You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

blacktrance comments on Yet more "stupid" questions - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: NancyLebovitz 28 August 2013 03:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (340)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: blacktrance 28 August 2013 10:35:49PM *  8 points [-]

Before I can answer the question, I need to have some idea of what "nihilism" means in this context, because there are many different varieties of it. I assume this is the most common one, the one that proposes that life is meaningless and purposeless. If this isn't the kind of nihilism you're referring to, please correct me.

To answer the question, I'm not a nihilist because nihilism is conceptually mistaken.

For example, suppose there is a stick, a normal brown wooden stick of some length. Now, is that stick a meter long or not? Whether it is or isn't, that question is conceptually sound, because the concept of stick has the attribute "length", which we can compare to the length of a meter, Is the stick morally just? This question isn't conceptually sound, because "justice" isn't an attribute of a stick. A stick isn't just, unjust, or morally gray, it completely lacks the attribute of "justice".

How does this apply to life? If you ask whether life is meaningless, that presupposes that conceptually life can have a meaning in the same way a stick can be a meter long - that "meaning" is an attribute of life. However, meaning is informational - words have meanings, as do symbols and signals in general. When I say "apple", you can imagine an apple, or at least know what I'm talking about, which means that the word "apple" is meaningful to both of us. If I say "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", it doesn't bring anything to mind, so that phrase is meaningless. Life lacks the attribute of "meaning", because it's not information that's being communicated. Therefore, to say "life has no meaning" is more similar to saying "the stick is unjust" than to "the stick is shorter than a meter".

That deals with "life is meaningless". How about "life is purposeless"? To answer that question, consider where purpose comes from - from using something to achieve a desire. For example, if I say "a hammer's purpose is to hammer in nails", what that really means is something more like "A hammer is well-suited for hammering in nails and is often used for that end". If I want to hammer in nails, then, for me, the purpose of a hammer becomes to hammer in nails. If I want to eat porridge with a hammer (something I don't recommend), then to me the purpose of a hammer becomes to move porridge from a plate to my mouth. You may assign the hammer either of those purposes, or an entirely different one. Each of us can even assign multiple purposes to the same object. The point is, purpose is not a property of an object on its own, but one that arises from it having a relation with a being that has some use for it.

So, when you ask "What, if any, is the purpose of life?" that question requires much clarification. The purpose of whose life, and to whom? Just as we can assign different purposes to a hammer, we can assign different purposes to a life. For example, the purpose of my life to me is to keep me around, as I wouldn't be able to experience things if I were dead. Other people may assign different purposes to my life. So, a life can be purposeless, but only if no one, including the possessor of the life, assigns any value to it (and that assignment of value is in a reflective equilibrium).

To summarize:

"Is life meaningless?" - "Wrong question, meaning isn't an attribute of life."

"Is life purposeless?" - "Purpose is subjective and assigned by beings with desires. It is impossible to make a blanket statement about life in general, but it is possible for a particular life to be purposeless, though it is unlikely. Most lives have at least one purpose assigned to them."

Comment author: CronoDAS 29 August 2013 02:04:47AM *  4 points [-]

What's it all about?

Comment author: blacktrance 29 August 2013 02:33:36AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: CronoDAS 29 August 2013 10:33:27AM 0 points [-]

Indeed.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 31 August 2013 07:02:54PM *  0 points [-]

Obviously, asking "What's it all about?" did at some point contribute to eating, survival, or reproduction.

I suspect reproduction. It could be a way to signal higher intelligence, which is attractive, because it increases the chance of survival and reproduction of the children.

Comment author: randallsquared 01 September 2013 01:14:16AM 2 points [-]

Not every specific question need have contributed to fitness.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 01 September 2013 03:07:11AM 2 points [-]

Just as the ability to read never contributed to fitness until someone figured out how to do it with our already existing hardware.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 01 September 2013 05:18:35PM 0 points [-]

No, not every specific question, but this one did. I mean, guys even today try to impress girls by being "deep" and "philosophical".

Comment author: Bobertron 29 August 2013 10:52:04AM 1 point [-]

I think "meaning" has also a different interpretation. It can mean something like important, valuable, or that it matters. Something can be experienced as meaningful. That's why for a Christian, a story about finding God would be moving, because they see meaning in having a relationship with God. For an atheist, a story about expanding human knowledge about the universe might be moving, because they see knowledge as meaningful. In this interpretation, life is meaningful. In this interpretation, meaning is something that can be studied by psychologists.

Obviously, when you confuse those two interpretations of "meaning" that you get Eliezer's "one true objective morality to be gloomy and dress in black".