Our brain has a desire to continue, an innate drive for survival. The survival instinct seems fundamental to all living things. Natural selection is the natural enemy, the impartial selection of evolved survival skills fundamental to individual continuance and the opportunity for procreation.
Essentially it is an acquired response instinct (fight or flight), an algorithm to utilize the mathematical processes in nature. IMO, this is why the brain has invented the concept of an abstract afterlife and the requirements of becoming qualified in attaining that status.
The meaning of human existence is the drive for continuance of existence. It isn’t complicated.
And as for the religious idea of the concept of an afterlife satiating our instinct that the sole meaning of life is survival, I would assert that this is untrue in a universal sense. The religious are, for example, at base, focused upon death more than living in this life since earthly existence is merely a staging area for what comes after.
To put it another way, religion contains adherents who are strongly certain that death is an absolute requirement to reach a far more ideal, more pleasant and pain free place which humans were truly meant to inhabit and with little doubt.
Who among such a flock would not prefer the end of this life occur sooner rather than later, should they be genuinely convicted about belief in the aims and claims of their faith? How, then, does this align with interest in continued existence on any plane?
To put it another way, religion contains adherents who are strongly certain that death is an absolute requirement to reach a far more ideal, more pleasant and pain free place which humans were truly meant to inhabit and with little doubt.
Who among such a flock would not prefer the end of this life occur sooner rather than later, should they be genuinely convicted about belief in the aims and claims of their faith? How, then, does this align with interest in continued existence on any plane?
But that completely ignores the fact that there is no afterlife. YOU reside in a 3lb lump of neurons we call brain. When the brain dies the mind (YOU) disappears. There is no longer any AWARENESS of any kind, only absolute NOTHINGNESS.
As Anil Seth posits; “When you die there is nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all”.
If the universe is really as empty as we’re seeing it and these UAPs exist as we’re being asked to believe in them then you’ll only know when whatever is control allows you to know.
As I cope with the above reality I’m finding it hard to engage in discussions like this I used to gravitate towards. Even if I only believe there’s a 1% chance of it being true, the implications of that reality just makes my brain stop after a lifelong journey of consuming the natural world and all it represents in scientific form.
Nobody, nothing controls UAPs. Just physics and chemistry. Bad technology and worse psychology. There is 0.00000000000000000% chance of them being intentional apart from human.
Agreed and that’s where my mind logically goes and believes but your emotions don’t always obey your understanding of probabilities.
At the same time I get to my understanding of reality and learn from people around me. Not even Einstein invented all of applicable human knowledge. So when a certain caliber of person with a certain amount of credibility presents potential evidence in a certain way, it changes things. When that happens across many people of high caliber and credibility that then makes it something you have to at least entertain.
There’s wording in the Defense Authorization Act of 2022 that forms a legit scientific committee including universities, NASA, NOAA (submerged craft) that has bipartisan support. Attached to that specific legislation with that kind of support it will 100% be passed. Assuming nothing unexpected happens I’d expect a quick “yeah this is all BS” from the likes of people who will be in charge.
That or perhaps it was 0.00000000000000001% all along and the overwhelming odds were kept hidden? Again whatever, there’s no reality where any of it is true and we’re in control of literally anything.
No, it is stochastically deterministic. We can predict many things in the future, we just don’t know exactly when or where. I see a parallel with particle duality.
You can only know one of the potential expression at a time.
Right, but chances are that tomorrow is going to happen and that in summer the sun will shine and in winter there will be some snow.
Or that the sun has never shown for us and everything runs perfectly according to the rules because we’re running a program.
I really have lost all basis of reality in reality and there’s no religion there to pick me back up.
The rules are the rules because they hold up to how we observe them, but rests upon an assumption Descartes made a long time ago we were very happy to latch on to.
A side note, if this is The Matrix, I’d like to let it be known to any agents that I’m totally willing and able to go the full Cypher route. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
There is no sentient Agency running the Matrix. The Matrix is a quasi-intelligent ordering system. It doesn’t need any motivated intent, just Universal constant values and mathematical functions.
Cause <—> Effect
Input —> Function —> Output. Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a “machine” or “black box” that for each input yields a corresponding output Function (mathematics) - Wikipedia
It is really not that complicated. Max Tegmark posits some 31 relational values and a dozen or so equations are all that is needed to make the Universe “functional”.
It is really not that complicated. Max Tegmark posits some 31 relational values and a dozen or so equations are all that is needed to make the Universe “functional”.
I’m sorry, I was looking for someone to talk me off the “we’re inter-dimensional slaves trapped in an endless maze” ledge, not reinforce with peripheral evidence. I mean, I’m a dude who gets to talk on the internet in 2021, I got it better than Roman nobility in most respects, maybe I am Cypher. OMG how deep does this rabbit hole go? It’s all a fractal, just let me zoom out a little further.
Down to a singularity? Isn’t that how it all began?
We’re kind of getting off-topic, maybe, I dunno cosmology encompasses humanity by definition. Let’s assume for the sake of this analogy we live in a finite universe, I think it’s irrelevant for our debate but serves to help illustrate my point. If your finite universe was a circular plane that ended at the boundary you would say that is it and then you could base the beginning of everything at the beginning of that circular plane. You would be completely unaware of the larger circle your circle was born in because all you can observe is your plane, in which you exist.
No matter where you bring a beginning to, you can always create something theoretical further back, on top of, or around the beginning of that reality.
