5 ms·

"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator,

"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life" Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behave according to specific rules we will eventually discover. It's a premise, not a fact. The materialist premise is exceedingly useful for many things, but in it's extreme, it's ridiculously stupid as it denies what we accept as a very rational fact: that we are alive. In other words - because we can't explain life with physics, doesn't mean life doesn't exist, it means that physics is probably the wrong tool for the job. The mental trap of materialism is strong, sometimes we get caught in it like a Chinese finger trap: it's deeply nihilist to propose that we, as a life forms, don't even exist, and that the words we write, the thoughts we have, essentially don't exist, or are at most only the result of random interactions. It's also exceedingly hypocritical to live life with purpose or expression, and then somehow to have some strange belief that it is utterly random and meaningless. I think it's actually totally irrational and illogical.

jddj 8y ago
If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc., even in a universe where everything else is also just a differently shaped bag of atoms. There's nothing inherently more meaningful about the supernatural than the natural. This particular bag of atoms, for instance, derives much more pleasure from acknowledging itself as such, than from deciding that it is instead some platonically ideal "being" who was created by an ideal God who always was and whose mere existence eliminates every trace of the incomprehensible, random and emergent beauty that exists in this brutally materialistic framework in one fell swoop.
- tivert 8y ago
  > If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc... ...and slavery.
  - jddj 8y ago
    Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well. Honestly, that just sounds like the peace of mind of a psychopath.
      - jddj 8y ago
        Psychopath? That I would rather that all the terrible things in the world emerged randomly rather than being a part of some grand plan, or some supernatural game of Good Vs Evil? I think you might be reaching for a label when you could have simply said we disagree.
visarga 8y ago
> Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Whatever metaphysical perspective might turn out to be best, I think it's beyond doubt today that we are made of atoms, the same type of atoms that form non-living objects. The self replication part is obvious as well, we can observe it happening everywhere on Earth. So I don't think my conclusion is only valid in the materialist metaphysical perspective. My view is that self replication + selection under limited resources + adaptation (learning to act) are sufficient to explain our existence. We've understood self replication and selection since Darwin, and we understand learning based on analogy and extrapolation on current day AI. We have all the pieces to finally crack this mystery, and do that with minimal axioms (Occam's razor).

jddj 8y ago

If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc., even in a universe where everything else is also just a differently shaped bag of atoms. There's nothing inherently more meaningful about the supernatural than the natural. This particular bag of atoms, for instance, derives much more pleasure from acknowledging itself as such, than from deciding that it is instead some platonically ideal "being" who was created by an ideal God who always was and whose mere existence eliminates every trace of the incomprehensible, random and emergent beauty that exists in this brutally materialistic framework in one fell swoop.

tivert 8y ago
> If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc... ...and slavery.
- jddj 8y ago
  Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well. Honestly, that just sounds like the peace of mind of a psychopath.
    - jddj 8y ago
      Psychopath? That I would rather that all the terrible things in the world emerged randomly rather than being a part of some grand plan, or some supernatural game of Good Vs Evil? I think you might be reaching for a label when you could have simply said we disagree.

visarga 8y ago

> Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Whatever metaphysical perspective might turn out to be best, I think it's beyond doubt today that we are made of atoms, the same type of atoms that form non-living objects. The self replication part is obvious as well, we can observe it happening everywhere on Earth. So I don't think my conclusion is only valid in the materialist metaphysical perspective. My view is that self replication + selection under limited resources + adaptation (learning to act) are sufficient to explain our existence. We've understood self replication and selection since Darwin, and we understand learning based on analogy and extrapolation on current day AI. We have all the pieces to finally crack this mystery, and do that with minimal axioms (Occam's razor).