kyle

@AnthonyJSpecial @DeeWaynee94 Optimized teleological structures are by definition the product the product of design, but I’d also suggest that the existence of design doesn’t necessarily imply a designer

@AnthonyJSpecial @DeeWaynee94 Don’t fixate so much on patterns as a concept. The post suggests these structures are generated for a purpose, and that they repeat because they are the optimal structures for doing so. Likewise, design is the process of creating something with a purpose and optimizing toward it

Because similar patterns emerge under similar physical constraints. Branching is efficient for moving air, blood, water and nutrients, so lungs and trees end up looking alike without some sky architect sketching both. Humans see a visual rhyme and start shouting “designer” because understanding the mechanism would ruin the sermon.

@AnthonyJSpecial @DeeWaynee94 The meanings of words make the implication? I’m not sure what you’re missing

@_kyle_jj @DeeWaynee94 Why would you make that implication?

@QuantumTumbler @thedarshakrana dumbass couldn’t understand so he had to block me lmao. Anyways physics is an offshoot of philosophy. It describes the objective world, which is a different concept from Reality, and philosophy is not metaphor (unless you can’t comprehend it).

@QuantumTumbler @thedarshakrana Lmao doubling down on unconscious assumptions, still unaware after being told. Gotta love it

This might be the most unsettling thing I’ve read in months. The question of consciousness isn’t new… but this article explores angles I hadn’t fully articulated. A MUST READ for anyone curious about where consciousness meets reality. It challenges every belief you ever had. Now I’m genuinely curious: If we ever fully understand consciousness… would we discover reality or accidentally break it?

@AnthonyJSpecial @DeeWaynee94 Wow, I’ll try to go slower. Design is the process of creation with a purpose (e.g. tires are designed round, so they roll). To suggest, then, that these patterns exist for efficient nutrient transport implies this activity exists for a purpose, i.e., by design.

@_kyle_jj @DeeWaynee94 Saying that patterns emerge is the same as saying things were designed by a creator?

@arg_k7 @StonesPls21 @DeeWaynee94 I agree there certainly is no evidence of some “cosmic being,” but no intellectually honest theist considers God a being (although there’s plenty of low hanging fruit). If God is the source of Being itself, God could not be a being; this is a category error.

@_kyle_jj @StonesPls21 @DeeWaynee94 experiment by some far more advanced being than us, maybe it's not. The fact is that unless our science is severely flawed we know very well what every step from the big bang to now was and there's no evidence of some cosmic being interfering just to make sure humans will exist.

@KoloradoSCI_ @Kano9112 @DeeWaynee94 Yes, it makes so much more sense that efficiency is the ruling principle for efficiency’s sake, and that life is just an accident of this, rather than the efficiency found everywhere being a means to the purpose of sustaining life, like some type of design.

@Kano9112 @DeeWaynee94 Yes, the reason is: evolving to be more efficient

@arg_k7 @StonesPls21 @DeeWaynee94 “Preferencelessness has a preference because nothing is truly preferenceless” lmao. “Nothing is truly random” is the same as “everything happens for a reason.” Whether I say the reason is “nature selects for survival” or “God creates life,” I say the same thing.

@StonesPls21 @DeeWaynee94 Randomness very much has a preference because nothing is truly, completely random. Have a group of people throw two dice each and add up their own total. You'll see a ton of 7s but barely any 2s. In the case of nature the preference comes from more efficient things surviving more

@dab_chick @ESRAFCBukayo @sjryanwriter Neither of these statements are true. The first begs the question “for whom?”, and ironically the answer to this in practice is an amoral subject. The second was already refuted in the replies and your response made no sense lol

@ESRAFCBukayo @sjryanwriter The optimal amount of moral absolutes is non-zero. Refraining from lying is one such moral absolute.

The moral realism debate is quite easy to resolve. There is at least one moral fact — it is always wrong to lie. You’re welcome.

@QuantumTumbler @thedarshakrana The article doesn’t present itself as science. Ironically though, this is more of a defense of your beliefs that it challenged than valid criticism so i guess @thedarshakrana was right lol.

This is word salad dressed up as science. “Observer” in quantum mechanics ≠ human consciousness. NDEs and remote viewing don’t survive controlled, repeatable testing. You’re taking unsolved questions and filling the gap with speculation. If it’s real, show → measurable results → controlled conditions → independent replication If not, it’s a story not physics.

@Average00037367 @RedWavePress More accurately: “under capitalism you do well for yourself by selling others what they want; under socialism you do well for yourself by doing well for the state.” Categorically moralizing economic systems is a symptom of a poor understanding of them.

@RedWavePress Under capitalism, you do well for yourself by doing good for others, providing what they need or want. Under socialism, you do well for yourself by taking from others. Its a race to the bottom where people try to get theirs before its all gone.

Bill Maher: “I’m sure Mamdani is watching this right now… saying, ‘Exactly, Bill. That’s my point. Capitalism. Terrible.’” “Yeah, it’s terrible. Except it’s still better than the reverse. Soviet people died at 38 from being drunk all the time because they couldn’t take their life under communism.” Rob Riggle: “My girlfriend is Polish. She was born into communism. She lived under it for a little while. And she really shakes her head. She’s like, ‘They don’t know what they’re asking for. They don’t know what they’re talking about.’” Bill Maher: “And it would be so easy to find out. It wasn’t like it happened a thousand years ago.” RIGGLE: “Exactly.” Bill Maher: “It happened in our lifetimes.” Rob Riggle: “She would explain to me the grocery card they got. She got a grocery card. Her family got a grocery card… Your family of four. You get X amount of milk. X amount of liters of milk per week. You get X amount of eggs per week. You get eggs, and then you take that card to the store, which sometimes didn’t have any of the stuff on your card.” “Sometimes they just had a ‘We’re long on toilet paper today. So take some toilet paper, but come back tomorrow and maybe we’ll have what’s on your list.’” Bill Maher: “It doesn’t work. Humans need to be incentivized by selfishness. It is nature to be selfish. Animals are selfish. Watch them.” Rob Riggle: “Yeah. I heard a song the other day, and it was… basically, ‘Capitalism isn’t bad because you suck at life.’” Bill Maher: “That’s awesome.”

2 beers in and i start giving credit where its due

@007_lunar @SmasherIsEma Read the meno

@SmasherIsEma socrates was a dumbass who didn't realize the solution to this problem is to just provide education to everyone

Socrates was a dumbass who didnt understand the class roots of democracy and idealised a system of government according to his own interests as a myopic intellectual

@hughiejassihole @BeSaintly @YoursMemely I’m sorry bro. I’ll be honest, my reply was facetious. But rather than peddle your resentment as an intellectually sound idea, you’ve blinded me with your wit and genius once again. I should’ve known better than to disagree with such a Hugh Jasshole

@_kyle_jj @BeSaintly @YoursMemely Shut up man

Funny how Islam answers every such argument so gracefully lol

@hughiejassihole @BeSaintly @YoursMemely Brilliant point!! So many fail to realize that anyone who identifies with a group is necessarily an expert in that group’s ideology and embodies it perfectly! It’s a shame more systems aren’t judged by any individual who attaches theirself to its name, since this never fails!

@BeSaintly @YoursMemely It seems you’ve never interacted with a christian

@fwdaniels That happiness occurs is not an illusion. That illusion is that happiness can be “attained wholly,” because this turns it from a transient event (which it is in reality) into some permanent object to cling to.

i have an opinion that’s happiness is an illusion that’s why humans will always chase & never attain it wholly.

@Scourgus Is this satire?

The appeal of the vacuous, fideistic nonsense that Kierkegaard spews is natural to a diaspora person who has ethnic antagonism. Unfortunately, people like Meister Eckhart are dragged into this too, as well as Blaise Pascal. Basically anyone whose appears hetorodox and cool to ESL

“Love, in its purest essence — fully detached, resting in itself — is nothing but God.” Meister Eckhart 🌹 ©️Marc Chagall - The Lovers