I’ve embraced existentialism. Finally found a definition of spituality I could digest and apply: “How you emotionally relate to the world.” Since then, I let my primitive, primate brain do things like feel jealousy and be wrong about things. Pretty freeing
Was this made by an AI?
We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Life has as much meaning as we give it, humans think life has inherent meaning, ergo life has meaning.
Let’s start thinking that cooperation has meaning, that the divine plan is for us to realize that everything around is what life should not be and that all of it is a choice we make every day
But it may stop observing itself. And as the part of the universe that does that, I’d dislike i5
I mean, it would change the orbits of other bodies within our solar system, but that’s it.
And it literally wouldn’t have Earth any more.
but like what if we really hated other people based on superficial traits and stuff? That could be kinda cool
Sounds like a fun game. Maybe we could also include some kind of points system where everyone played excessively complex and very RNG heavy minigames and either won or lost points based on how well they did.
Then we could also implement people looking down upon those with less points or getting really worked up about people with a lot of them.
I mean, if earth vanished the moon would fuck off somewhere
We can choose what we live for, and that’s the most meaningful thing I can think of
deleted by creator
“Evolution is blind” is debatable. Arguably, we evolved to fit an environment. We are survivors.
I’ll go farther and say that its wrong. Evolution may be a random walk, but random walk is a method of getting places. Evolution random walks to the next needed feature. Evolution is not at all blind.
I’ll go farther and say that its wrong.
Well, it’s debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.
- “Evolution is blind” suggests no guidance at all, and as you say there is randomness, but an important part of the evolutionary process is survival and propagation which are guided by the environment. so arguably evolution is NOT blind.
- However the evolutionary process is reactive and does not involve long-term planning so you could argue that “blind” means “looking ahead, considering more than what you can immediately sense.” so arguably evolution IS blind.
Either perspective agrees that there is no “Grand Architect” and/or “God’s Plan” which I think is the general point being made. But it’s just a little distracting.
evolution is blind because all of it is an accident. life forms that survive long enough to make more life forms get their genes to live on. any life form that doesn’t, well, doesn’t. better survivability because of an error in copying genes? more offspring. worse survivability? less offspring
there is no intention to evolution, it’s simply a consequence of the fact that some primitive life forms at some point felt a desire to copy their genes and the process of doing so is imperfect. That desire, probably a product of random copying itself, is what made all living things today
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Us not being able to comprehend an architecture does not mean it is not there. In the same way, before there were microscopes bacteria still existed, even though many early proponents of there being small life forms that would cause diseases were ridiculed.
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
Requiring evidence for any religious claims that are made is not “opposing religion”. When religious claims can be proven using the scientific method, then opposing religion in science will be unscientific.
Currently the best explanation for evolution does not include anything religious.
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.
It’s blind because in nature, it often fucks up, and the extreme fuck ups die off without continuing the process.
Which is, I think, exactly what happened to the homo sapiens branch. Dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years, we are barely at 300k and we are killing ourselves. Dead end. (For us)
It’s true that we evolved in response to an environment, but the actual genetic changes that allowed for that were not developed with purpose. They happened randomly, and the ones that happened to provide a benefit made those individuals more likely to have more kids that those with less beneficial random changes.
We know, but we can choose to carry on anyway in spite of it, revile in the absurdity, dance in the moonlight and be very very French.
Well yes, sadly, we can’t embrace a cosmic perspective, because it’s not ours. We can have a human perspective though.
‘“Existance is pain!” -Mr. Meseeks’ - Michael Scott…
Let’s go boys, time to speed run mankind’s extinction with global warming!
DPR knows what’s up.
Existential Dread: SOLVED!
The four horsemen of you meant shit.
