Humanity needs to survive 400,000 years if we want any chance of hearing from aliens

[psyche101]

13 minutes ago, zep73 said:

@psyche101 I agree with you mostly. I just don't think you realize how extraordinary consciousness really is. It's not just something you can solve like a puzzle and move on.
It is the greatest mystery of life, besides life itself.

Even angiogenesis isn't a tremendous mystery. We have the theory down quite well. We are only lacking in observation. It's the final step that will resolve the debates in the subject.  

I see consciousness explained through that attention schema theory as very logical. It's elegance in simplicity is equaled by evolutionary theory, and subsequent facts. Simplicity over time well explains all aspects of evolution, if which consciousness is clearly a part of. 

What aspects of the AST would you say don't explain how consciousness came to be?

13 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Philosophy is the heart of science. It is the bridge between laymen and physicists. It is the glue that binds all of science into one big tale. It is the explanation.

I don't agree.

Philosophy asks questions. It doesn't provide answers. 

13 minutes ago, zep73 said:

If you are solely into physics, I understand you position, because from that point of view, philosophy is useless.

Philosophy gets a ball rolling. Thing is, it doesn't stop it. That why I say it's not useless altogether, but it takes a back seat to physics. 

[zep73]

27 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Even angiogenesis isn't a tremendous mystery. We have the theory down quite well. We are only lacking in observation. It's the final step that will resolve the debates in the subject.  

I see consciousness explained through that attention schema theory as very logical. It's elegance in simplicity is equaled by evolutionary theory, and subsequent facts. Simplicity over time well explains all aspects of evolution, if which consciousness is clearly a part of. 

What aspects of the AST would you say don't explain how consciousness came to be?

AST would be a bi-product of consciousness. You are trying to explain something extraordinary with something extraordinary.

Can't you see, that anything with intention is extraordinary? That even the concept of intention is crazy, seen from a molecular angle?

You need to be careful not to make science a religion! Never accept the answer that things just are so.

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by zep73

[psyche101]

18 minutes ago, zep73 said:

AST would be a bi-product of consciousness. You are trying to explain something extraordinary with something extraordinary.

No, it can't be a byproduct. I take it your not familiar with it? It precedes current levels of consciousness even existing.

It starts with the first creatures on the planet, how they were able to navigate surroundings and the accumulation of known responses over millenia. Being aware of surroundings also became being aware of predators, shelter and food, and how to make conscious decisions to utilise those advantages to survive. 

It starts with a blank page that after millenia had become a book. Perspective would determine of that is ordinary behaviour or extraordinary. I'd go with the former. Evolution is ordinary behaviour in that everything succumbed to it. 

The evolution of the eye offers parallels to this theory as well. It's a comparable process. 

18 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Can't you see, that anything with intention is extraordinary? That even the concept of intention is crazy, seen from a molecular angle?

Survival is a basic instinct rather than extraordinary. One could consider the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe extraordinary, in that it is unique, but evolution is a process that affects all life. So is evolution extra ordinary in the same sense? Whilst amazing, it's very ordinary.

18 minutes ago, zep73 said:

You need to be careful not to make science a religion! Never accept the answer that things just are so.

You need to also understand we know some things, and admitting to that isn't faith. You seem to have a bit of a problem with authority figures and tend to personally extrapolate subjects. What you haven't noticed is that's where you always lose your debates. Your making philosophy more religious than I am science here. I've given you links to show how memories are physically stored. That removes a lot of things you have previously claimed to be mysterious. Like how an atom allows consciousness. It doesn't any more than wondering how wheat could become bread. 

[Golden Duck]

@zep73, You might want to look into anything published by Anil Seth in the last year.  Seth is a neuroscientist from Sussek Uni.  He, and Tim Bayne from Monash University have a paper in Nature this month examining theories of consciousness.

I couldn't find it on Sci-Hub.

[zep73]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You need to also understand we know some things, and admitting to that isn't faith. You seem to have a bit of a problem with authority figures and tend to personally extrapolate subjects. What you haven't noticed is that's where you always lose your debates. Your making philosophy more religious than I am science here. I've given you links to show how memories are physically stored. That removes a lot of things you have previously claimed to be mysterious. Like how an atom allows consciousness. It doesn't any more than wondering how wheat could become bread. 

I just think differently than you. I have a different perspective. But our love and respect for science is the same.
I think our paths split when it comes to interpretations. You have yours and I have mine. Nothing wrong with that. It's actually a good thing. If we all always agree, we learn very little.

[HSlim]

So about as long as it takes my wife to let me know what she wants for dinner

[psyche101]

On 5/14/2022 at 3:10 AM, zep73 said:

I just think differently than you. I have a different perspective. But our love and respect for science is the same.
I think our paths split when it comes to interpretations. You have yours and I have mine. Nothing wrong with that. It's actually a good thing. If we all always agree, we learn very little.

Different perspective drives questions which is good. Where I see us differ is on the information professionals provide. I've seen you say, they are just people too, but I hold a deeper respect for their dedication to a particular discipline. 

[zep73]

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Different perspective drives questions which is good. Where I see us differ is on the information professionals provide. I've seen you say, they are just people too, but I hold a deeper respect for their dedication to a particular discipline. 

I assure you I hold them in the highest regards! I know that pursuing new knowledge is a path with many defeats, disappointments and possible ridicule, but I love their effort!