Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

the chillingly cold implications of evolution/material science

- there is no morality
- breeding is the only goal. your existence when you are not breeding is a  prelude to breeding whether you intend to breed or not. learning new skills? that helps you compete and appear to be a valuable, breedable specimen. doing stuff to make yourself happy means obtaining the basic dopamine levels which are a necessity to properly compete in this gene pool. you wake up and open your eyes because you want to breed. 
- we are germs
 add on

- only death is real
- heat death of the universe means all life ends, at least until the universe is recreated or if humanity evolves into beings of pure thought.

I will say that, based on personal experience, there is much more to reality than philosophical materialism can account for.

Quote
I will say that, based on personal experience, there is much more to reality than philosophical materialism can account for.

Personal experience = the acknowledgement of self through external sensory data (or material).

What is this "much more to reality" that you speak of, or are you referring to something metaphysical?

- there is no morality
- breeding is the only goal. your existence when you are not breeding is a  prelude to breeding whether you intend to breed or not. learning new skills? that helps you compete and appear to be a valuable, breedable specimen. doing stuff to make yourself happy means obtaining the basic dopamine levels which are a necessity to properly compete in this gene pool. you wake up and open your eyes because you want to breed.  
- we are germs
 add on
Only your second point is an actual implication of evolution / material science.  The others do not follow.  Natural morality exists.  Your third point is a vulgar misappropriation of terms.  Also, it only follows the ultimate purpose of life is to reproduce.  We can endow it with whatever other purposes we wish.  I, and I assume others, would argue there are logical reasons to support certain alternative purposes.

To answer your question: Though somewhat redundant, you are nothing but organic compounds whose chemical processes shall eventually reach a state of equilibrium.  You shall then putrefy and cease to exist.

It's obvious that the material is not all, but it takes a little intelligence to notice it.

It's obvious that the material is not all, but it takes a little intelligence to notice it.

- there is no morality
- breeding is the only goal. your existence when you are not breeding is a  prelude to breeding whether you intend to breed or not. learning new skills? that helps you compete and appear to be a valuable, breedable specimen. doing stuff to make yourself happy means obtaining the basic dopamine levels which are a necessity to properly compete in this gene pool. you wake up and open your eyes because you want to breed.  
- we are germs
 add on
Only your second point is an actual implication of evolution / material science.  The others do not follow.  Natural morality exists.  Your third point is a vulgar misappropriation of terms.  Also, it only follows the ultimate purpose of life is to reproduce.  We can endow it with whatever other purposes we wish.  I, and I assume others, would argue there are logical reasons to support certain alternative purposes.

To answer your question: Though somewhat redundant, you are nothing but organic compounds whose chemical processes shall eventually reach a state of equilibrium.  You shall then putrefy and cease to exist.
pardon my wording. There is no morality in the way we are most used to understanding morality. Our empathy extends to our family, because they have similar genes, and to peers who prove themselves to be advantageous to your survival. From there, you might care about your neighbourgood, country, continent, etc the reasons for which purely have to do with relating to yourself.. rarely would you "die" for such things. your primary concern is self preservation.
We are no different from germs. we are composed of germs. we do the same things germs do.  we may very well be a super predator that comes along once in a while and re-sets the ecosystem. We are headed towards a massive death that no internet conversations will prevent.

as for those who say that there is "more". your brain creates the thought that there is more. a chemical reaction pops off in your head. perhaps it is trying to distract you from thoughts about life being meaningless, prevent you from suicide.

Materialism is a simplistic philosophy for people who want simple answers.  Its axioms seem obvious, but when one reflects on them they become less so.  I would suggest a more thorough examination of the basic assumptions of this type of approach, coupled with a more imaginative approach to philosophy in general.  Materialism is justifiable in science insofar as the purpose of modern science is accumulation of knowledge of the material world, this however is not the purpose of philosophy.

Quote

as for those who say that there is "more". your brain creates the thought that there is more. a chemical reaction pops off in your head.

That's like saying "a painting is only a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas.", that would mean a doodle by a retarded person is equal to a classic painting. Which certainly is not the case. Plus there is no proof that the brain creates anything. Reducing it all to chemicals is like saying "hey, the music playing on this cd you enjoy so much is just a bunch of sound sequences!". But why the sound sequence was made that way? And why would you trust a chemical reaction that tells you about the material world, but not one that tells you there's something more?

So can everything else be reduced to this chemical reaction, as well as material reality. Just because all humans, animals and other things submit to the same material reality, it does not mean it is not a chemical reaction too. Does material reality hurt you? Yes, do you feel pain, yes. But you can also hallucinate pain, or have something make you feel bad that is not material. My point is, if there was only yourself on the world plus mineral and trees, how would you know for sure the material realm was not only a chemical illusion too, since there would be no animals or other humans to confirm that to you? Then multiply it by billions of humans and animals and you get the current world. But does the fact that more billions of similar "chemical reactions" tell the same thing really mean it's real? Remind yourself that the dna of you and a bug is only different by a small percentage, or so I read.

So a person who says that the meaning of something more we experience is just a chemical should take it to the next level and dismiss everything as one. After all, just because more brains with chemical reactions feel the realness of the material, that does not make it so. You have to be skeptical. It's clear to me that it is cowardice that prevents most people who believe meaning is only a chemical to take it to the next level (reducing everything, not just meaning, to it), for that would involve transcending extreme physical pain. But why not, since pain is ultimately a chemical reaction too? You don't believe pain is floating around in a material way, waiting to enter your body do you?

Most people who are in a lot of pain cannot stop feeling it by realizing it's only "a chemical reaction", as most people who feel great meaning would not be able to erase it so easily by telling themselves that.

Plus I see no point in beauty, different colors and forms, different types of plants and their defenses like spines, etc., unders this "meaning it's only a chemical reaction" paradigm. And I'm not even mentioning the fact that it's totally stupid to believe there was no consciousness before living beings. Do you really think these whorthless sacks of organic life, like microorganisms and animals, were the first types of consciousness there were, and before they appeared, everything (including trees) had no consciousness, no intention, no love, etc. and everything was just like, black, nothingness and void? If you say no, I don't believe that, I don't see why consciousness should be disregarded as more illusory than the material, and please don't mistake me for those new age "everything is consciousness and love" freaks.

Well, forget it, I always end up making a mess when I try to explain my views on this. I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I hope it's clear I do not think the above text is very coherent or expresses exactly what I think.

Quote
I will say that, based on personal experience, there is much more to reality than philosophical materialism can account for.
What is this "much more to reality" that you speak of, or are you referring to something metaphysical?
Spiritual reality. Angels and shit. They are capable of being seen under special circumstances.

diesel, Kin selection is only one theory as to explaining altruism in the context evolution. Group selection is more likely:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/04/17/where_does_good_come_from/?page=full (Conservationist posted this link a while back)
Quote
The alternative theory holds that the origins of altruism and teamwork have nothing to do with kinship or the degree of relatedness between individuals. The key, Wilson said, is the group: Under certain circumstances, groups of cooperators can out-compete groups of non-cooperators, thereby ensuring that their genes — including the ones that predispose them to cooperation — are handed down to future generations. This so-called group selection, Wilson insists, is what forms the evolutionary basis for a variety of advanced social behaviors linked to altruism, teamwork, and tribalism — a position that other scientists have taken over the years, but which historically has been considered, in Wilson’s own word, “heresy.”

The religion of science, just another shitty aspect of modernity.

as for those who say that there is "more". your brain creates the thought that there is more. a chemical reaction pops off in your head. perhaps it is trying to distract you from thoughts about life being meaningless, prevent you from suicide.
It's clear that you're projecting the crushing weight of reality you feel onto others.

There's still little we can do in the way of correlating a chemical/electrical action in the brain to what happens in consciousness.

An article from the same guy in my other recent post:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/are-we-spiritual-machines-42
In it he mentions a student with a 126 IQ and normal social life with a seriously malformed brain (most of it's missing). He also mentions Louis Pasteur; half of his brain was dead, and yet he was an eminent intellectual. There is a correlation between mind and brain, but it's definitely not as concrete as scientists would like it to be.

My own view is this: You are not your brain. The brain is a computer command center we operate.

for the record i am not a proponent of material scientism. I do however notice that most proud aitheists have NO idea what they're getting themselves into. and the implications of evolution being right are something they politely refuse to admit either for hedonistic purposes or social acceptance

It's funny, the hardline atheists I know are also the biggest proponents of slave morality.  It's the weirdest thing.  The spectre of Christianity looms large.

There's still little we can do in the way of correlating a chemical/electrical action in the brain to what happens in consciousness.

I agree.  I was able to intuit this years ago.  Tell me if this does justice to what you're saying:

When you see/hear/smell something, a chemical/electrical action pops off in your head.  The chemical/electrical action, in turn, causes an emotion and/or a meaning for how to interpret what you see/hear/smell.  But why does something you see/hear/smell necessarily cause a chemical reaction?  That's really the question.  What causes what?  If I walk into a room, and see dismembered bodies, I get a feeling of terror and awe.  It's almost like the chemical is the in-between of the experience of seeing dismembered bodies and the reaction/emotion of terror and awe.  But what ultimately causes my reaction/emotion?  The image of dismembered bodies is really the root cause and not the chemical reaction.  It seems to me that chemical reactions and feelings coincide rather than that the former causes the latter.

This reminds me of what Nietzsche said about scientists when they say "forces cause."  All they're really saying is that causes cause!


When you see/hear/smell something, a chemical/electrical action pops off in your head.  The chemical/electrical action, in turn, causes an emotion and/or a meaning for how to interpret what you see/hear/smell.  But why does something you see/hear/smell necessarily cause a chemical reaction?  That's really the question.  What causes what?  If I walk into a room, and see dismembered bodies, I get a feeling of terror and awe.  It's almost like the chemical is the in-between of the experience of seeing dismembered bodies and the reaction/emotion of terror and awe.  But what ultimately causes my reaction/emotion?  The image of dismembered bodies is really the root cause and not the chemical reaction.  It seems to me that chemical reactions and feelings coincide rather than that the former causes the latter.

This reminds me of what Nietzsche said about scientists when they say "forces cause."  All they're really saying is that causes cause!

There are certainly forces beyond our immediate control (such as external stimuli) that can change our state of mind, but don't we also have the ability to mold our consciousness in a way that reacts differently to such forces? This would imply that our we are able influence the way our body responds to the external world*.
 
Does this just mean that certain chemical reactions mold certain other chemical reactions? There definitely seems to be something else going on here...

*With this thought, perhaps (yet another) alternate definition of nihilism could be: the shaping of an individual as guided by the memetic influences of the external world.

I don't think I've ever had a feeling of coldness from any implication of science. Experience remains the same.

However, I may simply not have grasped what the implications are, or may have done so indirectly. idklol

Quote
Does this just mean that certain chemical reactions mold certain other chemical reactions? There definitely seems to be something else going on here...

For the something else, we might not need to look much further than the chemicals themselves. All matter may be conscious, and able to influence its immediately connected conditions through its own volition. Complex wave structures are able to give rise to consciousness extending over large sets of atoms. Increasing complexity of available Representation then increases the complexity of the conscious mind.