Mr. Sammi

Whenever trying to answer questions about "meaning", I always come face to face with existence and the universe in which we exist.

OK, so I am caught, in these next few moments, with the task of evaluating NEED as a primary agent which drives meaning.

John, here I think the word meaning deviates slightly from what the term represents, and moves closer to what completes the human OR what humans will accept as part of themselves in order to be completed.

It should be obvious, if humans are in state A and humans makes additions to themselves,say B, then the human is now more complete as Humans in state AB! Does B give additional meaning?

Fine, so a determinist can claim that the meaning an origianl human can derive from the environment was imposed by the natural inclinations of the universe. Feeding the animals could be one of the natural inclinations. This is associated with humans needing energy to prolong their lifecycles.

Other than this meaning humans can directly derive from the natural universe, it may seem that all other needs which may drive meaning to the human, may be a derivitive of the human itself and all the natural and built-up needs extant within humans.

A bit more, then a bit more, then a bit more...

Sammi Na Boodie ()

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sammi ]</p>

John Page

Thanks Ierr & Sammi, I think I'm with it now. I guess I had a problem because I start from the assumption that any "meaning" or "need" is a property of the observer. Because we have a subjective view of the world, the observer will ascribe the need and meaning to the object and/or its associations.

So, assuming the object is invariant, the observer's perception may tell us more about them than the (inanimate?) object. I venture my answer to your original question is 100%.

Cheers, John

Ierrellus

Putting aside need, why am I attracted to shiney objects like the crow is or certain rodents are?

Ierrellus

PV

John Page

Sheer curiosity. What forces created your perception such that certain objects appeared shiny?

Cheers, John

Eldy

Discussing meanings and values can only be done by spiritual creatures. We don't see animals nor vegetables discussing the meanings and values of life. My assertion here, then, is that such a discussion is operating at the secondary (or terciary level), and granting the existence of spiritual creatures, such as you and I seem to be. But infidels cannot take that for granted, I would assume.

Some people seem content with the idea that God does not exist. But where did you get the idea that YOU exist? Rocks can't do it. Vegetables can't do it. Animals can't do it. Why can YOU do it? If you are not a spiritual creature, then why can you have self-awareness, not no other animal nor plant do so? This makes me quite curious, and I say this respectfully,I hope.

Abacus

So, would you say that other relatively intelligent animals such as Chimpanzees, Dolphins, and Whales do not possess self-awareness? I would say that they do possess self-awareness. And if you agree, would you then say they are spiritual creatures?

It seems far more probable to me that self-awareness is a function of intelligence rather than of some sort of spiritual force. You seem to be implying the latter with your post.

Ierrellus

How did we get from human, personal evaluations of what is other than ourselves to the spirituality of whales? Are we back at Carruther's idea that animals have to think about thought in order to think? Several species of animals act in ways comparable to what we would describe as moral.

So what? Why do humans have attractions toward things that appear independent our our survival needs?

Ierrellus

PAX

snatchbalance

Ierrellus,


The great african apes have about the best all around vision in the animal kingdom. It is well adapted to pick out small movements and fine details.

HS's, in particular, are agressive and inquisative, and have a large celebral cortex that allows them to process large amounts of information.

Investigation of the novel would seem to be a natural consequence of such a combination of traits.

SB

fwh

Irrellus;

Could you explain what Carruthers said about the idea of "thinking about thinking". Owen Barfield in his book 'Saving the Appearances - A Study in Idolatry' discusses this at length. Just curious. Thanks

Ierrellus

fwh,

I read an article entitled "Animal Subjectivity" by Peter Carruthers as it is presnted in David Chalmer's Online Papers on Consciousness. In the article Carruthers claims that animals have no "theory of mind" in that they cannot think what it is like to think. He also claims that one animal, such as a rat, cannot think what it is like to taste cheese, even though the rat may know the experience intimately.

You might want to look into Chalmers On Line to draw your own conclusions about Carruthers' ideas.

Ierrellus

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>