Honestly i feel this to be an important question to ask. As everything as it comes to life is meant to evolve and pursue survival into a state of may we say complex emotional and behavioral intelligence is it that science will get us there or is religious and philosophical concepts important to driving that? The reason i ask this is because on the philosophical and religious side society pushes its desire to know the unknown or what i would call the whole of reality but so does science both use tools devised by humans and yet come to completely different conclusions and infact the other side has come to a conclusion that is even harmful to society! But both groups have the same desire. Heres a thought why is it that when you look at cases of dmt use each person describes the hallucinations very similarly? Yet some will say they met âgodâ but others will just say âthat was cool broâ? Maybe thats vague but my point is perception is terrifying and where the wise man swims the blind man drowns.
No, just survive and breed, theres no goal towards complex emotions or behavioural intelligence.
Trees and plants literally have no brains and are more numerous than humans.
Stuff like bacteria does fine without understanding emotions.
This is as far as evolution is understood now, there are far out there theories ive seen thrown around on podcasts about what if there is a goal towards intelligence and itll be created when we make some kind of perfect ai, but as far as commonly understood biology goes, theres no goal towards anything outside of survival and breeding when it comes to what drives evolution.
Science tells us how to build nuclear weapons, but doesnât tell us whether we SHOULD or whether or how or when we should deploy them. For that you need philosophy. IMO religion is just a weak, lazy subcategory of philosophy that lacks curiosity and rigor and substitutes dogma for actual effort or moral struggle.
Philosophy certainly isnât perfect nor nearly as effective in practical terms as science, and in modern times it is thought by many to be in crisis for various reasons. But I still think it is a worthy and necessary vehicle for thinking about thinking, so to speak.
With or without philosophy, though, humans need to learn to sit with uncertainty, to admit what they donât or canât (at least presently) know or even have good hypotheses about â and they need to refrain from making up stuff to relieve that perceived tension.
On another forum a mother was relating how, when one of her children were young, she was distraught about a seriously bad medical diagnosis (thankfully, ultimately a cure was obtained). But at the time she was agonizing about why this was happening to her child â as mothers will do.
But a wise nurse helped her enormously by saying that there IS no reason for your child going through this, other than biology. That stuck with her ever after, and the story resonated with me as well.
A couple of years ago my wife was misdiagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. When they opened her up and removed the fetus-sized tumor in her abdomen, along with her other lady parts, standard procedure is to put it under the microscope on the spot to asses exactly what it is. The verdict was that it was a rare benign mimic and not cancerous at all â just indistinguishable from ovarian cancer from the standpoint of either radiology or visual inspection. The odds of this were a mere 3%, but she won the lottery, and she woke up in recovery to an excited nurse shouting into her face, ITâS NOT CANCER!!! Something said nurse doesnât get to do, 97% of the time.
But for almost a month, while we waited for the emergency surgery slot, my wife sat under an effective death sentence, with the only variables to be determined being how long she had, and what (shitty) options she had for treatment, and how to thread the needle between how she wanted her final days to go down and the needs of others (her disabled son, in particular).
My wife, and everyone who knew her, found out who she was. She was not afraid. She slept fine. She did not rail against it. It was just biology happening. It wasnât personal or directed. She was not thrilled at the diagnosis or the quality of life it would likely leave her with in her final days, but she was not bemoaning it, either. She had the courage, dignity and peace of mind to face it. She joined online cancer victim communities and started learning all the 3-letter acronyms (TLAs) for her illness, the ins and outs, the experimental treatment options, etc. For our anniversary she made me a hand made card titled, âAre you ready to IMPROVISE?â
All this was possible because she was willing to accept that there was NOT a âreasonâ for this. It was just stuff happening â unfortunately, some stuff that happens isnât fun. But itâs not personal.
Many (or most) of them. Surely cats and dogs, no doubt about that. No animals would follow stupid ideals divorced from reality.
No idea. Let me know if you find out. We canât even see past the edge of the observable universe which is why its called the observable universe. The light from further out hasnât reached us yet (and maybe never will since space-time is expanding between here and there faster than the speed of light). We could just be a single bubble of expansion from a singularity among infinite singularities. We might be inside a black hole. Reality might be a hologram inside a video game but I find that last one a bit silly. Video games are just pixels.
Obvious observations are Obvious. Iâd like to add that just posting a video on Neil Degrasse Tyson (which Iâve already seen) isnât evidence for youâre rebuttal infact its just a video of a couple people talking about science. Iâm not willing to change my opinions without proper evidence and just because a scientist said so isnât evidence.
Your questions strongly remind me of what they talk about in The Matrix. Is that where youâre getting your inspiration from?
I feel like youâre attempting to elitist a negative response by rage baiting and not contributing anything constructive to any of these post threads. These are threads that are just attempts to provoke new ways of thinking and to address dangerous ways of thinking. To answer your question simply, no this is not inspired by a fictional movie that the muskrat seems to believe in (elon) in fact this is a base conversation of what T.O.E âtheory of everythingâ would look like and how would we grasp that as say an individual while avoiding false ideologies and dangerous lines of thinking. If youâre not willing to contribute to that sort of conversation please move on to harassing someone else.
He actually is contributing. It seems you just donât care for the content of that contribution.
Additionally, he is not harassing you. He simply stated what he thought and followed it up with a question.
@Matthew, in this debate forum, ideas are not sacrosanct. They can be challenged, supported, or disparaged by anyone. You are not required to respond to anyoneâs posts, but they are free to post (as long as forum guidelines are adhered to).
SoâŚif you donât agree or like what a poster has to say, walk on by. Know, though, that they do not have to cease posting in the thread.
But if the scientist is going off of already existing evidence, doesnât that count?
Fair enough on your answer as to what inspired you. But why be defensive and accuse me of harassment? 