>tfw starting to realize materialism is false and God is real

Yeah, I stopped bring materialistic after HS. It wasn't worth it anymore. I still dress nice but on a budget that won't make me broke

>>35982262
I'm talking about the universe here. We aren't made of physical materials, the mind is all that exists and we are all like little brain cells in a giant mind which is God.

>>35982664
So, what's the solution?

>>35982706
I don't know. It's fucking with my head. I don't even know what ot make of this information.

>>35982738
Use it to fuck girIs

>>35982748
Is that what God wants me to do?

File: demiurge.png (147KB, 500x674px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 500x674px

>>35981842
Remember
Don't fall for his lies

>>35982761
He wants you to be fruitful and multiply so yeah. But only with one qt, find a really good one

>>35982761
I don't know, all that I believe is that fate is predetermined. In other words what happens was meant to happen.

>>35982664
So do animals count as God too? What about aliens? How smart does something have to be to be a God cell?

>>35982788
So that means your thoughts are all predetermined too. Why would God want you to think about something like this?

>>35982792
They have to be conscious.

>>35982788
I don't know, I'm not sure anything is meant to happen anymore. I think free will is probably real too.

>>35982779
I will try, I guess.

>>35982815
I don't know, it's just a belief, take it for what you will. Maybe some of us are destined for the chopping block while others are destined for greatness. If God is truly omnipotent then surely our very thoughts have been determined.

You don't have to agree with me but then again whatever you decide was probably already determined.

Sometimes I wonder what the endgame to all this is. Why does evolution play out the way it does? What are we working towards? Are we going to evolve into an AI that will be more like what we would traditionally consider a God to be? If an AI gets powerful enough could it model the entire universe? What would the universe look like from inside the simulation? Would it look like the real deal? Are we just going through repetitive cycles?

>>35982792
Look at it this way, you can't possibly explain consciousness with physics alone. If you think about it hard and try to truly imagine what it would mean for consciousness to form out of physical materials you will realize it is impossible. It would break the laws of physics or require some kind of immaterial thing to explain it. Consciousness shouldn't exist if you are a materialist. When you think about that you have to go back to the beginning and remember all you are certain of is yourself.

When you go back to the beginning you can consider everything that you are experiencing. When you feel an object or interact with it it you are given a mental "image" of that object. There is no reason to assume this object is some kind of external thing to the mind when you are only given a mental image of that object. You can't even conceive of what an external world would be because you only receive mental "images." That makes me think the entirity of existence is exactly that, mental. However it isn't just myself (as in my thinking conscious self) that makes up the universe because I can't control the images that I am seeing. That makes me think we are all part of one being/mind and each of our consciousnesses are just different pieces of that mind.

>>35983216
No, I come to the complete opposite conclusion when I think about it. When you let matter go and do its thing it just happens to start organizing itself in ways that create life due to the laws of physics. We all operate on the laws of physics and can break down each part of us into smaller parts, all of which have predictable rules for how they interact. You can look at the evolutionary history of life and see how it slowly became more and more complex over time. Consciousness is just an emergent property that happens from the interaction of smaller less complex units. Any thought is literally coded into proteins in your brain, all that's generating it are the chemical reactions happening inside of it. There is a real physical component to it.

>>35983440
Then how do you explain the subjective element of it? How can science describe the color blue? It isn't possible. Even more than that it can't possibly describe the sensation of being aware and perceiving the universe.

>>35981842
That's the first step. Remember to live like our ancestors did. Live not for the moment. Make your deeds live for eternity.

My favorite inspirational speaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS7TqP6cRJ4&list=PL70hcdkpQDRRIwWqZ2_hBer8RujTYZ27o&index=11

>>35983090
>Why does evolution play out the way it does?
because the fit survive. it's a very practical mechanism and there is no meaning behind it.

>>35983537
The concept of the color blue is a bunch of chain reactions going on inside the brain. We perceive it by light hitting our retinas and causing some electrons to change orbitals and release some energy. This triggers the chain reaction. The problem with conceptualizing this sort of stuff is that there are so many tiny little parts all working in perfect synchronicity that it can never be understood as a whole, you have to break it down and look at individual parts.

>>35981842
I'm proud of you.

>>35982262
>Yeah, I stopped bring materialistic
no, you didn't. no one does, completely.

>>35983660
That doesn't describe the actual perception of the color blue though. You are describing it mechanistically, you aren't describing what I am experiencing. The subjective element is what physics can't explain. I had another problem with it that I posted in a /sci/ thread but got no replies.

"One big problem I have with materialism:

>if you believe in materialism then consciousness is "created" by the physical world
>since I was created by the physical world it is conceivable that I could be recreated at some point in time using the same rules that initially created me
>since I am still conscious now then consciousness can be maintained entirely by my present body
>imagine that there is a machine that can replicate a human down to each individual atom (using all the necessary ingredients)
>what would happen if you used that machine on me and created a "clone" of me?
>if materialism is correct then that clone should have the same exact consciousness as me

That would mean I am occupying two positions at once? Or is it a different consciousness? I think both of these outcomes will defy science which is the foundation of the materialist perspective."

>>35981842
>tfw it took you this long to finally swallow the 2nd to the final black pill

now you just have to figure out WHICH god is real

>>35983767
>now you just have to figure out WHICH god is real
That's the hardest thing. Realizing materialism is false makes figuring out the true nature of the universe more tricky. You can't use science to do it.

>>35982832
so define 'conscious'

>>35983825
The state of being aware of yourself and your experiences, the ability to perceive things. It's not merely information processing, computers can process information but aren't conscious. It's basically impossible to prove anyone else is conscious and reality essentially requires you to take a leap of faith and believe other people are conscious so you will feel less lonely.

>>35983727
It would have the exact same consciousness up until the point it came out of the machine and started interacting with the universe in a different way than you. I think it's possible for this to happen in the universe naturally but it's incredibly unlikely. All of the conditions would have to be exactly the same, meaning there would have to be another Earth somewhere and literally ever single thing would have to play out exactly the same. The odds are so astronomical as to be impossible, even with the massive size of the universe. I think there will be a lot of similarities between different consciousnesses that arise simply because that's how the laws of physics constrain things, but to be you, it needs to be you.

But imagine an AI running on computers. It would function in the same manner as you do, just a chain reaction constrained by the laws of physics. If we set it up so that the same program could run on two identical machines, they would perform exactly the same.

I really don't think there's a god and I don't think humans are that special. I think the majority of the ideas of a god are based on our imperfect minds trying to rationalize ideas larger than ourselves, our world, and our galaxy. Any even if there is a god, we as humans can't physically comprehend the astronomical scale of the cosmos or even dimensions additional to the ones we've evolved to observe. That being said, we could never dream of understanding something as complex as a single ruler over every quantized unit of energy and matter in the universe. It's beyond our ability to comprehend, it will always be beyond our ability to comprehend, why don't we all just be kind to each other while we're alive and sharing the same planet?

>2017
>being an atheist

lol

>>35982664
R u high?

Also I think that's a concept of pantheism
Notable pantheist: Albert Einstein

>>35983946
>It would have the exact same consciousness up until the point it came out of the machine and started interacting with the universe in a different way than you.
Then which one am I for that instant? Which one do I become? Do I stay in my original body or become my clone? That's the problem, you don't become a different conscious being through time, your conscious might evolve but you don't change beings. How would death even work if this weren't the case? I was me yesterday, I am me today, and I will be me tomorrow. How can physics possibly explain how I will experience this in one moment to another?

File: 2a3524b172a338fb163dfd66f09c0833e3d7e5eaca8ac1a240d253911740bf2c.jpg (43KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 409x409px

Desperation can do funny things to a mans mind. Like making them abandon logic and reason for funny internet memes and conformity.

>>35982262
>misunderstanding what materialism means this hard
There's no "after" HS for you. You're still there if you can't tell the difference between materialism (culture) and materialism (philosophy)
you niggers need to read some anything

>>35983999
>being dualist/pluralist swine
kek, what is this, 1650?

>>35983576
haha what, stop being so delusional and desperate.

>>35983782
>materialism and positivism are similar
And this is how you find out somebody doesn't understand materialism or positivism and just dismissed both out of some infantile desperation.

>>35982788
>fate
I wish I was still underage too.

>>35983639
>because the fit survive. it's a very practical mechanism and there is no meaning behind it.
You just made that up to feel good about yourself, that's now how evolution works at all what the fuck.

>be edgy atheist
>ready Dostoyevsky once
>embrace our lord

feels good mang

File: 4abff3de5d5962f504b6bb18b72f33d37fc68dfc2.jpg (275KB, 761x1122px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 761x1122px

/r9k/ should not discuss philosophy. You kids can't even define basic concepts and keep getting them mixed up.
protip: just because the autistic stemlord everyone hates said philsophy is easy doesn't mean it's true.

>>35984355
I know enough to know this was an ad hominem.

>>35984038

The whole concept of you is arbitrarily attached by your and other's consciousnesses. You claim that you remain you only because you continue to think that. What happens if you lose all your memories? What happens if you get a brain tumor that shuts down your testosterone production or destroys a part of your brain that's essential to emotional regulation, what happens to "you" then? Your sense of self is like a wave in the ocean, it continues to exist while there water for the energy to flow through. It's not special or mystical just because you can't conceive of all the parts that make it up at once.You are just a chain reaction bro. Death happens when the chain reaction breaks down. All that exists is the subatomic particles that are entangled into this reality in the current moment.

>>35984270
how does evolution work?

>>35981842
Its a scary feeling, isn't it?

It's the scariest conclusion to reach

>>35984355
if you have real knowledge, why not share it? why use that knowledge to be contemptuous and discourage others from learning? why not try to raise people up instead of telling them that it's better for them to wallow in the shit where they belong.

>>35984507
>What happens if you get a brain tumor that shuts down your testosterone production or destroys a part of your brain that's essential to emotional regulation, what happens to "you" then?
No idea. In all likelihood I will die.

>You claim that you remain you only because you continue to think that.
I would argue that this is a fundamental aspect of consciousness. Consciousness is everything that I am and all experience is secondary to that. The only thing I can have any certainty of is my own mind. So anything that tries to claim my consciousness is an "illusion" can't be true. What would be experiencing the illusion if not me? Don't you see what I am saying, that consciousness can't be explained away by ignoring parts of it.

>>35984321
Was it Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment?

>>35984609
I'm not claiming it's an illusion at all. Fuck you're stupid. You're hopeless.

>>35983999
>2017
>being a yearfag

>>35982761
I don't think God gives a shit about what you do. Apparently he knows every instant in time at once so it's not like he isn't already disappointed about or possibly applauding something that you haven't even done yet.

>>35984667
That's not very nice of you. Look, all I am saying is that physics can't explain consciousness. It isn't like anything else in existence and I think physicalists/materialists downplay that aspect of consciousness. You can't explain it with information processing or electrical signals or chemicals. Physics cannot explain consciousness, the only things in the universe that have these properties are fundamental parts of the universes such as forces, particles, energy. You can't truly explain what that is only describe it, the same can be said about consciousness. This means the mind is either a "force of nature" (dualism) or the mind is all of nature.

>>35984774
You do realize that restating the same point over and over again isn't the same thing as making an actual argument for that point, right?

Why can't physics explain consciousness? What's special about humans that we, alone, have this special property that exists outside of physics?

>>35984774
Consciousness is a feedback loop of the senses and memory.
If you took away your senses or your memory, your consciousness would change drastically.

>>35984859
Perception and subjective experience. Plus I already explained to you that it's not possible for the same consciousness to exist at the same time without defying physics. This should be possible if it is mere information processing, just as it is possible to build two identical computers and run the same program on each computer at the same time. This WILL produce the same result, in fact that is the foundation of ALL of science. That you can perform an experiment and get the same result every time. However if you performed that experiment with consciousness it seems, that either you will always get a different result (breaking the scientific method completely) or you will get the same result but now one consciousness is split between two people and would seemingly occupy both at the same time, this can't work within the laws of physics.

>>35984891
Would it though? I'm not sure how necessary either of those are two consciousness. After all I would hardly say I have the same memories I have had since birth. It is also conceivable for my senses to get cut off (going blind/deaf) or in fact get worse over time. Actually that already happens as I wear glasses and my prescription constantly changes. However, despite that I would say I am still the same conscious being I always have been.

>>35984891
I think that could be a possibility, but you're ignoring the other possibility, which is our sensory receptors, effectors and the parts of the brain responsible for memory are merely tools used by our "consciousness". Anyway science cannot provide evidence for which is certain since it isn't an objective measurable reality.

>>35981842

Nope, this is just one on a continuum of delusions into which people tend to follow, especially if they aspire toward something like productive adulthood, which is one of the central delusions, animating much of the rest.

t. probably a good bit older than you

>believing in God
>not understanding that it's just confirmation bias and fooling yourself
>thinking our lives actually matter or that anything resembling a Christian God created us and actually gives a shit about us

haha

>>35985257
It's not a Christian God it is more like a absolute being that constitutes all of consciousness and the universe itself.

>>35984962
>or you will get the same result
sure
>but now one consciousness is split between two people and would seemingly occupy both at the same time, this can't work within the laws of physics
Full retard. The consciousness is not "split"; you could continue to have your consciousness and your clone could have an identical consciousness without sharing them. Separate but equal. Your actions, reactions,and thoughts would theoretically be exactly the same.

>>35985382
>could have an identical consciousness without sharing them
But that's denying what consciousness is. How can you explain how you are experiencing the world then? What you are describing is either ignoring the reality of consciousness (which is the most obvious reality in existence) or you are describing the case where you get different results (different consciousness like you are describing) for the same exact experiment.

>>35985382
That is, they would be exactly the same up until the moment a single stimulus was different for one of them. At that point, they would be permanently, irreversibly different

materialism and mass consumerism is the core cancer eating away at western civilization from the inside out. but it is an unfortunate necessity to keep our economy running as much as possible to keep our war machine running.

sad but true.

we produce things while being exploited by the barons and warmongers who take their spoils and use it to exploit or fight other subjugated peoples into giving them more spoils.

>>35985449
>At that point, they would be permanently, irreversibly different
Then which consciousness am I? The clone or the original? This still poses a problem because there is something hidden happening that physics can't explain, that is my apparent "location."

>>35985447
>But that's denying what consciousness is. How can you explain how you are experiencing the world then?
In what way am I denying it? Like that other anon was telling you, you're experiencing the world as a product of a vast array of minute physical reactions. If I build two castles in the exact same way, down to the atom, they are identical but still physically separate entities due to not occupying the same matter. The same could hypothetically happen when "building" a consciousness.

>>35985497
You are the original. The other one is simply a clone of you. It has a consciousness that mirrors yours, but it is simply another being that is identical to you until experience creates a difference.

>>35985497
And your apparent "location" is your atoms.

>>35985513
>they are identical but still physically separate entities due to not occupying the same matter
What you are describing is a fundamental property of matter. However consciousness is presumably something that can arise purely out of the current known laws of physics (no new forces are necessary). This means it must be a product of the physical processes the brain is performing to create the mind. If that is the case there should be no discernible difference between two identical versions of me. To suggest there is one is to suggest that consciousness has a special hidden property innate in itself and that it is something distinct from the rest of the universe.

>>35985537
>>35985565
This doesn't make sense because consciousness presumably is created by physics. How can it be specific to atoms when every single force in the universe does not discern between two identical atoms. Gravity does not act differently on one hydrogen atom than it does on another. How can you suggest consciousness would do that?

holy shit it's like I tripped and fell into the retard bin
oh wait

>>35985603
That other guy was right, you really are dense. Just pick a religion and stick to it, your pedantic existential crisis is pretty annoying

>>35985659
You didn't refute my claims. You are just saying I am wrong. Look I am not trying to prove God is real (I didn't expect serious replies at first). I am trying to prove that materialism is not enough to describe reality and I think I have made a strong case.

>>35985537
>It has a consciousness that mirrors yours, but it is simply another being that is identical to you until experience creates a difference.
Okay then, if that is what you are saying then you are arguing that an experiment will always yield different results, this directly goes against the scientific method. If consciousness is created by physics it should be feasible to create the exact same consciousness and there should be no rule in place specifying that it must be created at times when the old one is dead or not.

"Subjective" reality, aka dualism, is one of the most cancerous positions marketed to philosophy newbies and high schoolers, and this thread is proof of how they eat it up.

Reality is not subjective just because we lack the ability to consciously express experiences through language as accurately as we subconsciously percieve them. Being unable to consciously transmute an experience to another human being does not indicate any supernatural, subjective, or unique quality to the experience, it just means our linguistic and rational minds are not perfect enough tools to render and accurate portrayal of complex ideas. The fundamental failure of dualism is in its arrogance, assuming that reality starts and ends at the way our imperfect minds percieve it.

>>35986011
>Reality is not subjective
How can anyone make this argument? This is demonstrably false, at least you yourself can prove to yourself it is false. There are other theories about reality besides dualism, like idealism. Also dualism actually assumes there IS a physical world and that minds interact with it somehow (through an unexplained way).

>>35984355
Middle guy has good taste.