Do they have free will
>>18494680I personally don't think so. They're obligatory parasites.
>>18494686Do they have free will
>>18494691This is an ATP synthase, a specialized enzyme used in ATP synthesis, no they don't have free will
>>18494680Yes, in fact only viruses have the inner capacity for true free will, but their consciousnesses are bound to protein capsules that inject RNA brainlessly, so they're only able to observe themselves and their surroundings without being able to enact their truly uncaused volitions.
>>18494723They aren't even conscious unless actively feeding on a host.
viruses aren't real
>>18494680Look at the shape of them.Do you expect me to seriously believe they are organic organisms?That they weren't created by aliens and dispersed on our planet in ancient times as some form of population control?
>>18494854Because they are the most basic and "mathematical" organisms. Its basically a bridge between "non-living" and "living".
>>18494714>>18494723Do they have free will
>>18494854The inner workings of every cell are even more complex, if this is aliums then everything is.Is this what it means to be low IQ? If I came up with that idea and were writing that post, I'd realize it was wrong about halfway through and decide not to post it. Yet it never even occurs to someone like you, you happily shitpost away thinking you're contributing to the discussion.
>>18494854Population control of what nigga they kill bacteria lol
>>18494854>Look at the shape of them.>Do you expect me to seriously believe they are organic molecules?>That they weren't created by aliens and dispersed on our planet in ancient times as some form of intelligent design?
>>18494854>Do you expect me to seriously believe they are organic organisms?But that's the thing innit, are they organisms?
>>18494680Do you think they paid for it? Of course they do.
I have gone way further in my reductionism journey... I reject the notion of the self entirely I realized it when I took medication and it changed some aspects of my behaviour... I also reject the existence of qualias, as crazy as it sounds, and I've also rejected the notion of "existence" as there are no things in themselves, but relationshipsI challenge anyone to go further than me
>>18494680>>18494686>>18494691>>18494714>>18494723>AIEEEE IT LOOKS LIKE A SPIDER!!1!!
>>18495055No, but they have free wifi.
>>18495108This is all based except the rejection of qualia
>>18494680Why do they look like little machines??
>>18495190Because at the end of the day all life and adjacent biological entities are just naturally-ocurring machines and bacteriophages happen to be simple like the machines we can make while also evolving a body plan made to allow them to cling onto and inject its genetic material into other microorganismsAnd also because you're looking at drawings
>>18495174That may sound crazy... I definitely said it. But I recently meditated on it for very long and maybe came to a point where I could make sense of it in a purely informal and localized way... Maybe I should try to formulate it because it maybe some groundbreaking argument in philosophy...
>>18495108Sounds like thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent_qualia>A functionalist would argue that attempting to insert the concept of qualia into this relationship creates an empty quality that has no actual physical relationship to anything.
>>18495366I'm fascinated, please elaborate/make your case
>>18495190They're essentially protein complexes, which are molecular machines your body uses for everything. Every single cell (whether it's yours or bacteria) in your body is full of them.
>>18495366the obvious question is if nothing exists how are we talking, what's your angle
>>18495792What I find stunning is the fact that not only do these machines process this or that molecule, but the machines themselves have to be manufactured by other machines reading DNA and put into the right place in the cell. And this apparently was achieved through millions of years of trial and error via evolution. I still hold to abiogenesis, if it didn't happen on earth then it happened on whatever alien planet brought life to other, but I understand why some doubt it.
>>18495799The Jewish G-d did it
>>18495797Different anon, but when Buddhists (and this anon seems to be influenced by Buddhist philosophy, or at least has arrived at a similar place) say that "nothing exists" they don't mean that there is literally nothing in the universe (original anon's phrasing is a little clumsy in this regard), but rather that the objects we identify in our day to day lives do not have an intrinsic essence or existence. That sounds complicated so I'll try to explain. Take a tree, for example. In ordinary life we treat "tree" as a real, countable class of objects. The theory goes (which, full disclosure I think is 100% true) that this is false, there is not in fact such a thing as a "tree." We might look at a field and say there are 5 "trees" in the field, but there is in fact just a complex arrangement of protons, electrons, etc.all blending into each other with blurry boundaries and no distinct countable objects. We humans come along, and in order to simplify reality into something we understand, invent these categories such as "tree," "field," "human," but this is just a human imposed understanding that does not, in fact, exist. There is no "tree" that is actually there.
>>18494723Kek
>>18495833That sounds like pedantic horseshit
>>18495366>Maybe I should try to formulate it because it maybe some groundbreaking argument in philosophy...probably not desu, you should still write about it though
>>18495799i don't think you should view it as how unlikely it is for all these parts to come together but the parts themselves each formed due to pressures then built off of each and incorporated their functions over time to handle new pressures that affect the whole
>>18496096at what point do grains of sand become a sandpile
>>18495797Like the other anon said, there is probably nothing in itself, but relationships that updateThe paradigm of existence makes for interpretations like that photons take every path possible until observed... I think It would be a rather more simple to just say that we observed this and that and that it's likely we will observe this and that
>>18495055The following image shows an atom with electrons at ground state and at excited state. No they don't have free will.
>>18495502I think I would not be able to do this in this short time frame but we could first evacuate some thingsOur intuitions that we are ourselves and we constitute a unit etc and that we are talking is excellent for any conversation, all that we say or think is relevant for our bodies, and so the use of us thinking in terms of "me" actually means something in the context...So it's normal for that "us" to not feel of not be able to communicate our experience of the rest of the universe, because our body doesn't have a mechanism to store and read the memory of a rock, or even a person. That's why it is relevant functionally to say that we have 'subjective' experiences.Qualias have nothing to do with this, supposedly. They seem to be localized, as they don't happen in the same time, we don't experiment what happened in the past for exemple... We experience subjectivity as the information is "read".This may be seen as a metaphysical experience... But we, as bodies, are referring to it, it's not like a silent observer being out of bounds and simply asking state questions like john Wheeler's it from bit idea.When supposedly it is a non measurable phenomenon.The chinese brain may also come to the conclusion of qualias.I may experience pain and when I communicate it I can also communicate to you how there's a difference between the information of the pain, and the subjective pain experience.This "reading" of the data, seems to be doing more than reading. this to seem that we may have convinced ourselves that some spotlight effect of the brain is some subjective experience...Idk its really hard for me to untangle the thoughts at the end of this
