iThink said:

Why make the original statement if that wasn't what you were implying? It is like randomly interjecting that gravity is a force.

Secondly, i guess I would prefer it, but i would still not consider the person rational. I am not going to restructure the usual way of speaking English. You are basically arguing that "disproved" sho

---

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

Why make the original statement if that wasn't what you were implying? It is like randomly interjecting that gravity is a force.

Secondly, i guess I would prefer it, but i would still not consider the person rational. I am not going to restructure the usual way of speaking English. You are basically arguing that "disproved" sho

---

For the reason which explained what i was saying further, that i gave directly underneath it...by not including this into your argument, you were taking what i was saying out of context.

---

Poid said:

A high density flow of sperm is not necessary, that women can become impregnated by pre-cum is proof of this.

---

Quote:

most pre ejaculate samples did not contain any sperm and those that did had only small clumps of a very small amount of sperm which seemed to be immobile.

---

Quote:

Preejaculatory fluid secreted at the tip of the urethra from Cowper's gland during sexual stimulation did not contain sperm and therefore cannot be responsible for pregnancies during coitus interruptus

---

Quote:

As mentioned, our observations of samples of preejaculatory fluid from 10 men revealed no sperm. Since it is possible, however, that the lubricating fluid may contain spermatozoa after a recent ejaculation, it has been suggested that between multiple acts of intercourse there should  be urination to flush out spermatozoa (33). Nevertheless, when coitus interruptus fails to prevent conception, the reason usually is inadequate withdrawal.

---

Quote:

Poid said:Do you really think it would be that challenging to determine whether or not the quality of meaning exists in human beings? In order to do this, one would have to consider exactly what "meaning" is, and how it might exist as a quality in a human being.

---

Quote:

Poid said:Though we haven't discovered absolutely every single quality in humans, we have found that "meaning" as a quality is non-existent in humans [i would say has not been discovered]; we have looked at every part of humans where "meaning" might be found, and it is absent.

---

Quote:

Poid said:To say there may be meaning to a human's life would be to say that it might exist somewhere outside the human body (since it has been found to not exist as part of the human body).

---

deCypher said:

Poid said:

A high density flow of sperm is not necessary, that women can become impregnated by pre-cum is proof of this.

---

Studies have actually shown that this is pretty unlikely:

---

Phew, well that's a load off my mind!

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:Do you really think it would be that challenging to determine whether or not the quality of meaning exists in human beings? In order to do this, one would have to consider exactly what "meaning" is, and how it might exist as a quality in a human being.

---

Again, that would be the challenge, and if you wanted to prove it objectively i suspect without giving it any deep thinking that it would be very difficult...if not impossible due to the subjectivity paradox...

---

What do you mean by the "subjectivity paradox"?

 

Quote:

random_wanderer said:
...however i consider that qualitative research is used to determine the different meaning people have for things quite well, but again, it is only relative to its context.

---

I thought this thread was about an objective inherent meaning to life? That people have subjective meanings for things is irrelevant. 

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:Though we haven't discovered absolutely every single quality in humans, we have found that "meaning" as a quality is non-existent in humans [i would say has not been discovered]

---

---

Of course it has not been discovered, because it's not there; can you tell me, specifically, what you mean by "inherent meaning", and how it might be manifested as a quality in human beings?

Quote:

random_wanderer said:

Quote:

we have looked at every part of humans where "meaning" might be found, and it is absent.

---

hahaha...that is a nice point.  It is the same with consciousness.

---

No it isn't, there is a great deal of evidence that humans are conscious; there is absolutely no evidence that life is inherently meaningful.

random_wanderer said:

I would argue that the key there is that we have not discovered every single quality, and the reason for this is probably because we are looking in the wrong place with the wrong tools.

---

It seems to me like your position is mostly based on wishful-thinking--again, I would like you to explain what you mean by "inherent meaning", and how it might be manifested as a quality in human beings.

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:

To say there may be meaning to a human's life would be to say that it might exist somewhere outside the human body (since it has been found to not exist as part of the human body).

---

Or it could be none of the above, but as i say, we just do not have the means to quantify it and therefore it could be beyond our present perception.

---

How do you know that we do not have the means to quantify it? What do you mean by "present perception"? Are you suggesting that, some day, we may develop a new kind of sense/perception that would allow us to perceive "inherent meaning"?

random_wanderer said:

That is the problem here, which was pointed out within physics a long time ago.  All our research is bound by our dualistic subjectivity and so we may never be able to break away from this in the realms of science to see what things are like without the tarnishing of our perception...that is of course if anything exists without our perception, which cannot presently be proven.

---

I don't think it can be proven, period; there's no way to perceive "objective reality" without using our senses.

Poid said:

Random wandering is over-rated.

---

Poid said:

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:Do you really think it would be that challenging to determine whether or not the quality of meaning exists in human beings? In order to do this, one would have to consider exactly what "meaning" is, and how it might exist as a quality in a human being.

---

Again, that would be the challenge, and if you wanted to prove it objectively i suspect without giving it any deep thinking that it would be very difficult...if not impossible due to the subjectivity paradox...

---

What do you mean by the "subjectivity paradox"?

 

---

Double slit experiment….the object can not be observed by the subject without being affected by it.

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

random_wanderer said:
...however i consider that qualitative research is used to determine the different meaning people have for things quite well, but again, it is only relative to its context.

---

I thought this thread was about an objective inherent meaning to life? That people have subjective meanings for things is irrelevant. 

---

You are quite right, and I showed recognition of this when I said that, like quantitative methods, it is only relative to its context.  But then, considering that they are both relative to their context, one could argue that interpretations/conclusions drawn from both methods (within this as yet unprovable context) are subjective.

Poid said:

Quote:

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:Though we haven't discovered absolutely every single quality in humans, we have found that "meaning" as a quality is non-existent in humans [i would say has not been discovered]

---

---

Of course it has not been discovered, because it's not there; can you tell me, specifically, what you mean by "inherent meaning", and how it might be manifested as a quality in human beings?

---

I dont know

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

random_wanderer said:

Quote:

we have looked at every part of humans where "meaning" might be found, and it is absent.

---

hahaha...that is a nice point.  It is the same with consciousness.

---

No it isn't, there is a great deal of evidence that humans are conscious; there is absolutely no evidence that life is inherently meaningful.

---

Exactly.  It is self evident that humans experience consciousness, and yet they still cannot locate its where abouts or quality.  The only reference we have is our own experience of it…and its pretty mad when you think about it too…what is the form or shape of your awareness?

Poid said:

Quote:

random_wanderer said:

I would argue that the key there is that we have not discovered every single quality, and the reason for this is probably because we are looking in the wrong place with the wrong tools.

---

It seems to me like your position is mostly based on wishful-thinking--again, I would like you to explain what you mean by "inherent meaning", and how it might be manifested as a quality in human beings.

---

no no, my apparent "wishful thinking" is mostly based on the position that we have not yet discovered every single quality.

re: how it might be manifested...
again, i dont know

Poid said:

Quote:

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:

To say there may be meaning to a human's life would be to say that it might exist somewhere outside the human body (since it has been found to not exist as part of the human body).

---

Or it could be none of the above, but as i say, we just do not have the means to quantify it and therefore it could be beyond our present perception.

---

How do you know that we do not have the means to quantify it? What do you mean by "present perception"? Are you suggesting that, some day, we may develop a new kind of sense/perception that would allow us to perceive "inherent meaning"?

---

I was speaking with reference to quantifying it objectively, and that is due to the subjectivity paradox.  I do not know if we might develop some new kind of sense or perception.  I meant to portray no other implication within that statement other than my openness to possibilities.  Suppose you were a caveman asking a fellow caveman if he thought it was possible that in the future millennia his ancestors would be flying space rockets to the moon what do you think he would say?

Poid said:

Quote:

random_wanderer said:

That is the problem here, which was pointed out within physics a long time ago.  All our research is bound by our dualistic subjectivity and so we may never be able to break away from this in the realms of science to see what things are like without the tarnishing of our perception...that is of course if anything exists without our perception, which cannot presently be proven.

---

Quote:

Poid said:I don't think it can be proven, period; there's no way to perceive "objective reality" without using our senses.

---

I am not able to see past the subjectivity paradox either, but who knows aye?