How Do You Identify "You"

[Greta]

We are systems comprised of systems while being ourselves components of other systems. So we are products of the Milky Way, the Sun, the Earth, the biosphere, humanity, our particular culture and our parents. By the same token our cells and much of our biota are products of us. That makes us each part of this big happy fractal family of monoliths, predators, brutes, objects and bugs, with the occasional symbiote thrown in to help keep us almost sane.

The idea that you alone came up with something seems short sighted.

I agree. Favourable social, economic and environmental conditions allow us to survive, let alone prosper, so we may achieve something "significant" on this "pale blue dot".

[duszek]

But we are not robots. We are creative and inventive, at least some of us, and not everyone to the same degree.
And our combined efforts have resulted in the civilized world that we have now at our disposal.

Our cousins gorillas and chimps must be full of awe when they see our gadgets.

[Greta]

Our cousins gorillas and chimps must be full of awe when they see our gadgets.

Sure they'd be in awe. I am too. The gadgets in the 21st century truly are awesome.

The thing is, as you suggested, humanity did all this, not single humans. Individuals are not very impressive, outside of intelligence and communication abilities. Slow, clumsy, weak and easily lacerated. If one or a few individuals were left to their own devices in the wild without the support of the human network we'd be building bark huts or living in caves using makeshift tools (if we survived). No internet, multimedia, skyscrapers, factories, cars or spacecrafts - that's not the work of individuals humans but vast collectives. Individuals are more likely to produce sharpened sticks, flimsy axes made from rocks and sticks, some basic pulley systems, and the like, which makes us individually in the wild not wildly different to other smart animals, just less experienced.

To be a modern person is to be a cog in society's machinery, reliant on the group to survive. All social animals rely on the group, but when human numbers hit a critical mass they created something strange and unprecedented which still has many wondering how and why evolution produced such an unlikely species.

[Dalek Prime]

But we are not robots. We are creative and inventive, at least some of us, and not everyone to the same degree.
And our combined efforts have resulted in the civilized world that we have now at our disposal.

Our cousins gorillas and chimps must be full of awe when they see our gadgets.

I highly doubt simians give a shit about our gadgets, and are no more in awe of them than sticks and rocks.

[Obvious Leo]

To be a modern person is to be a cog in society's machinery, reliant on the group to survive. All social animals rely on the group, but when human numbers hit a critical mass they created something strange and unprecedented which still has many wondering how and why evolution produced such an unlikely species.

I don't think we need to look far beyond mainstream science to find an explanation for our remarkable talent for gadget-making, Greta. Whilst homo is by no means the only organism with a facility for complex language it seems indisputable that it is a talent which is more highly developed in our species than it is in others. I know of no evolutionary theorist who would deny that this is probably the most significant evolutionary driver which allowed us to become our planet's uber-predator, but unfortunately our success in the evolutionary lottery is in all likelihood a poisoned chalice. The uber-mensch now has the gadgets to engineer his own extinction as well as the power of abstract thought needed to know that that which is conceivable is achievable. If we can survive the next 100 years we can probably survive the next million but I wouldn't be putting any of my own hard-earned on it.

[Greta]

To be a modern person is to be a cog in society's machinery, reliant on the group to survive. All social animals rely on the group, but when human numbers hit a critical mass they created something strange and unprecedented which still has many wondering how and why evolution produced such an unlikely species.

I don't think we need to look far beyond mainstream science to find an explanation for our remarkable talent for gadget-making, Greta. Whilst homo is by no means the only organism with a facility for complex language it seems indisputable that it is a talent which is more highly developed in our species than it is in others. I know of no evolutionary theorist who would deny that this is probably the most significant evolutionary driver which allowed us to become our planet's uber-predator, but unfortunately our success in the evolutionary lottery is in all likelihood a poisoned chalice. The uber-mensch now has the gadgets to engineer his own extinction as well as the power of abstract thought needed to know that that which is conceivable is achievable. If we can survive the next 100 years we can probably survive the next million but I wouldn't be putting any of my own hard-earned on it.

I agree that intelligent life is probably inevitable, just that it appears odd in context with all else. To be fair, the gap between us and other species may be due to the fact that Homo sapiens exterminated any species, especially of the hominid variety, that even looked like being competition.

However, I don't think humans are a poisoned chalice, more like antibiotics. Intelligence clearly developed in the biosphere because it works. I believe that humans are good for the continued future survival of the biosphere. Bacteria, tardigrades and humans are the only organisms capable of seeding other planets and moons with life. Further, humans are the only animal with potential capability to protecting the biosphere from asteroid and comet strikes.

What are "you"? A hominid who, like all life is locked into the Earth's carbon and water cycles, who is part of humanity's story and its evolving culture, and a participant in the potential reproduction and defence of the biosphere. Just another critter, really.

[Obvious Leo]

I agree that intelligent life is probably inevitable, just that it appears odd in context with all else. To be fair, the gap between us and other species may be due to the fact that Homo sapiens exterminated any species, especially of the hominid variety, that even looked like being competition.

Indeed. We clawed our way to the top of the tree of sentience by eating the dumb ones, and now we're finding it hard to shake off the habit.

"Homo hominis lupus est".....Plautus. Man is the wolf of man.

I fully agree with the rest of your post but would remind you that a species at least as intelligent as homo could evolve on this very planet at least another hundred times before the place starts to become uncomfortably hot. Evolution will bring the universe to life with or without our help.

[Greta]

I agree that intelligent life is probably inevitable, just that it appears odd in context with all else. To be fair, the gap between us and other species may be due to the fact that Homo sapiens exterminated any species, especially of the hominid variety, that even looked like being competition.

The way humans are shaping the biosphere reminds me of how the Earth formed in the proto-planetary dust cloud. Like the Earth did 4.6 billion years ago, humanity is "clearing its space", consuming surrounding material (in our case, other organisms). Relatively homogeneous environments particlise into highly concentrated areas surrounded by relative space - a fundamental natural dynamic. Bushland once teeming with "raw" life is converted into a city with its cellular abodes of concentrated intelligence surrounded by relative sterility.

No matter what realm of reality, some entities will gang up and bully (ie. consume or destroy) unaffiliated individuals around them - be they planets bullying smaller rocky bodies, ants bullying other insects or humans bullying other animals, or companies and governments bullying individuals. Then some gangs join forces and it happens over again on a larger scale.

Can we reconcile ourselves as bullies beyond "Everyone else is doing it"? Only by the lurve (and survival instincts) that keep us together as a dominant aggregation, and (hopefully) by the increasing mercy our descendants may show to other life forms. I suspect that will only happen when humanity works out how to get the energy it needs through benign sources. As long as we need other animals' stuff we are going to be bullies - just as nature intended :lol:

... a species at least as intelligent as homo could evolve on this very planet at least another hundred times before the place starts to become uncomfortably hot. Evolution will bring the universe to life with or without our help.

I hope so, though asteroids and comets may be an issue before the Sun overheats us. The biosphere is devising countermeasures via humanity but we can't see asteroids heading our way from the direction of the Sun until it's too late. Also a runway greenhouse effect could theoretically kill every creature not deep underground long before the Sun's heating up gets us.

Of course, there's probably life in various stages of development scattered in parts of the galaxy and other galaxies. At this stage it seems that intelligent life is extremely rare, maybe like astatine, of which only 30g exists on the Earth's crust at any one time.

Sorry for veering so sildly off topic but I have to say that it's a pleasure to indulge in a good billy or three and an existential chat on this oddly cold and wet summer morning :)

[Obvious Leo]

The way humans are shaping the biosphere reminds me of how the Earth formed in the proto-planetary dust cloud.

The analogy you make here is not simply a convenient metaphor but a fundamental property of the universe. Evolution towards informational complexity is a mandated property of self- determining natural systems and this is a law as fundamental as 1+1=2. Furthermore this foundational organising principle not only defines a universe sufficient to its own existence but it also defines a universe sufficient to the existence of life and mind within it. Therefore it cannot be wrong. The universe is a non-linear dynamic system.

be they planets bullying smaller rocky bodies,

An interesting way of defining the causal imperative which drives evolution on the cosmological scale. However in the science jargon we don't ordinarily call gravity bullying. Because gravity and time are merely two different ways of expressing the same physical phenomenon we can say that the influence of gravity over time drives the entropy of the universe downwards. Luckily this proposition is supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence but unluckily it is not supported by current theory, which demands that the total entropy of the universe should be increasing rather than decreasing. This is not a trivial inconvenience for the geeks because it means that their spacetime paradigm is bollocks.

I hope so, though asteroids and comets may be an issue before the Sun overheats us.

There have been at least seven mass extinction events on the planet since life first emerged and on each occasion such an event brought about a major evolutionary advance. In non-linear dynamic systems theory such an event is called a bifurcation but in layman's language we more commonly know it as the butterfly effect. In fractal geometry it is understood mathematically as an effect being raised to a power of its cause. Wiping the slate clean from time to time is what ensures that the march of evolution proceeds inexorably from the simple to the complex. In all likelihood homo is just one of nature's failed experiments but she won't give a shit. She has time on her side and somebody else will turn up in due course. Please don't read anything teleological into this little anthropocentric digression because the blind watchmaker is truly blind. The universe evolves from the simple to the complex purely because it cannot do otherwise in a universe where all effects must be preceded by a cause. If we fail as the uber-predator then another species may or may not succeed at some future date. Needless to say there are also gazillions of other planets where a similar scenario is being played out. A eucalyptus viminalis produces billions of seeds every year in the hope that one might eventually grow into a tree and no doubt nature is equally profligate when it comes to seeding planets with life. The interstellar clouds of gas and dust are teeming with the molecular raw materials.

an existential chat on this oddly cold and wet summer morning

Just started to rain here too although I see it's been pissing down for days up your way. My garden needs it real bad.

[Greta]

The way humans are shaping the biosphere reminds me of how the Earth formed in the proto-planetary dust cloud.

The analogy you make here is not simply a convenient metaphor but a fundamental property of the universe. Evolution towards informational complexity is a mandated property of self- determining natural systems and this is a law as fundamental as 1+1=2. Furthermore this foundational organising principle not only defines a universe sufficient to its own existence but it also defines a universe sufficient to the existence of life and mind within it. Therefore it cannot be wrong. The universe is a non-linear dynamic system.

We've taken a circuitous route but I think this relates to an issue raised in the OP:

What makes your accomplishment yours and not ours? If progress is based on the foundation of different ideas from other people what makes your creation yours per se?

What we do in life is far from individual, being part of these aggregations.

Everything we do that has any relation to communication between humans is meaningless gesturing without other people around. Perhaps meditation is the one truly individual thing we do, where we try to quietly exist for a while in inner space and to minimise environmental stimuli and our attention to it. Ironically, in doing that most individual and subjective of activities, each meditator is probably behaving with more uniform intent than in most human enterprises, with most aiming to rest, quiet, tame or accept the mind and not much else.

[Obvious Leo]

What we do in life is far from individual, being part of these aggregations.

Exactly so. We tend to think of the "self" as a discrete and unique entity because this is the way we experience it. However nothing could be further from the truth. What we think of as "our own mind" is actually a vast composite of experiences which we have merely codified in a meaningful way. The same applies to our physical bodies. We tend to think of ourselves as "AN"organism but in fact a human being is an entire ecosystem comprising tens of thousands of different species all functioning together. Only the tiniest fraction of the DNA in our bodies is actually "human" DNA but every bit of DNA in our bodies, human or otherwise, is busy making us what we are.

[henry quirk]

What Greta and Leo say is true, and still...

The biological and experiential aggregate that is 'me' moves in the world believing itself to be 'one', an individual. That is: I am 'I', the singular perspective sitting atop and, for the most part, in charge of (and possessing) the physical and abstract ecosystem below me, that 'is' me.

If this singular perspective is an illusion, then most certainly it's a robust and enduring one, one most folks, I used to think, would not willingly dismiss.

As I posted elsewhere: the first true (and on-going) war, the one all others are echoes of, is the one between 'one' and 'many', between the individual and the community, between the deviant and the species, between 'I' and 'We'.

I'm pretty sure the war is about to be won, and not by my side.

No doubt, as cheap, effective, wifi is installed in the heads of the novelity-seeking (sumthin' just around the corner), 'I-ness' will drop away, a vestigal 'organ' no longer needed by an enlightened and evolved humanity.

What I wonder: will I be shuffled off to some individuals' reserve, or will I simply be 'disappeared'? What will be the fate of ill-fitting piece?

[CelineK]

This has been on my mind for a while now. The concept of individuality seems a bit jarring when you consider both sides of the perspective. What makes your accomplishment yours and not ours? If progress is based on the foundation of different ideas from other people what makes your creation your's per se? When you look at a rock what comes to mind? What ever comes to mind would it be safe to say that it wasn't you yourself who came up with the idea but you in assistance of the rock and the ground you both stand on? The idea that you alone came up with something seems short sighted. This is basically an argument not against individuality but a call to reassess our comprehension of selfness. Yet as I type this I feel some sort of accomplishment as if to say wow look at me I'm so cool and smart . Can you smell the irony?

[Edited by iMod]

The concept of individuality emanates from the ego but the ego doesnt lead very far but conflicts, inner and social because Reality is fractal. All the expressed points of views, when put together, tend to void one another, which means that individuality is a mirage as soon as discovering that the One is the Whole and otherwise . But paradoxically, finding out about it demands to probe the concept of individuality in the first place.

[henry quirk]

"The concept of individuality emanates from the ego"

No. For me, it comes from the tangible reality of my being a discrete, finite, on-going, organic event.

I ain't you, you ain't me...we're separate...apart...distinctive...'individual'.

[Greta]

What Greta and Leo say is true, and still...

The biological and experiential aggregate that is 'me' moves in the world believing itself to be 'one', an individual. That is: I am 'I', the singular perspective sitting atop and, for the most part, in charge of (and possessing) the physical and abstract ecosystem below me, that 'is' me.

If this singular perspective is an illusion, then most certainly it's a robust and enduring one, one most folks, I used to think, would not willingly dismiss.

I think of the self as "something" but what that something is I can't say. I'm agnostic about souls because we don't yet understand what goes on at Planck scales, and barely at quantum scales. There are rationalist hypotheses for souls out there but probably impossible to test due to the subject matter and our current tech.

Those hypotheses, such as Roger Penrose's and Stuart Hameroff's quantum affects of microtubules, Robert Lanza's biocentrism and the much maligned Buddhist mystic physicist, John Hagelin's unified superstring field are not well regarded by peers. While some things that Lanza and Hagelin say are clearly assumptions or doctrine they also make some excellent observations and aren't anywhere near as flaky as their detractors tend to make out. Like every generation before us, we don't know as much as we think we do.

On the other hand, I can't help but agree with Sam Harris that the sense that we have this homunculus self riding around in our heads is illusory.

As I posted elsewhere: the first true (and on-going) war, the one all others are echoes of, is the one between 'one' and 'many', between the individual and the community, between the deviant and the species, between 'I' and 'We'.

I'm pretty sure the war is about to be won, and not by my side.

No doubt, as cheap, effective, wifi is installed in the heads of the novelity-seeking (sumthin' just around the corner), 'I-ness' will drop away, a vestigal 'organ' no longer needed by an enlightened and evolved humanity.

What I wonder: will I be shuffled off to some individuals' reserve, or will I simply be 'disappeared'? What will be the fate of ill-fitting piece?

Yup, individualism lost, swamped by necessary controls for burgeoning populations and some dodgy lobbying by corporate interest groups.

I don't think things move so quickly that you'll be farmed out to be Soylent Green, Henry. Besides, if you're anything like my age why on Earth would you expect today's societal conditions to suit you? The times always suit younger generations (excluding the poor). The conditions that suit us are those that moulded our brains while they had the plasticity of youth. Most subsequent societal changes will necessarily tend not to suit older generations, hence the inter-generational grumbling over the millennia. Oldies aren't thrilled about the warmer weather these days either; I came up in cooler times (both physically and metaphorically :).

Primitive humans would find the level of restriction that we moderns take for granted intolerable. Bathing every day. Much pointless, over fussy grooming. No assault or rape allowed. No killing and eating the neighbour's cat. No eating the neighbours. Lock the windows, close the fridge door. Wait to go to the toilet rather than letting it rip anywhere when the urge arrives. They would consider us to be overproduced and constricted robot people, which is basically how we will see our descendants.