>Are there objective truths?
>Is everything we imagine, feel, and experience (religion, mystical experiences, fear of death etc) just the brain being the brain and nothing more?
>Is evolution responsible for our consciousness and thus our ability to look intrinsically and fear death and wonder about the beyond?
Yes, for it is the brain only being the brain.
>Will death be simply a candle being put out and nothing more, all fictions of an afterlife simply the brain not knowing how to handle its own non-existence?
Yeah, there's other factors such as moisture and stuff but >>624073 seems to be off his marbles.
The "true nature" of the phenomenon is the phenomenon. The cold (absence of thermic energy) binds the water molecules in the atmosphere closer together. The weight of these clusters causes them to precipitate. What's so hard to understand?
>the laws of snow explain snow
Because that's what laws, as in laws ascribed to reality by scientifically models, are meant to do...
Do you mean something like "knowing the natural history of the development of consciousness does not equal knowing the inner workings of consciousness"?
>the true nature of the phenomenon
>quantitative descriptions of physical states are the states themselves
lmao. Dude evolution doesn't explain consciousness anymore than heat is explained by sunlight or what have you. You are only describing the conditions in which these phenomena emerge
Reminder that Buddhist philosophers still have a better explanation of consciousness than people who say 'consciousness is an emergent property of the brain' (which isn't an explanation at all)
Not everyone subscribes to that explanation. It still suffers from the false idea that consciousness is a thing or floating essence, soul, etc. Consciousness is a process the brain performs.
Does a single fedora on this board actually know what they're talking about or is it memes all the way down?
You are right.
When you say "explain phenomenon" do you mean to say "explain how a phenomenon happens" rather than "explain why a phenomenon happens"?
Also, phenomena is usually understood as events which are observable. While one may argue for representationalism, to understand the "true nature" of phenomena as something other than the phenomena itself is an exercise in futility. I'm not sure where you got "quantitative" from.
Dont give me that hayakawa shit. It's not my fault you have a feeble mind and can't understand the empirical nature of the world.
God, it's all so circular and pathetic I wonder if all of philosophy is just mental masturbation.
> Consciousness is a process the brain performs.
The brain is a process that consciousness performs.
>Are there objective truths?
Read some Captain Kirk you empiricist faggot. "Truth" does not need to be either objective or logical. Both our brain's perception of observable reality, and the rules of logic that our brains have constructed based on patterns of observation, are not the barometer of truth. You can't know what's true because you don't have the entire picture. Therefore, relying on man alone for truth, nothing is true.
You think God cares about your "truth"? What you have decided is "objectively true" is only your subjective "truth" because your observations of observable reality are projections of your own mind. Truth is literally beyond our capacity to perceive, because the fullness of reality that would be needed to understand truth is unobservable.
God does not ask you to find truth. God asks you to find trust.
Take the bread pill, anon. Abandon this terrible search for truth, and begin your search for trust. The search for truth is fruitless; you will never find any of it. In the search for trust, however, I find more every day. My walk with God strengthens and I grow closer and closer to the Creator. The "question" of God's existence is not even a question for me anymore, because He has proved His own existence in His dealings with me. Take the bread pill. You'll be happy you did.
Yes consciousness is the brain, but what does that explain at all? Why does evolution, the brain, life and death exist in the first place? I don't claim to know but this materialistic worldview is short sighted
I ment what event caused humans to develop it? We wouldn't have evolved this far if something didn't push us to. Like a chameleon being able to blend in just to avoid creditors. What was our reason for consciousness?
I don't see? I see clearly. I was blinded by sin, as you are. I have been freed from the power of sin, and I am blinded no longer. I tell you truly that when God reached down and interfered with my life, it was as if I saw light for the first time, or saw a new color or something. It was as if everything I built within myself - all the excuses, all the guilt, all the lies - was all washed out.
I am begging you to try to understand what I am saying and not dismiss it. If you were right in front of me, I'd grab you by the collar and tell you that this is literally the most important thing in your life.
I'm not trying to debate you. I don't think you can argue salvation into people. Lack of salvation and lack of belief in God is not an intellectual position, but a spiritual disease. All I want is that you acknowledge the disease and your need for treatment, your need for salvation. I don't even know who you are, and I love you. I genuinely care that this happens to you, and pray that it does. I want you to be safe, like I am.
I don't believe in God but I do think it is possible just not one we can understand, I was a practicing Buddhist for a few years than got more into philosophy and realized no one can teach you the "answer" it only comes through your experiences and thoughts. If someone wants to believe in God I have no right to change that it is up to them whether or not they want to gain more insights on the subject
>Why does evolution,
Because self-replication requires energy and other resources, resources are not unlimited, and certain features make something more or less likely to replicate.
Developed out of sensory organs, eventually relations between them caused networks and eventually the brain.
Some molecules form in shapes that encourage self-replication, due to their structure. This process kind of got out of control.
The conditions to support the above are actually kind of fragile, disruption causes cessation of the process.
It is impossible for it to be true, and not just because of those odds. It is impossible for God to exist just based on a whole host of reasons.
But that does not matter in the slightest. The essence of Kierkegaard's work is that the boundary between possibility and impossibility is no boundary to God. Yet, I believe it anyway. This belief is counted as righteousness as it was for Abraham.
You have to believe that a chair will hold you up to sit down in it. But, once you are sitting in the chair, and the chair is holding you up, you know that the chair will support you. In this way, God's existence has been proven to me by my walk with God.
The salvation was given freely, regardless of the massive debt of our sin. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None deserves to be saved, no not one. You and me deserve Hell, deserve nothing from God.
He wiped this debt clean freely. For nothing. He offers you everything in return for nothing. And now you demand more in return for your trust?
You're just saying how these things came to exist, but my point is that you don't know why, also in this type of materialistic thinking people tend to devalue the existence of material phenomenon as just material processes, as in consciousness is just a series of chemical reactions, but why is it just chemicals? what is the essence of those chemicals?
Woah, we've got a tough guy here! To be fair, I would also "deck" someone who grabbed my collar. Especially if it was some zealot guy talking what I thought was nonsense. So I would completely understand if you "decked" me in the face.
I know it sounds crazy, what I'm saying. God's existence is an impossibility. However, an impossibility is only an impossibility when compared to what is possible within the rules we have constructed by the observation of the reality which we can observe. I believe in the impossible.
>He wiped this debt clean freely.
It's a debt he himself placed on humankind. All he needed to do was not put a talking snake into a garden. It's like a guy who forces you to buy a house, and then promises to pay off your new debt if you do everything he says without question. A pot should have a say in how the potter uses it, given that it is the pot who suffers if the potter messes up.
I get that this is just Christposting memes but it's legitimately annoying.
Yes whether it be the experience itself the answer is still important. The Universe is a big place, the fact that we can create objects just from our imagination into reality seems like consciousness is more than just chemicals in the brain.
>what is the essence of those chemicals?
Collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons in configurations that are stable in some states and unstable in other states, causing characteristic interactions.
I wouldn't say "more than chemicals in the brain" but those chemicals are way more profound than the materialists give credit towards. It's a logical flaw that just because you can grasp how something works it's automatically less
Evolution doesn't aim for any qualities that are useful. Mutations are random. Everything is random. What survives and reproduces, survives and reproduces. Until the conditions that favored it change.
Consciousness isn't some necessity, an inevitable step in evolution. It's a result of randomness. There may be planets a billion years older than ours with extremely advanced lifeforms that haven't developed consciousness and never may.
>Doesn't mean it's wrong either.
How is this a response? Youre behaving as the kid from God's Not Dead.
> just because it's hard for YOU to believe there's no purpose doesn't mean reality has to agree with you.
you can turn this around, just because it's hard for you to imagine a purpose doesnt mean reality has to agree with you
>Anything is possible except defying the laws of nature or them being suspended.
the laws of nature are merely descriptive, not prescriptive, how are they supposed to tell what I can/cant do? If something happens we would describe it as a law of nature
No, but if we did it would be within the laws of nature. We don't define the laws of nature, what we perceive around us is the laws of nature, there could be different dimensional planes that we're not aware of that doesn't play by the current laws we're aware of
Not that anon
>Evolution doesn't aim for any qualities that are useful. Mutations are random. Everything is random. What survives and reproduces, survives and reproduces.
If you left out 'Everything is random' it would have been more accurate. And maybe mentioning that mutation provides the variation which evolution (not a random process) act upon.
> childish sensibilities
Haven't Schope'd much, have you?
Laws are the fundamental framework for larger understanding. Through them we discover something different and see beyond the box that the laws provided for us. Case in point, the laws of the judicial system. They're solid and detail how not to be a cunty, deplorable human. They teach us that we can either be straight up fuckin asshole cunts to one another, or co-efficient and happy to help one another. However, the laws themselves also include a lot of menial and oppressive material, such as prohibition of chemicals for bodily ingestion. It should be completely obvious to anyone and everyone that no one should be allowed to tell others what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Thus we shed our skin of the scales we no longer need as the Ouroboros of society continues.
No anon, I am but a humble rug merchant.
Yes I agree with that, but the part he mentioned about prohibiting certain drugs is a tough subject. Some drugs, like weed or LSD, are just plain stupid to prohibit. Others cause severe health risks and thus risks to others. Obviously if you take meth, chances are you won't commit a crime, but the chances are higher for you to commit crimes on meth than not on it. It's a really hard line to define and I'm fine with the crazy drugs being outlawed but not the ones that objectively are not harmful to others (or the self, for that matter)
>So it's a law of nature that people get up out of their graves?
If it happened regularly it would be a law of nature, how is this relevant to my point?
i dont see how, the materialist considers death the same way he considers pre-birth
>Laws are the fundamental framework for larger understanding.
How can they be in any way fundamental? Youre treating Laws of Nature as if they were metaphysical, how can they be fundamental when youre presupposing some metaphysics of your own
>Through them we discover something different and see beyond the box that the laws provided for us.
"Seeing beyond the box" implies that we must reject Laws of Nature in order to advance, this seems to contradict the notion that theyre "fundamental"
>laws of the judicial system
the laws of the judicial system are just how we apply certain ethical principles for the common good, they must be based on what is good in the first place.
>However, the laws themselves also include a lot of menial and oppressive material, such as prohibition of chemicals for bodily ingestion.
I wouldnt consider prohibition "oppressive", indeed, prohibition is there in order to allow us to flourish as human beings easily.
>It should be completely obvious to anyone and everyone that no one should be allowed to tell others what they can and can't do with their bodies.
It isnt obvious, the notion of discouraging the correction the will strikes me as mediocre. If we can criticize people for holding/teaching false beliefs (like YEC, Flat Earth), why cant we criticize people for holding disordered inclinations, like alcoholism or pedofilia? One can object that there isnt such standard to hold up these inclinations as good or bad, but this cant be done without begging the question, like this guy >>625141
For sure you can criticize people but the moment you oppress them and remove the freedom to do what one wants to do with their body, you've fucked up. Let people take meth if they want to take meth, but warn them about the dangers first so they can make an informed decision. Not allowing people to just do whatever they want to themselves is essentially inverse rape.
>Not allowing people to just do whatever they want to themselves is essentially inverse rape
I get that but my point was to illustrate that evolution has no goal. It doesn't purposefully chase some "perfect life form" and intentionally seek and develop advantages, as most people have come to believe.
>If you left out 'Everything is random' it would have been more accurate
>And maybe mentioning that mutation provides the variation which evolution (not a random process) act upon.
Isn't that self explanatory?