Peterkin

Or maybe we'd have wide-spread panic, suicides and end-of-the-world partying on that one night. Wake up with terrible hangovers, wonder who broke all the glassware. Wait all day to see if it happens again... it doesn't. Clean up and go back to normal.

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

But my question is whether we would have found another object to evince the same feelings in us had those stars not been there for us to have gazed up at.

Probably not. We wouldn't have astronomy, astrology, or sky-dwelling deities.

But if you didn't take away the moon and planets, along with the stars, we could study them. And you certainly can't away the sun! 

In any case, there is plenty down here to be in awe of: waterfalls, volcanoes, tornadoes. Or we could have stuck with venerating ancestors, bears and elephants. 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

That's why I got confused when you seemed to suggest the corpus callosum as 'the seat of consciousness'.

I didn't say it was the seat of consciousness (unless it's a buckboard; more like the desktop at which consciousness sits); I was answering

6 hours ago, joigus said:

What exactly is the mechanism by virtue of which firing of neurons in different areas of the brain result in this overall one-faced projection,

which I took to mean, the mechanism whereby all those neurons, in all the different  parts of the brain, are integrated into a network, communicating, co-ordinating,  reporting and recording their multitude of different processes.

I didn't comment on Dennett, since I have some reservation about his whole approach - but am not familiar enough with his work to justify those reservations: just keeping him at a correct social distance for the mo.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

'Then human kind as a whole is superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too' is not my stance* here. My point is Koch's criterion is kind of a loose-ended one to me. Any higher-level structure could, under right auxiliary assumptions, be considered a meta-consciousness by that token.

I don't think it was intended as a token, nor as an over-arching criterion. Of course it's loose-ended: there is so much we don't know, or don't know yet, or can't know, or don't know how to begin finding out, or don't even we know we ought to try to find out. I believe it's a hypothesis, not an assertion.

And, even very loosely, human integration doesn't remotely qualify for consideration, because it doesn't come close to the " right auxiliary assumptions".

2 hours ago, joigus said:

But my main point has been missed: What exactly is the mechanism by virtue of which firing of neurons in different areas of the brain result in this overall one-faced projection, so to speak, that any conscious being experiences as the 'illusion' --if you will-- of I am here and now?

It's obvious that neither the growth of my nails, nor the activity of my smooth muscles makes it to my state of awareness. So which exactly are those signals and how do they coalesce into that unmistakable impression of here's 'I' here and now?

The mechanism is the corpus callosum. https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/corpus-callosum . I like to picture the I/me/self as a little switchboard-operator in charge of that mess of wiring. I'm sure that's wrong, but like Maxwell's demon, the image is hard to relinquish.

That sounds pretty damn collaborative and integrated to me. You don't need to be cognizant of every autonomous function in your body in order to be aware of the organism in which they place. You do become aware of these functions when your nails need trimming and your peristaltic rhythm is out of sync.; otherwise, they can carry on without conscious interference: a well-run factory doesn't require micromanagement. Nor do need to be apprised of the geologic and meteorologic cause of changes to the environment in order to respond to the environment.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

I should've said: 'Then human kind as a whole would be superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too.'

Yes, and I attempted to fill in the criteria that would have to be met for the human race to achieve super- or meta-consciousness. How that consciousness would behave, we can no more understand than the individual neuron understands the need to step up adrenaline production at a particular moment.

The internet is a different matter. God couldn't even understand what that new consciousness wanted.

When they're looking for family relationships, or crime scene ID, the labs are not checking the entire DNA sequence of the sample; they're testing for specific known human markers, that occur in a particular location on the strand, in a particular order. The genes they're watching for may not even be active or expressed or read by the cell; they just need to be peculiar to an individual. So, that 12% is not of all the person's DNA, but of the specific markers being scrutinized.

(Don't ask me for the mechanism; I'm not current on this science.)

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Then human kind as a whole is superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too. Does that make sense?

Not quite. I think the operative term is "integrated". We're not; we're helter-skelter components. If we were telepathic, we might evolve fully  integrated species-consciousness - either as a containing structure to our individual consciousnesses or a subsuming one.  If we had the chemical perception of ants, our communities (nations? tribes?) would be far more integrated than we are now, but not sufficiently to form a single conscious unit. A world government with plebiscite decision-making capacity on every issue would be a step in the direction of integration, whereas, every rattling sabre, missile, battleship and spy satellite is a dis-connection. 

The internet is a different matter. Though there is no upper limit on the scale, allowing at least some of our creations to be rated hyper-conscious, beyond we are able to experience, it would be difficult to devise a measuring mechanism.  We can't measure its  consciousness or its capability and can guess at its potential. (I'll predict one thing: if it comes aware, it comes insane.) 

I like that man's approach. Here is another article

Quote

The philosopher John Searle, in his review of Consciousness, asked, "Why isn't America conscious?" After all, there are 300 million Americans, interacting in very complicated ways. Why doesn't consciousness extend to all of America?

I wonder. Maybe it does, as it does to a forest. But that would be a very loosely-connected network, while; thus, a low-grade consciousness operating in the background of all the individual tightly-wired (high-grade) consciounesses of its individual members.  Hon Kong's or Iran's national consciousness might be of a higher grade, with more and tighter inter-connections among its "cells". 

It's much easier to think about consciousness as a process than as a thing; it's something neural networks do, rather than something they have. Like vision or language, we tend to use the short-hand description of a complex activity as a single noun, because don't have collective verbs. 

The spiritual basis or bias thing was Beecee responding - directly, I think - to the OP, and conflating consciousness with conscience. I thought that was a very interesting idea. 

As for grading consciousness, I'm all for it. That is to say, I'm sure it comes in degrees as well as flavours, so that a classification could be done.  Unfortunately, it would be done by humans who [naturally] assume they're at the tippy-top and all the other kinds of consciousness must be rated on a scale of pond-slime = 0 ______  H.sapiens = 100. I don't think that would work. 

BTW _ I'm picturing an awfully wide range of possible abuses in such a study - every one of which would be perpetrated "in the service of science" (curiosity, plus if we can show a possible military or crowd-control application, the funds will flow...) .

Can you be conscious, yet lack a conscience?

That's the most common definition of a psychopath.

Another description of conscience may be the capacity to evaluate harmful and beneficial actions toward other entities. It's up to each society to designate the correct recipients of harm and benefit. 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's far more nuanced than that...

What nuance can be brought to bear? If "consciousness" is the experience of and communication with a god-entity and you have no such experience or communication, then you are not "conscious".  If the god-entity takes note and enters your mind in a moment of Zen or zone or zonk and makes itself known to you, that is presumably the "consciousness"-switch being turned on. It's the only way I can imagine the OP definition working.

[what do we have to communicate from a state of unconsciousness?]

Quote

Information...

 

Where does an unconscious biomass get information, why would it feel the urge to pass on information, and to whom?

Slates don't. Clouds don't. Moons don't.  Trees do, but it's a kind of communication to which we are not privy. Is it possible that dumb trees are in contact with the god-entity whose experience is denied to intelligent atheists? 

Quote

Does it matter where it comes from?

I think so. I always sniff carefully before biting.

Not all of mankind: the godless, non-spiritual ones, like me, are presumably unconscious.

So, how are we able to communicate? For that matter, what do we have to communicate?

Thank you.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Quote

Just as the British were initially more interested in India than the Americas, so the greeks were more interested in the eastern part of their developemnt and colonisation.

Okay, I see what you mean by split... indirectly.

As for 'greater'; as long as it simply means 'bigger', we're in complete agreement. Just as the USA is much bigger than the UK - not counting imperial reach, because that would hard to measure - but not necessarily superior in any other way.

Quote

The Romans assimilated earlier Greek science for their own purposes, evaluating and then accepting or rejecting that which was most useful... https://www.worldhistory.org/Roman_Science/

Quote

Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans used the word  'science'.

I can see that. The Greek 'episteme' covers all kinds of knowledge, while the Latin 'scientia' sounds right, and gives us the linguistic template, but was still too inclusive to fit perfectly. In any case, I don't see how a much later convention of nomenclature and classification changes the actual situation of the time. The Greeks already had Physics, Geometry, Astronomy and Medicine as discrete disciplines, and a number of quite notable experts in each. 

That's quite an interesting article, btw.

Quote

 

Quote

It did not in fact enter the English language directly but through medieval French between 1400 and 1600 AD.

England and France don't come into it until the Christian churches had done a huge amount of damage to knowledge of all kinds. How they eventually came by science is a fascinating story, but doesn't affect the previous time-line.

PS I'm having the devil's own time with the quote function. If this is messed up, it's because I'm a techno-klutz.

 

 

On 7/8/2021 at 7:11 AM, studiot said:

Rome split from Ancient Greece and became a greater nation.

 

I don't think that's quite what happened or how it happened. Rome didn't split from Greece; Rome conquered Greece, and being the less advanced civilization, destroyed much of its cultural refinement, while appropriating the bits they liked - just as they did from every conquered nation. It became a more powerful empire, because of its military might. 

Quote

What we now call Physics and Chemistry used to be called Natural Philosophy.

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

  Again, the real picture is a little more complicated and blurry. The ancient Greeks practiced some pretty sophisticated science - in astronomy, navigation, architecture, hygiene and medicine. Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Empedocles, Hippocrates II and many more, contributed substantially to the sciences that European Renaissance thinkers rediscovered after the dark ages.  They already had separate disciplines in higher education. Philosophy didn't exactly give birth to science; rather, all avenues of human inquiry were followed, concurrently, as far as the resources of the time allowed.

Much later, with a surge in human population and resource-exploitation, specialized studies branched off and grew into disciplines of their own, both in the sciences and humanities. 

Here is a wonderful introduction to how it all fits together in classical studies. https://www.classics.pitt.edu/research/ancient-philosophy-and-science

The OP says, "If we were visited by a higher advanced civilization".

in which case, the aliens' attitude is the single most decisive factor.

That's quite different from the title, which says, "If highly advanced civilization were found to exist ..", which could mean that we have developed interstellar travel and go out to 'explore strange new worlds, seek out new civilizations', etc. In that case, our attitude would be more important.

What do you think it would take, in terms of social organization (rather than technology), for Earth people to mount such an expedition? Could Musk & Branson do it, or would it  require a US-Russian-Chinese collaboration?

It's part of the topic, at least tangentially.

I've done a bit of reading since my last post, and found that, indeed, the Catholic church - at least three popes and several hundred bishops, have taken a principled stand on environmental and social justice issues, from about 1970 to the present. I don't see any change in the societies being addressed, but you never know: pockets of religious activism have been known to cause ructions in large populations. 

https://networkadvocates.org/advocacytoolbox/educate/catholicsocialjustice/

https://www.churchofengland.org/about/policy-and-thinking/our-views/ending-global-poverty-and-injustice

How would these same prelates react to an alien intelligence implementing the policies they themselves profess, and affect the reforms they have not been able to bring about? Would they immediately form an alliance with the aliens and one another, to overcome the resistance of money and power? It would be very interesting to know.

Under A Ford administration, I wouldn't be a bit surprised!

THX

As of when? I would sincerely like to know. In my youth when I hung out with Catholics, I don't recall them being taught this doctrine. Certainly, it's not been their a historical stance.

I would also like to know what steps the Church as an organization has taken to bring about universal health care, save rain forests or mitigate income disparity. If it does, it could be quite effective, even in influencing governments.

The gag came off at c. 5pm. Does it go back on at 8 again?

(I surmise it's to monitor the activity of new members, in case they attempt leafleting or proselytizing. I accept the need for such vigilance, but find it a bit irksome to keep receiving notifications to which I can't respond.)

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

you are doomed not because water is shipped half the world in plastic non-returnable bottles...

The plastic bottles are a symptom. They are made from fossil fuel, the extraction of which is often accompanied by horrific oil spills. Their manufacture requires a great expenditure of energy, usually in the form of more fossil fuel and accompanied by waste products spewed into the air, land and water. They are then filled from a local spring that used to provide sustenance to a local ecology, and transported in giant shipping containers by behemoth cargo ships, churning and polluting the oceans, and decanted into transport truck that require highways to cut through natural habitats and use more fossil fuel to burn and spew into the air, water and land. Then they're schlepped home in more automobiles, half or so consumed, and tossed on verges, forest patch, parks, streets and eventually collected in garbage dumps, or end up in the lakes and oceans, where they kill aquatic animals, and break down into carcinogens.  They just happen to be the symptom that convinced me of the patient's terminal condition.

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

When I see politicians talking about yet another increase of taxes, I know they don't have idea what they are talking, they don't have idea what they are doing. And ecology, global warming, is just yet another pretext to increase taxes.. Instead of true fix..

Wouldn't that rather depend on what and who was being taxed and how the revenues were used? 

Most western governments don't have the legislative power to enact the draconian that would be necessary to make any real dent in the effects of climate change. (It's already changed and will keep on changing; the only meaningful choices now regard mitigation.) Investing public funds in public works - renewable energy generation, clean transport technology, green jobs and housing, local food productions, etc. - is about the only way governments can help their citizens survive the changing environment. Some of the European ones have been doing that - not enough! - but the muscular capitalist ones resist such initiatives with all their might.

... and then get stuck with humongous bills for repair to wrecked bridges, dams, towns and highways after each catastrophic weather event.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but it's been suggested several time's in our history, mostly by religion's; I often wonder when/if we're going to learn...

What religion has ever suggested equal sharing or sensible resource management? Some prophets propose kindness, co-operation and tolerance, but they're quickly martyred (and any sincere adherents, eliminated) and that's the only way organized religion wants them. Organized religion is as attached to its hierarchy of power and privilege as any other patriarchal system.  

If we haven't learned by now, it's unlikely.  

We have a technologically advanced civilization, compared to earlier civilizations we've had, and yet we don't behave very differently. Interstellar travel capability is no more a basis for assuming that entities are peaceful than transoceanic travel capability was - as the Taíno and Mi'kmaq and other indigenous peoples learned to their chagrin.  

But since the technological discrepancy here is greater, and the alien species doesn't share our predatory past, I was assuming that, if they were not benevolent, they wouldn't bother to make contact: they'd just take what they wanted and ignore us, unless we got in their way. Even if they were merely curious, they could study the planet without necessarily talking to the inhabitants, maybe even without us ever being aware of them. (Although, in Star Trek, the well-meaning humans studying less advanced species are so clumsy that they're accidentally discovered by some native and have to do damage control. That's the kind of situation I envision as most likely. Unless the template for first contact is more like Childhood's End or The Day the Earth Stood Still or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy . It could go any number of different ways. 

Well, I understand "like" - or thought I did, until just now, when

5 hours ago, swansont said:

I use upvote and downvote as they have no chance of triggering the self-destruct sequence.

I read the suggestion that using it could trigger the self-destruct sequence. I'm pretty sure I'm not ready for that.

 I don't understand the others, so I won't use them until I see more of how things work here.

(PS *heart* the emoji selection.)

On 7/7/2021 at 9:04 AM, Strange Me said:

If we were visited by a higher advanced civilization?

What effect would it have on world politics?

 

That would depend to a very large extent on the attitude and behaviour of the visitors. Obviously, our leaders would be shaking in their boots in the face of technology that far advanced, so they probably 🤞 wouldn't do anything stupid, like to try to attack the aliens.  I'd like to think they would let the UN be the interface - if that's the right word - but am afraid that at least some nations' leaders would look for an "in" - some way to gain special favour for their own regime, and make us all look like sneaky opportunists. 

That, however, doesn't apply to the armed lunatic fringes of every stripe, who would almost certainly do whatever the stupidest thing is in the circumstance: frontal assault. I assume they'd be vapourized, which wouldn't go down well with their compatriots.  So, right away, we're bound to have frictions and fractiousness.

The scientists, creative people and their readers/followers/students would be thrilled, vindicated, euphoric and curious enough to piss off the aliens with unwanted attention.

Quote

And how would the Monotheistic religions react?

Not as integrated units. They already have sects, sub-denominations and factions; those differences would suddenly grow into rifts. The Pope might be able to put a single voice to Roman Catholicism, at least for a short time, but protestants reactions would be all over the place, and soon at one another's throats. Muslims, too - at least two main factions contradicting each other, probably more like four or five. The Jews would probably be okay with it; top rabbis would be sent from several countries to talk directly with the aliens regarding their belief. Native populations with animistic traditions would be okay, too. I have no guess as to the attitude of Hindus and and Buddhists. 

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if a great many marginal believers of all religions fell away all at once, and the power of religion generally were fatally weakened.

On 4/13/2021 at 2:09 PM, starchaser137 said:

Being scientific people, I believe that most of us would probably have been frustrated about climate change, and all the things that are happening. My question is simple. How do you manage that anger? People tell me that this is something we can't control, or it is something "off topic".

I don't have to manage or think about it very much anymore. I knew it was end-game in 1976, after no significant action had been taken on the recommendations of the First Earth Summit, after half a dozen attempts to introduce birth-control in other countries, and freedom of choice in the US had failed (it did a little better here) but especially after I encountered my first example of bottled water - shipped from France to Canada (wrap your head around that and see if it doesn't explode!) later to be followed by millions more - in non-returnable, non-recyclable (recycling wasn't introduced in Toronto until 1982) plastic bottles.  I could see that we were doomed.

I don't recall being angry. Exasperated, disappointed, ashamed, disgusted and profoundly sad.

I've had little flare-ups of anger over particular actions, events and speeches since then, but nothing strong enough to survive that ocean of  sorrow. 

Quote

just want to know if you also think that humans are afraid of building bigger things and taking bold steps.

Building bigger things and taking bold, blind steps is what got us into this extinction-spiral.