hey guys, truth finding thread? in this thread we post our unpopular

i'll start off

romantic relationships are wastes of time and resources

>>577550931

on /b/? you are about 6 years late. 6 years ago it would've been a nice thread, now it will 404 empty or some fucking jokester is going to come here and post a furry pic, feel awesome when OP is a faggot LOL and perhaps post some copy pasta from some other copy pasta collection of copy pasta he has in his copy pasta folder, then he'll head off and start a *-thread like he does 5 times a day.

>>577551125
for the sake of survival of the individual (and therefore the species), it is not.

>>577551191

huh, well i see your point. but he thread is already up so i might as well roll with it

>>577551420

i don't think that it helps at all when it comes to personal survival, please elaborate

Dear Diary,

Today OP tried to stealthily get people to admit Creationism was a reasonable alternative to Science. Because he was a Faggot.

>>577552197

i don't believe in creationism

File: 1395269634991.gif (815KB, 332x500px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 332x500px

>>577551420
Don't think that's correct, and here's my refutation.

Way back in the day when we were all sand niggers, we lived in tribes of around 100 people. We were community based, and we slept with all of the women and raised all the children of the tribe as a community.

There were certainly no monogamous, romantic relationships going on there. This was meant for survival, and worked out pretty goddamn good.

Of course in our society, we can't change to this model. I'm just saying as a species, this tribal model is how we evolved, and is much more self-sufficient and sustainable in the long run.

And I'm a faggot.

>>577551125
but that's wrong you fucking retard

>>577553269

how is it wrong?

This reality consists of physical reality (space, matter, energy, and the laws of physics) and consciousness. It is clear that there is a link between the two. By simply willing it to happen, we can make our bodies move, interacting with and changing physical reality. If you pick up an object, you are using consciousness to manipulate physical reality. It is also clear that physical reality can affect consciousness. If your body is injured, you consciously experience pain. If you stand near a flame, you consciously experience the sensation of heat. This suggests that one is subjective to the other and therefore its existence arises from the other. Mainstream, contemporary science would have us believe that consciousness arises from physical reality. However, scientists have no evidence for this. All they know is that there is a link between a brain and consciousness. That only proves that there is a link; it provides no indiciation as to which arises from which.

The closest thing to a physical explanation for consciousness we have is neurons. However, neurons control our entire central nervous system, not just our brain, and they are still there when we are unconscious while sleeping. Our brains make our bodies breathe even when we are not thinking about it and even while we sleep. Our brains turn information from photons into visual images. They do a lot of things that we are not consciously responsible for. Neurons are the basis of a body's central nervous system, not of consciousness. The only evidence that a brain or neurons are responsible for consciousness is that there is a link between the two and there is no other physical explanation for consciousness. However, there does not have to be a physical explanation for consciousness if consciousness is not subjective to physical reality.

cont. (1/7)

>>577552995

how do you mean worked out pretty good. People died all the fucking time.

Romance is a slightly more complex mechanism than the basic ones, that happens when you mix close friendship/trust and sexual attraction. It isn't particularly bad.

The idea that people should be together with one person all their fucking lives is a Christian/Religious thing, they started that shit and now everyone think it is standard and something basic within humans when it is, obvious as day, a social construction.

It may have benefits for the woman, tie up a man that provides, and for the man, a person they can trust with their young when they are out gathering shit. Both need it equally much.

However now that you can trust day care with your child and women can gather their own shit there is nothing but old religious habits holding people in 2-person relationships.

Romance however is just a mix of two mechanisms, it mixes two positive mechanisms so it is a nice thing.

>>577553651

isn't conciousness a product of nueral connections?

>>577553842
We already know that consciousness can affect physical reality. We also know that we dream and essentially create our own realities within our minds. There is no reason to doubt that this can be taken to a further level. There is no evidence, philosophical or empirical, that physical reality can create something as complex and perfect as consciousness, but we already know that consciousness can create anything it wants within its own thoughts. This suggests that this physical reality is subjective to consciousness and is essentially a collective dream of all consciousness experiencing it. Consider also how perfect, how complex yet simple, consciousness is. If it was simply neurons, we would be artificial intelligence no different than an advanced computer, not truly conscious. Consider how perfect physical reality is. It cannot have occured by chance. Everything fits together far too well. It has to originate from consciousness. This leads to only one conclusion: Conscious creates physical reality. We do not exist within the Universe; rather, the Universe exists within us.

That realization answers what, to many people, are the biggest and most important two questions that can be asked: What is the purpose of the Universe? What is the purpose of life? The Universe is what consciousness creates for itself as an environment for experience. Life is what consciousness creates for itself as a means for experience.

cont. (2/7)

>>577551583
Romantic relationships are proven to be beneficial to your psychological health, having someone you know loves you, etc.

>>577553506
have you ever been in love? if that answer is yes then you wouldn't have said that "relationships are waste of time and resources"
because that is just wrong.
arguably the only reason anybody organizes time or acquires resources is to establish and maintain relationships... in a romantic sense and then a kinship (family) sense

>>577553932
I deleted the post because I accidentally started posting an older version. But to answer your question no, we only know that there is a link between neurons and consciousness, there is no evidence that consciousness arises from neurons.

>>577553979
This realization, however, leaves another, arguably more important question unanswered: What happens when we die? This question relies in large part on whether or not we, as conscious beings, exist forever. To answer these questions, one must consider what reality really is. Of course reality conists of physical reality and consciousness, but physical reality is subjective to consciousness. Objective reality, then, is essentially two things: Consciousness and time. However, time is not really a thing, so it might be more correct to say that objective reality is only consciousness. Time is simply something that passes. It is objective. That leaves consciousness. Each conscious entity is objective and can be seen as a quantum of consciousness.

Time is infinite. Your life is finite. It is only approximately one century out of eternity. One century out of eternity is a finite number out of infinity, or one out of infinity. One out of infinity is infinitesimally small--so small that most mathematicians would say that it is exactly equal to zero. Although that is not technically correct, the difference between a finite number out of infinity and zero is infinitely small. If your existence is finite, if you die when your body dies, then the chance that this moment in time happens to occur during your finite existence out of infinite time is one out of infinity. That is, if your existence is temporary, then the chance that you currently exist is zero. Yet you exist.

cont. (3/7)

>>577554163
It could, of course, be argued that the above argument is invalid because there will always be someone who exists, and out of infinite possibilities, some extremely unlikely or even infinitely unlikely possibility will always exist. This is true. The current state of the Universe, down to every detail, is one out of an incomprehensibly large number of possibilities, yet here the Universe is, in its current state, despite the unliklihood. This moment in time is one out of infinite. However, it is guaranteed that the Universe exists in some state. It is guaranteed that we are currently in a finite moment in infinite time. Although the chance that the Universe exists in its current state is extremely low, and although the chance that we are currently in this exact moment out of infinite time is infinitely small, the current moment and the current state of the Universe were not chosen at random for this thought experiment; rather, they were chosen because we currently exist in this moment in time and the Universe currently exists in its current state.

cont. (4/7)

>>577554326
With consciousness, one could make a similar argument. Go outside and look around. Do you see a man? Yes, that man exists right now, but what if he does not exist a few decades from now? Why can he not cease to exist? Why can there not be infinite conscious entities over all eternity, each one having a finite lifespan? Why can that conscious being, that man, not cease to exist, only to be replaced by another? Was that man not chosen simply for this thought experiment because he happens to exist right now, in the same way that the current state of the Universe and the current moment in time were chosen in the last thought experiment not at random but because they currently exist? This is true, of course. That man was chosen not at random, but because he happens to be right here right now. Perhaps he will cease to exist and another conscious being will come into existence. That man's existence proves nothing to me. It proves nothing to you. My existence proves nothing to you. Your existence proves nothing to me.

cont. (5/7)

>>577550931

>Implying a sypersystem (the universe) can be explained by one of its subsystems (humanity), much less by a semantic subsystem of that subsystem (human language), much less by a subcategory of that subsystem of that subsystem (English).

>>577550931
Marx did the most thorough and accurate predictions of the capitalist system that I have ever read.

>>577554501
With consciousness, however, it is not that simple. Although that man's consciousness and your consciouss prove nothing to me, my consciousness proves something to me. Although that man's consciosness and my consciousness prove nothing to you, your consciousness can prove something to you. Your existence is everything to you. Literally everything. All you know, all you ever have known, all you ever will known. To you, your existence, your perception, is the entirety of existence itself. If your perception is finite, if it has only existed for a few decades and will only exist for a few more decades, then the rest of infinite time is nothing. It is not like being in this moment where there will always be another, but rather, it is this moment or *nothing*. All other possibilities are identical: Nothingness. All possibilities except this one tiny sliver of eternity. Yet it is this one tiny sliver of eternity, the only one that differs from the rest, the one out of infinity, that currently exists. If it is true that the rest is nothingness, that you will cease to exist, that consciousness can die; that chance is one out of infinity. If your existence is finite, then the chance that you currently exist is zero. If you currently exist, then the chance that your existence is finite is zero. This leaves only one conclusion: Conscious exists forever. Consciousness cannot die.

cont. (6/7)

>>577550931
Okay, here is my unpopular belief.

The only reason to make sure our species survives the next century, is to kill of everybody with an IQ lower then 110/120. That way we pretty much end religion, senseless wars, ghetto's, hunger, diseases etc.

Mmmmmk. Well you guys know how if you forget something, to you it never happened. When we die, our brain decomposes, our memories physically die. We will forcefully forget our lives, and to us it'll be like it never happened. All true BUT what about right now? Guess there's an afterlife or something.

>>577554005

oh i see, that would make sense.

>>577554104

yes i have been in love before and i recall the pain adn setbacks that were associated with it, while not remembering anything beneficial about it.

i do not organize my time and resources to aquire romantic relationships, i do it to advance myself and my circumstances.

however, i do see the benefit of having a stable romatic relationship; i just find stability in that circumstance a very rare thing

>>577554667
Knowing that physical reality is subjective to consciousness, and knowing that consciousness exists forever, leaves one question still unanswered: What happens when we die? Given that physical reality is subjective to consciousness, we clearly exist beyond the confines of the physical Universe. When our body dies we break free not only from our body, but from this Universe. Philosophical thought experiments alone cannot tell us for sure where we go, but it is reasonable to assume that, given the fact that we, consciousness, created something as complex and perfect as this Universe, we have the freedom and ability to create other realities and do whatever we desire when we are not bound by the limits of a physial body. Perhaps when our body dies we return to pure consciousness until we are ready to be born into this Universe again, or perhaps we go to a sort of in between reality where there is some level of physical reality but we are more free as if in a dream, or perhaps we remain in this Universe, our perfect creation, but simply without the limits of a body. All that we can be certain of is that, eventually, we will live again. Between birth and death, we experience life. Between death and birth, we can only speculate what we will experience. Regardless of what exists beyond physical incarnation, dying in this life is like turning off your Xbox: You leave the game and return to 'real life'.

Do not fear death. Death is an illusion. Live a good life. Accomplish something worthwhile with your life. Leave Earth a better place than it was when you arrived here. Enjoy your life. When death arrives, accept it openly and move on to your next adventure in this expansive reality and infinite eternity.

>>577554806
I know someone who says this same stuff. Idk if it's unpopular or not, seems new agey stuff has just become the religion of young people.

>>577554704

i don't beleive that is true.

the world is at an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity as well as scientific advancement. the world is becoming a better place every day.

>>577554704
your IQ must be much lower than that 110-120 range if you think ghettos and world hunger or religion exists because of ignorance or your perceived "stupidity"

>>577551125
Nah man romantic relationships aren't just that. Having a person who is interested in you and would do anything for you, and to be willing to do the same to them is a feeling worth fighting for. You shouldn't look at it like a waste of just time, with the right partner, life can be good for you.

>>577554704
All of those things are solvable without culling the vast majority of he population.

Also subjecting people to death because they failed a modern test which our society views as a means to test intelligence is fucked up.

>>577554704

The problem with that is we have a poor understanding of what intelligence is and of the limitations of the methods we use to measure it.

Not to mention religions, wars, hunger and diseases are all perpetuated just as much by intelligent people as by dumb people. In fact the dumb people merely act according to how the intelligent people manipulate them, so your theory falls flat on its face.

You should try sorting people according to altruistic/sociopathic tendencies.

>>577554916
It's more akin to new age than it is to religion or modern mainstream science, but I'm not a new ager and I don't see myself as particularily 'spiritual'. These are just conclusions I've come to through thinking, pondering, philosophical thought experiments and the like.

>>577554612
that's exactly what science is doing bit by bit isnt it?

>>577554762
you sound like a gay robot
were you in love with a man? that's cool if you love dudes.
your efforts might be better spent on >>>/r9k/

>>577552995
Interesting take although that is pure speculation.
Infact nature refutes that view many times over. Take deer, or gorillas, or bears... there is always a constant war between males (and females) and it comes down to the universal truth that live can only continue to exist if it propagates. In saying that, each life form on a rudimentary level wants to continue this existence. Each body is an island nation. The ability to think, grow and work together has been the advent of intelligence through natural selection. Only the most smart, strong and best *should* survive... and that could be applied to each person as being a free-for-all.

For all intents and purposes, on average, every *body* wants their own genetic material continued. With humans and society, throughout the ages, we have adapted for this singular goal. Romantic involvement is the evolutionary consequence for making life so easy to live.
For once, females can now be picky about their mate and society is tolerant of this.

To preclude this and have any man fuck any woman he wants might force an evolutionary turn like the DUCK. The female duck's vagina is a long winding path with multiple dead ends. female ducks are routinely raped and through natural selection, the female duck has been afforded the ability to reject the semen of undesirable male ducks (to a degree). Of course the male duck has evolved to have a long winding penis to counter-act this issue.

So as you can see, life will find a way. Romantic involvement has been a social fenomenon but can be considered natural selection.

>>577555275
So you believe that consciousness is more than just a biological trick?

>>577554704
>iq
>lower then
>then
Start with yourself, idiot.

File: bushlol4.jpg (118KB, 300x368px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 300x368px

>>577554704
>thinks IQ is an accurate measure of intellect

>>577554990

>the world is at an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity as well as scientific advancement. the world is becoming a better place every day.

When I read this comment I pictured a person with a brainwashed expression reading something off a giant screen.

File: jjjlol.jpg (28KB, 801x534px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 801x534px

>>577554990
>the world is at an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity as well as scientific advancement.
>the world is becoming a better place every day.

>>577555145

my mind has already been changed in an earlier post, however i feel taht the only reason that it could be beneficial is for mental reasons.

logically if someone were to overcome their need for romantic companionship, they would be much better off.

>>577551125
Have you ever had a romantic relationship?

>>577554806
Link please?
Also, what are the chances of you reading this? I don't think each person has his own consciousness, I think there is one universal consciousness and we are putting the pieces of the puzzle together

>>577555715
i asked and he said he has
i kind of doubt it though
or he is just being bitter

File: 631 - MR8iT.png (134KB, 297x356px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 297x356px

>>577555460
>has low iq

>>577555384
Yes. Consciousness is all that we directly experience/perceive. Everything else we perceive through our consciousness. Therefore, all we can be truly certain exists is our own consciousness. We are also currently alive, and it's all we remember, all we know, so there's no reason to believe that life is not something we will have/experience forever. That leads me to the conclusion that physical reality is subjective to consciousness. There is no logical or scientific reason to believe that physical reality would even be capable of producing consciousness.

File: letipguy.jpg (61KB, 476x717px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 476x717px

>>577550931
>in le thread we tip our le euphoric fedoras

>>577555595
>>577555481

could you imagine things like the crusades or the inquisition happening these days? or a massive plaque wiping out half the planet? have you seen any data regarding crime rates, famine, and disease?

the world is a much better place than it was and it is only getting better

>>577555970
I learned calculus when I was 15, I was a full time college student at 16, and in quantum mechanics class with graduate students at 17. I don't know or care what my IQ is (though the few times I've taken online tests I got good scores, I don't remember what), IQ is not a measure of intellect.

>>577555948

i'm not bitter about it, all i was saying is that i didn't see any benefit to it other than morale. please tell me if you have any other reasons for it being beneficial

>>577555897
>Link please?
Link to what?
>what are the chances of you reading this?
You mean what are the chances that I actually exist as a separate conscious entity to yourself and am not something just arising from your thoughts in your reality? There is no way for me to prove to you that I exist, just as there is no way for you to prove to me that you exist, but if it means anything to you, I assure you that I did consciously read it. (not that that *should* mean anything to you, since an AI could say that just as easily as a real conscious being)

>>577555385
Well, I'm fucking sorry that I'm not fluent in one of the 4 languages I speak, how about you?

>>577556128
>could you imagine things like the crusades or the inquisition happening these days?
Yeah, and it's happening right now.
>or a massive plaque wiping out half the planet?
Sure, why couldn't it happen? Of course, ecological natural disasters could have a far worse impact, and they are becoming more likely over time with humanity's continued harmful impact on Earth. And of course severe natural disasters are becoming more common.
>have you seen any data regarding crime rates, famine, and disease?
What about war, government corruption, etc? Have you seen data regarding that?

>>577556368
other than morale, self-esteem, self-value, and the gain of shared culture and experience?
no.. i guess i can't find anymore reasons for a romantic relationship except for the biological function of reproduction?

i think you missed the point of a relationship

>>577555313

No, that's what science thinks it's doing bit by bit, but the extent of its understanding is restricted by its own methodology.
Eyes, ears, noses, mouths and tactile senses, technology and the human mind are all incredibly insufficient to grasp the nature of reality.
They are limited since they are suited to their evolutionary purpose, and thus their main goal is not truth, but survival. This is pretty much what Popper described.

Science merely creates individual models which explain how certain phenomena work within certain conditions, all until it's falsified or a better one comes along. It's all flimsy, stringy patchwork, and the circle of our nescience expands as an exponential function of our knowledge.

It's nice for solving practical problems as new necessities and conditions arise, but as for attaining universal truths it's pretty shit.

>>577556981
What the fuck are you even talking about, faggot? No one ITT suggested or implied that we will ever have a complete understanding of reality. That doesn't mean we can't understand certain truths. Faggot.

>>577556454
The 7/7 posts, is that something you wrote or got from somewhere? The chances of us being born with 100 years is slim but a thread on /b/ with a few minutes is crazy.

>>577556128

>could you imagine things like the crusades or the inquisition happening these days?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot act, NSA scandals.

Have you literally been living under a rock?

> or a massive plaque wiping out half the planet?
Ebola

> have you seen any data regarding crime rates, famine, and disease?

Yes, it's been rising exponentially ever since the appearance of homo sapiens, because there are statistically more humans every year, therefore more of them die.

>>577556710

i feel like you are talking out of pride instead of trying to keep an open mind, which is the point of the thread. this thread is not about argueing, it is about finding truths.

>crusades
no, there is no massive roving army sweeping through vast swathes of land raping and pillaging and claims entire regions as their own on the scale of the crusades.

>inquisition
when was the last time you saw someone pulled from their home and tortutred because someone said that they were a heathen?

>plague
death on a massive scale due to a disease is nearly impossible in the modern world due to medical and procedural advancements

>war, governemnt corruption, etc.

yes, and wars used to be far more common. and what better measure of government corruption can you use than kings going to war for a woman that left them?

>>577557228
I wrote it. I put it on a website as well (theshadowoftruth.zzl.org) but I use unreliable free hosting so the site is down a lot.

Also, the chances of something over a hundred years is the same as the chances of something over a few minutes, because either one is out of infinite time, so either one is infintesimally small. But of course we will always experience things, you can take the fact that you are in this thread right now but you chose that event/experience because it is what you are currently experiencing. The thing with a lifetime, though, is that it is the ENTIRETY of your perception/experience (if consciousness arises from biology and we die when our body dies), it is literally everything to you. It's not something that's chosen because it's what you are currently experiencing. For that, for EVERYTHING you ever have, do, or will perceive, to be right now out of infinite time, is an infinetesimally small chance.

>>577557119

Except this thread is about universal truths.

Looks like you're in the wrong thread.

Your aggression is misplaced, go look for some creationists to insult.

The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this "Will to Truth" in us? In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.

>>577557618
>no, there is no massive roving army sweeping through vast swathes of land raping and pillaging and claims entire regions as their own on the scale of the crusades.
Yeah, there are, in the Middle East.
>when was the last time you saw someone pulled from their home and tortutred because someone said that they were a heathen?
Now it happens because of political dissent, not religion. Same thing.
>death on a massive scale due to a disease is nearly impossible in the modern world due to medical and procedural advancements
You overestimate human technology, and there are plenty of other natural disasters that could occur.
>>577557618
>yes, and wars used to be far more common. and what better measure of government corruption can you use than kings going to war for a woman that left them?
Yet war now is on a much more destructive, large scale.

I am not being closed minded. I am very open to the possibility of things getting better, of course only if people choose to make that happen. But I'm also a realist, I don't ignore how fucked up the world is right now. It's extremely fucked up. I certainly think it's plausible that things will turn around, because people are becoming more aware and starting to care more, but we haven't reached the turnaround point yet.

>>577557505

iraq and afganistan were not roving bands of killers and rapists conquering terrirory, and if you think that the patriot act is akin to torturung someone for possibly being a heathen you are sadly overreacting.

>ebola
cannot possibly cause death on the scale of spanish influenza or bubonic plague, check out its death rates

>rates
i don't think you understand what i meant by rates. i meant the percentage and ratios of these things happening (which is dropping), not the total number.

>>577557815
so basically what you're saying is consciousness trumps time?

The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.

>>577558345
No. I am saying that physical reality is subjective to consciousness. Consciousness and time are objective. Time is what proves that physical reality is subjective to consciousness.

>>577558247

>middle east

i understand what you are saying, but the scale is simply not the same, not to mention the fact that isis is doomed with all of the enmies it has made as opposed to the crusades (a political party maintaining power)

>torture
not nearly on the scale of the inquisition, if you even mentioned taht someone might lack faith they were tortured without question and to complete public knowledge.

>massive death

the only thing that i see causing massive human loss on that scale would be a supervolcano eruption or a meteor, while in the past all it took was a particularly nasty disease.

>massive scale war
the scale is ;arger because of technology, but the rates and occurences of war crimes are continuosly getting lower

File: light blue rectangle.png (9KB, 2000x1760px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 2000x1760px

I am trying to find truth
but I end up constantly getting b& for posting pic related

>>577559113

but i can't think somthing into existence

File: just some colorful lines.png (9KB, 2000x1760px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 2000x1760px

>>577559729
is it finally over?

>>577558649

if knowledge is the only universal currency, rescending your immutable opinions would be the fast track to wealth

>>577559932
But you can will your body to move. You can't make something come into existence, but you can manipulate physical reality. Given that a lifetime is temporary, but consciousness exists forever, it is reasonable to believe that biological life limits us from our full ability and knowledge. Life would be pretty boring if we were all omniscient and omnipotent, and considering I believe that life is a means for experience and physical reality an environment for experience, we would most certainly limit our abilities and knowledge to make life more interesting. Video game devs could make us invincible and give us 1-shot kills on all enemies and tell us how the game ends before we even start playing, but that would be really fucking boring. Life is the same way.

>>577560239

yes its over

File: just some blue lines.png (3KB, 2000x1760px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 2000x1760px

>>577560239
the final revelation

>inb4 b&

>>577559113
If the chances of me talking to you are virtually impossible, is it something I wanted and brought into existence? Like maybe my consciousness was trying to communicate to your consciousness?

>>577560403

but how do you know that conciousness is forever?

>>577559521
>the scale is ;arger because of technology, but the rates and occurences of war crimes are continuosly getting lower
One factor gets larger, one gets smaller, but the destruction is increasing. I hope as much as anyone that it comes to an end soon, but that hasn't begun to happen yet. Perhaps events that will cause it to come to an end have already been set in motion, but the death and destruction itself is still happening. And it's not just war and human lives. Look at how destructive humanity as a whole is. Destroying Earth at an unprecedented rate with various means of ecological destruction; raising, confining, and killing nonhuman animals at an unprecendented rate (thousands killed every second for meat alone); so many things resulting in suffering and death on a larger scale than ever before in Earth's recorded history.

>>577551125

well yes. but only if your one of the best. Truth is most great acheivers were single. famous artists, explorers, leaders, whatever the fuck, the majority are single. Hell look at most famous actors.

Truth is yeah, relationships area drag and are mostly for people who are not happy and secure on their own. Im a guy whos been in two relationships, but im only 20 sooooo keep in mind im young and could be wrong, but from what i've read, yeah they are a waste of time but only if you're trying to get to the top, otherwise your a lazy fuck and apart of the other 99% and what else ya gonna do might as well find a soulmate lol

>>577560601
looks like the mods won't get me

>>577560615
Possibly. Taking my beliefs as truth: Given that consciousness creates life and physical reality so that it can experience life, many of us (conscious beings) come to inhabitable planets such as Earth and are born into physical life, so of course we will interact with others. But whether or not it was pre-arranged that me and you would cross paths and have this conversation? I fully believe in free will, but some specific events could still be pre-arranged. So did you want to have this conversation? Did you think before even beginning this lifetime, that this conversation would be of value, would make your life more meaningful? Did you want to have this conversation to come to a better understanding of reality? It's certainly possible. But then again, it could be chance. Perhaps other people are having this same conversation now, and it just so happens that I am the one you had this conversation with, and it could just as easily have been someone else.

>>577560654
Read the first 7 posts I made ITT, I went into detail there.

>>577560873

we have essentially reached our peack with the scale of war when we gained the ability to doestroy all life on the planet.

and as for your ecological beliefs, this is getting better as well, it has peaked due to the massive growth of humanity, but now eco-awareness is at an all time high.

as for the animals, they are renewable resources that we use to advance the human race, those deaths are justified.

>>577556128

> the world is becoming a better place every day.

I can agree with this to a certain extent. The collective experience of humanity throughout its history does grow and direct the people who take the time and effort to keep it in mind and remember it.
If such people come to power then we have a chance to avoid many past mistakes, understand the true reasons for our problems, and search for solutions.

But so far nobody in power has understood what the main issues are.

I would say the world is not becoming better every day, but rather it is constantly gathering potential to become better someday.

>the world is at an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity

This is a poorly formulated statement, because it assumes that the "World" has always been unified as one global civilisation, and every part of it has developed according to one single dialectic.

This is simply not true. Global history begins at the earliest in the early 17th century with the creation of the first transnational financial organisations, such as the East-Indian companies.
Before that every region experienced its own separate ages of "peace' and "prosperity".

You can't talk about the world like that until late 19th century, when the planet was completely divided into colonial spheres of influence.

> as scientific advancement.
I already explained in a previous post why "scientific advancement" doesn't mean jack for "peace and prosperity". it's merely a problem-solving tool.

>>577550931
Man made global warming is a myth.

sorry for that unrelated shitposting, I really needed a thread to test something

reading it now

>>577561643
>we have essentially reached our peack with the scale of war when we gained the ability to doestroy all life on the planet.
People have nukes, it's very possible right now.
>and as for your ecological beliefs, this is getting better as well, it has peaked due to the massive growth of humanity, but now eco-awareness is at an all time high.
More people care than ever before, but the destruction is at al all time high too.
>as for the animals, they are renewable resources that we use to advance the human race, those deaths are justified.
If you want to take that stance, the same could be said of the humans that die in wars, it is to advance the agenda of other humans. If you disagree, then you have no basis for your claim, because having a different physical body does not change the fact that they are conscious. Renewable resources are objects that lack consciousness and the ability to suffer.

>>577561356
Did you? I just think that there's an evolutionary breakthrough happening because even 100 years ago our minds were not able to communicate with each other around the globe, and that is pretty powerful...

>>577562665
>Did you?
Did I what?

There have certainly been many technological breakthroughs in recent times. Was an evolutionary breakthrough responsible? Possibly.

>>577556128

>could you imagine things like the crusades or the inquisition happening these days?

You are ignoring the issues that lie at the heart of these events, and you are merely concentrating on their external aspects, their form.

The form never stays constant, but the content pretty much stays the same.
Economic systems change. But human desires to control resources don't change. In the Middle Ages, the economy was based on land relations (therefore people "conquered swathes of territory"). Nowadays nations don't conquer territory, but take control of financial capital.


Technology changes, therefore the military changes. We don't have vast armies on horseback anymore, because technology allows armies to kill more efficiently. That doesn't mean the motives of the military have changed.

Again, the form changes, the content stays the same.

Social systems and political systems change.
But the principles guiding power relations never change. Republican governments are bound by constitutions, but monarchs were bound by the aristocracy and common tradition, which dictated how monarchs should act.

I admire that you are trying to use history to support your arguments, but it is understand the main issues that lie at the heart of historical processes.
Human psychology, the causes of political events, and geopolitical goals have not changed since the dawn of civilisation.

If somehow the time travel will be proved, we will know at 99% that there is no Heaven or Hell for us.
That's because we are not on the edge of time but we are merely a point on an already deployed ocean. So, let's assume some particles are arriving now and they started tomorrow that means that our present is their past so, when we'll die we'll just restart here to guarantee our existence in our time and space.
The same life, over and over and over.

>>577562974
Did you remember being conscious before your life on earth and did you want to have the conversation? I personally think consciousness is brand new to humans due to modern technology

>>577563562
I don't remember anything before this life, and I think very few if any beings currently living biological lives does.

>>577561675

but the world is literally becoming a better place. food is more readily available than ever before, social awareness is at an all time high, common people have the ability to make huge pushes towards a cause due to social media, healthcare is is the best it has ever been. the world is undeniably getting better.

of course i am only talking about recorded human history, and i do understand what you are saying about proper record keeping.

i am only speaking of the world as a whole because that will be the only thing that matters eventually, the world is headed towards unification and measuring it in its infancy (state of non-unification) is just a logical tool to use.

were these two spheres of influence differing in terms of advancement? (one getting more violent while the other gets more peaceful)

technology means alot for peace prosperity, it provides us with enough resources taht we don't need to contend with eachother to survive

>>577563918
Earth is getting better for YOU. Destruction, death, and suffering are happening at an unprecedented scale. Your personal situation is getting better. Earth as a whole is getting objectively worse. That will change, but that doesn't change the fact of what is happening right now.

>>577563803
And I don't think we ever will until the very end, when the last piece of the puzzle is in we will all be of the same consciousness, and there will be no more death

>>577564475
For every end, there is a beginning.