Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_11qaiuh in philosophy
Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdg5f3l wrote
There is no meaning to life. The universe is cold and neutral. Yet the negative emotion that we assign to that realization is not neutral. It is negative. Why?. That's not logical. Shouldn't the emotion be neutral too? In other words, nothing has meaning including the fact that nothing has meaning yet we automatically assign a negative value to the fact that nothing has value, thus self-contracting without even realizing it. So I wonder if the solution to that kind of existential suffering is not to find meaning, but to identify and remove the arbitrary emotional response one has to the fact that nothing has meaning. Maybe the reason we do this is that when we are doing something we perceive to be meaningful (even if ultimately that meaning is an illusion) we receive positive emotion. We then, for some reason, automatically attribute that positive emotion to the idea that the task had meaning, so over time we develop a mental association between meaning and positive emotion. I wonder if meaning is just a placeholder concept the brain uses because it cant self conceptualize its own reward system (the mesocorticolimbic circuit) in its unconscious levels of processing. Thoughts?
FootnoteOfPlato t1_jdixuuk wrote
If you do something good, you feel good afterward. If you do something bad, you feel either guilt, shame, or both; sounds like engineering by a feeling, moral deity to me.
Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdkkb86 wrote
That's because you have a preexisting belief structure that makes you think that.
A much more sound reason for this was that morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Aka- if u go around killing people or being dishonest or perpetrating other "immoral" behavior's it would impact your chances of reproducing. Evolution often has the appearance of intelligent design untill you learn the mechanisms behind it and you realise that the aperant design is an illusion. Too many people think they know how evolution works but they dont, so they are confused as to why it wasnt "designed" by a God.
​
Here is a good explanation of this:
FootnoteOfPlato t1_jdkoev3 wrote
Pot meet kettle; your existing belief structure makes you think that.
Evolution is a hypothesis, btw, given that it can't be tested in a laboratory to confirm it. The evidence is the same for everyone; interpretation is subjective, conforming to prior beliefs that we have. You have zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so my interpretation should be just as plausible as yours in your mind.
Right after graduating college a few years ago, I had a dream about a blonde woman in her 20s. I memorized her face that day, as I had never seen her before. Months later, hundreds of miles away, I walked into one of my graduate courses and there she was... The bible talks about God's foreknowledge, which makes sense if everything is determined. I believe it is all determined based upon this: if you were given two choices and it was 50/50 whether you choose one or the other, then you wouldn't choose either because nothing *convinces* you to choose one option over the other, whether it be a pro, a con, or an innate proclivity. Thus, we are determined in every decision by the aforementioned variables.
Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdkvu2h wrote
Evolution is not a hypothesis lol, also it CAN be tested in a lab, not only that, it is the basis for pretty much all modern day biology. Saying it doesn't exist to a biologist is like saying a hammer doesn't exist to a builder, they use it every day.
Also I do not need to prove God doesn't exist, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.
I think one thing that makes people confused is the term theory of evolution. The word "theory" when used in a scientific context has a completely different technical meaning from the coloqual use of the word. A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data.
Here is a video of the principle of evolution in action right before your very eyes: https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8
FootnoteOfPlato t1_jdmxixo wrote
Wrong, given that a scientific theory must be both experimental and falsifiable, and the hypothesis of evolution is neither. Evolutionists infer common ancestry, leading back to the first cell, which was composed randomly through time and chance. There is no way to test this hypothesis throgh experimentation, making it unfalsifiable. Evolutionists assume it's true based upon their preconception about God, namely that he does not exist, which is another hypothesis they presume to be true, yet have no evidence for.
Know that God loves you, but it's on his terms.
Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdp3bw1 wrote
Again, evolution is not a hypothesis. Also the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim about a god. Also you need to do some research on what the theory of evolution actually is I think you are quite confused about what it is.
Gamusino2021 t1_jdl250f wrote
Our brains do have an original "purpose", it was an evolutionary advantage that evolved to make more efficient the genes replication. Brain is a machine of solving problems towards a goal. So it seems normal that we deeply feel bad at realizing universe has no meaning.
Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdl68pe wrote
I don't understand how you came to that. The last sentence seems like a non-sequitur.
Gamusino2021 t1_jdl7ae5 wrote
if we define "universe having meaning" as something like " there is some goals we objectivly should follow", well, the brain has many innate goals, it evolved to pursue those goals. so when we are realize the universe is actually meaningless it goes against our intincts
Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdlad0h wrote
Yea that's kind of what I'm trying to get at, except I would ask why the perceived objectiveness of a goal has any bearing on the chemical-emotional reward we get for pursuing said goal. I think this is done at a cognitive level and we don't actually suffer from the realization that the universe has no meaning until we assign the negative connotation to that fact manually.
Gamusino2021 t1_jdlawyv wrote
I would say there is no need to assign a negative connotation for us to suffer. A meaningless universe goes against our instincts. For example, for many people, one big part of universe not having meaning is we are going to completely cease to exist, that goes against our survival instinct. Also we have instinct to try to improve the situation, but we will grow old and all we do will dissapear eventually.
MountainSimple24 t1_jdpum20 wrote
Alright, but what is the point of DNA replicating itself. I wonder about DNA and if it made the decision to keep itself alive. It became aware of its own existence and perpetrated it. If not, then we’re did the self Replication start. If we follow it, particles would therefore attempt to maintain their state and form larger particles as a product of their maintaining. So, if particles maintain themselves, then, is the Big Bang, an attempt at the universe maintaining itself infinitely (assuming another one starts after the end of this universe).
I find it hard to follow the person maintaining themselves to the DNA as I have no concept of DNA’s consciousness just the idea that some RNA self replicate. States return to maximum entropy. The most stable form of the system. When everything is stable though, nothing will happen, or maybe something does happen in stability. In stability, one movement could mean a massive reaction.
Gamusino2021 t1_jdsg870 wrote
DNA is not conciouss, first molecule that replicated itself was not DNA, we know it couldnt be DNA but we still dont know which one was. that molecule was formed by chance in a situation where millions of millions of ramdom chemical reactions where happening, then the replication continued and evolved by a blindly, its loo long to explain here mate, read about evolution and you will undersand why it happens blindly
MountainSimple24 t1_jdyj9ub wrote
Ur right, thank you
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments