The universe is an astonishing thing.
Our universe has somehow been brought into existence, perhaps through some kind of natural selection.
It has given rise to evolution, a phenomena that protects itself from annihilation by brute forcing its way to the logical path.
Will it also give rise to an intelligence that knows of evolution, and seeks to protect it using intelligence? Then this life will surely be an unstoppable force. Combining the brute force power of evolution with intelligent design.
But will this be a logical conclusion? Or will the intelligence decide that evolution isn't worth keeping alive or is immoral due to the existence of qualia, thus eradicating itself.
What's worse, a universe that doesn't exist, or a universe that exists but doesn't know it exists.
>The universe is an astonishing thing.
To assert that the universe is an astonishing thing, you'd have to contemplate the whole of the universe, not just a tiny speck of it. Assigning hazy, feel-good properties to 'the' universe is illegitimate at this stage.
>Our universe has somehow been brought into existence, perhaps through some kind of natural selection.
Or perhaps it's been there all along. Or perhaps there is more than one universe. Etc. You're just regurgitating the mainstream cosmological model.
>It has given rise to evolution, a phenomena that protects itself from annihilation by brute forcing its way to the logical path.
'Protects' and 'brute forces' are vague metaphors that fall flat when it comes to explanation. Also, show me evidence for this specific point in (future) time you refer to as 'the logical path'.
>But will this be a logical conclusion?
No, for it is not a proposition.
>immoral due to the existence of qualia, thus eradicating itself.
What does qualia have to do with this?
>What's worse, a universe that doesn't exist, or a universe that exists but doesn't know it exists.
This is what's worse: thinking that the universe is an epistemic agent capable of propositional knowledge.
>>7650987
There is nothing but the logos, shared by all things.
>>7651302
>To assert that the universe is an astonishing thing, you'd have to contemplate the whole of the universe
I've contemplated enough of it to say that it is.
>You're just regurgitating the mainstream cosmological model.
I'm not, this is my own conclusion so far.
>'Protects' and 'brute forces' are vague metaphors
They aren't metaphors.
>it is not a proposition.
Don't know what you are trying to say.
>What does qualia have to do with this?
Qualia gives rise to the ability to feel pain, and gives rise to the issue of morality.
>universe is an epistemic agent
We are a part of the universe which is observing itself.
I didn't post this to get critique from a layman.
>>7651399
>They aren't metaphors.
Yes, they are. One cannot literally apply 'protects' and 'brute forces' to something abstract as evolution. The only sensible uses of the word 'protects' are when they are applied to organisms. 'Brute force', on the other hand, is a compsci term.
>Don't know what you are trying to say.
That makes two of us. You're basically abusing theoretical terminology that's already been reserved for more important stuff; stuff that evidently goes over your head.
>Qualia gives rise to the ability to feel pain, and gives rise to the issue of morality.
Oh does it really? Sounds like a case of begging the question. Show me this 'gives rise to' relation. And I'm pretty confident that your fantasized beings won't do anything remotely close to your scenario of "eradicating it", for life doesn't consist of pain alone.
>We are a part of the universe which is observing itself.
Whose 'we'? A part of the universe is observing itself? Do you mean we observe our limbs, for example, or observe ourselves in mirrors? That's trivial.
>I didn't post this to get critique from a layman.
Woaaaaa, you mean you actually intended your original post to be critiqued by professional japanese cartoon board theoreticians? My apologies. Let's wait then, shall we: I am curious as to what the real authorities have to say in this matter.
>>7651399
You don't need to be so verbose to express what you feel. It makes you sound childish.
Your whole logic is shit, by the way.
>>7651399
I graduated with a degree in philosophy so allow me to share my educated opinion on your work, unlike that unsophisticated layman who posted earlierJust kidding 'layman' OP is just mad you called him on bullshit
Anyway, are you high? If you turned this in as an assignment to me I would fail you because this is a bunch of undefined terms and unsupported statements and anthropomorphic crap like 'brute forcing.'
The 'logical path?' Define your terms.
'Then this life will surely be an unstoppable force.' Nothing supports this statement.
And what the fuck is that last statement? How do you define 'better' or 'worse?' WHY are you trying to assign those terms to some theoretical stuff? Why are you personifying the universe as a unified and introspective whole? Why are you speaking in nothing but wishy-washy hypothetical what-ifs? What's the point of this fucking abortion of a post? What are you trying to communicate beyond 'woah man life exists but it could destroy itself... maybe no universe would be better than a lifeless universe maaaaaaannnnnnn'
Pointless drivel
>>7650987
>evolution, a phenomena that protects itself from annihilation by brute forcing its way to the logical path.
>>7651441
>Yes, they are. One cannot literally apply 'protects' and 'brute forces' to something abstract as evolution.
I'm specifically talking about the products of evolution. They aren't metaphors. End of debate.
>That makes two of us.
If you don't know what I'm saying, as is clear, you shouldn't have posted in the first place.
>Oh does it really? Sounds like a case of begging the question.
I'm not interested in further discussion with you on this, it would only be a waste of time. (for me)
>Whose 'we'?
Every living thing with qualia.
>Woaaaaa, you mean
I wanted for someone who understands to share their ideas on the subject.
>>7651446
I guess you were replying to the wrong person?
>>7651449
>your work
I just posted a quick idea I had.
>OP is just mad you called him on bullshit
I thought this was an educated board. Meh, I won't read the rest of your post.
>>7651461
That's the spirit kiddo, shut your ears to the naysayers, it's not you, it's everyone ELSE who is dumb and bad and wrong and incapable of appreciating your genius, just like all those under appreciated geniuses you've read about
>>7651486
I'm very open to all valid critique. Even if it doesn't feel like it to you.
>>7651491
No you aren't, you're an insecure immature ignoramus who started closing his ears and going on the emotional defensive the moment you saw people were rightfully unimpressed by your dude-weed-lmao tier ramblings, but rather than clarify your position you just insulted people and claimed it was too deep for anyone to understand, which naturally led to others jumping in and being far less polite about their criticism because you clearly demonstrated you either weren't willing to explain your premises or terms when people asked, or you are genuinely dumb enough to actually believe your shallow turd was a flawless diamond.
And now nobody is going to give you a second chance to discuss your idea because you weren't looking for a discussion, you were looking for hot air to blown up your ass.
>>7650987
I don't believe you used the term qualia in the proper context.
>>7651545
You are hilarious. I haven't insulted anybody. Look at your own post
>insecure immature ignoramus.
You are obviously projecting. I didn't come here for any emotional bullshit reason like you seem to have. To prove myself in any way, or win an argument. I haven't been at this board a lot, but you seem as bad as /v/ to be honest.
>>7651561
How so?
>>7650987
FAGGOTRY
A
G
G
O
T
R
Y
