Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gamusino2021 t1_jdl250f wrote

Reply to comment by Miserable_Sun6756 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | March 13, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

Our brains do have an original "purpose", it was an evolutionary advantage that evolved to make more efficient the genes replication. Brain is a machine of solving problems towards a goal. So it seems normal that we deeply feel bad at realizing universe has no meaning.

1

Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdl68pe wrote

I don't understand how you came to that. The last sentence seems like a non-sequitur.

1

Gamusino2021 t1_jdl7ae5 wrote

if we define "universe having meaning" as something like " there is some goals we objectivly should follow", well, the brain has many innate goals, it evolved to pursue those goals. so when we are realize the universe is actually meaningless it goes against our intincts

1

Miserable_Sun6756 t1_jdlad0h wrote

Yea that's kind of what I'm trying to get at, except I would ask why the perceived objectiveness of a goal has any bearing on the chemical-emotional reward we get for pursuing said goal. I think this is done at a cognitive level and we don't actually suffer from the realization that the universe has no meaning until we assign the negative connotation to that fact manually.

2

Gamusino2021 t1_jdlawyv wrote

I would say there is no need to assign a negative connotation for us to suffer. A meaningless universe goes against our instincts. For example, for many people, one big part of universe not having meaning is we are going to completely cease to exist, that goes against our survival instinct. Also we have instinct to try to improve the situation, but we will grow old and all we do will dissapear eventually.

1

MountainSimple24 t1_jdpum20 wrote

Alright, but what is the point of DNA replicating itself. I wonder about DNA and if it made the decision to keep itself alive. It became aware of its own existence and perpetrated it. If not, then we’re did the self Replication start. If we follow it, particles would therefore attempt to maintain their state and form larger particles as a product of their maintaining. So, if particles maintain themselves, then, is the Big Bang, an attempt at the universe maintaining itself infinitely (assuming another one starts after the end of this universe).

I find it hard to follow the person maintaining themselves to the DNA as I have no concept of DNA’s consciousness just the idea that some RNA self replicate. States return to maximum entropy. The most stable form of the system. When everything is stable though, nothing will happen, or maybe something does happen in stability. In stability, one movement could mean a massive reaction.

1

Gamusino2021 t1_jdsg870 wrote

DNA is not conciouss, first molecule that replicated itself was not DNA, we know it couldnt be DNA but we still dont know which one was. that molecule was formed by chance in a situation where millions of millions of ramdom chemical reactions where happening, then the replication continued and evolved by a blindly, its loo long to explain here mate, read about evolution and you will undersand why it happens blindly

2