Next in thread

Todd:

What do you say to the argument that meaning need not be consistent with the constrains of the universe to feel good? Since thoughts already function naturally, according to the laws of physics, thereon out all conceptual activity is the same. Meaning-making is just like flower-making, and you do connecting with the universe less if you make pink flowers that do not exist than if you behave according to a mental model that is not based on evidence.

Sort of -- the universe does not sensor what you think and I suggest that our desire to cooperate with the rules in our meaning-building models is purely emotional -- just to feel more connected in our minds, not because we would be more connected. A person who builds models based on a belief that Creation happened 6000 years ago isn't answering the pull to conform to nature any less than the person who follows physics theories, because the only rule a mind needs to follow to answer to the call of order is to behave as a mind and build models and things. What kind is sort of irrelevant. That is why the universe hasn't gone against it.

I think maybe I am arguing that the need to answer to the structures of nature is fulfilled alike by he who builds on true evidence and he who doesn't. The fact that there are rules to follow has already been embodied in the physical existence of the mind and brain and in the general things it accomplishes. Greater integration is just a matter of emotional fulfillment.

Do you understand what I am asking? All of this is a question.

Maya