A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

[Immanuel Can]

You can't help the culture you're born into that imposes its beliefs upon you such that you have no alternative and no choice.

And yet you claim an exception for yourself. You've struggled and become freed, and converted to your own beliefs, you say.

But if that's true, then the statement you made above is not true...and you're the counter case, in this case.

If the expansion is accelerating, then it can't be linear.

Non-sequitur. A plane on a runway accelerates down a linear path, for example, before liftoff. How fast a thing is moving is a different question from its directionality.

Implications aren't proof or evidence.

They're conclusions drawn from the best available proof and evidence. There is no comparable evidence for a cyclical universe, no way to make sense of the empirical cosmological data using a cyclical model.

There could be an origin to the universe and still not require a creator that stands outside it. A whole forest can come from one acorn, but that doesn't mean the acorn was created.

Sure it does. It was "created" by the oak tree. But before that, the oak tree was also created by something, because oak trees don't just appear. And before that was some thing else...and so on.

But this is the most interesting part of a linear universe, if we couple it with the necessity of causality -- two things which are about as clearly scientific as any principles we have, by the way. And that is that it means that a) the buck stops somewhere; something has to produce the first event in a causal chain, but b) that thing, whatever it is, must itself be eternal and uncaused. For if it were a caused entity, then in a linear universe, you would have an infinite regress problem; and as you say, there is no such thing as an actual infinite. So we know that's not what happened.

Rather, some uncaused Cause had to begin the chain of causes.

However, if you're not right...

What could happen? [/quote]
Then we'll both know I've actually been right about the existence of God. But I'm not sure that's the way you want to make that discovery.

[Serendipper]

What scientific warrant do you have for supposing basic elements like hydrogen and helium to be "alive"?

Give me a definition for "alive" and I can answer your question.

And then, how does a non-existent universe (prior to the Big Bang) already have "life" in it?

How does winter turn into spring? It's the same way; this universe is new, but what caused it to happen isn't.

This is where natural selection comes in

"Natural selection" only applies where life already exists. Hydrogen and helium cannot "select" for anything.

What are some elements H and He will not bond with? Argon, neon, perhaps? Then they select.

According to Darwin, the first precondition of natural selection is excessive reproduction (there are three others, all of them requiring life to already exist, but let's just roll with the first).

I doubt the first of what you would call "life" could reproduce. Reproduction is a learned behavior as is senescence.

The non-living does not reproduce at all. So we don't even get past Darwin's first post on that answer.

There is no need for elements to reproduce. If an element could reproduce, it would violate conservation of energy.

Are viruses alive? Bacteria can reproduce on their own, but viruses need other organisms to reproduce themselves and elements are even simpler: stars produce heavy elements then black holes rip them apart and fling them across the universe to coalesce into atoms and stars once again and repeat the process... and in the process higher forms of life are formed and reproduction is just a means to hone/refine higher forms of consciousness.

[Greta]

Are viruses alive? Bacteria can reproduce on their own, but viruses need other organisms to reproduce themselves and elements are even simpler: stars produce heavy elements then black holes rip them apart and fling them across the universe to coalesce into atoms and stars once again and repeat the process... and in the process higher forms of life are formed and reproduction is just a means to hone/refine higher forms of consciousness.

Many parasites, and not just bacteria, cannot reproduce without a host, just that the mechanisms that prevent reproduction are different. One might say the difference is that viruses are obligate parasites whereas other life has a more varied repertoire.

I still can't see why a first cause must be sentient rather than a mindless fluctuation but I cannot converse with IC about this because he always makes me work so hard - and not in a good way - just going back to reference and reiterate things I'd said before (often more than once) that were ignored. If I wanted circular discussions that go nowhere I'd settle for what's available in meatspace.

[Serendipper]

We have existence and nonexistence and within existence, we have being and nonbeing. Nonbeing isn't the same as nonexistence. A light can be on, off, or nonexisting. Likewise life can be: being, nonbeing, nonexistent. When a light is off, it has potential to be on. When a light is on, it has potential to be off. Likewise, life as nonbeing has potential to be. The oscillation of being/nonbeing constitute existence. Nonexistence is nothing and there's nothing within nothing to make something.

Agreeing with you up to here, which I like, but what you refer to are relative poles in continua rather than absolutes, seen not only in other species but, more subtly, within ourselves.

Poles:

For instance, some entities are almost nothing, being infinitestimal wrinkles in reality that appear and disappear in trillionths of a second.

Yes and it probably follows the sine wave pattern in and out of existence.

Others, like galaxies, are inconceivably huge, powerful and very firmly embedded in reality.

Those sine waves would have very long wavelengths.

Then consider the variant perceptions of lower order animals, and it seems that for some sessile species their awareness is perhaps akin to our deep sleep. Then there's many other degrees of awareness and wakefulness.

I think sleep is reduced conscious bandwidth.

Your last sentence amused me because I've been in bother for stating that "there is evidence for something but not for nothing" (the idea of evidence for nothing is nonsensical, but funny in hindsight).

I think "something" is all the evidence for nothing that we have. The universe is probably expanding into nothing since there is nothing outside the universe, and that produces the nothing/something relationship.

I agree with the sentiment you are trying to convey, though. Seemingly the concept of nothingness can do to written and spoken language what it does to math

1/-1
2/-2
3/-3
0/infinity are paired because neither exist

If you think about it, everything is defined by what it is not, which is opposed to things that are defined by what they are

[Atla]

Of course the "theory" of Serendipper and Greta is pure magical thinking. They are basically saying that out of 10^300 (or more) possibilities, our universe was the one that necessarily had to happen, because this is the one that happened. That's the ultimate circular non-explanation.

A naive misrepresentation.

The speculations are not so far from those of many scientists, whom are presumably no more magically inclined than we are. To attack brainstorming in such a topic is out of proportion, as though you are some Walter Mitty-esque character imagining yourself in professional scenarios while effectively playing in a sandpit.

All we did was mention some possibilities for how things might happen; we are not claiming to present The Answer to It All. We'll leave that to you.

Actually I opened this topic about the multiverse THEORY, which theory everyone is denying here. But I don't actually care so carry on.

[Serendipper]

You can't help the culture you're born into that imposes its beliefs upon you such that you have no alternative and no choice.

And yet you claim an exception for yourself. You've struggled and become freed, and converted to your own beliefs, you say.

No it was quite the serendipitous accident really; I just happened to stumble upon Alan Watts on youtube because I got bored with Moylneux et al and one thing led to another and here I am. Before that, I was pushing what you're peddling; successfully too. No atheist ever got over on me! But now that I've changed my tune, it makes me think:

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas

That's an excellent article regardless of context.

But no I'm not atheist. Panvitalist I think Greta called it.

I've lived the christian life ever since being born into it. I studied it and for a time used to play tapes on autoreverse 24 hrs a day. I can quote anything from the NT and proverbs and could probably carry on a conversation in "bible", but pride precedes a fall so I won't.

But if that's true, then the statement you made above is not true...and you're the counter case, in this case.

No it was just a fluke that I managed to shake it off and I still worry that I might be wrong, so I still do not have a 100% objective view. I mean, the worry is simply based on what some book and a bunch of people say, none of which really makes any sense and is total brainwashing, but I still can't shake it off fully. Maybe that's why I'm here... to ground myself, run ideas by others and test my theories.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I want to be sure I'm building on a rock and not just hard clay that turns to mud after a rain.

If the expansion is accelerating, then it can't be linear.

Non-sequitur. A plane on a runway accelerates down a linear path,

That's a linear path through space, not time. Acceleration is m/s/s.



Time is the only relevant variable because it's obvious that galaxies move in a straight line without needing the redshift, so since the velocity is changing, it's possible the universe had zero velocity and not zero size at T=0. It could have been a steady state for a long time in a reduced size with zero expansion until something changed. Or it's possible that it oscillates in and out while never hitting zero volume. Lots of variations are possible.

All we can say for sure is what we observe and anything else is an extrapolation based on assumptions.

The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because, when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy can not move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch with each other. The universe then inflated at billion times the speed of light so the homogeneity remained unbroken. The universe after inflation would have been very uniform even though the parts were not still in touch with each other.

It wasn't zero-size. It was small enough that information traveled instantly, giving the illusion of no time nor space. Time and space exist as an artifact of a speed limit on information.

Implications aren't proof or evidence.

They're conclusions drawn from the best available proof and evidence.

Extrapolation based on assumption. If you start in kansas and guess what the terrain will resemble to the west based only on information contained within kansas, you'd never guess the Rocky Mountains existed nor the ocean.

There is no comparable evidence for a cyclical universe,

How could there possibly be evidence for that? If the universe collapsed and re-expanded, the evidence would be destroyed.

no way to make sense of the empirical cosmological data using a cyclical model.

Can you substantiate that claim? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

There could be an origin to the universe and still not require a creator that stands outside it. A whole forest can come from one acorn, but that doesn't mean the acorn was created.

Sure it does. It was "created" by the oak tree.

The acorn was grown, not created.

But before that, the oak tree was also created by something, because oak trees don't just appear. And before that was some thing else...and so on.

Saying that one tree created another tree doesn't seem like the right lingo to choose. I'm not sure how to define "create" because it seems like a process that doesn't really exist.

But this is the most interesting part of a linear universe, if we couple it with the necessity of causality -- two things which are about as clearly scientific as any principles we have, by the way.

Causality is also nonsense because in order to have causality, you have to have things and events and their existence needs to be established first. Then you have to show how one thing or event affects another. As I said, no one has been able to do that since at least Descartes where he puzzled how the spirit affects the body. All good, well-behaved ghosts walk right through walls, so how does it control a body? But that's the least of your worries since you'll have to tackle how one atom affects another if they are indeed separate, as in how one universe affects another because they are defined to be separate. If one universe cannot affect another, then one atom could not affect another if they were really separate and not part of a continuum. If they are part of a continuum, then causality is complete nonsense.... like saying a cat walking by is "event head" causing "event tail."

And that is that it means that a) the buck stops somewhere; something has to produce the first event in a causal chain, but b) that thing, whatever it is, must itself be eternal and uncaused. For if it were a caused entity, then in a linear universe, you would have an infinite regress problem; and as you say, there is no such thing as an actual infinite. So we know that's not what happened.

The universe is the only thing: the atomos; the uncuttable. Time exists inside the universe, not outside, so there is no infinite time in which it exists, but complete absence of time.

Rather, some uncaused Cause had to begin the chain of causes.

Yep, that was my reasoning too, back then.

However, if you're not right...

What could happen?

Then we'll both know I've actually been right about the existence of God. But I'm not sure that's the way you want to make that discovery.

Funny video about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GScdUIYXglA

Anyway, I don't think religion would impress God. Actually, I think it would piss him off, but that's a whole new topic.

[Serendipper]

I still can't see why a first cause must be sentient rather than a mindless fluctuation

Well, I think in order to make that assertion, one would have to assume sentience is a result of either: complexity of the mindless in a mechanical process or elements + magic.

I can't make sense of having a sense of self and a point of view if I were a completely dumb deterministic process for it would seem a sufficiently large set of dominoes arranged appropriately would become sentient somehow and that is just the strangest thing to try to wrap my head around. It's like a strawman that is set up, pushed down, then suddenly it's alive by virtue of the deterministic process of falling over.

Formerly I thought along the lines of IC and concluded I must possess some spirit of God that gives me a sense of self, but now I think the "spirit" is native to the universe; ingrained or maybe underpinning it.

but I cannot converse with IC about this because he always makes me work so hard - and not in a good way - just going back to reference and reiterate things I'd said before (often more than once) that were ignored. If I wanted circular discussions that go nowhere I'd settle for what's available in meatspace.

Yes, one has to give a little and concede when good points or objections are made.

How did I manage to live so long without ever hearing the word "meatspace"? You're like a word-a-day calendar

[Serendipper]

Of course the "theory" of Serendipper and Greta is pure magical thinking. They are basically saying that out of 10^300 (or more) possibilities, our universe was the one that necessarily had to happen, because this is the one that happened. That's the ultimate circular non-explanation.

A naive misrepresentation.

The speculations are not so far from those of many scientists, whom are presumably no more magically inclined than we are. To attack brainstorming in such a topic is out of proportion, as though you are some Walter Mitty-esque character imagining yourself in professional scenarios while effectively playing in a sandpit.

All we did was mention some possibilities for how things might happen; we are not claiming to present The Answer to It All. We'll leave that to you.

Actually I opened this topic about the multiverse THEORY, which theory everyone is denying here. But I don't actually care so carry on.

I wonder how the conversations are going in the other universes

[Greta]

I still can't see why a first cause must be sentient rather than a mindless fluctuation

Well, I think in order to make that assertion, one would have to assume sentience is a result of either: complexity of the mindless in a mechanical process or elements + magic.

I can't make sense of having a sense of self and a point of view if I were a completely dumb deterministic process for it would seem a sufficiently large set of dominoes arranged appropriately would become sentient somehow and that is just the strangest thing to try to wrap my head around. It's like a strawman that is set up, pushed down, then suddenly it's alive by virtue of the deterministic process of falling over.

Formerly I thought along the lines of IC and concluded I must possess some spirit of God that gives me a sense of self, but now I think the "spirit" is native to the universe; ingrained or maybe underpinning it.

Note that the set of dominoes would probably have to number in the quintillions and be subject to natural forced over billions of years to become sentient. The whole situation is easiest to understand in stages, and you have taken that angle. Look at your own mental development. You weren't always sentient - you were a boggled-eyed little wretch obsessed with sticking your face into a pair of boobs (okay, you may still be that person but you do it with sentience now Seriously, consider what were like as an infant; you didn't even have a sense of self - you mother and you were one in your eyes. You were primitive, atavistic and simple but gradually the lights came on. Like growing taller, you grew a little more sentient each day, with the difference too subtle to notice day by day.

Decades ago I believed that spirit animated us and kept the body from decomposing, and that it might go into what I called The Cosmic Compost Heap just as out bodies return to the Earth. I think I had some notion that it was preserved by the conservation of energy too. Then I was chatting with a scientist at work and mentioned my idea. He pointed out (very kindly and patiently) that the energy that kept us animated and from decomposing came from food, water and air. So our ideas continue to be shaped by learning.

I still believe in spirits in a sense - I think I am a spirit, as is the dog, as is the pot plant. I think that cultures and nations and times have spirits (Zeitgeists) too. Companies, clubs, churches - they all have spirits. Yet, what happens after death, though, I don't know. I'd like to think there was some meaningful preservation of information/spirit (beyond our normal life connections that soon fade with time), but I cannot imagine the physics that might lie behind such a thing.

How did I manage to live so long without ever hearing the word "meatspace"? You're like a word-a-day calendar

Wait till you start chatting with Belinda - two or more words a day

[Dontaskme]

It is out of the mind that the illusion of the universe arises.

It would be very helpful if you could provide some actual evidence for this claim. Why do you think some people don't believe it?

uwot want's evidence of an already self evident phenomena.




Evidence is in the sufi quote ''The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection, The water has no mind to receive their image.''


What this quote means it that everything is a reflection of ''no thing'' including the knowledge of ''no thing'' in relation to everything(Same thing)

Everything and Nothing are the same undivided oneness. There is nothing to divide the one no-thing into two...aka thing...except concept, aka thought.

There is ''no thing'' seeing the image of itself.

Therefore, the whole universe is an appearance of ''no thing''..aka the mind. Some call that God.

When we talk about being made in the image of God..what this means is that we are an image of the imageless...known as a thought that says I am this body aka the image seen...anything seen is just an invisible thought appearing visible, all seen things are images of no thing.

Without thought, what is there here other than empty images of no-thing. Tis only thought that make no thing a thing
And a thought is also no thing appearing as thing.





.

Obviously that's not going to make sense in the common sense of the world, but one has to really study self to see it.

.

[Serendipper]

I still can't see why a first cause must be sentient rather than a mindless fluctuation

Well, I think in order to make that assertion, one would have to assume sentience is a result of either: complexity of the mindless in a mechanical process or elements + magic.

I can't make sense of having a sense of self and a point of view if I were a completely dumb deterministic process for it would seem a sufficiently large set of dominoes arranged appropriately would become sentient somehow and that is just the strangest thing to try to wrap my head around. It's like a strawman that is set up, pushed down, then suddenly it's alive by virtue of the deterministic process of falling over.

Formerly I thought along the lines of IC and concluded I must possess some spirit of God that gives me a sense of self, but now I think the "spirit" is native to the universe; ingrained or maybe underpinning it.

Note that the set of dominoes would probably have to number in the quintillions and be subject to natural forced over billions of years to become sentient. The whole situation is easiest to understand in stages, and you have taken that angle. Look at your own mental development. You weren't always sentient - you were a boggled-eyed little wretch obsessed with sticking your face into a pair of boobs (okay, you may still be that person but you do it with sentience now Seriously, consider what were like as an infant; you didn't even have a sense of self - you mother and you were one in your eyes. You were primitive, atavistic and simple but gradually the lights came on. Like growing taller, you grew a little more sentient each day, with the difference too subtle to notice day by day.

I suspect I was conscious of something as an infant, but can't remember what, though I recall getting a bath in the kitchen sink lol.

Well, another problem with the deterministic dumb mechanical process model is what selects for a feeling of self? If we are robots, then it makes no difference if we are aware of it. If it makes no difference, then how could it have been selected for? Since it couldn't have been selected for, then am I to believe that my point of view on the world is a side effect?

How could a dumb mechanical process engender a feeling of freewill, self, point of view?
If I'm a robot, then point of view is unnecessary baggage that exists as a fluke of a side effect that makes no difference to anything.
Out of all the bots that have ever existed, why am I this one? Why am I not the mechanical process that is you rather than me?

Decades ago I believed that spirit animated us and kept the body from decomposing, and that it might go into what I called The Cosmic Compost Heap just as out bodies return to the Earth. I think I had some notion that it was preserved by the conservation of energy too. Then I was chatting with a scientist at work and mentioned my idea. He pointed out (very kindly and patiently) that the energy that kept us animated and from decomposing came from food, water and air. So our ideas continue to be shaped by learning.

When a bacteria dies, what changes? The shell remains, but why is it inanimate?

I still believe in spirits in a sense - I think I am a spirit, as is the dog, as is the pot plant. I think that cultures and nations and times have spirits (Zeitgeists) too. Companies, clubs, churches - they all have spirits. Yet, what happens after death, though, I don't know. I'd like to think there was some meaningful preservation of information/spirit (beyond our normal life connections that soon fade with time), but I cannot imagine the physics that might lie behind such a thing.

Dna is memory (anamnesis), but I don't think memory is necessary to have an experience. We've learned how to beat our hearts, but we don't need to be conscious of how we do it nor remember the experience of the learning process.

How did I manage to live so long without ever hearing the word "meatspace"? You're like a word-a-day calendar

Wait till you start chatting with Belinda - two or more words a day

Oh dear, I don't think I can engramate fast enough for the both of you. I'll have to make some flash cards in the meatspace

The trouble with sesquipedalian vernacular is no one knows what the heck we're on about, but if I dumb myself down to be more communicative, then I forget my fancy-pants parlance.

Presidential Speeches through time:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/inter ... ding-level

Were the Victorians cleverer than us? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613000470

It's amazing that we're getting dumber with time.

[Dubious]

With human perspicacity much foreshortened
the artificial will become more important
and as we retreat before the latter
what came prior shall cease to matter.

[uwot]

It is out of the mind that the illusion of the universe arises...

...uwot want's evidence of an already self evident phenomena.

Yes please.

Evidence is in the sufi quote ''The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection, The water has no mind to receive their image.''

That's not evidence, Dontaskme.

Obviously that's not going to make sense in the common sense of the world...

That's because it's gibberish.

...but one has to really study self to see it.

In which case, it isn't self-evident.

[Greta]

Well, I think in order to make that assertion, one would have to assume sentience is a result of either: complexity of the mindless in a mechanical process or elements + magic.

I can't make sense of having a sense of self and a point of view if I were a completely dumb deterministic process for it would seem a sufficiently large set of dominoes arranged appropriately would become sentient somehow and that is just the strangest thing to try to wrap my head around. It's like a strawman that is set up, pushed down, then suddenly it's alive by virtue of the deterministic process of falling over.

Formerly I thought along the lines of IC and concluded I must possess some spirit of God that gives me a sense of self, but now I think the "spirit" is native to the universe; ingrained or maybe underpinning it.

Note that the set of dominoes would probably have to number in the quintillions and be subject to natural forced over billions of years to become sentient. The whole situation is easiest to understand in stages, and you have taken that angle. Look at your own mental development. You weren't always sentient - you were a boggled-eyed little wretch obsessed with sticking your face into a pair of boobs (okay, you may still be that person but you do it with sentience now Seriously, consider what were like as an infant; you didn't even have a sense of self - you mother and you were one in your eyes. You were primitive, atavistic and simple but gradually the lights came on. Like growing taller, you grew a little more sentient each day, with the difference too subtle to notice day by day.

I suspect I was conscious of something as an infant, but can't remember what, though I recall getting a bath in the kitchen sink lol.

Well, another problem with the deterministic dumb mechanical process model is what selects for a feeling of self? If we are robots, then it makes no difference if we are aware of it. If it makes no difference, then how could it have been selected for? Since it couldn't have been selected for, then am I to believe that my point of view on the world is a side effect?

How could a dumb mechanical process engender a feeling of freewill, self, point of view?
If I'm a robot, then point of view is unnecessary baggage that exists as a fluke of a side effect that makes no difference to anything.
Out of all the bots that have ever existed, why am I this one? Why am I not the mechanical process that is you rather than me?

Again, I don't think that sense of self is an absolute but a continuum; we experience those gradations as we grow just as other species have a stronger or weaker sense of self (while species like dogs routinely pass an olfactory version of the mirror test - they failed the visual test because they are smell-oriented).

A sense of self, the ego, is basically a shield. If we are unaware of ourselves in context with our surroundings then we are entirely at the mercy of external forces. Mostly, completely passive things are rocks - because anything else as passive would soon be disintegrated. So species with more awareness were selected, as they were able to avoid trouble that other species blundered into. However, as with the case of rocks, if an entity is unaware then it had better be resistant to outside forces.

More awareness and capacity to control responses aided ability to survive, but intelligence is "expensive", in that brains requires proportionally more energy than other body parts. It is an attribute that will be favoured in times of plenty because in harsh conditions the amount of food needed to sustain energy-hungry brains is hard to come by. The Earth has famously undergone an unusually long-lasting stable climate (which we are on the verge of losing)

The human advantage is to not only be able to control our responses, but to be able to control our controls - to deliberately shape and improve our responses rather than relying on genetics, health and luck. That is self awareness - the control of the controls. If AI start learns to control the controls of the controls then that will be literally mind-bending!

Decades ago I believed that spirit animated us and kept the body from decomposing, and that it might go into what I called The Cosmic Compost Heap just as out bodies return to the Earth. I think I had some notion that it was preserved by the conservation of energy too. Then I was chatting with a scientist at work and mentioned my idea. He pointed out (very kindly and patiently) that the energy that kept us animated and from decomposing came from food, water and air. So our ideas continue to be shaped by learning.

When a bacteria dies, what changes? The shell remains, but why is it inanimate?

I'd go back to the video I posted to IC - Martin Hanczyc's TED Talk about the line between life and non life. Basically the difference is that the carcass will no longer sustain itself and be absorbed back into the environment like a still-living microbe continues to heroically fight off the forces of entropy

I still believe in spirits in a sense - I think I am a spirit, as is the dog, as is the pot plant. I think that cultures and nations and times have spirits (Zeitgeists) too. Companies, clubs, churches - they all have spirits. Yet, what happens after death, though, I don't know. I'd like to think there was some meaningful preservation of information/spirit (beyond our normal life connections that soon fade with time), but I cannot imagine the physics that might lie behind such a thing.

Dna is memory (anamnesis), but I don't think memory is necessary to have an experience. We've learned how to beat our hearts, but we don't need to be conscious of how we do it nor remember the experience of the learning process.

The more consciously aware and adaptable we are, the more likely we can place our bodies in places where danger isn't, and in this roundabout way our consciousness helps our heart to keep beating.

Oh dear, I don't think I can engramate fast enough for the both of you. I'll have to make some flash cards in the meatspace

The trouble with sesquipedalian vernacular is no one knows what the heck we're on about, but if I dumb myself down to be more communicative, then I forget my fancy-pants parlance.

Presidential Speeches through time:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/inter ... ding-level

Were the Victorians cleverer than us? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613000470

It's amazing that we're getting dumber with time.

It took me by surprise too. Still, remember that those eloquent and classy people of the early 20th century went to two world wars, treated women as second class citizens and gays as vermin, they smoked in workplaces and homes, engaged in numerous fist fights, women were expected to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy garments, child abuse was rife and hidden, workers' rights were similarly trampled upon - and they did not clean up their dogs' poo

This is all very hard to wrap one's head around and I think this is because the fundamental makeup of society has changed with specialisation. Today we have many more exemplars (largely by virtue of larger populations) whose knowledge and skills dwarf that of those in the past due to accumulated knowledge - "standing on the shoulders of giants". Meanwhile the masses seem to become ever more obtuse and base. Equality is reducing between centres of power and/or excellence and the rest.

[Serendipper]

Note that the set of dominoes would probably have to number in the quintillions and be subject to natural forced over billions of years to become sentient. The whole situation is easiest to understand in stages, and you have taken that angle. Look at your own mental development. You weren't always sentient - you were a boggled-eyed little wretch obsessed with sticking your face into a pair of boobs (okay, you may still be that person but you do it with sentience now Seriously, consider what were like as an infant; you didn't even have a sense of self - you mother and you were one in your eyes. You were primitive, atavistic and simple but gradually the lights came on. Like growing taller, you grew a little more sentient each day, with the difference too subtle to notice day by day.

I suspect I was conscious of something as an infant, but can't remember what, though I recall getting a bath in the kitchen sink lol.

Well, another problem with the deterministic dumb mechanical process model is what selects for a feeling of self? If we are robots, then it makes no difference if we are aware of it. If it makes no difference, then how could it have been selected for? Since it couldn't have been selected for, then am I to believe that my point of view on the world is a side effect?

How could a dumb mechanical process engender a feeling of freewill, self, point of view?
If I'm a robot, then point of view is unnecessary baggage that exists as a fluke of a side effect that makes no difference to anything.
Out of all the bots that have ever existed, why am I this one? Why am I not the mechanical process that is you rather than me?

Again, I don't think that sense of self is an absolute but a continuum; we experience those gradations as we grow just as other species have a stronger or weaker sense of self (while species like dogs routinely pass an olfactory version of the mirror test - they failed the visual test because they are smell-oriented).

If it's a continuum, then there was never a point when sense of self didn't exist, right? Alan Watts said he was the evil gleam in his father's eyes. He would say "When were you born? Let's go back. When was it? Parturition? Conception?" There are no separate events. He said "You are the big bang still coming on at me."

A sense of self, the ego, is basically a shield. If we are unaware of ourselves in context with our surroundings then we are entirely at the mercy of external forces. Mostly, completely passive things are rocks - because anything else as passive would soon be disintegrated. So species with more awareness were selected, as they were able to avoid trouble that other species blundered into. However, as with the case of rocks, if an entity is unaware then it had better be resistant to outside forces.

It's really nice to meet someone who considers rocks to be alive I'd guess that rocks wouldn't care much about being broken into gravel, sand, clay and having a mind would make the life of a rock a boring one. The smarter the breed of dog, the more attention you have to give it, but a goldfish can sit in the bowl just fine and a plant can stand in one spot for 1000 years.

More awareness and capacity to control responses aided ability to survive, but intelligence is "expensive", in that brains requires proportionally more energy than other body parts. It is an attribute that will be favoured in times of plenty because in harsh conditions the amount of food needed to sustain energy-hungry brains is hard to come by. The Earth has famously undergone an unusually long-lasting stable climate (which we are on the verge of losing)

Yes I agree: intelligence must be coddled.

The human advantage is to not only be able to control our responses, but to be able to control our controls - to deliberately shape and improve our responses rather than relying on genetics, health and luck. That is self awareness - the control of the controls. If AI start learns to control the controls of the controls then that will be literally mind-bending!

That's interesting. I used to define terms as follows:

Perception - the interception of information
Awareness - the perception of perception (interception of the information that information had been intercepted)
Consciousness - the perception of awareness (interception of the information that interception of the information that information had been intercepted)

I'm not sure what to call the perception of consciousness.

Decades ago I believed that spirit animated us and kept the body from decomposing, and that it might go into what I called The Cosmic Compost Heap just as out bodies return to the Earth. I think I had some notion that it was preserved by the conservation of energy too. Then I was chatting with a scientist at work and mentioned my idea. He pointed out (very kindly and patiently) that the energy that kept us animated and from decomposing came from food, water and air. So our ideas continue to be shaped by learning.

When a bacteria dies, what changes? The shell remains, but why is it inanimate?

I'd go back to the video I posted to IC - Martin Hanczyc's TED Talk about the line between life and non life. Basically the difference is that the carcass will no longer sustain itself and be absorbed back into the environment like a still-living microbe continues to heroically fight off the forces of entropy

Ok I'll listen to it now. But what I mean is if we build a cell one atom at a time, will it then be animate? Will it spring to life or will it require some intangible element? When I think about that problem, I always return to wondering what changes when a cell dies. Is a dead cell and live cell identical on the atomic level? If so, then what changes? If not, then how does the position of a few atoms determine life from death?

I still believe in spirits in a sense - I think I am a spirit, as is the dog, as is the pot plant. I think that cultures and nations and times have spirits (Zeitgeists) too. Companies, clubs, churches - they all have spirits. Yet, what happens after death, though, I don't know. I'd like to think there was some meaningful preservation of information/spirit (beyond our normal life connections that soon fade with time), but I cannot imagine the physics that might lie behind such a thing.

Dna is memory (anamnesis), but I don't think memory is necessary to have an experience. We've learned how to beat our hearts, but we don't need to be conscious of how we do it nor remember the experience of the learning process.

The more consciously aware and adaptable we are, the more likely we can place our bodies in places where danger isn't, and in this roundabout way our consciousness helps our heart to keep beating.

That's another good question: what divides the conscious from the unconscious? Anything that is not part of our conscious then becomes part of our unconscious, which not only includes our dna, but the sun and stars.

The Zen school says our unconscious is infinitely more wise than our conscious, so it almost seems the conscious is a mulling-around, processing and then filtering into the unconscious repository for encoding into the universe when key puzzles are solved. I may have just stumbled upon how Alan Watts said he is the sun; it's an extension of his subconscious mind. "Below consciousness" is fundamental knowledge that has been learned previously in other iterations/generations. So the conscious is the organism and the unconscious is the environment. Every organism then is an inkjet writing on the universe, but also an eye for reading it. The organism is made by, but also contributes to, the universe in a loop of feedback and it is that which produces the feeling of self because the loop is an infinite regression which negates determination and institutes randomness.

Obviously, randomness is the only thing that can guarantee discovery of the absolute best solution otherwise any presupposition affecting/determining outcome will taint/bias the data; therefore, in that case, nothing could be known for certain and no absolute could be found, but unlimited random samples will guarantee if there exists any superior intrinsic property, it will be discovered. I think we can say that this universe is indeed the best one because it survived the ultimate test. There can be no more ultimate test because random is random and there is no more-randomer. Maybe absolutes can exist.

Oh dear, I don't think I can engramate fast enough for the both of you. I'll have to make some flash cards in the meatspace

The trouble with sesquipedalian vernacular is no one knows what the heck we're on about, but if I dumb myself down to be more communicative, then I forget my fancy-pants parlance.

Presidential Speeches through time:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/inter ... ding-level

Were the Victorians cleverer than us? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613000470

It's amazing that we're getting dumber with time.

It took me by surprise too. Still, remember that those eloquent and classy people of the early 20th century went to two world wars, treated women as second class citizens and gays as vermin, they smoked in workplaces and homes, engaged in numerous fist fights, women were expected to wear uncomfortable and unhealthy garments, child abuse was rife and hidden, workers' rights were similarly trampled upon - and they did not clean up their dogs' poo

Now you know why they were so smart; after enduring all that, they'd have to be smart to survive

But that's seems to contradict our theory that intelligence must be coddled. I suppose in some ways it does, but in others it is selected for and if that is true, then there has to be a selection pressure. Evolution only works if it is being resisted; there has to be something to overcome.

This is all very hard to wrap one's head around and I think this is because the fundamental makeup of society has changed with specialisation. Today we have many more exemplars (largely by virtue of larger populations) whose knowledge and skills dwarf that of those in the past due to accumulated knowledge - "standing on the shoulders of giants". Meanwhile the masses seem to become ever more obtuse and base. Equality is reducing between centres of power and/or excellence and the rest.

Idk, you think the masses of today are dumber than the peasants of the victorian? I know people are stupid today, but victorians threw buckets of poo out of their windows onto the street everyday. How could those people be smarter than we are?

Then again, I can feel technology making me stupid: I can't speel, can't do math, can't remember phone numbers all because machines do that for me, so I forgot how. Now with gps navigation, we're going to loose our spacial ability. Soon we'll be skin-bag blobs with a smudgy device hanging out the side