Meaning Systems

[Twentythree]

I had started a new topic prior to reaching my 50 post quota regarding meaning systems and I wanted to get the temperature of the forum on this topic now that we can fully engage.

The basic idea comes from David Sloan Wilson. He is form the school of multi level evolution and looks at religion through an interesting lens. His lens is that of meaning systems.  He states that the genetic propensity to form meaning systems exist in everyone and from an evolutionary point of view the truth content in a meaning system is irrelevant. Essentially if the formation of a meaning system causes the people who subscribe to that meaning system to in any way have a social advantage over non believers then that meaning system just like an individual phenotype will persist in the gene pool (or I guess the meme pool?). In other words if I woke up to morrow and saw something that made me believe that the clouds were made of cotton candy. As long as me believing in that caused me to be even slightly more successful at propagating my genes then the propensity to believe things as silly as cotton candy clouds would be passed on. If I were to then pass on my belief of cotton candy clouds onto my children, and they to their children then what we would have is the birth of a meaning system, completely supported by evolutionary theory but completely absent of any rational truth to support it.

So I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?
Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?


Here is a link to his talk on Big Ideas

http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/tvobigideas/~3/ ... 34_48k.mp3

http://feeds.tvo.org/tvobigideas

[Davin]

So I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?

No. Neither is theism a meaning system. Both atheism and theism are not specific enough to be usefully considered meaning systems.

Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?

I don't know yet, I need more information. If it's falsifiable then it is good to argue about it.

[Twentythree]

Ok so there are levels to meaning systems? So what would theism and atheism be? Would they be more like macro systems because it seems like you would have to have the foundation of a theistic or atheistic viewpoint in order to whittle down the specifics of a meaning system. If that were the case would, let’s say, secularism and humanism be meaning systems contained within the larger definition of atheism in general?

[Davin]

I don't know if the concept of meaning systems have levels or not, I do not currently subscribe to it. I was merely mentioning the uselessness of defining such vague terms as meaning systems. Atheism and theism are nothing more than descriptors, an atheist doesn't believe in any god or gods and a theist believes in a god or gods. I would not label them as systems at all because system implies things that are not part of the scope of the words... and any attempt to apply that kind of scope will likely be met with great resistence from both atheists and theists. How many theists do you know of that accept the Egyptian system of religious beliefs? I think the terms atheism and theism are better left as just descriptors on whether one believes in a god or gods.

I don't think atheism needs to be the foundation of any viewpoint (niether does theism for that matter), atheism certaintly is not the foundation of my viewpoint and I know of at least a few atheists that post here that atheism is not the foundation of their viewpoints either. So I can't follow this either unless we're going into a completely unfounded hypothetical... which I sometimes do not mind doing.

[Twentythree]

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that theism, and atheism are not a foundations for viewpoints. In actuality I think that atheism and theism are the foundation for all viewpoints. It provides you with your framework for reality. Your very perception of self, self worth, purpose and cause all stem from weather you feel as though you were intentionally placed here supernaturally or if you just happen to be here as parts of a ceaseless chain reaction. These fundamental perceptions of reality are the backbone of all other beliefs, or truths that you will seek and or adopt throughout your lifetime. Doesn’t it seem impossible that someone could be neither atheistic, or theistic or conversely both atheistic and theistic. Is there a 3rd fundamental belief system?

[Davin]

We exist, that is a reasonable assumption as is that our perceptions are based on reality. Start there, work from there.

I do not see how atheism or theism must be the foundation of a person's viewpoint. Who are you to tell me what I use as the foundation of my viewpoint?

I can't answer your final question as I do not accept that atheism and theism are fundamental belief systems.

[Twentythree]

I don’t know, but it seems like you are missing my logic. Doesn’t your explanation of reality have to implicitly start with whether we are here by the cause of something supernatural or the cause of something natural. Everything else then is a product of your view of reality. Every truth that you assume has to be a function of perception and any new information you acquire. Essentially every new piece of information you acquire has to run through the filter of your perception of reality. I am not trying to tell you what to use for your foundation that was never the intent. I am simply saying that belief or disbelief in the supernatural will always be a factor in any new information that you process. Am I crazy in assuming this, logically it stands to be fairly fundamental. If you are not passing new information through the lens of your version of reality haw can you claim anything to be fact or fiction, real or imaginary?

[Davin]

I don’t know, but it seems like you are missing my logic.

I'm fairly certain that I'm not missing your logic, I just don't agree with it.

Doesn’t your explanation of reality have to implicitly start with whether we are here by the cause of something supernatural or the cause of something natural.

No, it doesn't. To do so would be making a baseless assumption, which is something my viewpoint will not allow (sans solipsism).

Everything else then is a product of your view of reality. Every truth that you assume has to be a function of perception and any new information you acquire. Essentially every new piece of information you acquire has to run through the filter of your perception of reality. I am not trying to tell you what to use for your foundation that was never the intent. I am simply saying that belief or disbelief in the supernatural will always be a factor in any new information that you process.

And I disagree. If you're going to just come out and tell me that the foundation to my viewpoint is based on atheism/theism when I've already told you it wasn't, then you're going to have to demonstrate why your claim must be true. So why must my viewpoint's foundation be based on atheism/theism?

Am I crazy in assuming this, logically it stands to be fairly fundamental. If you are not passing new information through the lens of your version of reality haw can you claim anything to be fact or fiction, real or imaginary?

I'm not arguing against this, I'm arguing against your claim that all viewpoints must be based on the atheism/theism dichotomy. While people may have their foundation for their viewpoint based on atheism/theism, I do not think it is necessary. My viewpoint is not based on, dependent on or has any thing at all to do with the atheism/theism dilemma. If a god popped out, danced a jig, turned me into a newt and cast California into the ocean, my viewpoint would remain intact and unchanged. If there were sufficient, reasonable evidence for a god, I would not be an atheist (unless you want to get all pedantic about it). This is because my viewpoint is not founded in atheism/theism, my being an atheist is a result of my viewpoint only accepting reasonable evidence before accepting something.

[Twentythree]

Ok, help me get on the same page. Say I'm a martian and I've never heard of humans before. How would you answer the following questions.

1. Where Do you com from?
2. What Makes you alive?
3. What is reality?

Also i just want to make clear that i'm not saying anythign about you definitively nor am i trying to say anything about what should or should not be. I'm just asking questions.

[Davin]

Ok, help me get on the same page. Say I'm a martian and I've never heard of humans before. How would you answer the following questions.

1. Where Do you com from?

America, my parents, Stokes, Earth, etc.

2. What Makes you alive?

I suppose if I stopped eating and drinking that would make me dead, so eating and drinking makes me alive.

3. What is reality?

Reality is what our perceptions are based off of.


Now, why must someone have an answer to these questions?
Do you consider it reasonable behavior to just accept something just because you think it must be accepted?

I see nothing wrong with not accepting things as true or not denying that things are true, I.E.: What is your position on subatomic robot creators of everything? Your viewpoint does not require a position on or even a consideration of subatomic robot creators of everything. And the bonus is that you can still be a rational person without taking a position on subatomic robot creators of everything or basing the foundation of your viewpoint on whether they exist or not. The same that is true for asubatomicrobotism/subatomicrobotism is true for atheism/theism. I hold that it is not a necessity that one make atheism or theism the foundation of their viewpoint for the same reason one doesn't need to make asubatomicrobotism or subatomicrobotism the foundation of their viewpoint.

Also i just want to make clear that i'm not saying anythign about you definitively nor am i trying to say anything about what should or should not be. I'm just asking questions.

You don't have to worry about offending me, I just don't see why you think a person must make their foundation for their viewpoint based on atheism or theism. I told you I do not, I told you my starting point, I've explained myself, and you told me that you "wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that theism, and atheism are not a foundations for viewpoints." Now I've not said they never are, I merely said they aren't for everyone and I'm one of those that do not have atheism or theism as my foundation for my viewpoint.

[Tank]

23 from a personal perspective atheism is an effect, not a cause. I'm an atheist because I'm a rational materialist not the other way around. Therefore atheism does not underpin my world view, it is a result of it. I was not brought up to believe in cotton candy clouds, so I don't and if somebody now tried to get me to believe in cotton candy clouds I would value evidence above assertion because in my experience an evidence based approach to living has always worked better than an assertion based approach.

I would contend that all humans are a unique combination of genes and memes shaped by experience. I would also contend that we change on a virtually minute-by-minute basis. Simply typing this reply is changing my neurological structures as I access memories and blend them into arguments. I will be a subtly different person by the time I press the submit button and you will be a subtly different person by the time you finish reading this post.

Because we are all unique and continually changing I'm not sure the term Meaning System is a useful term in understanding people and the way they behave. Academically it's an interesting concept but pragmatically I don't think it has any real explanatory power of human behaviour. I think it's an example of the human need to group, pattern match and classify at all costs. For example:-



There is no dog in this picture, but once you have seen it you can't un-see it can you? Humans have evolved to see the dog, we instinctively see patterns, we can't help it any more than we can help breathing.

[Twentythree]

Ok I can defiantly see that. So I would imagine that as evidence mounted in favor of rationalism and against irrational faith that your belief in god was slowly eroded leaving you in the position you are in now. If you don’t mind me asking though how did you come to be a rational materialist? Were you brought up religious and discovered it later, on your own, or were you brought up in a household that didn’t promote a specific belief. Also, now that you have adopted an atheistic viewpoint are there any arguments that could convince you to believe in the supernatural. In other words could you “un-see” the dog?

I think I may beleaguering the point here though. The intent of my initial post was simply to try to develop a deeper understanding of the notion that meaning systems are culturally evolved, and that factual evidence or truth is not a necessary variable in the evolution of these meaning systems. In fact quite the opposite may be true, we may be more genetically predisposed to accept the unbelievable if our ancestors had been believers and prospered. It weighs on me that if faith is an adaptation, then the idea of truth itself becomes subjective.

[penfold]

The basic idea comes from David Sloan Wilson. He is form the school of multi level evolution and looks at religion through an interesting lens. His lens is that of meaning systems.  He states that the genetic propensity to form meaning systems exist in everyone and from an evolutionary point of view the truth content in a meaning system is irrelevant. Essentially if the formation of a meaning system causes the people who subscribe to that meaning system to in any way have a social advantage over non believers then that meaning system just like an individual phenotype will persist in the gene pool (or I guess the meme pool?). In other words if I woke up to morrow and saw something that made me believe that the clouds were made of cotton candy. As long as me believing in that caused me to be even slightly more successful at propagating my genes then the propensity to believe things as silly as cotton candy clouds would be passed on. If I were to then pass on my belief of cotton candy clouds onto my children, and they to their children then what we would have is the birth of a meaning system, completely supported by evolutionary theory but completely absent of any rational truth to support it.

So I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?
Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?

@ 23, really interesting OP.

Two things here.


First, I think we have good reason to doubt the hereditary 'meme' story. The theory of evolution by natural selection relies upon the fact that Genes are real measurable things which are completely necessary to a person's identity. If I have the genetic expression for blue eyes, my eyes will be blue, I cannot change that. A 'meme' (ie a belief) is, conversely, merely contingent to identity; just because I start life as a Christian it does not mean I will end my life as one. So just because my parents have certain beliefs there is nothing inevitable about my beliefs. Put it this way. If a person's father dies before birth and the mother during birth, then that person will necessarily still express their parents' genetic heritage, but are unlikely to express their parents' memetic heritage.

So while it is reasonable to say there is a hereditary aspect to the perpetuation of belief systems (ie I am more likely than not to share the beliefs of my family and community) there is no good reason for assuming this works in a way analogous to genetic hereditary. In fact, given the contingent nature of the former and the necessary nature of the latter, there is good reason for assuming that the hereditary mechanisms are fundamentally different.


Secondly I wanted to quickly address your final question "Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?"

I think the answer to this has to be yes. However that is not to say I think meaning resides 'out there' independent of us. Put crudely all meaning is subjective (in that it requires a subject). This means that we cannot talk of absolute truth. However I do think we can maintain our talk of truth as meaningful. The system I would propose is a position first sketched by G.E.M. Anscombe in Modern Moral Philosophy (link here: http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html). Essentially it says this: The truth of a propositional statement depends upon certain agreed brute facts, and an assumption that 'the circumstances are normal'.

EG. "To knowingly punish an innocent man, in normal circumstances, is unjust." Now this sentence makes a moral claim, so the sceptical suspicion is that it is meaningless, because the very notion of 'unjust' as an absolute is meaningless; such a sceptic would say that to make this sentence meaningful we would have to say "I believe that ..." at the start.

What Anscombe says is that if we agree on the brute facts that (a)the man is innocent, (b) this is known, and circumstances are normal then it is true to say that to punish him is unjust. This argument is not trying to explain the why of "unjust". Rather gives an account of how it is we find "unjust" meaningful (and let's face it, we do).

So in that sense to say that "all discussion of meaning content is pointless" is overkill (plus a little self-contradictory - after all what does it mean to be sceptical of meaning!?!). We should not hope to explain why things mean what they do, but we can give an account of how our system of meaning content operates (at the very least, at the level of language).

[xSilverPhinx]

I think that theism are meaning systems, but wouldn't label atheism as one because it's just one aspect (or manifestion as Tank pointed out) of meaning systems. People call themselves "atheists" to identify themselves as non theists, but atheism in itself is not a meaning system.

Sloan mentioned that culture is like a super organism and that memes and meme propagation are not linked to individual organism as genes are, at least as I understood it, and that memes are not fixed to individuals but are more like good/"true"/or pragmatical ideas floating around in a culture (meme pool, as you put it) susceptible to incorporating them, for whatever reason, and that the group that incorporates good ideas has a better chance of surviving.

Christianity was born of the minds of an oppressed people during Roman occupation and persecution, and there are still plenty of vestigial memes today that can be traced way back to that point. The idea that justice will prevail, though not always true, is a good one to believe in. Another is that only the meek will inherit heaven - so all your suffering will be worth something in the end, and any other that makes slaves out of people.

There were plenty of messiahs back then, why was Christianity selected?

One reason that I think that some form of organised religious philosophy will always exist is because such things are part of human nature. We're aware of the fact that we're going to die and we're existentially angsty creatures. Some memes are going to stick around until we've conquered death somehow. Theism is the easy and comfortable meaning system for most, and as Sloan pointed out, it isn't the truth value that matters, but it's practical value.  

Have you heard of the God Virus? It's more on the parasitic view, but still a transmission of memes nonetheless.

If I were a social engineer, I would definitely prefer Calvinism (emphasis on works) over Catholicism...though a really good virus is one that doesn't kill its host. If through Calvinism people reach a point where they're existentially secure enough, what's the point of it?

[Twentythree]

First, I think we have good reason to doubt the hereditary 'meme' story. The theory of evolution by natural selection relies upon the fact that Genes are real measurable things which are completely necessary to a person's identity. If I have the genetic expression for blue eyes, my eyes will be blue, I cannot change that. A 'meme' (ie a belief) is, conversely, merely contingent to identity; just because I start life as a Christian it does not mean I will end my life as one. So just because my parents have certain beliefs there is nothing inevitable about my beliefs. Put it this way. If a person's father dies before birth and the mother during birth, then that person will necessarily still express their parents' genetic heritage, but are unlikely to express their parents' memetic heritage.

So while it is reasonable to say there is a hereditary aspect to the perpetuation of belief systems (ie I am more likely than not to share the beliefs of my family and community) there is no good reason for assuming this works in a way analogous to genetic hereditary. In fact, given the contingent nature of the former and the necessary nature of the latter, there is good reason for assuming that the hereditary mechanisms are fundamentally different.

That is correct when viewing it from the point of an individual, the individual acquires its expressed phenotypes from the gene pool and transmits these genes to new generations through sex. Memes on the other hand exists in the meme pool that is separate from the individual. I think heredity gives us the capacity to absorb and transmit memes, the memes that we transmit can come from anywhere. I guess we have to look at cultural ideas as almost living things in themselves as they are able to self replicate through cultural generations. I don’t know for sure but when looking at religion through the lens of meaning systems it becomes a lot less frustrating because you realize that their truth is different from my truth, at the very deepest level our ideas of reality don’t converge. That is why it seems to me to be a waste of resources to try to discuss faith or god concepts with people who are already entrenched in faith, at their core their reality is different than mine. right?

Edit. I am going to read the content of the link you sent in order to discuss your point about truth.