just trying to bite my own tail
The Universe is essentially mindless and doesn't give a shit one way or another about my presence and thus any values I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence?
id put it like
The Universe IS. (any attribute or action is only for
it "cannot give a shit" about consciousness and thus anything I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence.
maybe this is the hardest part for humans to swallow, that the very concept of "self" (and its various projections) means nothing.
it is particularly interesting to see this in the language used. like: "i think that" or "i believe that" instead of the most obvious "i suspect that" which might
be closer to what one meant to say.
and this is language used by well known and respected scientists.
only one of the books i grep through almost didnt use those (and other) patterns.
reading dawkins one might think that genes and memes have a will*. will? ermm..
its really interesting considering dawkins essentially speaking about language using.... well, language.
and of course, its not very easy to change language patterns, no more than one can think about himself as nothing more than a (by)product of a mass of neurons doing their chemical thing.
some form of god always exists there embedded in our brains regardless of how seemingly "unreligiously/areligiously" it manifests.
much like the drive to spot patterns around us, find (meaningful) causality, put the universe in order, seek the meaning of life and post on pd.
this kinda folds rygD argument on itself, which is quite funny. too bad search function doesnt work
*had a conversation on this very topic with someone on this forum just a week ago. i have yet to punish him for actually thinking he has a will