those words are not the thing itself — MAYAEL

:up:

We are the part of the universe perceiving itself. — Benj96

We are that part of the universe perceiving ourselves as part of the universe.

We are the part of the universe perceiving itself.
— Benj96
We are that part of the universe perceiving ourselves as part of the universe. — 180 Proof

We are parts of the universe hallucinating that we are parts of the universe perceiving the universe and ourselves, which is pretty much the same for all forms of life. Is life the universe becoming self aware? No. The universe is no Hydra-headed beast or a worm you can never delete.

If we are 4 dimensional and contain the entire snake of frames from conception to death, what keeps that snake from spanning the entirety of time? — TiredThinker

We are basically collections of particles that inflated away from the virtuality long time ago, on a tubular singularity, far, far away.

We're...desperate! :grin:

Is life the universe becoming self aware? — Hillary

I didn’t say life is the “whole” universe becoming self aware but life exists in the universe and is composed of it - hallucinations are still processes of consciousness. Life doesn’t exist separately to everything else it’s a fraction of it. Life is the piece of the whole pie that can taste the flavour.

We are that part of the universe perceiving ourselves as part of the universe. — 180 Proof

I don’t see what this clarification offers additionally tbh. By this do you mean you believe conscious awareness as a phenomenon to be somehow outside of the rest of universe? You can’t directly observe atoms but they still exist nor gravitational waves but they exist and you can’t directly observe “consciousness” but it exists - because in all cases they can be indirectly measured by their interactions and properties. All of them are properties that the universe permits to occur.

Well we can see atoms or at least the protons and we can measure gravity waves with special equipment, but we haven't yet measured or even defined our consciousness. Maybe just learned self preservation behaviors given precedent over behaviors that are risky. Beyond that I don't know its purpose.

I simply reject the hackneyed, 'romantic' anthropomorphizing of the universe. Also, your synedoche "we as part of the universe perceiving itself" assumes a compositional fallacy.

Beyond that I don't know its purpose. — TiredThinker

Perhaps agency and awareness of self had the edge on aimless unconscious meandering in natural selection? Maybe it’s better to navigate by an ego then be at the whim of mechanical processes with no choice involved.

Well we can see atoms or at least the protons and we can measure gravity waves with special equipment, but we haven't yet measured or even defined our consciousness. Maybe just learned self preservation behaviors given precedent over behaviors that are risky. Beyond that I don't know its purpose. — TiredThinker

The nature of matter is unknown. That's the secret to consciousness. The purpose, reason, or meaning of all life is a divine one.

We're a bizarre abstraction of ultimate truth.

We are the experiencer enigmas that experiences the being eclipses. What the experiencer is, I don't know, perhaps it's something to do with super symmetry; in my opinion everything is symmetrical but super symmetric phenomena occured, creating an illusion of asymmetry. For every illuminated phenomenon is shadow- for every shadow, a concave, and a mirror. In part a human is many, and this many, together, is super symmetric.

Helper:
If you view things plainly it seems as if it's not all symmetrical but if you consider each part its own center, you can imagine it.

What the experiencer is, I don't know, perhaps it's something to do with super symmetry; in my opinion everything is symmetrical but super symmetric phenomena occured, creating an illusion of asymmetry — Varde

Supersymmetry refers to bosons and fermions, and as such has no real world impact. Fermions and bosons can be turned into one another mathematically, but the transformation in reality can't. All matter is fermionic, all interaction fields bosonic. How do supersymmetric phenomena create an illusion of asymmetry?

We are the experiencer enigmas that experiences the being eclipses — Varde

The Platonic shadows?

For every illuminated phenomenon is shadow- for every shadow, a concave, and a mirror. In part a human is many, and this many, together, is super symmetric — Varde

:chin:

Helper:
If you view things plainly it seems as if it's not all symmetrical but if you consider each part its own center, you can imagine it. — Varde

Good point!

How do we know "choice" as it seems to be isn't just animal mechanisms? Pure instinct pretending to be more?

Pure instinct pretending to be more? — TiredThinker

Because we can go against baser instincts. We can refrain from primal urges and in the extreme case we can completely go against the mechanism of natural selection by ending our own lives if we want. I find it difficult to find an reason why natural selection would bring about the capacity to have full autonomy over whether we continue to exist

"You can’t directly observe atoms but they still exist nor gravitational waves but they exist and you can’t directly observe “consciousness” but it exists - because in all cases they can be indirectly measured by their interactions and properties. All of them are properties that the universe permits to occur"

The thing is though, there is always more than one possibility for why something is the way it is and science tends to forget this once it finds a model it likes

so although we can observe things interacting with each other that doesn't mean there's only one conclusion and that conclusion just so happens to be Atomism exists

it just simply means that we decided to use the interpretation an explanation of atomism as the general consensus for why things are interacting the way they are. Remember science is about interpretation not unfiltered demonstrable truth.

We are our mind and body in the present moment, and nothing else.

Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker

A web of neurological maps formed by genetics and experience.

The problem with our perception of ourselves is that we are like a mirror trying to reflect ourselves in another mirror. This feedback loop of thought makes us perceive the very act of thinking about our entity to be so mysterious that we believe it to be more magical than it really is.

We are a complex biological machine that is more advanced than we can perceive and not yet completely understood in science so our perceptions have no comfort in thought.

This is why we invent religion or mystical ideas about existence instead of embracing more rational and logical conclusions based on the science we know so far.

You're a complicated collection of atoms mate. But the word is human.

The issue of advance directives does give a practical application to questions of identity. Would my future demented self appreciate my current self making decisions about my future demented self's welfare? By making an advance directives, am I helping myself or oppressing another?

This is why we invent religion or mystical ideas about existence instead of embracing more rational and logical conclusions based on the science we know so far. — Christoffer

BS, if you don't mind me saying. The "more rational and logical conclusions based on science" offer no solace, as gods are not invented but exist to resist exactly the scientific explanations. Science can't answer the reason for existence. Only gods supply us with pure ratio and reasin, and scientific explanations, useful as the are in the material domain, are the most irrational means for answering the question of the meaning of life.

By making an advance directives, am I helping myself or oppressing another? — bert1

Both most of the times.

:eyes: :100:

We are,

1. By degree, rational animals (h. sapiens)
2. By type, suiciders (h. suicidus)

For the Master, I am a Servant,
For the Teacher, I am a Student.

Frankly, the I, you, or we are closely associated with the process of becoming in the domains of existence. The mind and body would evolve depending on the conditional phenomena; just as ice, water, and steam appear ephemeral in relation to the orientation of H2O properties. Eventually, the phenomenon exists as this or that depends on the observers. It’s like describing the same elephant by different blind people, namely a blind person can tell that an elephant looks like a tree trunk; another blind man would describe an elephant as a snake.

Hence, a simple and straightforward answer would be: “I am what I am”. The applicable principle: “If you think this is who I am, then I am”, and “If you know this is what I am, then I am”. At the end of the day, the phenomena that happen are very much linked to the consciousness that perceives them. This is what the conventional reality is all about, i.e. the final conclusion is subjective-cum-relative and varies from one observer to another. Likewise, in respective circumstances, you can be named as a son, a father, a preacher, a student, a Caucasian, an American, a skinny man, an old man, a stranger, and so on. Just like a proverb, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”.

BS, if you don't mind me saying. The "more rational and logical conclusions based on science" offer no solace, as gods are not invented but exist to resist exactly the scientific explanations. Science can't answer the reason for existence. Only gods supply us with pure ratio and reasin, and scientific explanations, useful as the are in the material domain, are the most irrational means for answering the question of the meaning of life. — Hillary

What is "BS" is how you presume that belief or gods are required for feeling solace. If all you ever knew were those answers, then it becomes almost impossible for you to see past them. "Meaning of life" is a pointless idea if that idea points to a meaning or purpose existing before your life come into existence because there's no point to our life, we're the outcome of a billions year old (maybe more) probability game and the complexity we feel is a result of that, which deludes people into believing there's some meaning to it because they arrogantly think their human intelligence is of divine influence. You don't have any meaning or purpose and that becomes the point when dismantling the illusions of belief and religion because it enables people to seek meaning and purpose in their life instead of settling in for some meaning already there. It's an apathy out of religion, tailored to be very easy for people in power to take advantage of since if meaning and purpose is already there "by God", then people stop introspection and self-reflection, people stop examining their lived life since there's no point in some "grand plan".

Religion is the sugar-coated diabetes-inducing candy with unhealthy substances not written out on the package. Viewing the universe as it is, to the best of knowledge that exists is the healthy meal.

I feel wonder and excitement and meaning and purpose in accepting the world, nature, and universe for what it is. I feel awe in the wake of things like the James Webb telescope looking deep into the hidden truths of the universe.

All those things that you think are missing in a life without religion or belief, do indeed exist there. But a religious person, a person of belief cannot understand or see any of that because they are blinded by the arrogance of their belief. That's why they say "bullshit" to such explanations because anything other than God, belief, and religion is beneath them. Unfortunately, history and historians of religion has enough examples and explanations of how religion gets "invented", the psychology behind it and most importantly... how destructive it can be. Just because you can't or don't know anyone who has found solace and peace without God, religion, and belief doesn't mean that it is impossible. Only if you strawman it by saying stuff like "research doesn't give meaning" disregarding every further notion of expansion of this concept can you make it true for yourself. But thinking that there aren't people in the world feeling just as fulfilled by life without the fantasies cooked up by people throughout history to explain the unexplainable, is just arrogant and proves my point that very few really understand any of this, even among those calling themselves athetists.

You don't have any meaning or purpose — Christoffer

Well, that's exactly the question. Dawkins, quite ignorantly, says the purpose of life is to pass on genes or memes, which is just a dogmatic belief.

Now it's true that life has evolved in a long process starting at the big bang, but who says all universal life would not have evolved into the same beings if the initial state were different?

That's why they say "bullshit" to such explanations because anything other than God, belief, and religion is beneath them. — Christoffer

But science and religion can go hand in hand. Science lacks the explanation of where the basic ingredients of the universe come from, and gods can offer a reason for why it appeared. It's a totally different reason than the scientific take. Gods are not needed to fill gaps (science can work it out to the fundaments), but to give reason for a gapless state of matter in the first place.

So, the mindless reason that science gives for existence (reducing it to coincidental combinations of lifeless particles) is replaced by a reasonable creation act with a purpose, endowing existence with a wonder science has taken away.

Well, that's exactly the question. Dawkins, quite ignorantly, says the purpose of life is to pass on genes or memes, which is just a dogmatic belief. — Hillary

I'm not Dawkins and I'm saying there's no purpose in that either. It's part of the web of life that evolved by probability. There's no more purpose to passing on our genes than for a fungus to spread interconnected nerves through a forest. We attribute divine meaning to something meaningless because we can't stand the notion that there's no meaning at all. Instead of giving it a sense of meaning rationally connected to its existence as it is. Dawkins might just say those things about purpose to make an argument for the believers, because believers can't grasp the concept of no given purpose or meaning.

Now it's true that life has evolved in a long process starting at the big bang, but who says all universal life would not have evolved into the same beings if the initial state were different? — Hillary

The problem with theistic philosophy is that when breaking down the concepts, the theists end up with a vague notion that something kickstarted everything and any kind of actual divine meaning and purpose becomes just as meaningless as if there was no divine entity at all. And changing the initial state is no different than some random fluke letting the Nazis win the war instead of the allied nations. Today would look different if the universe had another start, but not so different that it would flip the concept of meaning and purpose in favor of some divinity. It's also quite irrelevant to any meaning or purpose for individuals. The problem with theism is that every philosophical discussion around God, belief, and religion ends up in a first cause argument totally dislocated from the actual initial argument of the discussion. Theism has become a warm blanket of pseudo-intellectualism as the last stance against rationality. The last line of defense for the religious to feel there's hope for their personal conviction to survive.

I'm saying, just let go, embrace things for what they are, and find meaning and purpose untouched by the corruption of thought that is an irrational belief.

But science and religion can go hand in hand. Science lacks the explanation of where the basic ingredients of the universe come from, and gods can offer a reason for why it appeared. It's a totally different reason than the scientific take. Gods are not needed to fill gaps (science can work it out to the fundaments), but to give reason for a gapless state of matter in the first place. — Hillary

Things like this have been said since the renaissance started to seriously separate church and knowledge for our modern world. For every discovery and scientific breakthrough, the theistic goal posts gets shifted further and further away into places of obscurity. But research has always pushed this back. We're constantly moving closer to things like a unified theory, we are constantly knowing more and more about the universe. What happens when science explains all of what you said? Would you move the goalposts further, like theists and religious people have done so many times in the last 500 years? It all becomes a parody of theism, the person pointing to the mystery and as the mystery gets explained they point somewhere else and says it's a mystery. It's close to what doomsday cults are doing, placing a date for the end of the world, and then it doesn't happen they just brush it off and choose a new date for it. It's fundamentally irrational.

And we still know so much today that the notion of something divine being there, just beyond the reach of understanding becomes a concept so vague that the idea of something divine becomes irrelevant.

I hope you are familiar with the parable of the invisible gardener?

So, the mindless reason that science gives for existence (reducing it to coincidental combinations of lifeless particles) is replaced by a reasonable creation act with a purpose, endowing existence with a wonder science has taken away. — Hillary

So? It's still just fantasy created to soothe those who can't accept that there's no divine meaning or purpose. It's circular reasoning where you have to accept the conclusion before making the argument. It's philosophical garbage, which is what theism really is. Theism feels like a philosophical playground where the rules of conduct don't apply and theists don't have to reach the same level of scrutiny as the rest of the philosophical community. So they create this bubble in which they can discuss philosophy under the comfort blanket of an already decided truth about the universe; the decision that the divine exists and we shouldn't question that but can question everything else. It's just as irrational as religion itself and theists are unable to discuss it with proper philosophers because they get stuck in those decided truths and can only boil down to conclusions like "I think what you say is bullshit".

Children in a playground, playing with the invisible gardener. While the adults know it's just playful fantasy for the comfort of their minds.

You are a virtual avatar and a DNA coded, individual character, experiencing a virtual reality inside an imaginary ancestral simulator. You are a holographic illusion that is being imagined and projected into this reality by God. This includes your reality, your finger prints, your DNA and every particle arrangement, that creates you. You exist in another dimension, inside a neural network system in Gods mind. You are being created in this dimension through a projection of light and information from sub atomic particles and electrons and you are percieving the universe with the lesser mind of God and with God as a constant observer.

You have possibly been living in this time only, for many trillions of years, if not infinitely. Its unlikely that you have evolved from a single cell or have lived throughout history, because evolution is a trick and the trick is, that we have evolved into a fully human being through natural selection and through survival of the fittess, when we are in fact, ( Scientifically and mathematically) "Supernatural". Evolution did happen, but it happened inside firing neurons and brain waves of probabilities, deep inside Gods universe brain.