then the idea that information objects are only subjects in our minds must be scrapped.  Meaning (both correct and incorrect meanings) are in the environment just as much as matter.  Years ago, we did not understand how matter was structured.  When we understood that living materials were part of the same chemistry as the environment - people got the idea that we absorbed material and did not make new self-generated materials as living tissue.  We just transform materials following the laws of chemistry.

But even with that example from physics - we still think that all meaning is made by our subjective selves.  When in fact - information and meaning can be viewed reductively, just like matter and energy.  And the idea we make-up all meanings individually and not transform them from what is in the environment, is as stupid as thinking living things make their organs from anything else than ingested/inhaled material from the environment.

First, thru science, we found out we are not the center of the universe.  Later we learned that our "blood" is not the source of our heritage.  Now, we need to give up the conceit that we are the center of all meaningful ideas.  We are just transformers of formal information and meaning - just like we are transformers of materials and energy potentials.

And what is named paranormal, will turn out to be just natural information processing effects.

Thank you for replying. But I must admit I didn't understand much of what you wrote.