We are literally just life (think of life like bacteria and cells) that developed feelings

we are literally just life (think of life like bacteria and cells) that developed feelings...
is the evolution pill the hardest redpill to swallow?
do christfags make up god to hide from this truth?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QgNDao7m41M
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Life doesn't develop from nothing

god did it lol

Satan created this world

Evolution is real

You are only your mitochondria, cancer is rebellion of the slave cells

Existence is suffering

Developed feelings vs feelings being magically granted by a magical being that created itself from nothing?

Feelings as we know them exist as they are no matter how they came to be.

You're right. it must be a bearded man in the sky that did it

wait shutup a second
is stuff that big real
is there planet sized monsters

>we are literally just life (think of life like bacteria and cells)
we are 90% microbes. bacteria control us with their group think

yes

really makes me think

Did you think evolution was a theory about the creation/origin of life?
I hope not
>Feelings as we know them exist as they are
?

So:
>Satan/Demiurge = something
>God = nothing

who says it has to have a beard. and yes it's an it not any biblical god. just an it.

why not a bearded woman, shitlord?

>Did you think evolution was a theory about the creation/origin of life?

you are so smart, you read a biology textbook definition and used it to make a terrible fucking argument.

correct.

>evolution
>is not happening now
>the Cambrian explosion
>Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.
>conclusion - evolution is a religion

How is it a terrible argument? You fags are the ones trying to argue two things that have little to do with each other.
God is about creation, evolution is about change. Unless you're talking to a high-level christcuck who believes the earth's like 10 years old or whatever, there's not much to argue

Yes it does. You have to start with nothing to get here, by pure a priori reasoning. At some point there had to have been nothing, and then some kind of will, spontaneously. There is no way around this.

One big argument for intelligent design is evolution violates the law of entropy, but it really doesn't. Increasing and complexity happens all the time in nature ( crystals), it is not violating the law of entropy, it is just a temporary perturbation in the trend towards increasing disorder. Ever thus is life.

That's a weak excuse for being lazy

>?
I mean it doesn't make a difference where they came from. Knowing that won't change the way we feel.

God exists but did not create the material world. Foolish people expect a deity to micromanage life's course, to the tune of so called intelligent design, but evolution is a form of outsourcing.. a system that unfolds all it's own from the smallest and simplest of starts to overwhelming complexity. It's a very clever system, so clever in fact that it implies someone designed the system itself. And yet, it calls for inevitable brutality. It's an endless arms race where the weak are made to be preyed upon by the strong, where the rule of the jungle and the laws of physics are the only bylaws, its a system of chaos. God created the universe, of which this material existence is a tiny sliver. From your perspective, you cannot see this. We are spiritual beings, not this crude matter. Life is an endless trap of death and rebirth. There is suffering in the world because the world's creator thinks he can do better than his creator.

Would you like to know more?

>There is no way around this.
What if the theoretical concept of "nothing" that we invented turns out to be false?

You're pegging evolution in to the "evolution is only about change" box the same way atheist peg god into the "god is a magic sky fairy box" You're basically saying that evolution as a process can't explain how life came to be, which by the textbook definition is true. But early cellular matter and biologic processes would have occurred and been selected for by natural selection which is the same process that drives evolution. The early formation of self-replicating molecules and lipid bilayers were driven by a naturally selecting process much the same way as evolution. Keep trying to peg evolution into a box that fits conveniently with your christcuck cognitive dissonance.

>and been selected for
Can you give an example scenario of organic matter gets selected over inorganic matter?

Organic matter = carbon containing
inorganic matter = noncarbon containing

Understand how carbon interacts with other atoms and you'll understand why your question doesn't make any sense. Its like saying "why is RNA better as a genetic code than rocks?"

Edgy as Fuck

A retarded person appears

I don't know any Christians that don't believe in evolution. I don't know how this meme started. Is there something in the bible that says evolution isn't real? I haven't seen it.

Then why say they were selected for...?
And if you're taking the materialist stance I'm guessing you'll claim moving goalposts if I say "the mixing of the ingredients to life" isn't good enough to qualify as its origin, right?

Most loudly are American Southern Baptists that find sola scriptura and sola fide to be logically and scripturally defensible positions.

I don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say now. Carbon containing matter was selected for because of the properties of carbon, which is why we aren't made of inorganic matter. And explain ""mixing of ingredients to life" isn't good enough."

Which scripture do they quote specifically?

Nice use of high school level science to try and sound smart. There's just as much proof of intelligent design and there is of this all randomly just happening out of nowhere.

Sola fide is mostly based on taking specific statements related to faith obligations and ignoring the rest of the text that tells you to do good. Sola scriptura is a lot more subtle in how it's refuted in the text, but there's also zero support for it in the text, so yeah.

>was selected for
Against what.
Natural selection is?
>Species A had a mutation that gave him camouflage
>Species B didn't, so it got eaten, and now it can't spread its genes
>The genes with the camouflage mutation become more prevalent within the species
If you're saying carbon matter developed life because it was the only matter available that could create life, just say that. Confused the crap outta me.

>mixing of the ingredients to life isn't good enough
Materialism is believing everything that defines life is comprised of matter. So defining the origin of life as the point where those organic materials mixed together would be sufficient.
If you're not materialist, you have to include the other parts of life in the equation. Consciousness is the usual thing.

well anything beyond high school level would be too much for you mongs.

Sorry for nigger-tier grammar, it's late

Single celled organisms live short lives. So the first cell lived its short life and then spontaneously replicated itself with a beneficial mutation before it died. Huh? Not possible. Also, this cell had all structures evolve simultaneously to exist in the first place. Similarly, how the fuck did the optic nerve and the immune system come about at the same time? This cannot happen without direction. Later, humans evolved great brains because they were eating meat...which required tools, and thus great brains. This is a paradox.

Adaptation is real, evolution is not

>Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.
>genetic similarities show in general, a clear line of progression
>explanation 1: through genetic mutation and natural selection, species emerged from other species to take advantage of unoccupied habitat niches
>explanation 2: god did it to ruse us, it was just a prank bro
That's a lot of claims, care to point out any evidence for your spiritual world other than your feels and the feels of previous theists?
Oh lol, you guys didn't read the Bible? It said the world was created in seven days, and that god invented sexual dimorphism with a man-rib.

You're on the right track. Nothing else is sufficient for life. There was a driving force for creation of carbon containing molecules because they can create compartments necessary for favorable chemistry kinetics and have the properties necessary for self-replicating molecules, both of which you would need to get the ball rolling on creating life. This took hundreds of millions if not billions of years to arrive at this point.

Mixing a bunch of amino acids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids etc. would not create. You also have a fucked up definition of what life is if it includes consciousness or a soul or whatever. Are bacteria not living?

You're literally retarded, aren't you?

Optics have evolved separately many different times throughout earth's history. Immune systems came about much earlier as a way to defend against viral particles hijacking host machinery, and are much more necessary than a visual apparatus..

Eating meat doesn't require any tools, ask a lion.

>Later, humans evolved great brains because they were eating meat...which required tools, and thus great brains. This is a paradox.
Not a paradox. You don't NEED to eat meat to evolve great brains, it just helps. You roll the dice well, get good enough brains to hunt some meat, that meat then in turn leads to better brains, which leads to more meat, which leads to better brains, etc. etc. That one mediocre improvement snowballs into many more or conceptually you can lump it together as one huge improvement caused by a small, rare spark.

So we should get rid of all laws then since free will doesn't exist, after all it's just electricity randomly zipping around in our brains that makes us do stuff
OP is a faggot

Let me guess, God has a plan?

TO THE unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.

>Are bacteria not living
They are, but that's why the logical answer is that the consciousness is also present in them.
Darwin covered this I'm 99% sure. Because evolution wouldn't be applicable to immaterial things like that, there's no possible explanation for how a species would come to have consciousness after their predecessors didn't.
You have to assume all of them had it, from the start.

>muh morality can't exist without someone else telling me what to think!
>no god means everyone will kill and eat each other in the streets!
How does it feel needing a Jew God to tell you to not act like a nigger?

>determinism is incompatible with moral agency
That's where you're wrong faggot. An actor whose actions are deterministic still make actions that are unique to that actor and can be judged accordingly.

Free will doesn't exist even if you believe in a god
Do you have any idea what omnipotence means?

>They are, but that's why the logical answer is that the consciousness is also present in them.
No, bacteria from our knowledge is not conscious. They don't even react to stimuli really, they just really on natural chemical reactions to hijack cell functions. That's it.
>Darwin covered this I'm 99% sure. Because evolution wouldn't be applicable to immaterial things like that
Doesn't follow. Trees are not conscious, but they live and die all the same and have genetic material, thus are subject to natural selection and genetic mutation, and thus evolution.
>there's no possible explanation for how a species would come to have consciousness after their predecessors didn't.
>there's no possible explanation for how a species would come to have consciousness after their predecessors didn't.
For some organisms, having intelligence would be beneficial, while for others it would just take up energy and not help enough to be a beneficial trade-off. So for some it would be selected against, and for some it would be selected for.
>You have to assume all of them had it, from the start.
Nope.

Oh okay so since I have consciousness I have to assume bacteria do too? What else bacteria got? Chromosomes? Nuclei? 80S ribosomes? Clathrin?

>Chromosomes? Nuclei? 80S ribosomes? Clathrin?
Are these not material things?

You need the correct apparatus to have consciousness. Is vision a material thing?

Do rocks have consciousness?

>is the evolution pill the hardest redpill to swallow?
You can't call a part of your 6th grade biology class program a redpill. Christfags are delusional, and shitty primary education in the US is the reason why so many young people still believe in creationism.

I'm not talking about self-awareness. That's achieved through the mental functions in our brain, which we're pretty sure is all material.
I'm talking about the actual "self" part.

We're being intentionally kept dumb by the elite ruling class because they know progress is the natural state of the universe.

>re-defining goal posts

Depends what you mean by vision.
Light reflecting off of objects, onto your retina, being translated into signals that are sent to your brain? If that's vision, yes it's material.

But if you're talking about the part where "you" "see" the image that was sent to your brain? Immaterial

>clarifying terminology

Do rocks have brains? You need the right configuration of materials things to produce consciousness. Qualia isn't physical in its appearance, but is physical in its nature. Or in other words, you need to be conscious to understand consciousness, just in the same way you need to have sight to understand color, but being an experience that requires itself to understand, you cannot see it for the physical thing it is.

Good question. No idea.

Really? Because all of the apparatus necessary to see and understand what you're looking at exist in your brain. There are stroke syndromes that can destroy the optic nerve, so you're not able to see at all. There are stroke syndromes that destroy the occipital lobe, so you can see but can't process visual information. There are stroke syndromes that destroy the sensory cortex, so that you can see and process information, but can't understand what you're looking at. There are stroke syndromes that can destroy cognitive regions of the brain, so you can see, process and understand what you're looking at but can't explain it. You're arguing from ignorance.

Top governments do weird satanic sacrifices and gestures
> their is a evil force behind all of this
Not being able to rationalize a good force
> wondering where all the powerful atheists are in society?
> not making decisions because the devil likes that you don't accept god but you must accept him

consciousness being an emergent property of neurological systems and consciousness being the breath of god are not mutually exclusive, the latter is just an allegorical way of speaking about the same thing, which is there is matter and there is also something qualitatively different from matter that is nevertheless rooted in matter itself

in fact it's precisely because something like consciousness emerges out of dumb inert matter that people describe it in religious language, since there is something in matter which transcends itself in/through the emergence of consciousness.

consciousness literally bootstrapped itself out of the mud and this principle, this potential to do so, can be rightfully described as "divine"

you're obviously not well-versed in the subject you're trying to shit on, read more

>using god to cover up evolution
>the idea of evolution came before the idea of god
>op is this stupid

And throughout all of that you nimbly managed to tip-toe around explaining the "you" part.
If we know all of the parts, start to finish, that means we know all the ingredients needed to create true artificial intelligence. Correct?

Define the "you" part, isn't that the same thing that bacteria have then?
AI will happen in your life time whether or not the people behind it fully understand it.

>You need the right configuration of materials things to produce consciousness
What's the right configuration?

You are nothing more than the collective sum of your bacteria/microbes. You are the all singing all dancing crap of the world.

Yo're not your fucking khakis.

And if I replicate a human mind with AI, with all of its essential physical functions, and you ask it if it is sentient without a soul, and it replies positively, on what grounds could you deny it that wouldn't apply to a human? That it's made of the wrong matter? Seems pretty silly to me. Self-awareness isn't magic, we just don't have self-self-awareness, but then that would be the immaterial we can only experience and we would then need self-self-self-awareness and so on.

From your knowledge, you're the only consciousness you can confirm, and even then if you look deep enough inward, can you really even call yourself conscious?

Pre frontal cortex stupid op

Well that's what the conclusion is, yeah. That everything living has it, but simply doesn't have the capacity to do anything with it.
>Define the "you" part
I break your arm. The bone fractures, your nervous system sends signals to your brain. They initiate a chemical process to create the phenomena of pain.
"You" is defined as the thing that actually FEELS that pain; that's subjectively experiencing it.
Everything up until that point could theoretically be replicated by inorganic, 100% material systems. Like a computer.

While I can't tell you what is the right configuration, I can tell you a wrong configuration. Something static, which transports no information. Consciousness at its core is information based and active, and a rock has no qualities to facilitate such characteristics.

what if brains and their vast neural networks aren't biological computers but just dream catchers of spiritual energy that permeates the universe?

I couldn't deny it on any grounds. I can't for actual humans either, even though like you said, I can only confirm my own consciousness.
This is just theory and philosophy at the end of the day.

The "me" part is a consequence of the apparatus in my brain. If I was brain-dead I wouldn't feel it. There would be no response in heart rate, respiratory rate, or body temperature in response to the painful stimuli. A person in surgery feels the pain of surgery if you watch the heart and respiratory monitor, but the general (inhaled) anesthetic temporarily impairs their consciousness, making them unaware. A computer (or AI) COULD in theory feel pain if sophisticated enough, but I'm not a computer scientist.

Picturing organisms as information systems, it seems intuitive that consciousness exists on a sort of sliding scale, and its never "0"

Why do you need vast neural networks to catch "spiritual energy"? If consciousness can be separated and is separate from the physical, why would only that with neural networks and all the biological trappings to "catch" consciousness exhibit it? Seems not only redundant, but also convenient that such a non-physical energy only shows up in systems sufficiently explained by the physical. Mighty convenient.
Subjectivity isn't magical, it is just a natural consequence of consciousness. If I were to link our brains together and we shared thoughts, would our souls also link up, purely pushed by the physical?

You would think that this spiritual, nonphysical "you" would be at some point separate from the physical, but it appears to never be, almost as if it is one and the same, just that we're not in the position to recognize it as such, as that would require being another step up on the self-awareness hierarchy, which only pushes back that issue, which wouldn't be an issue if we just used Occam's Razor and rid ourselves of this seemingly useless secondary realm of existence, upon realizing this point of view problem.

Information is signals and stimuli. How can material things be at the core of something immaterial?

Sure but we can set thresholds.

>muh white are being replaced by these darkies who breed like rats and have 10 children!
>Also evolution isn't real and doesn't make any sense!

Kek.

>The "me" part is a consequence of the apparatus in my brain.
I'm talking about the existence of the phenomena itself. You're saying the brain actively creates it, and it doesn't exist otherwise.
My reasoning is that it exists separately, and the brain is simply allowing you to be aware of it and think about it.

gather some evidence there kiddo the nobel prize and the pope are waiting.

Why is consciousness even there though? Clearly it DOES exist on another plane because it can't be accounted for in purely physical terms. You could describing a human brain as an information system that integrates various inputs to create an internal model of the world and is hardwired to react in a certain way, but you can't explain why WE'RE HERE beholding it. Its literally inconceivable.

>would our souls also link up
I'm no Hindu.
Idk. If we say that consciousness is immaterial, we have to follow the rules, right?
Gravity for example. Is the gravity that's caused by one planet a separate, "individual" thing compared to the gravity from another?
Or is it just "gravity"?

I never said it was anything but theory and reasoning.
You're the one that's posited consciousness as being created by the brain. That's a far more concrete claim.

This goes back to my conscious robot.
Would the robot perceive it's experience as ones and zeroes? No, yet, without a soul, that's all it is.

>How can material things be at the core of something immaterial?
When you bump into something, is that physical? Yes, okay, no electric signals go to your brain. Is that physical? Yes. And then "you" perceive that thing. Is that physical? According to you, no. It's immaterial. By your own reasoning material things can give rise immaterial things.

Now I would argue there's nothing immaterial at all, as you just can't experience the physicality, being trapped within the system of your own brain. You would have to look from outside.

I want to personally torture all fucking reductionist bio faggots until they concede that I am the Hand of God

Did you think Galactus was a simple comic book character? You fool, they were warnings.

>>is not happening now
It is
>>Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.
Mutations (Indel, SNPs, duplication, reversal), heritability, selection pressures

We should purge the fucking Christfags from this board
They are nigger enablers. Leading people down the cuck path

>planet sized monsters

No, but there are universe size organisms.

Why do 12 year olds keep making shit threads on pol when they aren't even allowed to post here?

>Clearly it DOES exist on another plane because it can't be accounted for in purely physical terms.
Try explaining the color blue or any qualia to someone with words. You won't succeed, for obvious reasons. Yet, does that mean that color isn't just a spectrum of light, but in fact spiritual? No.

What's missing here? You're trying to explain something out of its scope. You're trying to explain consciousness out of the scope of consciousness, which you don't exist outside of.

Yes, of course you can't explain it in physical terms. Doesn't make it not physical. Just means we're not up to the task of accounting for it.

>but you can't explain why WE'RE HERE beholding it.
Because I myself am one of these internal models of the world hardwired in a certain way, unable to deviate and intuit the system in a physical way.

>Its literally inconceivable.
And being a rock is inconceivable to rocks, yet they're not immaterially a rock.

Interesting interpretation that oddly sounds eastern in spirituality, with a single world consciousness.

>do christfags make up god to hide from this truth?
You're going to burn, you piece of shit. Burn and burn and burn forever.

...

>tfw the galaxies are atoms of a larger organism
youtube.com/watch?v=QgNDao7m41M