I can show dozens of reasons why man’s simulative pretensious realities are absurd.
Man is a finite creature who absurdly tries to understand the infinite cosmos by that of his own absurd ideals in hope that he can somehow leave a lasting reality in existence infinitely just like that same very cosmos he has little control over.
What exactly is accurate and is it anything beyond the relative origin of it’s conception?
The way I usually look at it is that if physicalism is true, then we are most likely left with some sort of ephiphenomenalism, in which the mind is just as much of a byproduct of physical forces as fire is a byproduct of oxidation. As for reduction, just as we can reduce fire to oxidation, we should be able to reduce mental events to certain physical events. The problem is that we do not have a vocabulary to do so. We cannot reconcile anger with brain state 20120.
I said it wasn’t inaccurate, I didn’t say it wasn’t severely limited. We can’t see atoms however with our hardware and ability to simulate we can understand atoms, and this can be applied to numerous complex abstractions.
The hardware is limited because its meant to deal with problems faced in our ancesteral past economically (why we can manuever socially without a thought and why math is hard, despite both being hugely massive computational tasks). That being said, human perception is littered with faults and illusions, but a lot of the hardware is powerful and far reaching.
Like, humans see crystals or diamonds or whatever as a solid object even though they are made up of mostly empty space, this isn’t an ‘inaccurate’ simulation on our brain’s part, its just a limited look.
However our mental adaptations can take us much further than what our immediate exerpeince tells us.
I wouldn’t say it’s obvious. What’s obvious to me is that there is a correlation. I don’t feel like defending a pantheist view, or idealism, or quantum consciousness, or anything of that variety, but I just want to throw those out there as examples of how it might not be as obvious as some might say.
What I want to know is how sapience produced itself out of a rudimentary basic animalistic form of reasoning.
( Everyday that is the main thing which is always on my mind.)
Could this be a case where a outside source shaped the very beginnings of sapience internally?
Now the religionist will claim this is god but out of my pessimistic inclinations I like to consider this source as a relative random anomaly with no supernatural significance whatsoever.
Ah, well if memory serves, I saw a documentary once that provided a rough answer to this question. According to it, the distinguishing feature between homosapiens and our most recently extinct ancestor, the neanderthal, was that we can think abstractly and creatively. They say that this is the basis upon which religion and ritual comes about. I’m not sure if homosapiens started practicing religion immediately after they stepped onto the scene or it took a while, but it was clear from the documentary that no other animal before thought abstractly and creatively.
What if abstract thought and creativity started from the first man hallucinating religion because they thought god existed in a dash of lightning?
This is what I am searching for.
Now if we understand that lightning isn’t god and that god doesn’t exist we could come to the understanding that the individual ancient man was mistaken.
We could then say that religion was a accidental anomaly out of ignorance.
But if we find out that thought and creativity was born out of religion what would that say exactly for those two subjects alone?
I highly doubt it. Abstract thinking and creativity would have to be in place to begin with in order for man to conceive of anything like a god. But it’s certainly possible that man, at one point, misperceived some amazing natural phenomenon as stemming from supernatural sources, and from then on passed on the seeds of religion to future generations. Man would have been mistaken.
If abstract and creative thought are based on religion, and religion is mistaken, then it means that abstract and creative thought can’t be grounded in religion. There might be other grounds though - such as a genetic adaptation.