How simple are people?
-
@Peatful how can one "ask" god. and if you know how to ask god, how do you bypass the question of which god to ask if there are so many to choose from
-
If a provably more advanced alien species descended down from the heavens to conquer Earth and enslave you and your family, would you surrender due to their supposed superiority?
Probably not.
So it doesn't really matter whether or not there is an abstract justification for how "special" people are, if they come from God or not, etc. People, with a healthy metabolism, like being alive and doing things. It is literally the life process.
Why do grandmothers knit sweaters when a jacquard loom machine does it a thousand times faster?
The life process.
It would be anti-life to lie down and die because we can direct a machine to do some limited functions in a faster/cheaper way.
Perhaps ironically, the way in which machines can now generate decent personable English demonstrates that there is no way to make this plain through language alone, i.e., through abstract-logical posts on an internet forum.
You actually have to be a living person to understand it, and draw from the well of that experience.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@Peatful Disclaimer: I will repeat—this comment is in no way intended to anger you, disrespect you, or cause an argument. I am genuinely trying to have a productive debate. (I didn’t say you reacted in an angered way; I just wanted to clarify my stance.)
Now that we’ve gotten past the disclaimer:
The burden of proof is on you. I cannot search for something I do not believe exists or have never seen any proof of. Neither can you (again, in my opinion—I’ll be happy to be proven wrong)I love this shtt
Never seen as an argument or disrespect
But thank youBeing an asshole “Christian”
That’s when im disgusted
A few on the old forum come to mindIf life is good for you now
And you see no need for God
(God from the Bible btw)
Enjoy!But there will be a day:
A sick child
A bad accident
Painful emptiness….So no sales pitch or evangelizing from me
It really is between you and GodAll my best….
-
@Kvirion thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. More things to look into.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
humans have reached and found out the lowest level we can in our universes materials which are the atoms we havnt found one thing which isnt composed out of protons ,electrons and neutrons(not including the stuff which makes up protons electrons and neutrons which we also have discovered)
All of us are conscious, so we can use that for our reasoning.
If everything is built up of individual particles, then, for there to be consciousness, that consciousness would be an attribute of each particle. But if that were true, how could the kind of consciousness we have come about? We have a larger but still unified consciousness than what can be expected of a single particle, and this consciousness appears to be in a way localized in our heads, with sensory experience coming from our body.
If placing the particles near each other combines their consciousness, then there's some kind of interaction happening outside the limits of the particles. In other words, the particles aren't the most fundamental layer of reality. If particles didn't combine consciousness in any way, then our kind of consciousness would not exist in a world only consisting of particles. If particles that touch each other transmit something from their consciousness to the other particle, then, again, there's something else than just those particles, some other moving factor. And what determines the confines of consciousness then? In other words, our consciousness can't be fully supported by a purely atomistic universe.
As of now, the only way I can make sense of consciousness is by imagining something non-material and without discrete parts (it reminds me of water or air, though those are material of course) which could be said to be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously (not literally). The human body then receives and modulates this "signal", which then results in the kind of consciousness we are familiar with.
After writing about consciousness, some more thoughts came up.
What determines the interactions of the particles? How could the particles form anything? What keeps them together? Why don't they just bounce off of each other, or even pass through each other? I'm not really into physics, but iirc, physicists use "fields" or "forces" to explain these. But what are they then? More particles? Then the same apply. Not particles? Then the universe isn't fundamentally based on particles.
-
@NoeticJuice "If everything is built up of individual particles, then, for there to be consciousness, that consciousness would be an attribute of each particle."
This is a compositional error. Many macroscopic properties (wetness, elasticity, temperature) emerge from organized interactions of parts even though no part singly bears them. Current neuroscience and complexity theory treat consciousness likewise (as an emergent, system level phenomenon) without assigning it to each constituent particle
"If placing the particles near each other combines their consciousness, then there's some kind of interaction happening outside the limits of the particles."
Standard physical interactions (electromagnetic coupling, chemical bonding, synaptic transmission) already lie outside any single particle yet remain fully within physical law. No extra layer is required other then forces and the relational structure they generate.
"If particles didn't combine consciousness in any way, then our kind of consciousness would not exist in a world only consisting of particles."
this is a False dichotomy: either particles each have consciousness or they “combine” it. A third option (I mentioned this in part one aswell) is that consciousness is an emergent property of certain organized information processing networks
"If particles that touch each other transmit something from their consciousness to the other particle, then, again, there's something else than just those particles, some other moving factor."
No solid scientific support exists for particles transmitting “consciousness.” What they transmit are energy and information via physical forces. The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
it doesnt make me uncomfortable but i believe we as humans have reached and found out the lowest level we can in our universes materials which are the atoms we havnt found one thing which isnt composed out of protons ,electrons and neutrons(not including the stuff which makes up protons electrons and neutrons which we also have discovered).
It probably does because you're resting on woo to cope with it. The standard model is incomplete. There is no unified field theory.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
The burden of proof is on you.
I'd take her hint if I were you lb.
I cannot search for something I do not believe exists or have never seen any proof of. Neither can you (again, in my opinion—I’ll be happy to be proven wrong)
While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
how can one "ask" god. and if you know how to ask god, how do you bypass the question of which god to ask if there are so many to choose from
E-motion is a conversation. Lie on it at your peril.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
lol
-
@ThinPicking As I said before, I'm not here to argue, I'm here to have a productive debate. So, as I mentioned, I'm happy to listen to your ideas about why I'm wrong or where my position might be flawed. But saying lol and making comments like "While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science" doesn't help me understand your stance
-
@ThinPicking My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@ThinPicking My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
"Scientific" theories and experiments that you've never experienced yourself aren't facts, they're beliefs.
Feeling something isnt a belief, if you have a specific feeling and you call it a certain word such as soul, because the meaning/definition of it match your feeling, you have a soul
-
@random what is the feeling you will describe as the feeling of a soul
-
@lobotomize-me it might depend on the person. If you eat better foods including more raw foods, more sun exposure, less porn, less alcohool, you Can start to experience energetic states and feelings you have never experience before or not in a long time. Some of these energetic feelings you might associate with soul energy, some with divine energy
-
@random 1.all the habits you mentioned prevent harm or improve dopamine baseline.
2. i asked what does it feel like in your opinion and you told me the ways to achieve a divine feeling / soul energy feeling -
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random 1.all the habits you mentioned prevent harm or improve dopamine baseline.
2. i asked what does it feel like in your opinion and you told me the ways to achieve a divine feeling / soul energy feeling1 who Cares? These are beliefs in top of that, you care about facts
2 i answered, i Saïd it might vary depending on the person, be specific if you ask what i my self specifically felt that i associate to "soul".
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
This is a compositional error. Many macroscopic properties (wetness, elasticity, temperature) emerge from organized interactions of parts even though no part singly bears them. Current neuroscience and complexity theory treat consciousness likewise (as an emergent, system level phenomenon) without assigning it to each constituent particle
You are right about the compositional error. I'd need to think more about whether or not it applies to (any form or level of) consciousness. We can change it then --> How could consciousness emerge from particles? Or we could just ask how can any particles interact at all.
Standard physical interactions (electromagnetic coupling, chemical bonding, synaptic transmission) already lie outside any single particle yet remain fully within physical law. No extra layer is required other then forces and the relational structure they generate.
What they transmit are energy and information via physical forces. The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
What are physical laws and forces? How about energy and information?
From what I remember, physical laws aren't really anything in themselves. They are just rules or patterns that everything within the universe seems to follow. The patterns or rules don't do anything, but we can use them to predict things.
The forces appear to function outside the limits of the particles themselves. They are not the particles they affect. So what are they? If we believe that they too are composed of particles, we'd have to come up with new forces to explain their interaction, which then are made up of more particles again. Particles all the way down ad infinitum without ever getting to an explanation. It makes more sense to think of forces as something other than particles. For anything to interact with each other, a common medium is needed.
Similar thing for energy as with forces. Are they more particles?
When something gains information, it's a change in its state, isn't it? But if the particles are a single indivisible unit, not composed of anything else within them that could change, then how could information be transmitted?
-
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
We've come as close as necessary to make it a tangible scientific hypothesis chap. Stick around.
