5 ms·

It is nothing. It is always nothing. The "spiritual", the "religion" is always about hiding the politics in the mystery. We didn't know we were on a planet and

It is nothing. It is always nothing. The "spiritual", the "religion" is always about hiding the politics in the mystery. We didn't know we were on a planet and we believed meretricious speculators rambling on and on about the "genesis" of the sun, the moon, and the earth. We didn't know why and how were there so many kinds of animals around us and we listened to stories. Nowadays we don't know how the brain encodes memories, how it retrieves them and replays them (memories are probably like a movie script and the brain replays them like a cinema [1]), and we don't know how this system fails to work when seriously decoupled, as in dreams, when damaged, or under psychoactive drugs. We know roughly how anaesthesia works by blocking signals, there is nothing magic in being under anesthetic drugs and waking up from anaesthesia; it's a procedure done daily thousands of times across all the hospitals in the world. Camillo Golgi showed us the neuron merely 152 years ago [2]. Give it 150 more years and all the current "mysteries" will appear more or less ridiculous. [1] Endel Tulving, Episodic memory: from mind to brain, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752477 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752477 [2] 'In 1871, a German anatomist Joseph von Gerlach postulated that the brain is a complex "protoplasmic network", in the form of a continuous network called the reticulum. Using his black reaction, Golgi could trace various regions of the cerebro-spinal axis, clearly distinguishing the different nervous projections, namely axon from the dendrites.', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camillo_Golgi#Nervous_system:~:text=In%201871%2C%20a,the%20dendrites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camillo_Golgi#Nervous_system:~....

b800h 4y ago
> It is always nothing Classic atheistic arrogance here. Our understanding of the brain may be transformed, but had it occurred to you that when you dissect things you begin to miss the wood for the trees? Nihilism is more absurd than any religion.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  Classic argument to obscurantism. I am not even a nihilist, but sure, after nihilism will destroy the lives of people for 2,000+ years, I will agree that it's more absurd than any religion. So far, the great religions of the world, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, needed thousands of years to realize that slavery is not really a great idea, and some are not yet convinced, but are pressured by those dissecting atheists to repress their true nature: oppress, admonish, control. And to think you can't appreciate the beauty of the world just because you understand it, it's simply mind-boggling. Given how much I appreciate a computer program about which I know every nook and cranny because I developed it from an empty text file, I would venture to say: only if you fully understand something you can start to appreciate its beauty, start to be responsible for its future. (Also, the expression "it is always nothing" is full of poetic vim given how atoms are mostly empty space and how the universe itself is mostly empty space—unfathomable voids sprinkled with galactic filaments [1]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament#/media/File:Nearsc.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament#/media/File:Ne...
  - b800h 4y ago
    > given how atoms are mostly empty space and how the universe itself is mostly empty space Are they? You've forgotten the wave/particle duality, which is appropriate, because it's analogous to the broader argument. There are (at least) two ways of understanding reality. One is done wth science and analysis, the other isn't. One can be broken down into "things", the other features conglomerates of those things. Just saying "well microscopy and deconstruction don't work on this, so it doesn't exist" is literally absurd. The rest of your comment there is just a strawman.
    - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
      "Atomic nuclei consist of electrically positive protons and electrically neutral neutrons. These are held together by the strongest known fundamental force, called the strong force. The nucleus makes up much less than .01% of the volume of the atom, but typically contains more than 99.9% of the mass of the atom." [1] No need for the wave-particle duality. Not sure where the straw man is. Doesn't Buddhism use "karma" to justify slavery?, doesn't Hinduism use the caste system as in a MMORPG?, didn't Christians use Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7 "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh" to justify slavery?, doesn't Islam treat 50%+ of the world population as property (although women are viewed as property in most religions)? and so on. If I were to use the software of a robotic arm that sometimes does what I ask of it, but sometimes beats me to a pulp, I wouldn't call that software as well designed, and I would stop using it at all. In just the same manner, religions were badly designed, they are codifications of behaviour made by people who didn't even know they were on a planet after all, so it's understandable, pitiable in the final instance (and the modern religions are just ridiculous parodies, from Mormonism to the Unification Church, when not downright murderous cults, from Theosophists to NXIVM). I am not sorry to hurt your sensibilities, you are free to have whatever beliefs and religion you like, but just don't tell me about the Sky Daddy while using machines which were born from the collective sweat and genius of the humankind, machines for which most of their inventors would have been killed by various religions across times (putting aside that the bigotry risen from religion killed Alan Turing). No, there are no two ways or more of understanding reality. We can build for ourselves whatever framework we need to encompass all and everything (even if the final framework will be somewhat self-contradictory as in the wave-particle duality), from the femtosecond event happening in a hadron collider to the trillions and trillions of future years which await the universe. But it is us, humans, tailless primates, conscious agents, and our tools who are doing the understanding. Nothing more, nothing less. [1] https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsnuclei#:~:text=Atomic%20nuclei%20consist%20of%20electrically,the%20mass%20of%20the%20atom https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsnuclei#:~:text=At....
mejutoco 4y ago
> Give it 150 more years and all the current "mysteries" will appear more or less ridiculous. My bet is in 150 years we will have even more questions, and maybe one or two solved ones. Let’s look at history. If you were blind 500 years ago there was no cure. If you are blind now, while the life conditions might be better (guide dog, support from organizations) there is still no cure. We really do not know much. Science is great, but, ironically, this blind optimism in it smells of religion. An old idea, not mine, from Nietzsche.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  There is no cure for blindness? What kind of blindness? Even a popular entertainer made news when curing 1,000 cataracts with a today's standard procedure. How would cataracts be cured 500 years ago? Bloodletting? Very soon (10 years, 20, maybe more) we will be able to restore full eyesight, even regrow eyes [1], and beyond. But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed across the entire planet with a detour in Low Earth Orbit using materials which were invented 116 years ago [2], it's your privilege. [1] "Researchers restore lost sight in mice, offering clues to reversing aging. But many hurdles remain before approach can be tried in people", https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-lost-sight-mice-offering-clues-reversing-aging https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-... [2] "In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic plastic, meaning it contained no molecules found in nature.", https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics#:~:text=In%201907%20Leo%20Baekeland%20invented%20Bakelite%2C%20the%20first%20fully%20synthetic%20plastic%2C%20meaning%20it%20contained%20no%20molecules%20found%20in%20nature https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-pla....
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    > But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed. I do not understand what you mean by dusty metaphysics. I am guessing you mean religion? I can criticize science without endorsing religion. It is not either or. If that is the case, I believe you read into my comment things I did not say. I already said science is great. At the same time, we hardly know anything. These are orthogonal. We are a bunch of apes on a rock in the middle of space. Replacing religion with science is what (one of the things) Nietzsche was talking about. What a better example, ironically, that not being able to criticize Science.
TriNetra 4y ago
Having done 8+ years of regular meditation, after getting inspired partly by an HN post [0], I can say with certainty that we're more than the body. I live with constant sensations, which are profound when I meditate. Building up from the bottom of the spine, where the kundalini is said to be sleeping in yogic scriptures for most folks. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  Having seen my arm split in two, being unable to move it for a year, and slowly and painfully starting to regain control over it, I can say with certainty that we're less than the body, that we are some "strange loop", an information processing algorithm, shaped by memories, which is most probably substrate-independent, but for now stuck in the body of a tailless primate. Funnily enough, in my wounded arm I also have constant sensations and even today, although less pronounced, when I move it, I feel more like I am controlling a robotic arm through a joystick rather than something which "is" me or mine.
yadingus 4y ago
Your opinion is based entirely on the assumption of materialism. We used to think the earth was the center of the universe, we learned it's not. We used to think the earth was the center of the solar system, we learned it's not. We now think that the brain is the center of consciousness. The trend is usually in breaking away from the idea that we're special, not in reaffirming what we already assume. In this case, the assumption is that our brains are special. The breaking away would be understanding that the brain is not the center of consciousness, but that we're a part of something bigger, something which does not look like what we assume or imagine. That means that future knowledge will likely not look like it is reaffirming any particular religion, not will it look like it is reaffirming the current popular fundamentalist materialist view.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  I remember a short quip, perhaps from Marguerite Duras, "all these people speak about materialism, yet they barely know what matter is". I linked below how the atom is mostly empty, here is a chart of the elementary particles with the three generations of matter and anti-matter [1], and here is a hydrogen wave function just because it's beautiful [2]. You tell me to what kind of "materialism" do I belong to. Perhaps I am too "tau-onic", or maybe too "anticharm-ic" (I am the first to say that the particle names are just awful, naming things is hard, naming the constituents of things is impossible). I have seen people dieing, dear people. I don't care if they went "somewhere", I just care that they are no longer here. And if they were to choose, they would still choose to be here and not go "somewhere", wherever and however it may be. Nevertheless, looking at the facts sober, without any glam or fantasy, they went nowhere, just like when they've fallen asleep a thousand times beforehand. And it is very disingenuous, childish, and hurtful to pretend otherwise. The brain not being the center of consciousness is just ridiculous. I hope you don't think our feet are the center of consciousness, because we would have then some zombie amputees. But if you believe it to be out there, in the universe, put some glasses of wine in front of you, or whatever alcoholic beverage you fancy, then ask yourself why do you get drunk only after you ingest them (Not condoning alcoholic intake otherwise as mere experiment, for the science). Our brains are special insofar as they are able to give rise to an agent, as opposed to a rock, just sitting there. If on some distant planet there is also a similar in effects object, then sure, that object is also rather special. [1] https://www.dfa.unict.it/sites/default/files/images/1280px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_Anti.jpg https://www.dfa.unict.it/sites/default/files/images/1280px-S... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hydrogen...

b800h 4y ago

> It is always nothing Classic atheistic arrogance here. Our understanding of the brain may be transformed, but had it occurred to you that when you dissect things you begin to miss the wood for the trees? Nihilism is more absurd than any religion.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
Classic argument to obscurantism. I am not even a nihilist, but sure, after nihilism will destroy the lives of people for 2,000+ years, I will agree that it's more absurd than any religion. So far, the great religions of the world, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, needed thousands of years to realize that slavery is not really a great idea, and some are not yet convinced, but are pressured by those dissecting atheists to repress their true nature: oppress, admonish, control. And to think you can't appreciate the beauty of the world just because you understand it, it's simply mind-boggling. Given how much I appreciate a computer program about which I know every nook and cranny because I developed it from an empty text file, I would venture to say: only if you fully understand something you can start to appreciate its beauty, start to be responsible for its future. (Also, the expression "it is always nothing" is full of poetic vim given how atoms are mostly empty space and how the universe itself is mostly empty space—unfathomable voids sprinkled with galactic filaments [1]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament#/media/File:Nearsc.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament#/media/File:Ne...
- b800h 4y ago
  > given how atoms are mostly empty space and how the universe itself is mostly empty space Are they? You've forgotten the wave/particle duality, which is appropriate, because it's analogous to the broader argument. There are (at least) two ways of understanding reality. One is done wth science and analysis, the other isn't. One can be broken down into "things", the other features conglomerates of those things. Just saying "well microscopy and deconstruction don't work on this, so it doesn't exist" is literally absurd. The rest of your comment there is just a strawman.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
    "Atomic nuclei consist of electrically positive protons and electrically neutral neutrons. These are held together by the strongest known fundamental force, called the strong force. The nucleus makes up much less than .01% of the volume of the atom, but typically contains more than 99.9% of the mass of the atom." [1] No need for the wave-particle duality. Not sure where the straw man is. Doesn't Buddhism use "karma" to justify slavery?, doesn't Hinduism use the caste system as in a MMORPG?, didn't Christians use Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7 "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh" to justify slavery?, doesn't Islam treat 50%+ of the world population as property (although women are viewed as property in most religions)? and so on. If I were to use the software of a robotic arm that sometimes does what I ask of it, but sometimes beats me to a pulp, I wouldn't call that software as well designed, and I would stop using it at all. In just the same manner, religions were badly designed, they are codifications of behaviour made by people who didn't even know they were on a planet after all, so it's understandable, pitiable in the final instance (and the modern religions are just ridiculous parodies, from Mormonism to the Unification Church, when not downright murderous cults, from Theosophists to NXIVM). I am not sorry to hurt your sensibilities, you are free to have whatever beliefs and religion you like, but just don't tell me about the Sky Daddy while using machines which were born from the collective sweat and genius of the humankind, machines for which most of their inventors would have been killed by various religions across times (putting aside that the bigotry risen from religion killed Alan Turing). No, there are no two ways or more of understanding reality. We can build for ourselves whatever framework we need to encompass all and everything (even if the final framework will be somewhat self-contradictory as in the wave-particle duality), from the femtosecond event happening in a hadron collider to the trillions and trillions of future years which await the universe. But it is us, humans, tailless primates, conscious agents, and our tools who are doing the understanding. Nothing more, nothing less. [1] https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsnuclei#:~:text=Atomic%20nuclei%20consist%20of%20electrically,the%20mass%20of%20the%20atom https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsnuclei#:~:text=At....

mejutoco 4y ago

> Give it 150 more years and all the current "mysteries" will appear more or less ridiculous. My bet is in 150 years we will have even more questions, and maybe one or two solved ones. Let’s look at history. If you were blind 500 years ago there was no cure. If you are blind now, while the life conditions might be better (guide dog, support from organizations) there is still no cure. We really do not know much. Science is great, but, ironically, this blind optimism in it smells of religion. An old idea, not mine, from Nietzsche.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
There is no cure for blindness? What kind of blindness? Even a popular entertainer made news when curing 1,000 cataracts with a today's standard procedure. How would cataracts be cured 500 years ago? Bloodletting? Very soon (10 years, 20, maybe more) we will be able to restore full eyesight, even regrow eyes [1], and beyond. But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed across the entire planet with a detour in Low Earth Orbit using materials which were invented 116 years ago [2], it's your privilege. [1] "Researchers restore lost sight in mice, offering clues to reversing aging. But many hurdles remain before approach can be tried in people", https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-lost-sight-mice-offering-clues-reversing-aging https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-... [2] "In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic plastic, meaning it contained no molecules found in nature.", https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics#:~:text=In%201907%20Leo%20Baekeland%20invented%20Bakelite%2C%20the%20first%20fully%20synthetic%20plastic%2C%20meaning%20it%20contained%20no%20molecules%20found%20in%20nature https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-pla....
- mejutoco 4y ago
  > But sure, cling to dusty metaphysics while sending messages at light speed. I do not understand what you mean by dusty metaphysics. I am guessing you mean religion? I can criticize science without endorsing religion. It is not either or. If that is the case, I believe you read into my comment things I did not say. I already said science is great. At the same time, we hardly know anything. These are orthogonal. We are a bunch of apes on a rock in the middle of space. Replacing religion with science is what (one of the things) Nietzsche was talking about. What a better example, ironically, that not being able to criticize Science.

TriNetra 4y ago

Having done 8+ years of regular meditation, after getting inspired partly by an HN post [0], I can say with certainty that we're more than the body. I live with constant sensations, which are profound when I meditate. Building up from the bottom of the spine, where the kundalini is said to be sleeping in yogic scriptures for most folks. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
Having seen my arm split in two, being unable to move it for a year, and slowly and painfully starting to regain control over it, I can say with certainty that we're less than the body, that we are some "strange loop", an information processing algorithm, shaped by memories, which is most probably substrate-independent, but for now stuck in the body of a tailless primate. Funnily enough, in my wounded arm I also have constant sensations and even today, although less pronounced, when I move it, I feel more like I am controlling a robotic arm through a joystick rather than something which "is" me or mine.

yadingus 4y ago

Your opinion is based entirely on the assumption of materialism. We used to think the earth was the center of the universe, we learned it's not. We used to think the earth was the center of the solar system, we learned it's not. We now think that the brain is the center of consciousness. The trend is usually in breaking away from the idea that we're special, not in reaffirming what we already assume. In this case, the assumption is that our brains are special. The breaking away would be understanding that the brain is not the center of consciousness, but that we're a part of something bigger, something which does not look like what we assume or imagine. That means that future knowledge will likely not look like it is reaffirming any particular religion, not will it look like it is reaffirming the current popular fundamentalist materialist view.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
I remember a short quip, perhaps from Marguerite Duras, "all these people speak about materialism, yet they barely know what matter is". I linked below how the atom is mostly empty, here is a chart of the elementary particles with the three generations of matter and anti-matter [1], and here is a hydrogen wave function just because it's beautiful [2]. You tell me to what kind of "materialism" do I belong to. Perhaps I am too "tau-onic", or maybe too "anticharm-ic" (I am the first to say that the particle names are just awful, naming things is hard, naming the constituents of things is impossible). I have seen people dieing, dear people. I don't care if they went "somewhere", I just care that they are no longer here. And if they were to choose, they would still choose to be here and not go "somewhere", wherever and however it may be. Nevertheless, looking at the facts sober, without any glam or fantasy, they went nowhere, just like when they've fallen asleep a thousand times beforehand. And it is very disingenuous, childish, and hurtful to pretend otherwise. The brain not being the center of consciousness is just ridiculous. I hope you don't think our feet are the center of consciousness, because we would have then some zombie amputees. But if you believe it to be out there, in the universe, put some glasses of wine in front of you, or whatever alcoholic beverage you fancy, then ask yourself why do you get drunk only after you ingest them (Not condoning alcoholic intake otherwise as mere experiment, for the science). Our brains are special insofar as they are able to give rise to an agent, as opposed to a rock, just sitting there. If on some distant planet there is also a similar in effects object, then sure, that object is also rather special. [1] https://www.dfa.unict.it/sites/default/files/images/1280px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_Anti.jpg https://www.dfa.unict.it/sites/default/files/images/1280px-S... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hydrogen...