The culture you grew up in.
Not a dead / live or otherwise universe - a nothing universe - very nice place to be in. — Pop

But culture itself is a mere subset of the human experience, not something that transcends it. It seems odd to defer to something less than ourselves.

Consider the alternative of an eternal afterlife. How can anything you do in THIS brief life have a meaningful impact on that which exists eternally? — Relativist

Theoretically, your actions in this life set the stage for the next one, but that's not the point of this inquiry. Even if there is an afterlife, you're kinda doomed, trapped with "yourself" for eternity. I think we've strayed far from the original discussion.

Afterlife or not, what's really the value of doing anything in the grand scheme of things?

I'm going to take his argument one step further. Suppose you did actually have that choice, but I add the condition that once you step into it, there will be no end to it. You will live forever! Now would you choose to be born? — Michael Lee

I honestly don't know. I would have to exist to make the choice whether or not I want to exist. I also don't see how living forever would solve anything.

Having an impact that is beyond our individual selves gives us meaning, unless you think our families and societies are irrelevant. — Relativist

On a long enough time frame, sure.

For instance - meaning. Meaning is a human social construct, likely developed some ways along the road of our evolution. It dose not exist in nature. What use for meaning dose a bird have? — Pop

I wonder about this. If meaning is created by humankind, what put within humankind the desire to have meaning. In an otherwise cold, dead, universe, it has no value or purpose. In fact, if anything, it's detrimental to us being a symbiotic part of the natural world. Yet we seek it. I have no idea why.

Buddhism is the only complete philosophy of consciousness. They have been dwelling on this stuff for 5000 years .There is a secular variety. — Pop

I do tend to lean towards buddhist teachings. They tackle this subject much better than other faiths. Not to mention, my main spiritual mentor is a buddhist. I haven't come across any readings/teachings that cover this exact topic, though.

Stop complaining about the temporary nature of life as if it were a bad thing! — Michael Lee

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but impermanence makes many (perhaps all) of the constructions of meaning actually meaningless. Knowing that would make me think that anything "meaningful" I would attempt would actually just be a waste of time.

Why not something in between the fleeting moment and eternity? That seems to be the timescale that is relevant for us human beings anyway. There's no need to go to the extremes I don't think. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think adjusting the timescale changes the situation, and it almost seems arbitrary and not really meaningful to do so. I'm trying to consider all possibilities, not just limit myself to those that are comfortable. I'm not looking for a timescale in which to narrow my focus, I'm saying that, considering all timescales, this is what existence looks like to me.

Why can't things be meaningful if they are impermanent or temporal? — ChatteringMonkey

I guess what I'm wondering is how can things be meaningful if all things are impermanent or temporal. I think an "easy answer" is to just always live in the moment, but there's an element of this that feels like one is putting on blinders to the bigger picture. To be aware of this, but ignore it, leads me to think that doing anything in the present moment is disingenuous. Or, something might be meaningful limited to the scope of the moment, but if you're aware that the moment won't last and we will soon/eventually be in a state where that meaning becomes irrelevant regardless, then was there any point to creating that meaning to begin with?

A think a better metaphor than the headache example is building a sand castle. You put all that time and effort building a thing that eventually just becomes a part of the beach like it never was there. The only real value of it was the entertainment of the process and product while it existed.

That being said, it almost seems that the logical course of action is to optimize for impermanence. That is, not try to create anything meaningful or lasting, but instead try to be a meaningless as possible. I'm not exactly sure what that would look like, but I can see how being unmotivated for action could be a part of it. Or, maybe some kind of solopsistic hedonism? I don't know...

I don't quite see how that follows. For yourself, that may be true. But actions could still have consequences, and those consequences could be permanent. — Echarmion

I suppose I am coming from a somewhat selfish perspective here. But, I'm also not just concerned about myself. Instead, I'm thinking of all of our selves. In other words, one possible answer is that my individual self does not have any meaning, so why not live a selfless existence? Well, if my self doesn't have meaning, than neither does anyone else's, so that would be a pointless venture.

Whether or not consequences can be permanent is up for debate, but even if they are, I will never have to face them since ultimately I'm destined for oblivion or insanity either way.

The question is, can "meaning" or the absence of it really be established by logic? What conditions do you think are required for actions, or life in general, to have meaning? — Echarmion

That's a good question, and my answer is sorta I don't know. I seem to have trouble operationalizing meaning in a meaningful way. The eye cannot see itself, I guess. I actually don't think pure logic is possible for a human as our entire existence is so subjective. However, logic tends to be the most compelling approach for me, even if it is partially subjective.

I don't think any of us come into the world with any kind of tools for finding or even defining the real meaning of it all, and there are no apparent answers while you are here. So what even passes muster for meaning is anyone's guess. That's kind of a drag, if you ask me.

Without any explicit direction, my sense is that the observable is all we get. This would mean that it all ends with heat death anyway. What a bummer.

That's good. What's your secret? — Echarmion

I think it's the notion that this scenario is a problem and I need to solve it keeps me from getting depressed. I know that I'm just human and plenty fallible. I think I would be depressed if I felt like I was the center of (my own/the) universe. Even though this is my perspective, I am aware I could easily be wrong, and there's likely someone out there who is smarter and wiser than me that can explain how I am wrong.

So, I guess, in essence, I have hope.