“Purposefulness” seems to be close to the meaning-feeling you explained, and though objective states can be described, those descriptions cannot in-and-of-themselves become normative statements (“better”, “should”,...). Does that sound close to a ‘why?’ for the difference between meaning-feeling and objective meaning—that “objective meaning cannot be converted on its own into meaning-feeling” due to the normative/declarative split?
I also see meaning-feeling wrapped in myths and expectation, while objective meaning concentrates on accurate metrics. While the two seemed a division between ‘human/machine’ thinking, we now have machines which are beginning to form vague intuitions and biases, expectations and myths.
Meaning-feeling may be less of an evolutionary necessity, and more an unintentional byproduct of a brain’s attempt to find patterns. That is, because “finding pattern ⇒ usually a reward”, our brains AND machine ones are biased toward pattern-seeking. Spurious correlations are common, as a result, though Darwin often lets them be.
I have a suspicion that even our greatest artificial intelligences will fall into many of our mental traps, because these stumbling blocks are a byproduct of statistical illusions, not evolution or perverseness. An example I keep in mind is Kahneman & Tversky’s research on Israeli pilots. (Their instructors swore that punishment improved performance, though that improvement was really just a regression toward pilots’ mean performance, after a bad day!)
Select quotes: ”The Profound Psychological Benefits Of A Purposeful Life”
“A growing body of research finds that purpose in life leads to greater emotional and physical health, including increased happiness and enhanced work productivity.”
”We can think of purpose as an organizing force in life, channeling our thoughts, feelings, and efforts. Indeed, the research review finds that purpose “is a central component of most leading conceptions of optimal human development and psychological well-being” (pp 15-16). For example, purpose fosters optimism and hope, as well as life satisfaction and positive social relationships.”
″It may well be that it is purpose that enables us to access the hidden energy reserves of sisu and weather the risk and uncertainty that are intrinsic to navigating financial markets.”
In each case, they refer to “emotional meaning”, not “objective meaning”, but they never bring up this distinction (and this is an incredibly important distinction!), and the word “purpose” can easily refer to either (I’m sure many readers will assume it means objective meaning).
those descriptions cannot in-and-of-themselves become normative statements
Yep, agreed. Though to be more clear, I think the feeling gives us almost no information about objective meaning; it’s not just the fact that it’s a “loose” one.
objective meaning concentrates on accurate metrics
I think we directionally agree, but would flag that even our best metrics might only touch upon anything objective. This might require moral realism and a bunch of other very specific philosophical things to be true.
Meaning-feeling may be less of an evolutionary necessity, and more an unintentional byproduct of a brain’s attempt to find patterns
I don’t think this would explain the reason why it feels so good. Generally, things that feel good, feel good for reasons.
“Purposefulness” seems to be close to the meaning-feeling you explained, and though objective states can be described, those descriptions cannot in-and-of-themselves become normative statements (“better”, “should”,...). Does that sound close to a ‘why?’ for the difference between meaning-feeling and objective meaning—that “objective meaning cannot be converted on its own into meaning-feeling” due to the normative/declarative split?
I also see meaning-feeling wrapped in myths and expectation, while objective meaning concentrates on accurate metrics. While the two seemed a division between ‘human/machine’ thinking, we now have machines which are beginning to form vague intuitions and biases, expectations and myths.
Meaning-feeling may be less of an evolutionary necessity, and more an unintentional byproduct of a brain’s attempt to find patterns. That is, because “finding pattern ⇒ usually a reward”, our brains AND machine ones are biased toward pattern-seeking. Spurious correlations are common, as a result, though Darwin often lets them be.
I have a suspicion that even our greatest artificial intelligences will fall into many of our mental traps, because these stumbling blocks are a byproduct of statistical illusions, not evolution or perverseness. An example I keep in mind is Kahneman & Tversky’s research on Israeli pilots. (Their instructors swore that punishment improved performance, though that improvement was really just a regression toward pilots’ mean performance, after a bad day!)
Is this near to what you were saying?
“Purposefulness” is basically the same term, though it seems to often conflate the two definitions I pointed to.
Take this article on purpose, for example:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettsteenbarger/2019/11/20/the-profound-psychological-benefits-of-a-purposeful-life/
In each case, they refer to “emotional meaning”, not “objective meaning”, but they never bring up this distinction (and this is an incredibly important distinction!), and the word “purpose” can easily refer to either (I’m sure many readers will assume it means objective meaning).
Yep, agreed. Though to be more clear, I think the feeling gives us almost no information about objective meaning; it’s not just the fact that it’s a “loose” one.
I think we directionally agree, but would flag that even our best metrics might only touch upon anything objective. This might require moral realism and a bunch of other very specific philosophical things to be true.
I don’t think this would explain the reason why it feels so good. Generally, things that feel good, feel good for reasons.