What if science is right

I think that saying “just some neuron firings and chemicals” is a bit understated and minimizing. Neuron firings and chemical interactions in the brain, can be profoundly complex. And if that is “all it is,” then those interactions have produced some rather amazing results, have they not?

Beings comprised of “merely” electrical impulses, bundles and networks of nerves, neuron firings and chemical interactions… have somehow evolved to discover their own nature.

Reworking habituation is not so simple as writing the words “just a simple change in neural network.” And that’s exactly how it functions: habituation. One must fight against their own likely unintended and misguided prior habituation, to form it into what they want it to be, and based on how well they understand what it was, why it was what it was, before, and how to make the change.

If there is no “spirit” or “soul,” then, IMO, that makes our existence all the more profound, mysterious, intriguing.

Perhaps… all this work done by humans, is not meant to discover, but rather, to /create/ a soul? To ascend to a higher plane, by learning to manifest ourselves into something more than just physical, where we can achieve immortality through guided ascension, and transformation of our own materials?

What if?

What if we can actually learn how to control our own particles well enough to cause them to transform from matter to energy?

I don’t think that being “just an organic machine” makes us a joke, at all. But i do tend to view all the outrageous fantastical mysticism, a bit humorously.

I still think we have a lot more untapped potential, and it’s going to take some ideas from the realm of “spirituality,” as well as a lot of “science,” in order to figure out and achieve the more that humans could become.

I wish i could be around to see the next stage, the next leap of human evolution. I would be interested in remaining an immortal, disembodied consciousness, for that reason alone.

But in all likelihood, all i’d probably see would be a bunch of giant mushroom clouds springing up from the surface of the planet, in succession… and then nothing. Just another wet rock floating through space covered in greasy skid marks, with a ruined, ashy atmosphere.

I prefer to simply alter my definition and understanding of thought, rather than revoke its validity by referring to it as illusory.

Thought… is the paths and intersections of the signals, not “neuron alignment.”

There is no “right” in the way you’re suggesting. It’s different for everyone. It’s subjective.

Happiness is a myth. It’s basically just a pleasant state of mind related to a favorable set of conditions and/or circumstances. It’s something that you can’t really put a static formula on. Some people are happy smearing their own feces on the walls of public restrooms. Certainly not what i would personally describe as “happiness.”

Happiness is imperfect, just like pretty much everything else. I think that the idea that happiness is some sort of perfect, absolute, fantastical thing, is just not right. Maybe some people glimpse a sort of perfectness… and i suppose the flaw that cripples them with despair, is the expectation that such a glimpse of perfectness should or ever could be sustainable. It’s like a surfer riding a wave; it’s just a moment. You don’t lock-in a wave and stay there until you die. It’s something you have to enjoy while it lasts, and then swim out again and catch another one, another time. And as any surfer will tell you: every wave is worth it, despite the time that passes in between, and all the effort required to be ready to encounter the next one.

@dn95:

“When did we decide that we were better than the universe, that Earth was at the centre of the universe, that it is only us that matter and so on? I really wish I could know how consciousness formed, and most importantly, in my case, why it formed.”

I don’t think “we” decided we were better than the universe. Perhaps some have made such a mistake, but i find it absurd to think so, considering our finite mortal existence.

Some people, not all, decided long ago that earth was at the center of the universe… but that, according to what man-made instruments are capable of measuring, has proven quite false.

On the other hand, each consciousness is the center of its own reality, its own “universe.” But it doesn’t follow to suggest that earth is the center, nor that we are the only relevant thing in the entire universe.

I would also like to know *how* consciousness forms, where it comes from, why it exists at all… but “in your case,” it is no different. There is no divine underlying reason for Your consciousness. The only reason “why” your consciousness occurred, is because your parents reproductive material combined to form an offspring, who, like almost everyone else who has ever been born, had its own individual consciousness.

@quaero:

Those are some pretty huge “what-ifs.” Science is not going to declare objective reality an illusion. Why? Because we all perceive it subjectively. So how can anyone know whether objective reality is an illusion, if none of us can perceive reality 100% objectively?

On the other hand, most people have a rather high accuracy of reality perception, and we can indeed determine this by sharing the most honest interpretations of what we observe. This is part of subjective rigor. We have to allow for understanding, without requiring absolutes that are logically unattainable.

You should both look up a term: “Phaneron.”

Just because we all have variance in our perception of reality, that doesn’t completely invalidate objectivity and require labeling everything as “illusion.” There might be some illusory factors or twists, but by and large, we all subjectively experience objective reality quite similarly, despite the fact that exceptions do occur.

Just like you can’t say that we all directly observe absolute objective reality, you also can’t say that we only observe absolute illusion. We’re pretty accurate, for the most part, especially when following standardized communication paradigms, in order to understand each other and our world, and compare our own experiences to those communicated by others.

Science is not going to say “everything is an illusion.” Science is all about observing and testing and figuring out what’s actually happening. If any group is likely to claim that everything is an illusion, it would be theologists, who want us to “believe” that all of this is just some sort of spiritual test.