Weather Forecast / Current Conditions

Look, man, if this isn't some kind of sick joke, you might as well just start recruiting for the local church next...😁

Bounty Hunter said:Man, you clearly haven't spent much time digging into René Descartes, because you seem to have no clue about the massive mental marathon he had to run just to land on that specific conclusion...

Yeah, you caught me, I guess. I don't know squat about René Descartes, and honestly, I couldn't tell you a single thing about science if my life depended on it.

I suppose... hm... I believe we are all free to cling to our own convictions, regardless of the consequences. TIME will eventually reveal the cost of such choices; after all, that is its sole purpose. What holds "value" as truth "today" is often discarded as trash by "tomorrow." That "tomorrow" exists simply to expose what remains invisible to us "today."😉

Delia.... thank you🙂

Black Hawk said:Just to shake things up here, I’m gonna try to retell this one Asimovian story—apologies in advance because I’m doing this strictly from memory, so you’re basically just getting the raw concept without all the fancy prose: back in the day, when people were running the most complex computers on the planet, the operators would sometimes throw a heavy question at the machine—phrased a dozen different ways, but it always boiled down to the same thing: "Can entropy be reversed by sheer will? Basically, can we dodge the heat death of the universe?" The story jumps through massive stretches of time, hundreds or even millions of years at a time. Computers get more advanced, sure, but they keep giving those same old operators the same damn answer: "Insufficient data to provide an answer." Billions of years roll by, humanity has long since vanished, and all that's left is the Computer, sitting there in a universe that's practically dead and drifting toward total chaos. And the Computer just keeps calculating, searching for the answer to that one final, solitary question. Then, when the universe is right on the brink of nothingness, the Computer finally cracks it and says, "Let there be light." And just like that, there was light.

Man, good old Sirius...🙂

Bobba Fett:hiddenviper9, if this isn't some kind of joke...

hiddenviper9:
It’s no joke. The book is being written and translated into multiple languages as we speak.
And you have these self-proclaimed "intellectuals"—real academics, mind you—who have read bits of this thing and just declared: "Everything I've read is the absolute truth; it couldn't be any other way!"

Bobba Fett: So, could you basically pull the same logic into religion too?

hiddenviper9: And you, kid, just keep spitting venom. It's clearly just in your DNA anyway.😁

I read Asimov years ago, and his work was instrumental in helping me grasp the cyclical nature of time. Because we only experience tiny, microscopic slivers of that massive loop, we tend to perceive it as a linear "flowing river."

Regarding the "origin" of consciousness, from a philosophical standpoint, the answer is quite straightforward.
If we subscribe to monism, it stands to reason that matter must always possess consciousness, as something cannot emerge from a substance that lacks its fundamental essence.
However, if we lean toward dualism—which is where most "scientists" land—then people can essentially construct whatever they want. They just mix a little bit of this and a little bit of that until they’ve manufactured their own version of "truth," "fact," or "proof."

You can't derive true philosophy from physics alone; you can only use physics to fuel one's imagination or simply to spout nonsense.
The core method of philosophy should be dialogue, yet so few people are actually capable of engaging in a real conversation without resorting to labels, loaded arguments, or insults.

Scientistic dogmatism, much like reductionism, is dangerous in its own right. Since modern Science serves as the dominant consensus for global society, this kind of dogmatic thinking poses a real threat to rational thought. There was a time when religious dogmatism was the greatest danger, but thankfully, that is largely a thing of the past. 😉

A little food for thought....

Physics claims time lacks direction; it supposedly just exhibits the "traits" and "properties" of space itself. It remains unclear why our perceived reality insists on a one-way street.

One could draw a foolish, illogical conclusion from this "scientific fact": perhaps time is merely another spatial dimension we traverse via consciousness, yet remain blind to. If time—past, present, and future—is truly a spatial dimension, then all of time and space constitute a single, unified "block." If everything exists as one static whole, how can we even justify concepts like "history," "progress," "evolution," or "origins"?
and so on.
In a reality where time is effectively space, there is no change, no movement, no history, no evolution. Everything simply *is*, frozen in a single block.
Which leads to an incredible realization... science, philosophy, and religion all bleeding into one messy package. Ugh. Disgusting. Unbearable, isn't it?🙄

swiftcobra15 said:I read Asimov years ago. His work helped me grasp the cyclical nature of time. We experience such microscopic slivers of that massive loop that we mistake it for a linear "flowing river."

Regarding the "emergence" of consciousness, the philosophy is quite simple.
If we are monists, then matter must inherently possess consciousness; something cannot emerge from a substance that lacks its fundamental essence.
If we are dualists—which most "scientists" prefer—then one can fabricate whatever they want. Just mix a little of this with a little of that, and suddenly you have a convenient "truth," "fact," or "proof."

Physics isn't a foundation for philosophy; it’s just an invitation to indulge in imagination or nonsense.
The core philosophical method is dialogue, yet few people are actually capable of engaging in a conversation without resorting to labeling, manipulation, or insults.

Scientistic dogmatism, or reductionism, is as dangerous as any other ideology. Since Science currently serves as the dominant global consensus, this dogmatism poses a genuine threat to rational thought. Religious dogmatism used to be the primary danger, but that is largely a relic of the past. 😉

You articulate certain points far better than I ever could.😘

Rachel Bishop said:You definitely have a way with words that I just can't match.😘

I’m trying my best here, but I honestly admire how patient you are when you're attempting to reason with people who simply refuse to listen. I went through the exact same thing on an old message board years ago and eventually realized it was just a losing battle.👍

adriatic said:Does the space-time egg have its own chicken? - Balog

I'm trying, really. But I mostly just admire how much patience you have, attempting to prove anything to a room full of brick walls. I tried that on the old message boards. It's a dead end.

🙂 The space-time egg definitely has its chicken...

and besides, "it’s much easier to claim the egg is a dud than it is to actually hatch it..."🙂

Veli Balog: It would make more sense if it didn't exist. I mean, if there’s a chicken, there has to be a mother hen or at least an egg to start with.😉

You're right, though things are getting increasingly confusing.
Maybe entropy is to blame?😕 😉 😁

adriatic said:John Doe: It would be more logical if it didn't exist. If there is a chicken, there must be its mother, or at least an egg.😉

Well... in that case, they'd probably need a coop too.😉