What is life? What is our goal?

[Genady]

31 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

We can only know what we observe, and how do we know what we observe is true? What we perceive may only be true to the observer. What is better becomes known when  a Connection is made with another observer.

OK. This answers the first question. The second question is still open:

 

50 minutes ago, Genady said:

Better for whom or for what?

 

[EmDriver]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

How do we know what is better? Better for whom or for what?

If our realities are how we perceive the truth, then we must shift our understanding to find the truth. In the attempt to create life that is better then ourselves, we attempt to create a better understanding of the truth.

That would mean then that we try to use intersubjective reality to create a superior objective reality over and over until we create life that can objectively see the truth?

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

If our realities are how we perceive the truth, then we must shift our understanding to find the truth. In the attempt to create life that is better then ourselves, we attempt to create a better understanding of the truth.

That would mean then that we try to use intersubjective reality to create a superior objective reality over and over until we create life that can objectively see the truth?

Can you name some objective truths?

What's the difference between reality and what we observe in nature?

Also, what do you mean by creating life better than ourselves? Are you talking about having children that know more than we did at their age, or something else? 

[EmDriver]

Gravity itself (self being an entity) is an objective truth (the name is subjective). You need movement (acceleration) to create gravity (so acceleration would exist, and acceleration requires energy so energy would exist). Then that would mean an entity exists because you need an entity to create acceleration. You would need a real space (dimension) to be able to move in so a dimension exists. Gravity is also affected by mass. If mass exists then that means there are at least 3 dimensions. Entities do not exist forever in the same form so time exists. Time is effected by acceleration so time would be a dimension. (This is where it started getting difficult for me) If time and gravity are both affected by acceleration and time is a dimension, what if the dimension where entities accelerate in was gravity itself? What if the entity of gravity was the universe itself? Then that could make the universe itself a blackhole. If the universe (a blackhole) was then an entity, then that could mean an entity WAS consciousness. Energy in our universe would then be whatever power source consciousness was using to itself exist. But, what is consciousness. Consciousness could be another dimension or another universe, but that's all I got at the moment.

Well, my idea is that anything that can think and learn from it's mistakes could be able to develop a consciousness. So in theory, if entities were the constructs of consciousness itself but could not think, they wouldn't be able to perceive consciousness. So yes, somehow the act of thinking would allow perception (reality) of consciousness because consciousness would always be present in our universe and would itself have constructs of the mind (entities). Which could explain why everything in the universe follows a similar pattern. Galaxies resemble an atom etc.

Your third question then I am referring to life as, is kind of interesting (subjective to my perception). So if entities were constructs of our universe (and the universe a black hole, which a black hole being consciousness), when a construct gains the ability to think and perceive consciousness, the very act of the construct thinking could then give rise to new constructs. Our shown abilities to program an entity using a construct of our mind (numbers) could then develop a consciousness if, it had the ability to think. The act of creating children or offspring of other animals wouldn't need the ability to perceive consciousness because that information is programmed in our very DNA, which consciousness does not appear to be so.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by EmDriver

[EmDriver]

Oh yea and of course copy pasta from my thread:

About "Penrose and Hammeroff's theory on consciousness:

also realized something that I couldn't find anyone doing a test on. Has anyone actually tried creating a mold of a quantum dot that was identical to a microtubule to use as qubits in a quantum computer? If this type of quantum computer (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.020501) was created it could possibly get some interesting results."

I have no idea if that would work or not, I just don't know if anyone has tried that or not.

Edited February 22, 2023 by EmDriver

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, EmDriver said:

Gravity itself (self being an entity) is an objective truth (the name is subjective). You need movement (acceleration) to create gravity (so acceleration would exist, and acceleration requires energy so energy would exist). Then that would mean an entity exists because you need an entity to create acceleration. You would need a real space (dimension) to be able to move in so a dimension exists. Gravity is also affected by mass. If mass exists then that means there are at least 3 dimensions. Entities do not exist forever in the same form so time exists. Time is effected by acceleration so time would be a dimension. (This is where it started getting difficult for me) If time and gravity are both affected by acceleration and time is a dimension, what if the dimension where entities accelerate in was gravity itself? What if the entity of gravity was the universe itself? Then that could make the universe itself a blackhole. If the universe (a blackhole) was then an entity, then that could mean an entity WAS consciousness. Energy in our universe would then be whatever power source consciousness was using to itself exist. But, what is consciousness. Consciousness could be another dimension or another universe, but that's all I got at the moment.

Well, my idea is that anything that can think and learn from it's mistakes could be able to develop a consciousness. So in theory, if entities were the constructs of consciousness itself but could not think, they wouldn't be able to perceive consciousness. So yes, somehow the act of thinking would allow perception (reality) of consciousness because consciousness would always be present in our universe and would itself have constructs of the mind (entities). Which could explain why everything in the universe follows a similar pattern. Galaxies resemble an atom etc.

Your third question then I am referring to life as, is kind of interesting (subjective to my perception). So if entities were constructs of our universe (and the universe a black hole, which a black hole being consciousness), when a construct gains the ability to think and perceive consciousness, the very act of the construct thinking could then give rise to new constructs. Our shown abilities to program an entity using a construct of our mind (numbers) could then develop a consciousness if, it had the ability to think. The act of creating children or offspring of other animals wouldn't need the ability to perceive consciousness because that information is programmed in our very DNA, which consciousness does not appear to be so.

 

I'll have what she's having.

[EmDriver]

'Post processing' from the model I wrote up yesterday, trying to prove the existence of consciousness still ends up being similar to the set theory issue. This would be due to the fact that the model I wrote up would mean that gravity creates acceleration. We seem to have consciousness, but how do you actually prove to someone that you are sentient? Which there in lies the issue. The model can work without this issue by saying that what creates acceleration is a construct. Doing this would make the model work with our universe not being locally 'real' and what the logic of my mind was realizing in the 3rd paragraph that I wrote up. The fact that quantum tunneling is happening, means that the actual position of where particles are in the universe are only being kept track of relatively and not locally. This is how you would save a tremendous amount of energy to have a universe exist.

Edited February 23, 2023 by EmDriver

[Boltzmannbrain]

The majority of humans seem to be trying to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, and not just for themselves, but for everyone.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

The majority of humans seem to be trying to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, and not just for themselves, but for everyone.

Citation needed. 

Also needed: Clarity on how you’re measuring pleasure and pain and how you define “try.”

[Boltzmannbrain]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Citation needed. 

Also needed: Clarity on how you’re measuring pleasure and pain and how you define “try.”

Citation: me

Try: to make an attempt (from Webster's Dictionary)

But seriously, it seems that the most fundamental motivation for almost everything that we do is determined by pleasure and pain.

 

[iNow]

Just now, Boltzmannbrain said:

it seems that the most fundamental motivation for almost everything that we do is determined by pleasure and pain.

That was not, however, the claim you made. The one I challenged. And which you refuse to support. 

Doing things to pump our own dopamine is not equivalent to:

6 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

The majority of humans seem to be trying to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, and not just for themselves, but for everyone.

"and not just for themselves, but for everyone."

Do you agree that claim is specious nonsense pulled out of your ass?

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

it seems that the most fundamental motivation for almost everything that we do is determined by pleasure and pain.

Isn't it the other way around? I.e., whatever we're determined to increase gives us pleasure when it increases, and whatever we're determined to decrease gives us pain if it doesn't decrease.

[Boltzmannbrain]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

That was not, however, the claim you made. The one I challenged. And which you refuse to support. 

Doing things to pump our own dopamine is not equivalent to:

"and not just for themselves, but for everyone."

I assume you are taking umbrage with the "everyone" part.  You can see it everywhere: charities, socialism, "media police", cancel culture, etc.

[iNow]

Appreciate you so quickly confirming you're not worth my time. Cheers. 

[Boltzmannbrain]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Isn't it the other way around? I.e., whatever we're determined to increase gives us pleasure when it increases, and whatever we're determined to decrease gives us pain if it doesn't decrease.

So you are saying our determination is a more fundamental reason why we do things?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

So you are saying our determination is a more fundamental reason why we do things?

Not exactly. I'm saying that we do things for various reasons, and pleasure or pain are responses for our success or failure to do what we wanted.

[Boltzmannbrain]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Not exactly. I'm saying that we do things for various reasons, and pleasure or pain are responses for our success or failure to do what we wanted.

Then I disagree.  I believe that almost everything we do is for pleasure or to avoid pain.  But I do believe that altruism exists too, but very rarely in comparison. 

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I believe that almost everything we do is for pleasure or to avoid pain. 

What are you basing this belief on?

[iNow]

That part’s not altogether wrong. Dopamine 

[Boltzmannbrain]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What are you basing this belief on?

Life experience and just common sense.  I mean what typical things can you think of that is not a function or pleasure or pain?

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

That part’s not altogether wrong. Dopamine 

Thank you for your valuable time.  I can only imagine what you had to put off to impart your wisdom onto me. 

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I mean what typical things can you think of that is not a function or pleasure or pain?

Everything except basic bodily functions.

[Boltzmannbrain]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Everything except basic bodily functions.

Everything?!  What if I want to eat ice cream for the pleasure it gives me?  Is that not doing something for pleasure? 

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Everything?!  What if I want to eat ice cream for the pleasure it gives me?  Is that not doing something for pleasure? 

Eating things that taste good is a basic bodily function.

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Life experience and just common sense.  I mean what typical things can you think of that is not a function or pleasure or pain?

Driving to work.

Paying bills.

Sleeping.

Cooking.

Shopping.

Vacuuming.

Sitting in class.

Reading the news.

Going to church.

Changing diapers.

Cutting the grass.

How many would you like me to list?

[Boltzmannbrain]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Eating things that taste good is a basic bodily function.

This sounds like physicalism.  Keeping the topic of dualism out of it, I think we are talking about the same thing.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Driving to work.

Paying bills.

Sleeping.

Cooking.

Shopping.

Vacuuming.

Sitting in class.

Reading the news.

Going to church.

Changing diapers.

Cutting the grass.

How many would you like me to list?

Hmm, most of these things I do to avoid pain.  For example, I cook to avoid the "pain" of hunger.  And some others are to avoid emotional pain.