Is it possible that there can be:
-separate, but dependent individuals (separated by what?)
-only one ultimate interest, with all individuals at some subjectively different distance from achieving this interest

?

why hasn't natural selection dealt with depression in evolutionary terms of survival of the fittest genes? — Posty McPostface

Maybe procreation makes for some temporary relief of symptoms?

OR

More likely depression has only come into existence in recent human history, specifically since our minds have become less occupied with survival and all the more with existential questions.

Yes. Trump will be re-elected. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

+1

Even if I'm not a fan. Money rules democracy. Like electric current, it seeks the way of least resistance, which is Trump.

how consciousness can arise in a purely physical environment. — Hanover

So, what then, is a purely physical environment? Is it the part of physical nature than can be perceived by our 5 senses?

There is no logical fallacy here (idk about fallacy of relevance), atheists really cannot prove absolutely that God doesn't exist but the argument could be turned around to say:

To know absolutely that God exists one must have infinite knowledge
To have infinite knowledge one would have to be a God
Theists are not God
Theists cannot prove God exists absolutely

I think it's just a red herring because it applies to both sides and so can't be used by one to critique the other — khaled

This red herring is indeed why the discussion often stagnates. I think God needs to be better defined. Personally, I see God as the ultimate highest consciousness, all-aware and unattached. The discussion would then be about whether consciousness can exist independently of the flesh, or even if all consciousness is connected at a subconscious level, forming one supreme consciousness.

World religions are currently reaping the rotten fruits of centuries long of creating followers rather than masters. True master create masters. Jesus knew this and acted accordingly, which is why his apostles could exorcise demons. Muhammad, Buddha and others knew this too. Weaker personalities and corruption have led to the destruction of their grand works. A shame, but religion as it is currently organized will know no peace until new (genuine!) prophets stand up. Perhaps Buddhism is an exception here, as they still create masters and have no corruption among their leadership.

I am not sexist but what I observe is this:
-Women are judged by their beauty
-Men are judged by their actions

This pattern has been deeply carved by evolution through partner selection. Bear in mind, however, that all males possess some female characteristics and all females possess some male characteristics. These characteristics just do not receive too much attention, because they have much less competitive/evolutionary advantage.

If I recall correctly heaven and hell were not originally part of Judaism, but later introduced under the influence of Zoroastrianism. Anyway, many seemingly contradictions are present because ideas from different sources were merged into one religion.

You could turn the problem around and look for the origin of restrictions on free will. These restrictions would then be imposed by the surrounding material world and its processes of conditioning. In this case free will must have been present before life was even present. If free will has existed before life and exists in life, then it must also be (one of) the cause(s) of life. Does that remind you of something? ;)

Everything is interdependent. To claim something is independent is to deny its causes. Example: a chair depends on its parts and is not inherently a chair.

Can there be multiple causes? Yes, but even between seemingly independent causes there is always interaction. Look back in time far enough and they have the same origin. Look forward and you will see two seemingly independent causes leading to a single outcome.

Does the universe need us? I don't know, does a chair need legs?

If that were the case, free will must have originated somewhere. Do animals have free will? Bacteria? Primates? When did free will arise and how could free will be an evolutionary success compared to non-free will?

The way I see it, nature as a whole seeks the most efficient way to get from state A to state B to state C, etc. Apparently sentient beings and cognition are part of this motion. I do see there is a lot of trial and error in behavior, even in animals. Perhaps the trial part could be interpreted as free will. In that case still, free will would be a primal, untamed force that would become fixated once tamed by conditioning.

Time is definitely relative to the observer. I think it is as much subject as length, width and depth. Quantum mechanics researchers have made very interesting discoveries lately. I could do a lot of hypothesizing over how quantum entanglement may be a relation in the 5th (or greater) dimension, but that would be pure speculation. Great stuff nonetheless!

What then if the temporal dimension itself is not perceived as an external apriori, but rather is the product of the function perception?

That is basically saying everything is subjective. An interesting notion but I tend to think the subjective is derived from the objective, not the other way around.

Maximum here means more than all others. But who are all others? Humans? Other entities? You could take the most morally responsible / least ignorant human for a god, but it is a small world. The existence of infinite lifeforms / forms of consciousness might be required for this premise to work. This is unfortunately unprovable by scientific means.

Interesting question. I started a new thread about multi-dimensional realization just yesterday. Anyway, each of our eyes receives a two-dimensional image. The difference is calculated by the mind, creating a three-dimensional image. This process comes naturally as it has been key to our survival in three-dimensional space. Higher dimensional perception is much more difficult. Accurate time perception can only be approximated by using predetermined units of measurement (like my one-eyed depth-perception analogy). Anything of higher dimensions can only be conceptually understood by using mathematics.

Instead of using good and evil, one could also use ignorance as a premise.

• P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the minimum/maximum degree.
• P2: There exist beings with varying degrees of ignorance.
• C: There exists a being with a minimum degree of ignorance (which is what we call God).

Sure. Albert Einstein stated that time, rather than being an independent singular dimension, is joined to the three dimensions we perceive with our eyes. Continuum means that no single dimension can exist independently of other dimensions. Obviously, there is no physical length without depth and width. Each dimension exists only in the context of the next.

Of course. I used the concept of space-time continuum here, as it is commonly used when referring to four-dimensional space. In principle, this idea can be applied to n-dimensional space. Hope that answers your question.

Ask yourself, what are your choices based on? The answer is quite simple: your reference framework. Now this framework exists for a small part in the conscious mind and for a large part in the subconscious mind. Keeping all past experiences alive in the conscious mind would significantly clutter and slow down your decision-making., hence experiences are moved to the subconscious. Each and every choice you make is based on a combination of a metaphorical balance in the subconscious mind and a conscious weighing of perceived options.

As experiences are derived from physical occurrences. so the law of cause and effect still holds here.

Does free will in any way enhance your choices? Arguably not. What this problem ultimately boils down to: is there an element of randomness to reality? Albert Einstein did not believe so. On the uncertainty principle he commented: "God does not gamble." I believe he is correct. The fact that certain complementary variables cannot be known in quantum physics does not prove the existence of randomness.

So there, my debunking of the free will.

Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance. — Bitter Crank

This appears to be empirically correct, but is this not simply stating that reality is something of a delusion, if experienced reality is at odds with the fundamental truth of that reality? — Marcus de Brun

Stand on the edge of a circle, look inward to the center, then look outward. You will not see the actual circle, because the origin of your viewpoint is a point on that very circle. The same applies to higher dimensional perception. Its perspective is fixated to a specific point in space-time continuum. Each point appears unique, which leads our three-dimensional senses to speculation. However, there is a one-dimensional thread running through all of reality. Its length and curves beyond comprehension. What can be deduced is that there are infinite points on this line, but that its course cannot be altered. That's not to say your actions do not have impact, to the contrary. The results of weighing your perceived choices, even the weighing itself, can be considered unavoidable parts of the same thread. Hence there is only hard determinism, anything else is only speculation from a limited three-dimensional perspective.