Sure, you can make that claim against a subjectivist notion - same thing with subjective morality. But you didn't address the idea of an objective approach.

Am I inventing the fact that sex is pleasurable for me? If I want more sex, then sex is a part of my meaning for living/life. If I want to enjoy more food, then food is a part of my meaning of life. If I want to drink more alcohol, then alcohol is a part of my meaning of life. If I want to be happy, then happiness is a part of my meaning of life.

The meaning of one's life is multifaceted. Theistic notions of meaning narrow this multifaceted concept into a single unifying whole. A single unifying whole that is taken on faith. The fact that I enjoy eating food, and would like to enjoy eating food for longer is not taken on faith. I have evidence of this.

I can’t say it’s not possible, but the only means that comes to mind would be an appeal to something like Platonic ideals. Good luck getting there from the tenets of naturalism

This seems circular. In equating meaning and purpose with a theistic interpretation you're essentially saying people who believe in God believe in God.

I don't think that's right fwiw I think theism is likely to come before any question of whether the world has inherent meaning or purpose and people who believe in God will believe it does.

You’re describing what per ToE are just selected biological functions, not purpose and meaning.
In regard to giving a substantial account of purpose and meaning, adhering to metaphysical naturalism requires every bit as much faith as theism. What I mean is that unless you want to go all eliminativism on us, i.e. deny purpose and meaning, then you need some theory, or at least an argument, to show how intention emerges from physical processes, because we need some accounting for ‘aboutness’ before we can even begin to talk about purpose and meaning. Currently, all metaphysical naturalists have is hope, not evidence, that scientists or philosophers will come up with some theory or argument to support their ideology. There’s a reason philosophers like Dan Dennett are eliminativist; it’s because that’s the most logically consistent with metaphysical naturalism’s cousin scientific realism.

I just don’t think humans are nearly as pragmatic as we think we are. I believe a large portion of our intellectual life is devoted to justifying intellectually what we first feel is true intuitively. That’s what I meant by people gravitating towards one ideology or another, based on their intuitive sense of things. Yeah, that’s circular in a sense, but not in a strict sense.

As I observe living things, they would appear to move away from suffering towards some contentment. It seems as though living things have a purpose of trying to live a more content life. See VeeDDzz's post.

That can be right or wrong. ToE doesn't really matter.

So too would a p-zombie seem to be purposely moving away from suffering and towards contentment. My point being that naturalism only gets you to a p-zombie accounting of biological entities and their behavior. In terms of accounting for a (purposeful) why, it’s an enigma for naturalists since they have no theory to bridge the gap from what a biological entity does to a (purposeful) why it is doing so. Like I said, naturalists hope and believe they’ll come up with something, but if hope and belief for the unseen isn’t faith…

OK, so now what ... You have a purpose of moving towards contentment - how do you fulfill that purpose?
Nothing supernatural has been proposed, what has been proposed that is unseen and take on faith?

What gap are you referring to? The only gap is one you put there because you must know why you are alive.

It really doesn't matter so much why you are alive - you are here. You can wonder all you want about some larger meaning, but then you will probably miss out on your real purpose - to fully live a contented life.

Purpose is not "why are you alive?" Even if somethings can be explained biologically, not sure that it matters much in regard to purpose. It's more of a "How do you live?" type question. How do you live a fully contented life?

If you don't believe that intention can arise from purely physical processes then I take it you also don't believe photosynthesis can arise from purely physical processes? Consciousness is a biological phenomenon just the same as photosynthesis and digestion is (look up recent research by John Searle or even his TED talk).

Besides, your argument here is a non-sequitur. You suggest that - me enjoying sex and wanting to have more sex in the future - is taken on faith, without explaining how or why this is taken on faith. Instead, you start talking about various philosophical typologies that do not explain how my sense of purpose is taken on faith. I could videotape me having sex next time and send you the video if you'd like some evidence?
I would read into some science for a change. Philosophy (concerning consciousness) has been left in the dust a long time ago.

This is incorrect, I think. Its not that photosynthesis arises from purely physical processes, its that we have identified a physical process, and labelled it photosynthesis. With consciousness, we havent been able to identify a physical process and label it consciousness.

Its an interesting question, and one Ive been asking people who are stating that "consciousness is all that is" or "consciousness is god". Is it not possible that consciousness is just an arising process in humans, same as digestion, or arms growing and moving about? So far I havent had an answer either way.

Consciousness is a biological phenomenon, just like photosynthesis is. No need to nitpick the semantics, you understood what I meant. The physical/non-physical distinction is unnecessary and only serves to confuse. I was only using it to appeal to Duffee's terminology.

Yes, maybe, but as far as I am aware, they havent identified or otherwise found the biological processes that produce consciousness?

Well, I don’t think we can lead fully contented lives if existence and life are inherently meaningless. So the issue is important, in that sense, for me. As far as ‘how’, I’m all for approaches that decrease suffering, but I stop short of those that eliminate the capacity to suffer. Meaning, I don’t want to suffer nor do I want others to suffer, but neither do I want to lose the capacity to suffer or deprive others of that capacity.

The 17th Karmapa posted this just a little while ago...

I believe physicalism is a valid schema. So if by ‘can’ you mean it’s possible, then I agree with you that consciousness can (possibly) arise from physical processes. But without assuming physicalism is true, I don’t think it’s obvious that consciousness does. We can fully account for the entire physical processes of the brain, (in theory), without positing subjective experience, at all. So you need some theory, or at least an argument, to explain or infer how physical processes that aren’t about anything, generate mental phenomenon that are marked by aboutness. In other words, you need to provide a reason why mental states are physico-chemical brain states, outside of a blatant appeal to the physicalist’s metaphysical axiom that “all phenomena are reducible to physical processes.” Of course they are if physicalism is true, no one is disputing the logical consistency of that claim.

In an earlier post he said:
Indulge me for a minute with a hypothetical: if Jesus did know the ultimate truth, then why did he suffer?

Taking Jesus at his word, accepting that the kingdom of heaven is possibly a state of being like nirvana, and that the kingdom heaven is within, and hence it along with eternal life or the escape from death are within immediate reach of all humans—that’s the Good News. So why did he suffer and die, presumably, with us?

Anyway, my knowledge of Buddhism is somewhat limited, but I seem to recall one of its schools advocating the notion that one shouldn’t take the final step of escaping the cycle until all humans “know the meaning of ultimate truth” or something to that effect. Maybe I’m reaching too far drawing an analogy, but are you familiar with that Buddhist(?) tenet? Did, or do some Buddhist schools believe, the Buddha suffered?

The Ultimate Truth refered to by the Karmapa is Shunyata or the Emptiness Teachings, I assume. There are Two Truths - the Relative Truth and the Ultimate Truth. The Ultimate Truth is shunyata.

You are talking about the Bodhisattva vow. Everything is done for the benefit of all sentient beings, you vow not to become enlightened until all beings are enlightened. That is highly realized beings will continually enter the cycle of birth until all sentient beings are enlightened.

In so far as a Bodhisattva or a Buddha have a human birth (or any birth in any of the bardo) yes they will experience suffering - its inevitable, they are taking on a relative body.

I believe when you say the Buddha you are referring to Buddha Shakyamuni or the historical Buddha, the guy that walked around india doing all the teaching, he got old and died - so there was suffering. Buddha is a title, means awakened one.

I wonder if you'd say this to a doctor who's just treated your ailment using modern science. More importantly, I wonder if you'd pick a medical doctor or a spiritual healer when confronted by a life-threatening illness. I wonder if you'd pick a brain surgeon or psychiatrist over a philosopher of the mind/consciousness to help you with a life-threatening mental illness.

When it comes down to life or death I think we both know where your faith truly lies.

I saw one documentary (narrated by Morgan Freeman) that posits the hypothesis that universe is one gigantic living being that eats, breathes, reproduces, and evolves. To me that seems to ring true, and if it is then the universe has been created by a Greater Intelligence -- itself; which means the universe itself is God.

The universe could be a living entity but no evidence thus far could substantiate such a position. Once upon a time, it 'rang true' for people that the sun spins around the earth. It also 'rang true' that the earth was in the center of the universe, and that the earth was not spherical. Why? because it appeared that way and it appealed to our intuitions.

So whether you want to put the majority of your faith into intuition or evidence is simply a matter of the degree to which you know about the history of mankind.

I view our intuition as nothing but a guide. A guide that may or may not 'ring true'. Evidence has the final say, so less faith into intuition and more faith into evidence is recommended.

The vast majority of cosmology is based on mathematical deductions based on present evidence, rather than what evidence can substantiate directly; so this falls kind of short. Superstring theory, which is widely accepted to be the ultimate Theory of Everything (albeit a highly incomplete one), posits the existence of a multiverse, and most solutions point to black hole singularities as the point of origin of baby universes. It's not a far leap from that to suggesting the the universe "births" new universes, and otherwise follows the patterns of a living organism.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv6...ive_shortfilms Draw your own conclusions.

It seemed most logical based on observation that the cosmos would rotate around the Earth, since early astronomers could not observe enough of the universe to conclude anything else.

For that matter, no one has actually believed the Earth is flat since people started actually thinking about it; the flat Earth mythos is a completely ******ed elementary-school myth that needs to die. As far back as the 6th century BC Greek navigators believed (speculatively) that the Earth was spherical, and ultimately it was confirmed by Greek astronomers around the 3rd cetury BC.

Among others, my main issue with the research of the two guys in this documentary is that they have no useful definition of 'life' or 'alive'. In one instance they define it very narrowly (e.g., must reproduce/replicate, must metabolise energy etc.) and in another they define it very broadly. When they define it broadly they consider that the whole universe is alive, including all of the particles in it. If every particle in the universe can be considered to be 'alive/living' (as espoused by many of the theorists in this doco) then the very concept of 'living things' is redundant. Yet, in the same sentence, they're willing to attribute specific characteristics to living things (such as metabolism, heart beat etc.).

They need a consistent definition before they can even begin to be taken seriously I think. Finally, from this episode I much preferred the research of the solipsist at the end of the episode than the 'universe is alive' theorists.

I would say that I am Pantheistic, yeah, but unlike you I'm not convinced that that precludes a personal God. I'd even go as far as to say that I'm both a Pantheist and a Monotheist, because I don't see the two as being necessarily mutually exclusive.

I see what you're saying, but I think it has to be broken down further into "conscious things" and "non-conscious things". The ability to be a conscious, observing agent changes everything.