Does life have a value?

[juvenissun]

BTW I ought to disambiguate. By "life" I do not mean so much the biological organism, but the experience of events we are part of between birth and death.

This says exactly my question. Life has a start and an end. If life has values, then the value (in associated with the life) has a start and and an end.

So there will be something like your value and my value and anyone else's value. Your value may not pass down to your children. Many of your values may end with your life, forever.

This type of "value" does not fit the special meaning of the word: value, which most likely means something which lasts beyond one's life. For example, be happy is a value. It is a value to me, to you, and to everyone, in the past, now and in the future. So, the value of happiness is NOT limited to your life or my life.

A life is born. After a while, the life started to appreciate the value of happiness (which already existed). After a while, the life died. But the value of happiness is still there. So, the VALUE is NOT given by (originated from) the life, but is something appreciated by the life, and by many other lives across space and time.

 

[The Paul]

Are you saying the all lvalue of life is the result of higher order thought and voluntary cognition?

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[Received]

You seem to think that the only value is positive value, as if the only numbers were 8, 9 and 10. And also you seem to think that the only "experiential axis" we can encounter value on is the inner-emotional (and in fact only a small subset of that), rather than also the external-physical, as if the outer world we experience were completely neutral and could not glimmer or shine etc. Seems too limited and one dimensional a description or our phenomenology to me.

Eh, it's inevitable that a subject with this much subjectivity could hinge on semantics. I don't think there's any difference between me saying "that has no value," and you saying "that has negative value." I wouldn't include mathematical values with the sense of value humans use, though, especially in ethical situations.

As for the "experiential axis," I think my conception of value entails internal and external uses. I value the stimulus that results in happiness, and not the happiness state itself. Or do I? Maybe happiness is both a value (as a concept), and inherent to value (concretely). If you can only value the stimuli that result in happiness, obviously you can't value happiness, because it isn't a stimulus. That is, value is the thing-that-brings-the-end, and not the end itself.

Maybe.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This says exactly my question. Life has a start and an end. If life has values, then the value (in associated with the life) has a start and and an end.

Agreed.

So there will be something like your value and my value and anyone else's value. Your value may not pass down to your children. Many of your values may end with your life, forever.

Agreed.

This type of "value" does not fit the special meaning of the word: value, which most likely means something which lasts beyond one's life.

That usage is completely new to me. And I don't think a value has to be eternal in order to exist.

For example, be happy is a value. It is a value to me, to you, and to everyone, in the past, now and in the future.

It is true that I can be happy. I can be happy at lunchtime and sad in the evening.

So, the value of happiness is NOT limited to your life or my life.

See above. HAppiness does not havve to last forever in order to be real. In fact there is no evidence for happiness lasting forever, and plenty (all we have) for it being a temporal phenomenon.

A life is born. After a while, the life started to appreciate the value of happiness (which already existed). After a while, the life died. But the value of happiness is still there.

What do you mean? Socrates was happy 2000 years ago, therefore he is happy now?

So, the VALUE is NOT given by (originated from) the life, but is something appreciated by the life, and by many other lives across space and time.

This is beginning to sound like a work of the imagination.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Pretty much, yeah.

Answer me this. Why would we value things if we did not find them valuable (rather than baselessly ascribe it to them after the experience, which I think is the other option)?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Eh, it's inevitable that a subject with this much subjectivity could hinge on semantics. I don't think there's any difference between me saying "that has no value," and you saying "that has negative value." I wouldn't include mathematical values with the sense of value humans use, though, especially in ethical situations.

I would prefer to avoid the term "valueless" in this context, as although some things can be valueless like a tattered banknote, I think that all perception involves value. For instance when I visit a gallery I do not transit from a world with no value to one with, but rather from one expression of value to another.

As for the "experiential axis," I think my conception of value entails internal and external uses. I value the stimulus that results in happiness, and not the happiness state itself. Or do I? Maybe happiness is both a value (as a concept), and inherent to value (concretely). If you can only value the stimuli that result in happiness, obviously you can't value happiness, because it isn't a stimulus. That is, value is the thing-that-brings-the-end, and not the end itself.

Maybe.

I think that both the external and the internal have value. If the Picasso has no value "in it" from a phenomenological perspective, that would make our evaluation of it completely independent of any relevant properties. That's the fact-value distinction in a nutshell. To me it seems to be absurd. After all, why would we value something if it had no value?

 

[Nooj]

Answer me this. Why would we value things if we did not find them valuable (rather than baselessly ascribe it to them after the experience, which I think is the other option)?

What does valuable mean here?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

From Blackwell Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Value means the quality of an object that makes it desirable, useful or an object of interest"

I would say that holds for objects of positive value or "eu-value" i.e. ones which we prefer to accumulate and be in the presence of.

I add a corresponding definition of negative or dis-value: "the quality of an object that makes it undesirable, useless or functionally counterproductive, and/or causes a lack of interest or repulsion of interest".

I claim in a loose fashion that we can give object a "value number" ranging from '-10', though '0' to '+10' as determined by the presence or absence of properties mentioned above. +10 would be maximal eu-value, and an example might be an operatic performance witnessed from the best seats. A vaule of -10 would be the opposite (maximum of dis-value) and an example might be finding our home and family burned to cinders.

Perhaps each object could have a number of scores (such as aesthetic value, functionality or usefulness, interestingness, social value etc) the sum of which leads to a desirability number for the object or state of affairs.

The point of material culture is or ought to be to either maximise the value of objects in our environment, or to manage objects in such a way that our mental evaluation of life, which is itself due to experience of value of life, is is maximised over time.

I say "or to manage objects in such a way..." because a fluctuating set of desirability numbers with a lower average might actually lead to more fulfillment - and a better life score - than permanent but unchallenging material satisfaction with a higher average.

 

[sandwiches]

Value is a component part of all experience.
We experience life.
Therefore, value is a component part of life.

Value is component of the experience of life. Sure. I'm not sure that this translates to life having a value outside of one given to it by minds or biological drives. In other words, life does not seem to have a value outside of life. It seems that life is valuable for its own sake, as without it, things have no value.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Value is component of the experience of life. Sure.

I am glad you agree. Some people say that life is worthless ecxepth the worth we give to it. I am not sure about that, depending on the interpretation "we give". I think theat yes we give life a value, but also we find it has a value like we find a flower to be pretty or doggie doo repulsive. Probably there are differnt levels of processing at work at once.

I'm not sure that this translates to life having a value outside of one given to it by minds or biological drives.

Neither am I. I doin't think there's much evidence for that proposal, if there is any at all.

In other words, life does not seem to have a value outside of life. It seems that life is valuable for its own sake, as without it, things have no value.

I think that life is the condition of experiencing value, yes. But that does not make life valuable for it's own sake in my eyes. I don't thoink that a life of constant torture has much intrinsic value. Rather the value of life comes from the experiences other mental states that make up our days on Earth.

 

[The Paul]

Answer me this. Why would we value things if we did not find them valuable (rather than baselessly ascribe it to them after the experience, which I think is the other option)?

Why would the sky be blue if it was really red?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why would the sky be blue if it was really red?

Why would we ascribe a property to a objct (colour, weight, value, beauty) if it were not a property of the object? I am not saying that value is a property of a thing in itself, but of things as we percieve them. There is something in Beethoven's 5th that causes people prefer it to the sound of a alarm clock (at least from the aesthetic perspective), namely it's value as a work of art. We think about it and recognise it's value rather than ascribe value on a whim to an 'axiologically inert' phenomenon.

 

[Mling]

Answer me this. Why would we value things if we did not find them valuable (rather than baselessly ascribe it to them after the experience, which I think is the other option)?

It's a question of where the value is found. I believe it was you who used a "tattered banknnote as an example of something which has no value. To me, depending on the specifics, the tattered bank note may have an enormous amount of value--just not *monetary* value. It may have historical value, or it may represent social or political values that I hold dear (or fascinatingly reprehensible--my little sister has a coin from the Third Reich that I value highly).

That's the point--when you explore where the value is found, it is never in the object or the experience. People can ascribe wildly different values to things--including life--because those things are inherently value-neutral, and all value is found in the brain of the experiencer. Therefore life, like anything else, has no inherent value at all, and exactly as much total value as the person considering the question wishes to give it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It's a question of where the value is found. I believe it was you who used a "tattered banknnote as an example of something which has no value. To me, depending on the specifics, the tattered bank note may have an enormous amount of value--just not *monetary* value. It may have historical value, or it may represent social or political values that I hold dear (or fascinatingly reprehensible--my little sister has a coin from the Third Reich that I value highly).

You are 100% right. I stand corrected.

That's the point--when you explore where the value is found, it is never in the object or the experience.

But if you take away or change the object then that value disappears or changes. So the phenomenon of value is not not 100% subjective.

People can ascribe wildly different values to things--including life--because those things are inherently value-neutral, and all value is found in the brain of the experiencer.

I accept that value is in the brain, but that value often emerges on interaction between the object and the brain. I recall that science teaches us that listening to music can cause the release of endorphins, which is why certain music sounds good to us. We don't have to think about this, it is something that we experience. The music is good. Such value necessarily depends - as far as we can tell - on unconscious processing of the stimulus, I fully accept that. But the phenomenological experience we consciously encounter actually has value in it.

Rather than being a monotone field of {0, 0, 0, 0, 0...} which we have to ruminate on to change the value of, I turn on Beethoven and are confronted with {+3, +4, +5, +2, +1, +5, +6...}. Or noisy roadworks start and I find myself in the middle of {-2, -4, -5, -6, -2...} if you understand the idea. To borrow an idea from science, value is part of the "field equations" of phenomenological reality. Such things can be difficult to change.

Therefore life, like anything else, has no inherent value at all, and exactly as much total value as the person considering the question wishes to give it.

No, value does not usually depend on wish as far as I can recall, at least in the sense that we can change a value on whim. That's why I am willing to pay for Beethoven to replace silence, or theatre tickets to replace watching drying paint, and paint to cover up the ugly marks on the wall. I cannot just wish the silence, or the road works into having the aestethic value of Beethoven, no matter how hard try.

 

[sandwiches]

You are 100% right. I stand corrected.

But if you take away or change the object then that value disappears or changes. So the phenomenon of value is not not 100% subjective.

The values we assign things are, indeed, linked to real properties. However, the value itself is indeed subjective, as you defined it (the quality of an object that makes it desirable, useful or an object of interest.) So, while you might prefer to wear pristine jeans, other might like them with some tears and holes in them. Thus the value of the state of jeans is not something that can be extracted without a mind to make a value judgement.

I accept that value is in the brain, but that value often emerges on interaction between the object and the brain. I recall that science teaches us that listening to music can cause the release of endorphins, which is why certain music sounds good to us. We don't have to think about this, it is something that we experience. The music is good. Such value might necessarily depend on unconscious processing of the stimulus, I fully accept that. But the phenomenological experience we consciously encounter has value in it.

I think that's a matter of language. Things aren't pretty. Things are. We think they're pretty.

Rather than being a monotone field of 0, 0, 0, 0, 0... we have to ruminate on to change the value of, I turn on Beethoven and are confronted with {+3, +4, +5, +2, +1, +5, +6...}. Or noisy roadworks start and we get {-2, -4, -5, -6, -2...} (if you understand the idea). To borrow an idea from science, value is part of the "field equations" of phenomenological reality.

No, value does not usually depend on wish as far as I can recall. Thats why I am willing to paty for Beethoven to replace silence. I cannot wish the silence into having aestethic value.

Value can definitely depend on wish. Sometimes, I am worn out from talking to people at work and I just want to go home and enjoy the silence, when I have a headache, or when I'm reading. This to me is the strongest evidence that while value is indeed something we can personally extract from real properties, the "value of" a particular property is completely subjective to mood, tastes, past experiences, state of your senses and your brain, etc.

 

[sandwiches]

Now, after reading the title and thinking about it about it. I'm not sure if what you're asking if life is important or if life has properties which we can find to have importance (positive or negative.)

 

[Mling]

But if you take away or change the object then that value disappears or changes. So the phenomenon of value is not not 100% subjective.

The same could be said for a pink triangle. If you look at it, you see it; when the physical pink triangle goes away, you stop seeing it and start seeing something else. But consider this--a person who is blind can look at it without seeing it, and a person who is synesthetic can see it without looking at it (I chose pink triangle specifically because my girlfriend has synesthesia, and once reacted to the sound of a chain going over a winch with "SO MANY TRIANGLES!!!!!!" The were pink. It was funny. She has also ordered me to change my ring tone because the sound of it causes her to see an offensive shade of bubble-gum barbie pink.)

However, take the person out of the equation, and an interesting thing happens. You can paint a pink triangle and leave it in the woods--you can even leave a loop of chain hanging over a water-wheel, for good measure. In that situation, there will *definitely* be no pink triangles, because there are no eyes and brains around to interpret the physical reality of light waves into the experience of pinkness or triangularity.

The sight of the pink triangle seems to rely on the existence of a "real" one, but unusual situations reveal the truth about it--the sight itself is a 100% psychological experience. It's one which often happens to be triggered by and associated with certain situations in physical reality but the connection is incidental. The physical reality it is associated with, and the experience of it, can be completely separated. The experience itself happens only in the brain and nowhere else.

Which means something very significant. If you take away the object, there may or may not be a change in the experience (I'll clarify that in a bit), but take away the person, and there will definitely be no experience at all.

I accept that value is in the brain, but that value often emerges on interaction between the object and the brain. I recall that science teaches us that listening to music can cause the release of endorphins, which is why certain music sounds good to us. We don't have to think about this, it is something that we experience. The music is good. Such value necessarily depends - as far as we can tell - on unconscious processing of the stimulus, I fully accept that. But the phenomenological experience we consciously encounter actually has value in it.

Rather than being a monotone field of {0, 0, 0, 0, 0...} which we have to ruminate on to change the value of, I turn on Beethoven and are confronted with {+3, +4, +5, +2, +1, +5, +6...}. Or noisy roadworks start and I find myself in the middle of {-2, -4, -5, -6, -2...} if you understand the idea. To borrow an idea from science, value is part of the "field equations" of phenomenological reality. Such things can be difficult to change.

This may or may not be relevant, but I want want to understand what you mean. As I understand, the numbers here are attempts to codify enjoyment? 0 is nothing interesting, negative numbers are unpleasantness and positive numbers are enjoyment, magnitude describes the degree of enjoyment (or distress) caused by the experience?

No, value does not usually depend on wish as far as I can recall, at least in the sense that we can change a value on whim. That's why I am willing to pay for Beethoven to replace silence, or theatre tickets to replace watching drying paint, and paint to cover up the ugly marks on the wall. I cannot just wish the silence, or the road works into having the aestethic value of Beethoven etc, no matter how hard try.

Many people (mostly monks) have trained their minds to find satisfaction in utter silence and stillness. To find the world in nothing.

Even if you are not inclined to do that, you can still close your eyes and imagine Beethoven, or--to move farther from the outside world--music of your own creation. You can cause yourself to have the psychological experience, absent the physical stimulus.

Which comes back to what I was saying before:

The physical reality, minus the person, is nothing at all. No value, no enjoyment or distress, nothing.

The person, minus the physical reality, can still experience the value of that thing.

So the value relies entirely on the person, and only minimally, if at all, on the thing.

 

[sandwiches]

Which means something very significant. If you take away the object, there may or may not be a change in the experience (I'll clarify that in a bit), but take away the person, and there will definitely be no experience at all.

This is similar to the point I was trying to make when I talked about a mind or a biological drive is needed for value to exist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Now, after reading the title and thinking about it about it. I'm not sure if what you're asking if life is important or if life has properties which we can find to have importance (positive or negative.)

I am saying that, and we have an automatic-instinctive evaluation which keeps us alive, and that we cannot just create a value on a whim (ask any depressed person).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The physical reality it is associated with, and the experience of it, can be completely separated. The experience itself happens only in the brain and nowhere else.

The experience of an object is in the brain, but it depends on an object (in sensory experience at least) called the "distal stimulus". Otherwise we may have an illusory experience (e.g. a hallucination) but it is not an experience of an real object.

Which means something very significant. If you take away the object, there may or may not be a change in the experience (I'll clarify that in a bit), but take away the person, and there will definitely be no experience at all.

I know that experience of value can change from person to person, and from one time to the next. But you make it seem like "it's all in the head and dependent on wsh or whim" which is not true.

This may or may not be relevant, but I want want to understand what you mean. As I understand, the numbers here are attempts to codify enjoyment? 0 is nothing interesting, negative numbers are unpleasantness and positive numbers are enjoyment, magnitude describes the degree of enjoyment (or distress) caused by the experience?

Correct.

Many people (mostly monks) have trained their minds to find satisfaction in utter silence and stillness. To find the world in nothing.

But then there is another processing of a stimulus, such that the experience of the stimulus (silence) is qualitative or value laden.

Even if you are not inclined to do that, you can still close your eyes and imagine Beethoven, or--to move farther from the outside world--music of your own creation. You can cause yourself to have the psychological experience, absent the physical stimulus.

Not an identical one. But besides you miss the point. Take the prospect of eating dog poo. We have "gut feelings" about it, it's not just a matter osf expressing arbitrary judgement. The same with life, but hopefully it will not be so repulsive.

:

The physical reality, minus the person, is nothing at all. No value, no enjoyment or distress, nothing.

Except the realit itself, assuming idealism is false.

The person, minus the physical reality, can still experience the value of that thing.

In a way, though memory I supposse you are right to some degree.

So the value relies entirely on the person, and only minimally, if at all, on the thing.

Ok look at a spanner. You need to tighten a bolt. I hand you a screwdriver and say "the value of the object is in the person, so you can make a screwdriver as valuable as a spanner by training your mind."