Carl-Richard

?

I'm saying that you, along with OP, is trying to use metaphysics to discard science, because just like physicalists, you're conflating the two. You're both saying something along the lines of "all of reality, including rocks, fundamentally consists of consciousness, therefore rocks do not undergo erosion". The first part of the sentence is a metaphysical claim, and the second part is a scientific claim. OP is saying "all of nature is infinite intelligence, therefore mutations are not random", and you're saying "we can't encapsulate the infinity of nature as a whole, therefore we can't encapsulate the behavior of parts of nature".

@JoeVolcano You can make hypotheses and do experiments without caring about metaphysics (that is what most scientists proport to do) and learn a lot about the behavior of nature. In fact, that is how science should ideally be done, but humans can't help themselves but to ground their reality in a metaphysics. However, metaphysics is concerned about what reality is, not only how it behaves. It's concerned with interpreting science, not disproving or discarding it. This is only made confusing by physicalists who place an equal sign between science and metaphysics. I'm telling you that is not necessary.

@JoeVolcano Literally just conflating science and metaphysics. No better than a materialist.

You think humans evolved from chimpanzees? ?

@JuliusCaesar If what you're assuming here were to be correct (that the number of viable phenotypes can just keep multiplying forever), you'd have to stop almost all of evolution: all phenotypes would need to have equal and perfect fitness (no differences in selection pressures, no extinctions etc.), and there can be no interbreeding between similar species. In such a world, the only thing driving "evolution" would be intraspecies breeding (a poorly defined concept btw), mutations, and genetic drift ?

I'm imagining like Siri doing a live reading of radar data of surrounding traffic while drones are dressed in bright colors and flashing lights.

Looking at the problems we've had with something as innocuous as electric scooters (certainly in my country), I would love to see the developmental learning curve from implementing such a new type of transport. *ER visits increase by 300%* Do you think it would be legal to own one that is not self-driving and hooked up to some kind of collective AI traffic grid? I wonder what type of traffic rules one would have to learn in that case and what kind of technology you would have installed in the dashboard ("please choose altitude level 4 for maximum safety").

I thought there was at least a glimmer of hope of a properly formulated answer, rather than a list of Zen koans. I was mistaken

Everything that the lizards over at RationalWiki write reads like satire

We get it, you're the ultimate skeptic — all knowledge other than your own live feed of phenomenological experiences is false: your car is not in the garage, there is no earth beyond the horizon, the sun will not rise tomorrow etc.

Bliss happens as a result of releasing resistance (e.g. dropping attachments and clearing trauma), and peace is when you stabilize in that state. So peace is inherently blissful, but only compared to a non-peaceful state (experiences are experienced through contrast).

@JoeVolcano Your whole point is essentially "relative knowledge is not true, because only absolute knowledge is true". It's a completely irrelevant, stinky red herring of a point, because most people with a brain have already conceded that point 10 years ago. You're preaching to the choir. Drop your guru game already.

Why? What does that mean? Is it not possible to describe how creatures evolve without knowing how the first creatures were made? Is it not possible to know how to make a pizza without knowing how the ingredients were made?

I asked you a sincere question about that, and instead of answering, you engaged in the armchair guru game where you act condescending and weird. I saw through it the moment you started.

? Still waiting for people to get back on topic.

@JoeVolcano Enough fooling around.

?

@JoeVolcano Why troll a perfectly good conversation?

I think the level of variability in species you're looking for is untenable. Divergent evolution (species creation) requires very long periods of separation (reproductively or environmentally) between different groups within a species, and the homo genus is very young compared to other genera. I also think that homo was less likely to experience considerable adaptive radiation when migrating to new environments compared to other animals, as homo evolution seems to mainly select for general adaptability (intelligence and brain size) rather than niche-specific adaptability (physical features like beak size, wing size etc.). The principles behind evolution by natural selection (how life behaves) has really nothing to do with abiogenesis (how life arose from non-life). It's kinda like how the instructions for making a pizza does not involve growing a tomato.

How would I qualify then?

Kinda. One of my professors who teaches psychology of religion has a background in clinical psychology, and his work has revolved around how to address religiosity, spirituality and existential questions in psychotherapy. While therapy doesn't solve existential questions (you can argue it doesn't solve anything), there are ways to facilitate such matters in therapy.

What is a typical thing you get easily hurt by?

How do I qualify as accepting that it's an unmistakeable lie in your mind? Let's stop with the clever responses and communicate like an adult.

JP can help save people from New Age brain rot (naive skepticism), which is quite needed on this forum.