How do you know I exist? — charleton

We don't. The current theory is that you're a cleverly programmed AI troll. One that's very stuck on materialism.

We don't. The current theory is that you're a cleverly programmed AI troll. One that's very stuck on materialism. — CasKev

Is that the 'royal we"? If you don't know anyone exists then how do you pretend to speak for other people?

Right. I want to know how you know what happened 1 billion years ago?

Take a look at some DNA, then you won't have to worry if I exist or not.

Maybe you can account for how it is that all living things share DNA?

You made some claims. I'm simply asking how do you know? That v human beings share similar DNA and the DNA of most animal life does not imply your claims.

Run along to the solipsism shop I'm not taking the bait.

I guess the story just fits your narrative. You have a story and you just make up a narrative to fit the story, as if you have any idea what human and animal traits were 1 billion years ago. Just make something up.

↪charleton I guess the story just fits your narrative. You have a story and you just make up a narrative to fit the story, as if you have any idea what human and animal traits were 1 billion years ago. Just make something up. — Rich

These are two different views of such a hologram as reconstructed by a laser beam. The brain can be considered such an analogous source in the quantum field. The mind extends out into it and perceives it to be out there and not in here. This idea of perception of a real quantum field is the result of Stephen Robbins research utilizing Henri Bergson's metaphysics. — Rich

How do you know this???

This is metaphysical based upon my observations of life. No need to make up stories about what happened 1 billion years ago. By the way, most current cosmological research is centered around a holographic view of the universe because it fits current observations.

How do you know I exist? — charleton

I think you are a figment of my imagination

↪charleton This is metaphysical based upon my observations of life. No need to make up stories about what happened 1 billion years ago. By the way, most current cosmological research is centered around a holographic view of the universe because it fits current observations. — Rich

It's rubbish.

@charleton Having a rough day? You seem unusually cantankerous and unhelpful today...

Why’s that? Emotion regulates our goals and hopes and decisions. You can’t avoid it. I don’t see no transhumanism saving the day.

I agree. Our passions lie at the heart of everything we do. It's what motivates us.

I do not think there is necessarily a 'reason' for all this.
I do not think these facts are especially human. In fact it is a complete no-brainer that we have evolved from mammal all of who have an emotional life which includes pain and pleasure.
If you want a 'reason', then one only has to ask how long would an individual last if food gave them pain or fatal dangers gave them pleasure. This is how evolution works. It's clumsy but effective.

Having a rough day? You seem unusually cantankerous and unhelpful today... — CasKev

Figments are often unpredictable and capricious.

But since the traits are not specific to humans you can't do that. Which is very much the point I was making, obviously. You are looking for human lived experience as a way of uncovering the evolutionary reason for those traits, but humans came ready supplied with them; traits that had already been a foregone conclusion for 100s of millions of years. — charleton

You don't need a complete picture to reason. It may not be as rigorous to only apply my studies to the human condition, but it accomplishes goals that are relevant to me. Studying the human experience is a reasonable way to learn about the human experience. It may not lead to a perfect complete picture, but it would be unproductive to strive for a complete picture of anything.

Yes. Mind over matter. — matt

How would you prove that it is possible to do so? Can you separate pain in the mind from visible pain on brain scans?

Right..instrumental existence moves forward..survival, maintain living environment and self, flee boredom with goal-driven (hoping for flow states)...and the repetitious nature of all things continues .., no romanticism will put the story in a different light.,

Yes. One thing has to be the consequence of natural selection; the sheer infinite variety. Variety is explicable in terms of the process but simply cannot be REDUCED to survival.
ALL variations, all traits must precede adaptations. For the natural process to work towards the resultant evolution the variation must be there to select. Nature does not and cannot pre choose, predict, or prepare. Thus characteristic are not explained by their evolved states; characteristics explain evolution.

Yes. One thing has to be the consequence of natural selection; the sheer infinite variety. Variety is explicable in terms of the process but simply cannot be REDUCED to survival.
ALL variations, all traits must precede adaptations. For the natural process to work towards the resultant evolution the variation must be there to select. Nature does not and cannot pre choose, predict, or prepare. Thus characteristic are not explained by their evolved states; characteristics explain evolution.

When a species becomes by natural circumstances isolated from others of its kind it would seem that the ability to adapt becomes critical, and superior to any inherent dominant trait. Only those of a species who can adapt will survive. Maybe this is how some resessive traits can become dominant.

Maybe this is how some resessive traits can become dominant. — Cavacava

Dominance and recessiveness are misunderstood, and not particularly relevant. This has to do with the presentation of traits and how the phenotype differs from the genotype. It's a common misconception. Evolution is all about the phenotype whether that is the result of a recessive gene or a dominant one,
make no difference.

it would seem that the ability to adapt becomes critical — Cavacava

No individual has the 'ability to adapt'. We die with the genes we were born with. The point I was making that you seem to have missed is that, all traitspreexist their selection, and are only considered adaptations after some period of natural selection.

Isolation lowers the potential for variation, and gives the opportunity for divergence, from the ancestor. This because the isolated variant evolves at a lower rate. Smaller gene pools tend to homogenise. And if, when isolated, the environment is static the potential for adaptation is less necessary; but more vulnerable to change. Hence the Moa and the Dodo.

Yep, I understand you need variety in order for there to be traits that promote survival and reproduction in populations. I wasn't challenging that. My point was that we are existential creatures, unlike most other creatures. Being existential creatures means we have unique abilities- such as reflecting on why we do anything in the first place..why we exist..what's the point of it all. I'm explaining that there is a structural futility or emptiness behind all pursuits. We (as individuals) survive to survive to survive, doing repetitious or habitual routines- all within a cultural/linguistic, historically contingent, socioeconomic milieu. But we also do non-survival but related activities dealing with how comfortable we want to be (based on cultural expectations)- so we clean the house, fix the drain, wash the dishes, get the oil changed, etc. Finally, much our "free" time (non work or maintenance related) is to flee the eternal emptiness of the mental state of boredom. So, we flee it by trying to entertain ourselves with goal-driven activities- in other words, giving ourselves something to achieve. Sometimes our goal-driven entertainments lead to flow states which is a complete absorption in an activity as though time is irrelevant while we are engaged.

My point was that we are existential creatures, unlike most other creatures. — schopenhauer1

What other creatures would you include here?
It seem to me that "existential" as a adjective is not adequate to the idea you are trying to convey.

Yep, I understand you need variety in order for there to be traits that promote survival and reproduction in populations. I wasn't challenging that. My point was that we are existential creatures, unlike most other creatures. Being existential creatures means we have unique abilities- such as reflecting on why we do anything in the first place..why we exist..what's the point of it all. I'm explaining that there is a structural futility or emptiness behind all pursuits. We (as individuals) survive to survive to survive, doing repetitious or habitual routines- all within a cultural/linguistic, historically contingent, socioeconomic milieu. But we also do non-survival but related activities dealing with how comfortable we want to be (based on cultural expectations)- so we clean the house, fix the drain, wash the dishes, get the oil changed, etc. Finally, much our "free" time (non work or maintenance related) is to flee the eternal emptiness of the mental state of boredom. So, we flee it by trying to entertain ourselves with goal-driven activities- in other words, giving ourselves something to achieve. Sometimes our goal-driven entertainments lead to flow states which is a complete absorption in an activity as though time is irrelevant while we are engaged. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me the bolded concepts don't jive with each other. As I've experienced, "flow states" offer a sort of mystical timeless transcendence that give profound meaning and fullness.

What other creatures would you include here?
It seem to me that "existential" as a adjective is not adequate to the idea you are trying to convey. — charleton

I believe so.. WE are the only existential creatures.. Perhaps aliens on other planets too:)?

DELETE

It seems to me the bolded concepts don't jive with each other. As I've experienced, "flow states" offer a sort of mystical timeless transcendence that give profound meaning and fullness. — matt

I purposely put that in there hoping someone would try to put flow states on a pedestal. Flow states don't make up for the lack of existence. Flow states are another avenue for lack actually. Then people miss the feeling of flow and chase it around for fleeting moments that fade.

I purposely put that in there hoping someone would try to put flow states on a pedestal. Flow states don't make up for the lack of existence. Flow states are another avenue for lack actually. Then people miss the feeling of flow and chase it around for fleeting moments that fade. — schopenhauer1

It seems they belong on a pedestal. We're talking about the experience of transcending time "as though time were irrelevant" -- all of the suffering irrelevant (or relevant depending how you look at it). Don't you think it possible to cultivate these flow states (less default lack) and make them a regularity in our lives?

I believe so.. WE are the only existential creatures.. Perhaps aliens on other planets too:)? — schopenhauer1

You've never met my dog.

The problem is that we know the purpose, finding meaning, but we can get it.