Discussion of philosophy
Its lack of cognition and volition is the very reason it is uncaring and cruel.
Also:
"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather."
You need the cognition to care in order to be uncaring; you need the volition to have intent in order to be cruel.
A rock is uncaring because it is incapable of caring.
A rock falling on your head can still be cruel because it is incapable of feeling anything about the pain it inflicted. Cruelty does not implicitly imply intent. It's defined by indifference towards suffering.
You would need cognition to care. You would only need volition to act with intent; cruel or not.
These are words that describe mental states and behaviors. They don't have meaning when applied to things which do not have mental states. It's the difference between 0 and ∅.
These are words that describe mental states
One of them is. To care requires the mental capacity to care. If it cannot care, "uncaring" still applies.
Cruelty, again, is defined by a lack of giving a shit toward a specific event (suffering).
Because the world is not a sapient being, it can only be uncaring and cruel.
"Uncaring" I do admit can go either 0 or ∅. I still personally think it implies the ability, and conscious decision not, to care, but that's an admittedly subjective perspective.
"Cruelty", however, has an implicit malicious intent. Cruelty implies that the cruel individual is aware of the suffering their decisions cause, and proceeds nonetheless.
Eh...
The universe is likely conscious, we just can't observe it as a whole from inside of it. We can't even see that far away without huge time distortions
The sun is likely conscious though...
And if the Sun is conscious, it's not much of a leap for the universe to be. If anything it was way less likely for the Sun to be conscious.
https://www.sheldrake.org/videos/is-the-sun-conscious
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352039545_Is_the_Sun_Conscious
The sun is also a much more local and immediate threat.
Solar flares are used to meet the standard of interacting with the outside for consciousness, and we're significantly overdue for a solar flare strong enough to knock all the electric transformers on whatever side of the globe was unlucky enough to be facing the sun when it hit.
Like not "overdue" like it should have happened 5 minutes ago, "overdue" like... Last big one was when we had telegraph networks, and it allowed for global transmission without any power sources for hours.
If the sun is conscious and I teracts purposefully with the environment thru solar flares...
It could essentially destroy human civilization with two proverbial flicks of it's wrist 12 hours apart.
But short of bringing back Aztec sacrifices, we don't really know how to appease the sun.
So yeah, I'll take nihilists over human sacrifices.
The word "likely" in your statements here sure are doing some heavy lifting.
The universe being conscious has been a theory for over 40 years man...
https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state/
Put forth by Roger Penrose (among many others), the guy who conceptualized and drafted MC Escher's most famous works while still a teenager...
The guy who was "the brains" of a duo consisting of him and Stephen fucking Hawking when they finished up Einstein's work.
The guy who just over a year ago got to see the discovery that quantum superposition can be maintained in the brain for sustained periods, something that he's spent decades saying and no one believed.
I didn't just pull this stuff out of my ass. Shit exists they didn't teach you in 6th grade science class.
I'm aware of panpsychic theories. I believe you are way overstating Penrose's position on the subject, my understanding is that he theorized that consciousness may exist in biological structures that are much simpler than human brains, I don't believe he has ever stated that he believes the universe is conscious.
And note his statement: "The question is significantly raised, of course, as to whether a paramecium — or, indeed, an individual human liver cell — might actually possess some rudimentary form of consciousness"
"The question is significantly raised" is a million miles from your "likely". And Penrose's theories on consciousness in general are very controversial in the scientific community.
when they finished up Einstein’s work
XD
consciousness may exist in biological structures
The big thing is it doesn't even need biological structures...
Which is kind of obvious due to viruses being fucking everywhere.
But it doesn't seem like you're that interested in learning anything
The big thing is it doesn’t even need biological structures…
Again, you make this statement with supreme confidence, when the vast majority of the world's experts on consciousness and physics would strongly disagree with you.
My mind is open, dude. I'm just pointing out that you seem to have seized on particular theories and given them more weight and confidence in your mind than the myriad competing theories.
Like, you're the one that brought up Penrose as support for your argument, but then when I pointed out that he doesn't actually support your argument (at least, not as strongly as you claimed) then you completely disregard that. "Learning" doesn't consist of just grabbing onto whatever theories sound cool or make you feel good. It's about trying to understand the whole spectrum of information and possibilities. In my mind, the more you learn the less certain you are about what is "true".
it doesn't seem like you're interested in substantiating your claims.
Another example...
You could have just asked for more information.
Considering this is /philosophy, you should check out the Tao Te Ching
The universe is likely conscious
🤣
Either consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, in which case the universe, as the largest and most complex system, is likely conscious
Or, consciousness is some fundamental force which amalgamates in complex systems, in which case the universe has consciousness permeating it.
Do you have some other explanation of consciousness?
Love the false dichotomy.
It might be if not for the
Do you have some other explanation of consciousness?
Which I noticed you ignored.
Well, yeah. Why would I argue with a fallacy? 🤣
Nobody knows how consciousness works. Yet you think there are only two options for it. Ridiculous.
If I gave you the opportunity to provide a potential alternative, it's not a false dichotomy by definition.
If no one knows how consciousness works, what gives you the confidence to 🤣 about it? If you can't provide an alternative, maybe your opinions aren't significant.
If I gave you the opportunity to provide a potential alternative, it’s not a false dichotomy by definition.
You hadn't disputed the false dichotomy so I assumed you accepted it.
If no one knows how consciousness works, what gives you the confidence to 🤣 about it? If you can’t provide an alternative, maybe your opinions aren’t significant.
Because "providing an answer" is not the same as "providing a good answer". Just because we don't know what causes something doesn't mean you can just make up whatever BS you like.
Either consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, in which case the universe, as the largest and most complex system, is likely conscious
This is so bad it indicates that my time discussing this with you will very much be wasted. Like - if you don't know that it's terrible then I'm just not smart enough to explain it to you. You jumped from "A" waaay past "Z" into "CRAZY" without connecting any points in between.
You hadn't disputed the false dichotomy so I assumed you accepted it.
The very first thing I said was a refutation.
Just because we don't know what causes something doesn't mean you can just make up whatever BS you like.
And just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't founded on reasonable logic, and just because you haven't heard something doesn't mean it isn't a serious philosophical debate. Formulating a hypothesis is the cornerstone of discovery, you can't get to good answers without considering the solution space.
You jumped from "A" waaay past "Z" into "CRAZY" without connecting any points in between.
...? That's a pretty direct logical step.
If you can't imagine an alternative explanation then you're not mentally equipped to criticize the explanations offered. So either accept my explanations, provide your own, or kindly put your empty opinions back where they came from.
And just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t founded on reasonable logic, and just because you haven’t heard something doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious philosophical debate.
You're absolutely right. The fact that it's BS is what makes it BS.
If you can’t imagine an alternative explanation then you’re not mentally equipped to criticize the explanations offered. So either accept my explanations, provide your own, or kindly put your empty opinions back where they came from.
Yeah. I expect as much. You've never provided any support for your shitty argument. It's just my "lack of intellect" that stops me from understanding your genius right?
It's your repeated refusal to suggest an alternative. I am willing to consider and respectfully discuss an alternative. You don't have one.
Your argument is too stupid for me to put effort into a reply. You're just getting shit posts. Sorry.
Edit: It's like somebody saying "the Earth is flat". yes I could spend hours devising a competent and clear argument against it. But really - it wouldn't matter. They'll just say something stupid with little thought that would require another several hours for me to refute. It's just not worth it.
Your argument is too stupid for me to put effort into a reply.
The most transparent cop out I've ever seen.
Yep - I'm not gonna bang my head against a wall.
No, you can't. You literally can't think of a third explanation. I know, I tried. Everything you can think of reduces to one of the two.
You don't have to admit it, just actually take the time in private to think about consciousness and what it could possibly be, actually give it a shot. I'm certain you can't think of a third alternative, there isn't one.
But if you can think of an alternative, I'd love to hear it. I've devoted a great deal of study to the topic, and I'd love a new legitimate perspective.
Fair. If the sun is conscious then it either likes us or tolerates us. If it didn't like us then it probably would've killed all of us a long time ago.
We'll honestly never know.
Like, in an ideal world, this is something we'd dump money into. Constant monitoring from Earth, and have the ISS try various signals each pass. Just random trial and error, maybe some representation of binary math and hope for an equal demonstration or even just reproduction of the signal.
At the very least the whole time we'd be gathering data in the hopes of preventing a random flare.
There's just no money in that, so no capitalist society would ever pay for the research.
And who knows? Maybe the sun knows we're here and the only reason it leaves us alone is we leave it alone?
Maybe trying to say wassup just pisses it off and we're fucked if we try?
Nihilism isn't the worst plan