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
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
Is life the universe becoming self aware? — Hillary
We are that part of the universe perceiving ourselves as part of the universe. — 180 Proof
Beyond that I don't know its purpose. — TiredThinker
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
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
We are the experiencer enigmas that experiences the being eclipses — Varde
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
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
Pure instinct pretending to be more? — TiredThinker
Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker
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
By making an advance directives, am I helping myself or oppressing another? — bert1
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
You don't have any meaning or purpose — Christoffer
That's why they say "bullshit" to such explanations because anything other than God, belief, and religion is beneath them. — 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. — Hillary
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.