Sean Carroll - Search for Meaning (Part 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2018
- To search for meaning, God or something like God is often involved. But this need not be so. How can meaning be found, or purpose realized, without invoking supernatural forces? Scientists and philosophers who do not believe in God search for 'meaning' in what seems to be a meaningless cosmos.
Click here to watch more interviews with Sean Carroll bit.ly/2xKZfVA
Click here to watch more interviews on searching for meaning bit.ly/2LrJBAL
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
" If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
~ Rene Descartes
and what does this have anything to do with this conversation? You just copy pasta a Descartes quote, for feeling good about yourself?
I feel like I've seen this before. Maybe not, but it feels familiar. Sometimes I find Robert Kuhn hard to follow. It's as if you said to him, "2+2=4" and he responded, "Yes, but aren't you just adding numbers there?"
Me too, maybe because he already did an interview with him before
If I would give him the credit, he is interviewing him with a context. The context is that Sean wrote a book (and had many books) and he wants to express his ideas to audience that does not necessarily familiar with them.
He tries to counter argue him to extract from him more examples and details (which Sean is very good at), and not necessarily actually disagrees with him. though as far as I know, he does believe in the supernatural.
Agree and yet seems it’s Rob’s interview style to ensure less informed people still get the point by labouring over it .. perhaps a little too much
The universe expands faster and faster, stars burn out, black holes evaporate, a scattering of photons in a dark, cold universe; no record we ever existed. There is no underlying meaning to human existence. We can invent our own meaning; a project for our life, and be comforted that both mediocrity and the achievements of the great and good will in time amount to the same, nothing.
Can you prove it?
Hi Emma, The general consensus amongst scientists is that the heat death of the universe is what awaits us, albeit on a timeframe that is unimaginably large. If you do believe that there is an eternal afterlife and that our time on Earth is in fact a test that will determine what form our afterlife will take, then one could argue that our own individual existence and human existence as a whole has an intrinsic value. If you don’t believe that to be the case then the heat death of the universe ends the idea that there is some grand human project that we are part of. So as to the question ‘Can I prove it ?’. The answer is no, which is true of any scientific or metaphysical theory. But even though I believe that my existence in the grand scheme of things is meaningless, it hasn’t stopped me living a purposeful life. I have enjoyed and am enjoying the ride.
Ever read any philosophy of science? The accepted consensus is likely to change is it not. That purpose you gave your life, would that be a meaning? I not arguing any particular point here, just interested.
Hi Emma, The scientific consensus is indeed the current best scientific explanation of the empirical data using our current understanding of the natural world. And yes, new data or new scientific theories may come about that overturn this consensus; ones that suggest that the universe will stop expanding and matter will not be dispersed so thinly as to allow for continual star formation. But one can either base an opinion on the current best scientific explanation (the scientific consensus) or speculate on what might be backed by no data. I choose the former. As to your second point. As I mentioned in my first comment you can give meaning to your own life and at the same time accept that human existence has no intrinsic meaning. Ultimately based on the current scientific consensus our species will go extinct and no memory of our existence will prevail.
Is philosophy reduced to "speculation"? I question that 100%. Philosophy doesn't use logic, reason and the current scientific consensus?
They weren't so much "points" as questions, I thought that was clear when I wrote " I'm not arguing any particular point here, just interested."
You're talking about "meaning" as if we know what it is or what consciousness is or what the world is for that matter.
Everything you're saying really is speculation.
There is no reason why ontologically speaking that dead matter should take precedence of lived experience, so why elevate "scientific consensus" based on materialist, reductionist axioms projected into the future over your own being? Things mean something to you, you surely love your kids or partner or you would cry if they died, suffering is a type of meaning.
PEOPLE ALWAY'S MAKE THEIR OWN MEANING, WHETHER THEY ARE THEISTS OR NATURALISTS.❤
He is a very great physicist.
Breathing is meaning. The odds your great great grandparents were born, survived and reproduced all the way down to you. Sometimes you have to find meaning in being alive.. Get out there and find youtself some meaning, outside yourself or inside your own existence.
We’re all related together as we’re all energies, if we can find the relationship between us, then we’ll find the meaning to discover more in our nature’s !
Sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say. Nice word salad of gibberish.
My perspective is that people usually have the desire to survive and thrive in the world as an evolutionary requirement. I reduce love, hate and all emotions down to the basic science. It's rewarding to find things we enjoy and find meaning in. For general day-to-day life we should act as if everything has relative meaning.
But when it gets down to these types of discussions I feel it's fine to say; Yes, nothing really matters... At some point, way into the future the universe will cease to function and everyone alive will die. Even if everyone doesn't die, there's no real "meaning" in existence anyway. I'd be happy to change my opinion, but this view doesn't make me feel sad.
Thanks to state of my brain and chemicals in play, I'll live and work and try to accomplish my life goals anyway.
Pretty much what I arrived at after going through up and down life experiences
Sean is a freaking genius I love him no homo
There's either the temporal meaning of a self contained neural network, that will cease to exist, or the more lasting meaning of a spiritual reality, in some dimension, and it never ceases to exist. I think it could be argued that taking a position that means we cease to exist, and have no spirit, is the same as saying that there really is no meaning at all; just a series of experiences and then nothingness.
It’s just a series of experiences and then nothingness.
I've really never understood the big hang-up people have with a lack of "meaning" in the universe. It's always just seemed obvious that life is essentially pointless in the grand scheme of things. Just because life is meaningless doesn't mean we cannot find or create our own meaning.
No the point is to replicate your dna. That is the whole purpose of every lifeform and always has. As crude as it sounds but you are just the vessel created by your dna tasked with reproducing itself
It seems as though they are having a meaningful conversation. I don't think that proves or disproves the existence of God, but perhaps that proves that meaning isn't dependent on God existing?
having and raising children provides great meaning in life. That is the purpose of our existence after all.
SuperHuia That can be. But everybody gets to find their own things. I have more kids than most. It is good from my perspective. May not be for others, and that's OK.
Yea, it seems like the purpose of each living being is to reproduce so that the species keep existing. When we pass away our genes continue on our descendants...
I also have children but am of the opinion that one shouldn't decide to bring children into the world to give meaning to *their own* life. That is selfish. By conceiving a child, you are forcing another being to come into existence. You should have good arguments for bringing that life into existence that depend SOLELY on what is best for that being, not what is best for you. I believe if more people thought this way, we would see fewer children being born into terrible conditions where their opportunities are squelched or destroyed. It would also give us powerful incentives to increase the standard of living for the least fortunate children and families.
Pollen Applebee agree with you to an extent and understand what you are saying.. and the human population would benefit if it was significantly reduced and children were considered more precious. My daughter is a geneticist and very much glad to be alive and would not see myself as a selfish parent though. Matter of perspective.
I did not say you should feel selfish - I only suggested that if your decision to bring a child into the world was not based solely on what is best for the child (whether or not it is meaningful for you) then that would be selfish. Clearly your daughter is leading a meaningful life and so the point is moot either way - she already exists!
What other kind of meaning is there except the meaning we each find or create?
the meaning that God provides (whose existence is known by reason, as the Thomists know: ruclips.net/channel/UCd55APptap1Ve7Jwqa8OcBAvideos
But do you create it, or do you find it, or both, and when you do, will it last or go out of existence eventually
@@jeffdunlap2754 You are constantly creating meaning, the one that is least likely to change and with the shortest period for a change is the one from within, seeking something on the outside is not possible so nature doesn’t imply meaning. So if you seek it from others then you aren’t really seeking it from your own experience.
Means meaning is only created by life, thinking being and what it make of it, Universe just is and doesn't care about anything specially about meaning. Agreed 100% Sir Sean Carroll.
Yes, an avalanche doesn’t care what your meaning is when it swoops you of your ski’s.
Singularity => resonance => reflection-encapsulation = meaning..., you get out what you put in.., in principle.
Audio?
The audio is coming from both our universe as well as 100 parallel universes
The clear example, is that the energies coming from the sun to earth, which we’re able to used those energies for our daily life !
Search for Meaning (Part 1): To try to have at least one species consciously survive so that life itself still has meaning.
Hi Sunshine, you never come out an say it , it's called Concessness at different levels. Raise your Concessness, your Spirituality, the Ascension process check it out! Bring back balance to the Earth. May peace an prosperity be with you always!
Correct everything is consciousness = level of awareness of begin
The problem, as always, is that no one can define what the hell "meaning" actually is, in the felt experiential sense (not the linguistic semantic sense, although that is also an interesting question). You can't answer the question until you get that, and since meaning is inherently difficult to understand (owing to the mind-body problem and all those deep unanswered questions about our minds) you will not get any kind of satisfying answer!
Excellent work.
First, what is "meaning?"
He seems to be mingling meaning in life and meaning of life
I don't think Kuhn thinks thru his questions sometimes. A universe with humans that have emotions, feelings and concerns is a universe meaning. Any world with conscious creatures that have meaning. Hell, even a fish cares whether it lives of dies.
I enjoyed this exchange and found it rather fascinating, but I’m left feeling as if both speakers over complicated the situation. It seems like Sean is simply saying that “meaning” is subjective, rather than objective. I’m not really sure why anyone would need any greater explanation of “meaning” on a naturalistic view than that.
I'm severely depressed and have been for a long time and I'm aware that my brain chemistry and past environment has played a role in my view (I don't believe in free will), but it seems like we are just a means by which the universe/multiverse experiences itself. "We" are not really there as truly independent actors that make change, but are only an epiphenomenon of reality itself.
I can't extract myself from this view and any attempt to create meaning is just a desperate attempt for me to hold onto "my" life. It doesn't help that I have neither much self-esteem nor -efficacy, so even the idea that I can create meaning and play some kind of substantive role in the world leaves me with much doubt. Perhaps some people are just meant to be this way and die a lonely and largely socially unproductive death, always being stuck at the chessboard of life never really moving any pieces.
Eminent scientists and well-off people are probably less likely to have this kind of issue as they have proven themselves to be useful or at least ameliorate the pain of life by material hypnosis and comfort such things can bring. I guess it would be interesting to know of any eminent scientists, philosophers, or the like who have a similarly depressing view as mine.
On top of that we deal with the minutiae of daily life and how obvious humans eschew logical behavior, leaving us tethered to a democratic process in which money and emotion drown out much of the logical options available. This all just seems so hopeless and to make the world a better place in a serious way appears to be a Sisyphean effort. I still think it's cool to try to make it better, I just question if I have what it takes, basically. We need so many good people to bring us out of all this and it just seems like a losing battle among little victories. I don't know.
Peace and farewell.
P.S.
I have no idea what I'm saying.
P.P.S.
If you did, thanks for listening.
This whole universe is just bullshit, ridiculous. We are stuck here, hopeless.
IIllytch321 Get yourself a mystical experience. Look into the recent research on psilocybin. Materialism is an illusion and was debunked 100 years ago by the founding fathers of quantum mechanics yet most physicists still cling to this idea of a cold, dead, and dumb universe. Reality is full of mystery. Keep exploring friend
Keep researching the truth of Christianity with an open mind.
I have reason to believe there is a non-physical, intelligent spiritual reality that is congruent with Christianity, namely my ITC/EVP work. There is also a growing depository of NDE data.
IIllytch321 - Loved everything you've said.. Well, except for the fact that your experience is so ugly.
I don't know if they'll amount to much for you but make my day and give these a read:
turingchurch.net/space-time-matter-mind-god-samuel-alexanders-natural-theology-85d201b488a6 ;
turingchurch.net/god-and-your-cosmic-consciousness-in-the-quantum-cloud-97b34b7a92db ,
both are showing a possible meeting between mysticism and science, and even if i don't believe in them, i still feel that scientists today (including the brilliant Sean Carroll) are a long way from knowing anything about Existence. Organizing your life in strict accordance to science is a very blind and confused way of understanding the real dimension of existence. Great artists have openly and unapologetically ran away from truth and science. They preferred the mystical unexplainable esthetic feel, which is no lie! You cannot tell me that i'm not happy and fulfilled, just as i cannot tell you that you're not depressed, and we cannot tell a surrealist painter that what he feels is not real. I believe in science, as i believe that i cannot have free-will, yet after a lot of reading and thinking i've come to a very harmonious state of being, having the clear and deep intuition that if i want to go downstairs to eat.. i'll do just that :) Any philosophic or scientific discussion, or a lifetime dedicated to this matter, wouldn't help me better my life (it does though better human society as a whole). More likely, it'll tie up my mind and existence in a knot of unnecessary feed-back loops. For transcendence of any kind to take place you have to hold an irrational belief, so that you can pull yourself out and beyond. A strictly rational or evidence based mind is as ignorant as a religious fundamentalist mind! I've read something in an article about the new wave of studies that interpret the mind from the perspective of predictive processing, and it hit me as a most amazing thing: the mind must always by necessity misrepresent some aspect of itself before making a decision. It appears that not only conjecture BUT MISREPRESENTATION is absolutely rooted in the underlying neural processes. I think that something similar is also necessary at the higher cognitive levels, where if you want to grow, evolve, better yourself in some way, you must first plunge into some un-founded belief - might as well make it a powerful one :)
Also, read this answer to a question about depression:
www.quora.com/Is-there-any-solace-to-be-found-in-finally-admitting-to-myself-that-I-will-never-be-happy-Is-that-letting-the-depression-win-or-is-it-simply-being-realistic/answer/Rares-Mircea-3
In the absence of something better, i can only wish that you'll eventually encounter something so fulfilling that'll instantly make everything worthwhile.
IIllytch321 My friend, first of all you express your thoughts so wonderfully. To someone like myself who really struggles with that, I must say it's a talent of which I am quite envious.
I happen to share all of the intellectual points of view you express, but I find that what keeps me from a nihilistic outlook is to stop seeing life as some sort of test and getting rid of the idea that I HAVE to accomplish something. All that is just a social construct that leads to so much unnecessary mental anxiety and unrest.
All of life on this planet will ultimately be forgotten and go virtually unnoticed by most of the Cosmos. Therefore, why not just enjoy the journey and forget about the destination. Try to see life as a stroll through the woods with no purpose in mind, but just for it's own sake.
I try to avoid causing harm to others, learn something new each day, and constantly remind myself to appreciate the sheer improbability of my own existence.
I think meaning and purpose have any meaning only for conscious beings like us.
Sean Carroll FTW.
Even if you say God gives meaning to the universe, it's still hardly obvious what meaning God gives to our individual lives.
*What exactly* is the meaning of a world where God gives the world meaning?
Twirlip Of The Mists Agreed. Coming from a Catholic upbringing I can tell you once I left my religion behind I found more meaning in life and I found it to feel more authentic. If you believe in an afterlife then this is nothing more than a pit stop to something supposedly bigger and better. So the meaning would therefore be little more than to appease this supreme being. To me if anything it will besmirch meaning of this life. That's my personal take on my lifes meaning.
"...life is but a dream." have some fun with it.
I would like for this smarty pants to explain where my consciousness came from. Where did what I experience as ME, as opposed to you or him, come from and what is it exactly?
People are so afraid of judgment.
Believe me or not ,but God is the ultimate meaning of life.If God exists and if he doesn't then there is no meaning in life. We're bringing new children in this world for nothing but to suffer.
Hmm.
Sean carrol is good man BTW . I am muslim but I like some of his veiws . He is not like harris& rosenberg mad dog philosophy
What Sean Carroll is talking about here sounds to me a lot like he's coming from a "Model Dependent Realism" point of view.
just because they understand some physics they never believe in god. who the heck started the big bang then? a random event by nothing? ffs
Why did you say "who" started the big bang? already you have decided, that's not how science works that's how religion works. How about this question. Who made your garden grow.
They are all looking for meaning to life in a world that has no Meaning. Then, why does the Human have this craving/need to search for meaning? Btw, Sean--what you are doing--, that's just semantics!
sadly we are subjective creatures and we can construct or own meanings but life has no objective meaning really
totodaj We are subjective creatures dying for finding Life's Meaning! Then there's must be an Objective Meaning. We need it.
@@oscarrivera8660 What we do has purpose and meaning but being born is nother we do.
A deeper understanding of the Universe based on 'physics' would help!
Sean would demolish Jordan Peterson in a debate. I would love to see that
Korpo Crey Sean is not interested in demolishing anyone, neither is Jordan. Its you who seem to have these stupid ideas. Give your mind a break and enjoy the video. Things are as they’re, not as we would like them to be❤️
@@aniccadance13 Also, a brilliant Physicists debating a useless pseudo-intellectual/internet wannabe celebrity/neo nazis "thinker" would be a shame to Science
@@Domispitaletti Yes, no reason for a scientist to argue with a charlatan.
This is such a goofy triggered comment based in emotion, to even bring this up is embarrassing.
Interesting that Sean Carroll talked about theism as synonymous with meaning ‘coming in from outside’. I respect his atheism, but my understanding of nuanced theism is “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you”... and God is the ‘Ground of our being’!
What I think Dr K is trying to pin SC down on is whether he takes a relativist or a realist view of meaning. Is “man the measure of all things” or is there some inherent meaning to existence, which exceeds a scientific description. As Science takes the “view from nowhere”, I suspect SCs view is the former, though he seems not to want to be pinned down. The heat metaphor implies a dual aspect between Phenomenology and Science (though there are no bridging laws between them as there is with heat and molecular motion). However, I wasn’t clear if SC believed they were equally valid descriptions, or if he believed Science to be the more fundamental of the two, with Phenomenology just an epiphenomenon. Good interview!
Sean needs to spend time with the Thomists - this is how God is proven: ruclips.net/video/42Eg6UUBqqo/видео.html
Its great to see naturalist and another soul not buying creationist ideals.
These are untrue: angels, demons, devils, gods, goddesses, saviors, God. Whether there is God or not, however, is unimportant; *_why_* we believe in God or not is important.
So, what is the purpose of human life? Knowledge is important but *_love_* is more important because it transcends knowledge and death. Without love and sense of humor life is meaningless. Thus, _I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing...I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell, possibly; it doesn’t frighten me._ -Richard Feynman, BBC interview in 1981 (seven years before his death) 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
totalfreedom45 Blabla. The universe don't gives a fuck
Eh... Sean Carroll is using a lot of words in this one to say nothing. I'd prefer it if he just said "create your own meaning bro!" and be done with it.
Sean Carroll misses something in all this (perhaps it's in part 2? I'll get there!). He assumes an analogy between the relation of higher order descriptions of physical systems to lower order descriptions on the one hand, and things like "meaning" (and with that, intentionality, consciousness, truth, and so on) to those same physical lower orders. But the sheer incommensurability of these most vital aspect of mind and meaning with everything we know about the rest of the physical world - a problem that goes back at least to Descartes, and one that Naturalism is stuck with.
He also slips in and out of different ontological criteria. He points out that heat, once understood as a "thing," i.e. as a substance that flowed from one body to another, is now understood not as a "thing" but in kinetic terms: heat is not really a "thing," but we are not wrong in referring to "heat" after all; we just understand "it" better now. So, _is_ there such a thing as heat? Here he seems to say no. But when it comes to meaning - something not understood at all in physical terms - he seems happy to imbue it with at least a human reality: "it matters to us." Well, heat also matters to us. How is "what matters to us" any more or less "real" than heat, then? It too would be a sort phenomenological accident, like heat, or like a rainbow, and not really a "thing."
So he ends up with a sort of transcendental solipsism. Only the fundamental laws of physics are objective; everything else is a condensation, a higher-order description, convenient to _my_ sense of what matters to _me_; not "wrong" per se, but not really there. Indeed, to posit the very existence of other conscious persons becomes a convenient fiction for each "me". And with that, to posit _one's own_ conscious existence, a thing capable of meaning, becomes a convenient fiction, convenient for. . . whom, exactly?
too much mumbo jumbo mixed in
There are too many flaws in Carroll's arguments to count, but let's start with the first one. He says: "According to the laws of physics, there is no 'outside' to impose any meaning or purpose."
I hope that Carroll, if pressed, would acknowledge the flat falsity of this statement. The laws of physics do not remotely suggest any such conclusion, nor can they rationally be construed to do so, for they are mute on the matter - that very restriction on the scope of scientific theory is one of the great _virtues_ of science. The laws of physics describe deep principles underlying the behavior of physical systems; they have _nothing_ to say about their own origin or why there should be such principles at all - much less about meaning or purpose in general.
Carroll is basically claiming, "X does not depend on Y, and we are sure of X, but I don't like Y, therefore X proves Y does not exist." That's a joke of a syllogism - an expression not of rationality but of metaphysical prejudice. There's nothing wrong with metaphysical prejudice, by the way; we all have them, and couldn't live without them! But for Carroll to claim that the very laws of physics that science has so successfully described somehow "baptizes" his own prejudice is, well, _not even wrong._
@César Rabbit The claim "According to the laws of physics, there is no 'outside' to impose any meaning or purpose" is not a fact, it is a logically flawed claim about the entailments of the laws of physics, and it is false. The laws of physics do not determine or even vaguely suggest that there is no outside to impose any meaning or purpose. They are mute on the matter. If Carroll's thought does not follow the (oft-encountered but) flawed logic I suggested in the third paragraph, what logic does it follow?
@César Rabbit What? I completely disagree with him. Laws of physics don't say any more about whether there is purpose or meaning in the universe any more than they say about whether or not I happen to be wearing shoes. It's just a bogus claim. What is required is evidence or argument that the laws of physics do have anything to say about purpose and meaning, but there isn't any, because that's not what they're meant to explain.
@César Rabbit "Outside intervention" was not what I was talking about. "Meaning and purpose" was. Carroll is suggesting that since the laws of physics have nothing to say about meaning and purpose, then they don't exist, which, again, is about as sensical as saying that since the laws of physics have nothing to say about whether I'm wearing shoes or not, then I'm not wearing shoes.
You're quite right about ignorance. The laws of physics are _ignorant_ of any such matters, and are not evidence one way or the other. It is Carroll who is committing the error of mistaking science's ignorance for evidence of absence.
The existence of purpose and meaning in reality is everywhere evident, for example in our capacity to have a _meaningful_ conversation with the _purpose_ of trying to get a handle on the truth right here on youtube!
@César Rabbit Thank you too, I look forward to it.
@César Rabbit I watched again too, but I still don't agree with Carroll. He claims that physical law entails that there is no "outside" to give meaning or purpose, and therefore that meaning and purpose are human "inventions," or (later) descriptions of physical reality at some level. But, again, the laws of physics say nothing about whether there is an "outside" or not. There is a metaphysical position called "naturalism" that asserts something like this, but the laws of physics does not entail naturalism.
Robert Kuhn is out of his league.
Horrible