Thread for geological time

[redbreegull]

but seriously, geological time. my dudes.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ime_spiral.png

[redbreegull]

what is your guises favorite period? I really like devonian period because of the chill vibes and good production

[slunken]

flat earth confirmed

[teh b0lly!!1]

*curls into a ball under desk*

[ilikeplanets]

something something speck of dust


fuck, we really don't matter

but i like the period where the earth was all ocean. which one is that?

[teh b0lly!!1]

humanity is like a flesh eating virus shutting down the planet incredibly violently and quickly, in relation to the amount of time we'd been around

[redbreegull]

makes me wonder if it has ever happened before. how could we know if there was like some fungal species which took over the whole planet in the course of 10,000 years and then destroyed itself through unsustainable growth and consumption? the fossil record over such a vast amount of time is spotty so it's possible other species have done this and we just have no idea, right?

[cork_soaker]

i'm always on high alert for a good "fungus among us" joke opportunity

so if anyone hears anything

[reprise85]

it's amazing how they can get all this from fossil records, soil layers upon soil layers upon soil layers and radioactive dating and shit. it's incredible

[FoolofaTook]

This message is hidden because MarquisInSpades is on your ignore list

Originally Posted by redbreegull

makes me wonder if it has ever happened before. how could we know if there was like some fungal species which took over the whole planet in the course of 10,000 years and then destroyed itself through unsustainable growth and consumption? the fossil record over such a vast amount of time is spotty so it's possible other species have done this and we just have no idea, right?

The Annnunaki bro.

[FoolofaTook]

I remember Pangea, btw.

[LaBelle]

I like them dinos so cretaceous-jurassic-triassic periods would be my jam.

[vixnix]

The first subjects I ever studied at university were maths, physics and geology. I was trying to be dutiful and become a mining engineer just like dear ol dad.

That stuff gets a lot more boring when you go out into the field to look at the evidence. Like any science I guess, the theory is a lot more interesting than the field work. Geology field work is the worst. Probably why all geology departments in the world are the heaviest drinking in their respective campuses. Geological society get togethers involved laying tarps on the floor so that the spilled beer and vomit was easier to clean up.

I fell in love with my lab demonstrator of course. He was sensitive and hilarious and nerdy and really the only thing that put me off was the length of his fingernails. Too long.

Deep time really did my head in. A few years later, when I was recovering from the psychosis and trying to get up early to be at uni for 8:00am Hebrew class, I would lie in bed, trying to understand that I was just a little speck of life, hurtling through space as the rock I lived on whirled around a gigantic ball of fire. And I would think "Do I really need to get up for Hebrew? Does it really matter?".

I still can't answer those questions but having children makes it easier to get up.

[reprise85]

My view on this is that no, it doesn't matter. However while we have consciousness we can choose to create meaning in our own lives where no objective meaning or purpose exists, or we can get lost in the pointlessness of life. So, life is pointless - but meaning is what you make of it. Also the knowledge that nothing we do matters in any kind of cosmic sense or even outside of our narrow slice of life brings a kind of freedom. There's nothing so terrible you can do if nothing really matters. You could probably take that to mean "so I might as well lie, steal, and take advantage of others" but I take it more like "there's no pressure to be perfect because this is all fleeting anyway."

[vixnix]

The same year I went back to study Hebrew, I had also given up on doing anything useful with my life and had decided to study philosophy instead, in the hopes I could discover the meaning of life that I lost when I studied geology.

In one of our first lectures in metaphysics, our lecturer said that many people come to philosophy, and philosophers, asking if life has meaning.

He said that the level of difficulty you will have in answering that question depends obviously on your criteria for success. If you are content with an unverified statement, then a slogan like "You make your own meaning", will be very satisfying.

If your criteria for success is determining some kind of actual truth, things get much harder, and there is no general agreement.

My experiences up until that point, like yours in some ways, left me feeling like if there was no ultimate meaning or goal to my life, I would rather be dead.

Luckily, medication fixed that, and now carbohydrates and Netflix give my life an amazing amount of meaning.

[reprise85]

Well if there is no actual truth except that there is no meaning and everything will be extinguished in time what is there to agree on besides that?

[vixnix]

Free will, responsibility, morality, criminal justice, social contracts, identity politics, human rights...

I guess, all of the shitty, gory crap that affects us every day - we have to find some agreement on how to define it and deal with problematic situations.

For example - if my neighbour molests my kid. I say, well, life is meaningless and all things are extinguished in time. Let's extinguish my neighbour now, seeing as it doesn't matter anyway and I hate him so much because he molested my kid.

I've proposed this solution before - "Humane euthanasia" for pedophiles - netphoria vehemently disagreed with the utility of the solution despite the fact that we can all agree that the life of the pedophile, like all human lives, is apparently meaningless in absolute terms.

We end up saying "But why? Why should we be interested in doing that?", despite the fact that life has no meaning. So there's disagreement about that, I guess.

[redbreegull]

Nothing we do matters, therefore the only thing that matters is what we do

https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...20120811123029

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I still can't answer those questions but having children makes it easier to get up.

this is basically me. i'm still terrified of meaninglessness and the enormity of it all and my endless pondering but i have to keep a person alive and she doesn't care about any of that stuff (yet?). it's still hard as fuck to get up though. but it's a must.

[ilikeplanets]

i still sometimes think we're all connected (too much lsd) but that doesn't mean we share the same body. it's too much to fucking process, stardust.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Free will, responsibility, morality, criminal justice, social contracts, identity politics, human rights...

I guess, all of the shitty, gory crap that affects us every day - we have to find some agreement on how to define it and deal with problematic situations.

If we've agreed that there is no cosmic purpose than it seems obvious that all of these things are relative and the consensus at any one time is what most people think is right either because it is hardwired into us via evolution or it is culturally taught (of course these are not mutually exclusive). You can be utilitarian and say whatever does the most good for the largest amount of people is best, or you can believe all you are responsible for is yourself and other things may feel good but they are not the priority. Neither of these can be said to be better or worse than the other, because there is no cosmic scale of morality to match to.

Humans are very likely evolutionary programmed to be helpful to one another because reciprocal altruism is good for the species. Even months-old babies try to help and can distinguish between, for example, someone dropping something and someone throwing something and will only try to help when the person seems to need it. But this doesn't make it "morally right" to help unless you consider species fitness to be an indicator of moral behavior. I'm sure there are many instances of other things like this.

I'm no philosopher so I might be wrong about all of this but if all things are relative there is no "right"

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I've proposed this solution before - "Humane euthanasia" for pedophiles - netphoria vehemently disagreed with the utility of the solution despite the fact that we can all agree that the life of the pedophile, like all human lives, is apparently meaningless in absolute terms.

We end up saying "But why? Why should we be interested in doing that?", despite the fact that life has no meaning. So there's disagreement about that, I guess.

Putting aside that not all people who are pedophiles are child molesters (and not all child molesters are pedophiles), humane euthanasia against someone unwilling is taking the only thing they will ever know - consciousness - away from them. Even though I think life has no meaning and therefore their lives have no meaning I am reluctant to endorse take away consciousness from a person because I know that would be upsetting to me, even though it is going to happen to all of us. And you could also say they've made choices incompatible with life, the same way someone can choose to eat cheeseburgers every day and have the natural consequence of having a heart attack at 40, but we don't let 40 year old heart attack victims go gently into that dark night without trying to save them either

[cork_soaker]

geological time is never geological time at all

[FoolofaTook]

so you've all turned out to be nihilists

for once i was ahead of the curve

[FoolofaTook]

so... whose going to help me burn goodwill and safeway to the ground!?

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by reprise85

If we've agreed that there is no cosmic purpose than it seems obvious that all of these things are relative and the consensus at any one time is what most people think is right either because it is hardwired into us via evolution or it is culturally taught (of course these are not mutually exclusive). You can be utilitarian and say whatever does the most good for the largest amount of people is best, or you can believe all you are responsible for is yourself and other things may feel good but they are not the priority. Neither of these can be said to be better or worse than the other, because there is no cosmic scale of morality to match to.

Humans are very likely evolutionary programmed to be helpful to one another because reciprocal altruism is good for the species. Even months-old babies try to help and can distinguish between, for example, someone dropping something and someone throwing something and will only try to help when the person seems to need it. But this doesn't make it "morally right" to help unless you consider species fitness to be an indicator of moral behavior. I'm sure there are many instances of other things like this.

I'm no philosopher so I might be wrong about all of this but if all things are relative there is no "right"

You've mentioned the fallacy of appeal to nature before, so I know that you know, that appealing to evolutionary programming as a justifiable basis of morality is problematic.

As you point out, there is no "right", so terminating the lives of pedophiles isn't right or wrong.

I was just pointing out, that this is the sort of stuff philosophers argues about. The catch phrase "Life's meaning is contained in the meaning that you put into it" sounds good - but ultimately it is an unhelpful way of answering the question "Does life have meaning?", because our own lives are not the only ones at stake when we define the meaning of human life....

Originally Posted by reprise85

Putting aside that not all people who are pedophiles are child molesters (and not all child molesters are pedophiles), humane euthanasia against someone unwilling is taking the only thing they will ever know - consciousness - away from them. Even though I think life has no meaning and therefore their lives have no meaning I am reluctant to endorse take away consciousness from a person because I know that would be upsetting to me, even though it is going to happen to all of us. And you could also say they've made choices incompatible with life, the same way someone can choose to eat cheeseburgers every day and have the natural consequence of having a heart attack at 40, but we don't let 40 year old heart attack victims go gently into that dark night without trying to save them either

Appeal to emotion - "Feels upsetting to me" is also problematic. There are people for whom stem cell research and gay marriage is "upsetting".

Again, I only mentioned this because you asked what philosophers argue about. It's this stuff. The business of how to make rules for living if, as you point out, there's no way of discerning right action from wrong action.

Actually, many attribute the Is-Ought problem (that is to say, how things are currently can not give us answers to how things ought to be) to 18th century philosopher David Hume.

So philosophers have been working on it for a while but I guess only stupid humans work on philosophy because we are no closer now than we were then.

[buzzard]

Traveling down the old Hume Highway, eh.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by vixnix

You've mentioned the fallacy of appeal to nature before, so I know that you know, that appealing to evolutionary programming as a justifiable basis of morality is problematic.

Yes, it is problematic, and I'm not suggesting that is correct because evolution doesn't care about morals. What I am saying is it seems like our basis for what is moral non-coincidentally lines up with what is generally best for the species. And so this points to the idea that there is no meaning and what people generally ascribe to morality is, again, what is best for the species on an evolutionary level (cooperation and helping, deception and defection used when necessary but not more than cooperation). We do what's best for the species and call that morality. We don't decide what's moral and then act that way.

I was just pointing out, that this is the sort of stuff philosophers argues about. The catch phrase "Life's meaning is contained in the meaning that you put into it" sounds good - but ultimately it is an unhelpful way of answering the question "Does life have meaning?", because our own lives are not the only ones at stake when we define the meaning of human life....

I mean the answer to this question is "no," quite simply. Finding meaning in the meaninglessness is like a last-ditch effort to feel like life is worthwhile in the obvious conclusion that it's not. And it is actually helpful for many people, including me, but it is not if it supplants the actual answer which is that no, life has no meaning.

Appeal to emotion - "Feels upsetting to me" is also problematic. There are people for whom stem cell research and gay marriage is "upsetting".

Yes I know my "feelings" don't create meaning or dictate what is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that these "feelings" are the basis for which humanity has decided what is right and wrong. For me personally, I think taking away one's consciousness against their will is one of the most extreme things you can do to somebody because what is not in question, perhaps the only thing that is not in question, is that consciousness exists. So taking that from somebody is an extreme act unparalleled by most anything else. But, just because life has no meaning, does that mean living and not living has the same intrinsic value (zero)? I mean the clear answer is yes, yet we cling

So philosophers have been working on it for a while but I guess only stupid humans work on philosophy because we are no closer now than we were then.

I feel like the question is not "what is the meaning of life" but "considering there is no meaning to life, what now?"

[ilikeplanets]

I'm like T_T
Just like T_T
이런 내 맘 모르고 너무해 너무해

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by reprise85

it seems like our basis for what is moral non-coincidentally lines up with what is generally best for the species. And so this points to the idea that there is no meaning and what people generally ascribe to morality is, again, what is best for the species on an evolutionary level (cooperation and helping, deception and defection used when necessary but not more than cooperation). We do what's best for the species and call that morality. We don't decide what's moral and then act that way.

What's best for the species is a point of contention also.

We're more likely programmed to do what's best for our kin group or small community, which is why as a species we are often compelled to wage war on each other, for resources or control of territory.

We often do, these days, decide what is moral and then act that way. A good example is the passing of gay marriage laws. A change in the status quo prompts a society-wide evaluation of moral principles (should rights be denied to a group of people just because we've never awarded them before, and we don't like change? Or should we change how we behave towards them?).

There are some choices we are making now which have big implications for the future of the species - like should we genetically modify all new humans pre-implantation, to address "defective" genes like deafness, dwarfism, autism, mental illnesses? Where do we stop? If there are particular alleles that make a child more likely to be gay, should parents be allowed to modify them if they don't want gay children?

In this situation, we might find that rationally speaking, the best thing for the species would be a eugenics program, basically. Does our evolutionary programming prompt us to embrace eugenics, though?

Originally Posted by reprise85

I mean the answer to this question is "no," quite simply. Finding meaning in the meaninglessness is like a last-ditch effort to feel like life is worthwhile in the obvious conclusion that it's not. And it is actually helpful for many people, including me, but it is not if it supplants the actual answer which is that no, life has no meaning.

Yes, this is true. But for those who are trying to lay out a loose roadmap for future human societies, to navigate questions of right and wrong action, in the wake of our (relatively speaking) recent emancipation from the laws of the State of Nature, and the laws of feudalism, and the laws of religion, it's not just a last-ditch effort to find meaning, as a way of allowing one to feel that one's own life is worth living. It's an ongoing effort to work out whether there is some kind of decision making framework that is universal enough to all human groups that it can become some kind of species-wide set of principles, for how humans should relate to one other and to the planet. That doesn't exist, currently.

Originally Posted by reprise85

Yes I know my "feelings" don't create meaning or dictate what is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that these "feelings" are the basis for which humanity has decided what is right and wrong. For me personally, I think taking away one's consciousness against their will is one of the most extreme things you can do to somebody because what is not in question, perhaps the only thing that is not in question, is that consciousness exists. So taking that from somebody is an extreme act unparalleled by most anything else. But, just because life has no meaning, does that mean living and not living has the same intrinsic value (zero)? I mean the clear answer is yes, yet we cling

Feelings have determined a lot of our moral decision making up until now. But we're having to change that, after realising that peoples feelings don't line up anymore, with right and wrong. People feel that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. People feel that denying the potential for consciousness from an unborn human is wrong. In the last century, we have begun to seek new ways of decision making that aren't based just on what we feel. It's problematic to leave it up to feelings because there is such division in how people feel about things. Going forward, we need something else.

Originally Posted by reprise85

I feel like the question is not "what is the meaning of life" but "considering there is no meaning to life, what now?"

I agree.

But initially I was saying, that if your criteria for success in answering the question "What is the meaning of life" is an unverified slogan or catch phrase, then "You make your own meaning" is enough.

If your criteria for success is something useful to the human species, because it addresses fundamental human concerns like "Should I share?" "How much should I share?" "Is it bad to deceive others?" "Is it OK to want more for myself than I do for others?", then the question as you say, becomes irrelevant, because it can't be answered...and yet, having some kind of approximation that was fairly universal, would be pretty helpful.