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.
Can I throw rocks at them?
I mean, if earth vanished the moon would fuck off somewhere
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
“Evolution is blind” is debatable. Arguably, we evolved to fit an environment. We are survivors.
It clicked for me when I heard it’s a non-random selection of random mutations
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
I mean, it would change the orbits of other bodies within our solar system, but that’s it.
Was this made by an AI?
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
We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
We can choose what we live for, and that’s the most meaningful thing I can think of
No we can’t. Choice is an illusion.
Prove it
If from a scientific perspective, life is devoid of meaning, why is science important? It may be important to us, but why is anything important to us important at all then?
Wouldn’t it be equally meaningless?
Wouldn’t truth also be meaningless?
Wouldn’t getting worked up about this or any other comment be even more, yet paradoxically, equally meaningless?
If all of these things are meaningless, then why do anything in response?
Perhaps meaning is something that is inherently subjective because it requires purpose and value? Perhaps the most important things, such as what is essentially valuable, is something that we just decide or feel, without there being a lot of science to do around it and therefore can never be understood in objective and therefore scientific terms? Maybe science is great for understanding the known, but fails as knowing the evident yet unseen?
idk why people keep falling under the impression that science will provide them with meaning. It’s not a religion. it won’t. It’s merely a tool imo.
If you have thoughts regarding this or any other issues, please contact me at support [at] pudutopia.cl
Or reply here. Either is fine, really.
Have a nice day! :)
The flaw in all of this sophomoric philosophic whinging is that it mostly tends to start off with the presupposition that all of these concepts aren’t just human constructs. The only reason anything has meaning to us is because we decided it does.
The purpose of life is life itself.
I’m just glad we can both agree science has no meaning. thanks.
Incorrect, only because you’re still tacitly assuming that science (or anything else) must have some kind of external cosmic significance outside of human thought.
Science is important to us – or at least it ought to be – because it’s the method by which we understand how the universe works. Being important to us is all that matters, because we can’t think with the minds of anything else.
That is exactly my point. Thanks.
Nothing we are or do has any meaning to the universe. But our lives and actions have meaning to ourselves. And science is important for humanity. The universe doesn’t care if we develop science or not, but we care. There’s no great universal narrative where we play any role, but we do write our own narrative for ourselves and those to come.
I don’t think that subjective means arbitrary. A book may mean different things to different people, but that doesn’t mean that one interpretation is as good as any other. Or that reason is abandoned in the process of forming a subjective idea.
Does this mean I can say racial slurs ironically
