Hi Sotiris, nice post. It was Shopenhauer who stated, "As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way."
Regarding our purpose being to provide God (or whatever you want to call our creator) with information - yes! And is there anything wrong with that? Consciousness arises out of our limited, personal individualism, our subjectivity, which of course as God is the unity of opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum, he is mostly an unconscious being and he needs our perspectives for his own growth. At least that explanation would give meaning and purpose to our existence, unlike the blown out nihilistic secular materialism we live in now. Carl Jung argues that this is our purpose in his "Answer to Job".
Regarding breeding for micro-biological changes, including massive personality changes, that part is pretty easy. Of course macro-biological changes is a whole different question. Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev developed a domesticated fox in only forty years, as discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
Bravo, bravo, bravo! You are a wonderful writer. I so enjoy your work; however…….
I know that for you it is all too easy to impress the the left half of the bell curve and even most of the right side, but those folks who are somewhere in the top 15 percent should challenge you more than they do.
I would encourage you to read Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene to understand better that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable (please note that while we conveniently call it a “theory” it is actually a proven fact—see fossil records).
“Murder” is a morality concept that only applies to moral beings which thus far are limited to human beings. Animals cannot commit murder because they are unable to be good or evil. In your terms animals are born with a survival program. Humans have no programming at birth, just a great operating system that needs programming.
Thanks but let me disagree. I've read Dawkins's book.
The fossil record is a a false attribution. The fossil record is a catalog of different species with "upgrades" through time. This does not prove that the reason behind those upgrades was the mechanism claimed through evolution. That is an extremely bold assumption, even though it's perhaps the most likely scenario. But it is not proof. We have to be intellectually honest.
Yes, you are right, morality is a human concept. Since we are self-aware, though, morality could become a necessity for us? Worth discussing...
Evolution doesn’t have a purpose or reason for adaptation. But that it happens and has happened is beyond dispute. We are all the evidence for evolution. All current living things are the result of natural selection. We are the current winners of the genetic lottery.
I didn’t imply a reason was required. I said the mechanism by which random mutations and survival of the fittest one was the one proven to be the case. The fossil record doesn’t prove how those species evolved. Evolution is an assumption with massive holes in it. I should write more on this
Your statement below demonstrates that either you haven’t studied it or you studied it and misunderstood Darwin or perhaps you read some secondary sources that were less than fully informed.
“Evolution is flawed, because it is circular reasoning: “This species survived because it was the fittest, and it was the fittest because it survived”. Evolution is based on this logical fallacy.”
Not at all. Quite the opposite. You don’t understand evolution at all. Your claim that “the fossil record proves evolution” proves you don’t know what the theory of evolution is and what it claims, let alone understand my criticism of it.
Misstating me will not change reality or support your argument. My actual words: “please note that while we conveniently call it a “theory” it is actually a proven fact—see fossil records”.
No, you misstate me and you clearly don’t possess my level of knowledge on evolution. You just repeat the same claims even after I counter them because you can’t comprehend my counter.
How many times would God self sacrifice himself? Talk about an indiferent creator. The plurality of Bostron's quickie is the very offense of the matrix he is stuck in. Stay put. Don't let go of chasing white bunnies. Wonder is all there is.
The rest of us have it figured it out, in humility and in trust, we have managed to be hidden. Colossians 3:2-3.
Thank you for your comment. If I understand correctly, you disagree with my premise. I understand, as I also come from a religious upbringing. I am curious... Which do you find worse; someone who does not believe in the existence of a divine creator, or someone who believes in an indifferent divine creator?
I dissagree with endless wonder and chasing bunnies.
I find worse those who believe in an indiferent creator. They most likely will do nothing to understand that the creator had to sacrifice himself to save you.
The idea of Bostrom's simulation reality is nothing but denial of self. A repetition, contributing to wonder. As such, the mind entertains it and never finds the exit to this, which sits in plain sight.
We are what we believe. Believing in a simulation we chase our own tales. Stuck in a matrix but proud enough to further this idea. Why? Because the mind is entertained by it. Making it such the profit of the theory.
Mind in the bag.
I'd rather be purchased by God's sacrifice, who died once, and promised salvation. This is verifiable in this physical reality by the very acknowledgements the mind perceives in living by this code.
Well, I am one of those who believe in the probability of an indifferent creator. I am sorry you find me worse. I have done this debate numerous times in the past but there is no point. The point is belief. We choose what to believe.
You refer to the infinite regression problem, which is a valid argument. I address the infinite regression problem in the post. I assume you didn’t read it all. The screenwriters of True Detective explain it better that I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oX2xFo7JA4
I cannot assume that intelligence was given, not grown from having to live in reality.
I'm not saying evolution as science has it is correct. It's not an cannot explain a lot of what happens and is happening.
The time issue is valid but I don't believe in higher dimensions. (I used to)
Yes, it's rare for life to start in the universe. It's even rarer for it to last for so long. With enough time things change.
Nature is an amazing system and here's an interesting video on what happened on an isolated island. I cued it to a part that really amazed me. Jellyfish that no longer are poisonous who farm for their energy.
The rest is amazing too if you have time. It's like seeing an alien planet and yet we are obsessed with going into space or discovering hyperspace, whatever that is.
With enough time, things can and do change. It's a part of life combined with changing conditions.
Did you know in the 1990s, neuroscience didn't care about consciousness? We're at an interesting point in psychological evolution. The software in our brains is changing even though the physical hardware has barely changed.
As Neo said "upgrades".
“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert Anton Wilson
Yes I agree. I’m not claiming that what I say is truth. I have no way of knowing. It’s just one way of thinking, one way to consider the possibility that perhaps the causation required for the infinite regression problem somehow doesn’t apply to one plane of existence to the next. Who knows. These are my opinions. Take them as such.
Yes and either one of us or both of us could be wrong.
I'm ok if there's nothing when we die and the afterlife is actually from our brains shutting down.
I'm also ok if consciousness continues after death.
I'm ok if it's something else that we haven't thought of.
"The only alternative left for mankind, ” he continued, “is discipline. Discipline is the only deterrent. But by discipline I don’t mean harsh routines. I don’t mean waking up every morning at five-thirty and throwing cold water on yourself until you’re blue. Sorcerers understand discipline as the capacity to face with serenity odds that are not included in our expectations. For them, discipline is an art: the art of facing infinity without flinching, not because they are strong and tough but because they are filled with awe.” - from The Active Side of Infinity by Carlos Casteneda
I know now that he was a phony and made up things but sometimes fiction has truth in it and that's the best explanation to face the unknown of death and appreciate life while I am still alive.
Hi Sotiris, nice post. It was Shopenhauer who stated, "As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way."
Regarding our purpose being to provide God (or whatever you want to call our creator) with information - yes! And is there anything wrong with that? Consciousness arises out of our limited, personal individualism, our subjectivity, which of course as God is the unity of opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum, he is mostly an unconscious being and he needs our perspectives for his own growth. At least that explanation would give meaning and purpose to our existence, unlike the blown out nihilistic secular materialism we live in now. Carl Jung argues that this is our purpose in his "Answer to Job".
Regarding breeding for micro-biological changes, including massive personality changes, that part is pretty easy. Of course macro-biological changes is a whole different question. Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev developed a domesticated fox in only forty years, as discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
This is quite an insightful comment. You've given me plenty of reading material. Thank you.
Bravo, bravo, bravo! You are a wonderful writer. I so enjoy your work; however…….
I know that for you it is all too easy to impress the the left half of the bell curve and even most of the right side, but those folks who are somewhere in the top 15 percent should challenge you more than they do.
I would encourage you to read Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene to understand better that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable (please note that while we conveniently call it a “theory” it is actually a proven fact—see fossil records).
“Murder” is a morality concept that only applies to moral beings which thus far are limited to human beings. Animals cannot commit murder because they are unable to be good or evil. In your terms animals are born with a survival program. Humans have no programming at birth, just a great operating system that needs programming.
Thanks but let me disagree. I've read Dawkins's book.
The fossil record is a a false attribution. The fossil record is a catalog of different species with "upgrades" through time. This does not prove that the reason behind those upgrades was the mechanism claimed through evolution. That is an extremely bold assumption, even though it's perhaps the most likely scenario. But it is not proof. We have to be intellectually honest.
Yes, you are right, morality is a human concept. Since we are self-aware, though, morality could become a necessity for us? Worth discussing...
Evolution doesn’t have a purpose or reason for adaptation. But that it happens and has happened is beyond dispute. We are all the evidence for evolution. All current living things are the result of natural selection. We are the current winners of the genetic lottery.
I didn’t imply a reason was required. I said the mechanism by which random mutations and survival of the fittest one was the one proven to be the case. The fossil record doesn’t prove how those species evolved. Evolution is an assumption with massive holes in it. I should write more on this
I think you should do some more research if you deny evolution.
How do you know I haven’t studied evolution?
Your statement below demonstrates that either you haven’t studied it or you studied it and misunderstood Darwin or perhaps you read some secondary sources that were less than fully informed.
“Evolution is flawed, because it is circular reasoning: “This species survived because it was the fittest, and it was the fittest because it survived”. Evolution is based on this logical fallacy.”
Your statement is a misstatement of Evolution.
Not at all. Quite the opposite. You don’t understand evolution at all. Your claim that “the fossil record proves evolution” proves you don’t know what the theory of evolution is and what it claims, let alone understand my criticism of it.
Misstating me will not change reality or support your argument. My actual words: “please note that while we conveniently call it a “theory” it is actually a proven fact—see fossil records”.
No, you misstate me and you clearly don’t possess my level of knowledge on evolution. You just repeat the same claims even after I counter them because you can’t comprehend my counter.
You may like this discussion that ponders simulation.
https://open.substack.com/pub/karafree/p/our-thoughts-and-our-imagination?r=3le9sh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you. I’ll check it out
Interesting. Very Lovecraftian, actually, as far as your theory of a mostly indifferent greater being/creator goes, but more coherently explained.
"Evolution doesn’t explain the emergence of life."
There you've hit the nail on the head: that's the weakest point of evolution theory.
Interesting, and thank you. I've never had my worked characterized as Lovecraftian.
How many times would God self sacrifice himself? Talk about an indiferent creator. The plurality of Bostron's quickie is the very offense of the matrix he is stuck in. Stay put. Don't let go of chasing white bunnies. Wonder is all there is.
The rest of us have it figured it out, in humility and in trust, we have managed to be hidden. Colossians 3:2-3.
Thank you for your comment. If I understand correctly, you disagree with my premise. I understand, as I also come from a religious upbringing. I am curious... Which do you find worse; someone who does not believe in the existence of a divine creator, or someone who believes in an indifferent divine creator?
I dissagree with endless wonder and chasing bunnies.
I find worse those who believe in an indiferent creator. They most likely will do nothing to understand that the creator had to sacrifice himself to save you.
The idea of Bostrom's simulation reality is nothing but denial of self. A repetition, contributing to wonder. As such, the mind entertains it and never finds the exit to this, which sits in plain sight.
We are what we believe. Believing in a simulation we chase our own tales. Stuck in a matrix but proud enough to further this idea. Why? Because the mind is entertained by it. Making it such the profit of the theory.
Mind in the bag.
I'd rather be purchased by God's sacrifice, who died once, and promised salvation. This is verifiable in this physical reality by the very acknowledgements the mind perceives in living by this code.
Well, I am one of those who believe in the probability of an indifferent creator. I am sorry you find me worse. I have done this debate numerous times in the past but there is no point. The point is belief. We choose what to believe.
The idea of an intelligent creator does not fulfill Occam's Razor. It makes one ask, who created the Creator?
And so on.
It's passing the buck upwards.
Even the big bang "theory" is being challenged in physics.
We don't know how anything started. We know where we are now.
You refer to the infinite regression problem, which is a valid argument. I address the infinite regression problem in the post. I assume you didn’t read it all. The screenwriters of True Detective explain it better that I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oX2xFo7JA4
I did and the explanation doesn't work for me.
I cannot assume that intelligence was given, not grown from having to live in reality.
I'm not saying evolution as science has it is correct. It's not an cannot explain a lot of what happens and is happening.
The time issue is valid but I don't believe in higher dimensions. (I used to)
Yes, it's rare for life to start in the universe. It's even rarer for it to last for so long. With enough time things change.
Nature is an amazing system and here's an interesting video on what happened on an isolated island. I cued it to a part that really amazed me. Jellyfish that no longer are poisonous who farm for their energy.
https://youtu.be/BHLETe7g2Jo?t=2474
The rest is amazing too if you have time. It's like seeing an alien planet and yet we are obsessed with going into space or discovering hyperspace, whatever that is.
With enough time, things can and do change. It's a part of life combined with changing conditions.
Did you know in the 1990s, neuroscience didn't care about consciousness? We're at an interesting point in psychological evolution. The software in our brains is changing even though the physical hardware has barely changed.
As Neo said "upgrades".
“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert Anton Wilson
Yes I agree. I’m not claiming that what I say is truth. I have no way of knowing. It’s just one way of thinking, one way to consider the possibility that perhaps the causation required for the infinite regression problem somehow doesn’t apply to one plane of existence to the next. Who knows. These are my opinions. Take them as such.
Yes and either one of us or both of us could be wrong.
I'm ok if there's nothing when we die and the afterlife is actually from our brains shutting down.
I'm also ok if consciousness continues after death.
I'm ok if it's something else that we haven't thought of.
"The only alternative left for mankind, ” he continued, “is discipline. Discipline is the only deterrent. But by discipline I don’t mean harsh routines. I don’t mean waking up every morning at five-thirty and throwing cold water on yourself until you’re blue. Sorcerers understand discipline as the capacity to face with serenity odds that are not included in our expectations. For them, discipline is an art: the art of facing infinity without flinching, not because they are strong and tough but because they are filled with awe.” - from The Active Side of Infinity by Carlos Casteneda
I know now that he was a phony and made up things but sometimes fiction has truth in it and that's the best explanation to face the unknown of death and appreciate life while I am still alive.
This is just a possibility:
https://substack.com/profile/100124894-steven-berger/note/c-46163955
And then, there's this:
https://substack.com/profile/100124894-steven-berger/note/c-47571940