/lit/ - Literature

any extreme POV is just an excuse for naiveness

>life doesn't exist, you're just matter
sure. I can agree with that.
>So I'm sad about it!
Wait a minute.. why? If that's just the way things are, how can you possibly making judgements? You just said that you're just a crystal. Crystals don't have problems, crystals don't have facts to care about it or any of that bullshit. So why are you sad? What does a crystal have to be sad about?

>>15340704
>>So I'm sad about it!
Where is that implied in the text?

>If I just pretend all the differences between me and this other thing don't exist, then I'm JUST LIKE the other thing, in fact I AM the other thing
Who the fuck still falls for this reasoning

>>15340707
why else did our noble theorist choose this image then?

>>15340707
probably the way in which the OP denies the existence of phenomena like preference, will, instinct, selfhood. Again, why shouldn't these exists if we are all just crystals? What is the point of denying the existence of phenomena that you observe? Why not just conform your physics to the existence of these things? What kind of science denies observation?

Retard i'm a man not a crystal. idiot

>>15340731
The court jester was not sad, he was contemplating. Because he got the memo before anyone else.

>>15340690
The only purpose of existence can be to make a new reality that's less shitty than the real reality.
I mean let's face it, you're here posting on a frog board instead of going outside or getting laid.
That's what we're dealing with. Something that's beaten by whatever this is.

>>15340690
I remember that dumb fucking thread.

>Living things and rocks both have the property of motion. Therefor life doesn't exist!

How can anyone believe such nonsense reasoning? And I say this as a stemfag myself.

>>15340720
>>15340751
This is answered in the last paragraph.

Every "phenomenon" you mentioned is merely an illusion emerging from the sheer complexity of the system of interconnected autocatalytic quasi-crystals.
The systems (which themselves are thousands of systems of systems of systems.. of the aforementioned crystals) that constitute "you" (hereafter referred to as: the extremely complex structure, ECS) basically organize a Matrix-like delusion for the extremely complex structure so that the ECS can reconcile its own complexity, with the utterly simple and banal task and destiny that lies in front of every single physico-chemical structure in the universe: to go from Point A to Point B, either spatially or as a chemical reaction.

>>15340795
>>15340690
holy based.

>>15340690
Materialism has been falsified

>>15340690
>>15340795
You're giving me a panic attack, you fucker.

>>15340795
However, if I spit on a crystal, it does not get angry at me. How can people be the same as crystals if, as my own experience tells me, people DO get angry when I spit on them?

>>15340830
Again, you're attributing meaning (due to your own egocentrism fueled by existential angst) to things that in other entities you perceive as a logical physical/chemical conclusion that isn't worthy of discussion.

What we're dealing with here is illusions and attributing meaning where it does not exist because we can't cope with the fact that meaning does not exist. Not in the sense that "there's no meaning" but in the sense that the concept of "meaning" is in itself inherently flawed and originating from our own egocentric need of constant existential self-assurance.

Furthermore, you're not only egocentric, but also human-centric.
I assure you - bacteria wouldn't care if you spat on them either.

>>15340874
The point is you aren't being nearly as deep as you think you are. Every high schooler who has ever smoked weed has reached these conclusions.
You're actively ignoring real phenomena that you and I both witness every day by arbitrarily calling them "illusions." Why is my mind an illusion, faggot? You don't understand the problem of consciousness any better than I do.

>>15340795
>Complexity creates new phenomena
I still don't see the point in saying that "these things do not exist" and that they are "illusions" though? At a microscopic level, things are simple, and then they interact and create us. Great. Have we learned anything new? Can you explain anything better now? Can you predict new things? Has anything changed?

All you are doing is denying the category of emergent properties, but that category exists because they are useful and helpful to us, not because they "exist objectively." nothing "exists objectively" everything is just an abstraction in our minds.

Here's the ultimate thought experiment. I accept the premise that "I am just the laws of physics playing out." What changes? What use does it have? If it's true, surely it can explain things, or be applied, or something right?

>>15340874
>due to your own egocentrism fueled by existential angst
Wait, so are you affirming the existence of things like "emotions" and "intentions"? Sorry, I don't get it, I thought we we're just crystals and stuff?

>>15340905
>Every high schooler who has ever smoked weed has reached these conclusions.
Except I came to these conclusions sober.
>you aren't being nearly as deep as you think you are
Im not doing this to sound deep. Im doing this to enlighten people. Not to give in to the false illusion of superiority to other material entities.
>You're actively ignoring real phenomena that you and I both witness every day
This is like saying
"God is real - just look around!"
>by arbitrarily calling them "illusions." Why is my mind an illusion, faggot?
Why not? Why do you think of yourself exceptionally when compared to a stone?

Why do you constantly keep talking about humans, and not about bacteria? Which are considered life too, so for the sake of your argument, focusing solely on humans isn't helping your case either. Unless you plan on telling me that only the Homo sapiens are living beings.

But let's come back:
>by arbitrarily calling them "illusions." Why is my mind an illusion, faggot?
Why not? Why do you think of yourself exceptionally when compared to a stone?
When you look at complex crystals behaving in some ways, you say:
>Oh, these crystals behave this way when struck with stimulus A. And they behave this way when struck with stimulus B. Very interesting mechanics are involved here.
Why can't you look at humans/life from the same perspective? Maybe the way we are, with the illusions and everything, is just the natural logical conclusion for increasingly complex crystal-like structures?
Same as there are natural, simply logical conclusions for any other physical phenomenon - such as the tissue sucking up the water, as mentioned in the pic.

>>15340942
baby's first existential crisis

read it Op, it will cure your retarded ass

>>15340953
Not an argument.

Also, it's not even an existential crisis, here:
>>15340874

>>15340808
How so?

>>15340942
>Everything is the same because everything reacts to things sometimes
You're being fucking retarded, man. Please just give it like two years and you'll realize that nothing you're saying is "enlightening" at all.
I think of myself as different from a stone because I am, objectively, different from a stone. I can say "hello." A stone cannot. I don't give a shit whether a bacterium can or cannot, its inability to does not affect my ability to. Your entire idea, being incredibly generous with that word, is that the clearly observed differences between me and the rock don't count because you can ignore them if you want to. This is not novel or interesting and doesn't lead to anything novel or interesting.

>>15340992
>I think of myself as different from a stone because I am, objectively, different from a stone. I can say "hello." A stone cannot.
Again, I addressed this already in the thread from the OP:
>I am not dead. Im just saying there is no qualitative difference between state A and state B. I refuse to use the words life and death, for obvious reasons
>Neither am I living. There is no such thing as life or death. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What can happen is just a change of state.
"This philosophy is completely useless and gives us nothing"
>How does it give us nothing? I am recognizing the fact that there is objectively nothing qualitatively different between complex "animate" and complex "inanimate" structures. What we consider death, life etc. are different states, sure, but philosophically there is no qualitative difference between them. No property that makes those specific states ("life" "death") unique from any other possible state, of which there might be thousands.

If you wish to support your religion and cause it to flourish
You must climb a mountain of swords with your bare feet.

>>15341008
So if I shoot my neighbor in the head, nothing happens to him because state A and state B are the same?
You're just saying the same shit over and over again. There are lots and lots of qualitative differences between people and crystals. Crystals can't speak Norwegian or play violin. Those are objective qualitative differences between animate and inanimate states. If you're so completely anal about it being small things, how about this: systems made of crystals can't synthesize and consume adenosine triphosphate, systems made of human meat - or even bacteria! - can.

Materialism is good because people aren't living in constructed fantasies they made up in their heads. Religion is bad only when it becomes fanatical and disconnects its adherents from reality, such as the abrahamic Faith's which are based on supposed revelations instead of direct experience

>>15340690
I want to accept extreme materialism but it won't let me!

>>15340965
>>15340953
>babby's first
>hurr durr youre not deep

Found the closest philosophical concept described on Wikipedia to my own theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

And what do we have there!
>Eliminative materialism is the relatively new (1960s–1970s) idea that certain classes of mental entities that common sense takes for granted, such as beliefs, desires, and the subjective sensation of pain, do not exist.[5][6]
>RELATIVELY NEW (1960S-1970S)

Now fuck off, retards.
Im taking it 1 step further even. Than those MODERN philosophers.
Now go fuck yourselves.

>>15341106
slight cont. to elaborate:
>Im taking it 1 step further even.
Im taking it 1 step further, because Im being eliminative not just about certain classes of mental entities, but about the entire super-class of a mental being.

About life/living as a whole.

>>15341052
>So if I shoot my neighbor in the head, nothing happens to him because state A and state B are the same?
Im not saying that state A and state B are the same, but that they arent as fundamentally different and unique so as to isolate them from any other state, of which there might be even thousands.

Essentially, what I'm saying is is that life, death and so on are just mere arrangements of matter. The arrangements themselves can change, but there's no fundamental (metaphysical, if you may) difference between those arrangements. They're just that - different arrangements.

This is why I don't want you all to treat me as a nihilist, or a person going through an existential crisis.
I'm not.
This philosophical concept is extremely optimistic, in fact. Fear-of-death annulling.

>>15341133
There are a shitload of differences, you just decided they're imaginary.

I don't see why there is any argument with OP.
The essential thing to keep in mind is that as humans are forever attempting to categorize and label the world, humans are also simply fabricating arbitrary worlds to live in. The world that corresponds to more babies is the one that survives, not the world which corresponds to truth.
We have a category in our mind of trees. All things that trigger the "this is a tree" response in my mind I call trees. Yet, each tree is a distinct collection of smaller parts which is not exactly related to other things I think are trees.

We see things that trigger the "this is life" response, and so we have the category of life. Nature does not make this distinction outside of our heads, as this act of categorizing is just an arranging of files in our minds to use later. Now, even the mind does not have distinct categorized parts. We only think that it does because otherwise we would have difficulty dealing with it. In nature, things simply are. They are not this or that, as this or that is an arrangement of neurons according to stimulus.

>>15341229
Thanks, pretty based supplementary argument for my thesis.
>>15341228
The differences lie in the particular arrangements but nothing else.

Hmmm... it IS an interesting viewpoint, but idk. I think that materialism is cringe.

wow this is unironically what I believe in does this mean I can't shit on materialism anymore

There is no OP: it's just pixels on the screen.
Truth is, new things become real because of the intricate connections between the simpler things. A thing is not a sum of its parts, because sum implies commutativity and disregard for the connections between the parts, which is the most important distinguishing feature of the thing.
You can reach extremely high levels of complexity by building with simple blocks.

The void is so retarded. Why couldn't it just be satisfied nonexisting, why split itself up into all these fluctuations of energy.

>>15341667
From the quantum perspective, non-existing is a choice too. So every once in a while, it (the energy field) will completely randomly burst into existence (random excitation of the energy field). These processes are called quantum fluctuations.

We can come to conclusion that both existence and non-existence are fully randomized states and neither of them is particularly superior to the other.

>>15340690
This is such a terrible apology for materialism I'm embarrassed by proxy.

>>15340690
>people don't exist because when you look at them with a microscope they are just atoms
Okay but when I put away the microscope I see a person, so it's the atoms that don't exist.

>>15341722
Good way to point out the retarded way of reasoning in the OPs post.

>>15341718
>continuing to make non-arguments
Yeah, Im thinkin OP's idea is based.

>>15341708
Yeah, at least life is a pretty funny joke

>>15340690
Yes. Read Bronze Age Mindset now.
He makes a lot of arguments for this

this whole thread
>i can't understand what are emergent qualities

>>15340690
If the guy your pic wasn't baiting, then he's a great example of a person with an IQ of 40. And so is everyone who isn't cringing at every sentence he writes. His reasoning is beyond poor.

>>15340690
Ok this post should be dismissed as soon as that OP says life doesn't exist. "Life is composed of atoms, same atoms that a rock or crystal is made of" Ok so for you nothing exists except atoms? It doesn't matter if things follow a certain pattern (have sex, make more life), there's just one thing existing in this world for you? You can't differenciate beetween a man and a woman because you know they're made of the same thing? And if beings can die, then why do you say life isn't real, considering it can end at any point and is not a fixed thing like for example how a rock is always hard or fire is always hot? Do you think that's just a coincidence too? If someone puts a knife through your heart you just think it's a coincidence your "atoms" lose conciousness and your "atoms" die?
Did I take the bait? Are there really people this stupid in existence?

>>15341884
>>15341905
Again:
>>15341735

Ergo:
Posting no arguments and nothing of substance whatsoever, and misinterpretation galore.

Why are all of you such dunning Krueger idiots unable to even go outside your own biases?

>>15341905
Again, here:
>>15341927

Why are you misinterpreting it on purpose and only attacking the beginning of the post as if you stopped reading it there?
If you stopped reading it there, either go read the rest of it or fuck off and don’t participate in the discussion. Simple as!
You humongous retard.

>>15341933
If life isn't real then what do you call being not dead? Geniuely curious.

>>15341957
Literally scroll the thread retard. I’m not gonna repeat myself

>>15342000
Not him, but would you accept the existence of life as real in the sense of mental category? Because even atoms are a mental category in a certain sense, they don't really exist, it's more of a tool to explain behaviour of other, more complicated processes
If you say yes I agree with OP 100%

>>15341905
>>15341933
OP is either baiting or denser than the crystals hes rambling about.

>>15342039
Oh look, yet another confrontational post with exactly 0 substance!
Fuck off and choke on a gorilla dick, nigger!

>>15342043
Read this
>>15342007

>>15342007
Yes, I think that I made it clear that life is merely a construct, an illusion, almost like the Matrix for structures that are just too complex for their own task.

>>15342050
A good word for describe this is that it's an heuristic

>>15340795
Reductionist materialistic nihilism is a spook anyway.
Yes, we are made of the same atoms as most rocks, but there's something very peculiar in the ever growing complexity that constitutes life; sentience. You can run a current through a crystal, and it's won't prompt any real response. In time, the order present in its lattice will decay and succumb to entropy.
Humans, while they are alive, respond to their environment in self-regulated feedback loops that are somehow emergent from their constituents.
Now this is quite interesting, because as said before, those same building blocks make up rock. So what causes us to be any different?

>>15342996
Sentience is awareness, not reacting to the environment. The mechanism by which we react to things will be fully understood, while understanding why we are sentient never will.

So, by reading through the thread, is OP basically describing noumena?

>>15340690
>Rocks don't exist; what we call rocks are collections of trillions of atoms in tight bonds with one another.

Stripping everything down to it's constituent elements doesn't necessarily give the absolute truth of things. You can't say life doesn't exist because of the fact that it can be broken down into smaller processes. "Life" is just the term for the aggregate of those processes, which is its own distinct thing. Why stop at saying crystals exist, but life doesn't? Crystals are simply lattices of certain atoms. Atoms themselves are mostly empty space and more elementary particles. This particles are ultimately some kind of vibrating energy(probably). The logical end result of this guy's argument is that there is some monadic substrate that truly exists, while everything that arises from it is somehow not real.

>>15340690
>yeah bro if you zoom in so closely at something that you ignore all other complexities, life is pretty simple and shit

What a reductive retard

>>15340795

Who or what is experiencing the illusion?

>>15340690
this and also time isn't real

>>15340690
Key terms: Project Gateway, project Grill Flame, and Project Star Gate
CIA and Remote Viewing: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002100160001-2.pdf
- Detailed transcript of the ability for someone to remote view
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85-00671R000200220001-7.pdf
- CIA admits that the easiest way to prevent change is that potential converts see non-violent change as possible.
CIA and Grill Flame: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000230004-2.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000230004-2.pdf
- CIA had reason to believe that they disrupt electronics with their mind and proposed a research project for it
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0.pdf
- Research on perceptual augmentation

>>15344068
Cont.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0.pdf
- Remote viewing works (pg 19, someone with very limited training had accuracy to insane significance levels)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000300030004-9.pdf
- Verification of remote viewing - 2 years of training and it becomes field level accuracy
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001000340003-2.pdf
- Remote viewing was used with Iranian hostages, decisions can't be based solely on it
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001000410001-6.pdf
- "Remote viewing is real phenomenon..."
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/NSA-RDP96X00790R000100040012-1.pdf
- Telekinesis is real
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000600320004-3.pdf
- Telepathic behavior modification worked for the soviets
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000400330013-4.pdf
- Consciousness is convertible into energy and matter
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R001001420001-3.pdf
- Article on psi possibility

Materialism is probably wrong.