3 ms·

The way I get out of that conundrum is to ask what would happen if the Earth were destroyed in some cataclysmic event and there were no humans left. I mean do y

The way I get out of that conundrum is to ask what would happen if the Earth were destroyed in some cataclysmic event and there were no humans left. I mean do you agree that the universe would still exist? Do you think some other life in the universe might have consciousness, even if it's organized in a way that would be unrecognizable to us? How would you go about examining that question? Carl Sagan spent a lot of time looking for ways to pose that question in ways that make it possible to "do science" about it and not just trail off into ideas that are beyond discussion, beyond meaning. I mean if you are looking at a planet to see if the surface has been worked in a way that proves the existence of a technology-capable species (even if it was long extinct), you're talking about something "real" at that point. Also, the book "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem is really wonderful in the way it evokes the mystery of how a being can be sentient and utterly non-comprehensible to us. Quite brilliant really.

morpheos137 6y ago
>I mean do you agree that the universe would still exist? I have no basis for answering this question either way. Maybe the universe requires a conscious observer for wave function collapse. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Who knows. >Do you think some other life in the universe might have consciousness, even if it's organized in a way that would be unrecognizable to us? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how rare life is in the universe. So far we have one example. >How would you go about examining that question? I wouldn't since earth would be blown up and I wouldn't exist. If you mean when earth is still here then I wouldn't because unless intelligent life is very common space is simply too vast to find it. Sagan was wrong about a lot of things. Anyway not to be a downer but if other intelligent life exists in the universe the chances of us meeting it is very low. So low that the human race is more likely to go extinct before meeting creatures from another star system. If a superposition of universes exists in the same region of meta-space-time then maybe it is higher. For example UFOs may be from "here" just another plane that some times leaks into ours. Imagine multiple earths in multiple universes some of whose inhabitants have learned to cross between.
- RichardCA 6y ago
  Apply Occam's Razor. You're not concerned with it because it doesn't concern you. You're offering a tautology.
  - morpheos137 6y ago
    The theory that consciousness exists IS a tautology itself. I think therefore I am. So what new information does that tell me?
    - RichardCA 6y ago
      You asked the question, "Why is the hard problem a problem?" There's a documentary where someone asked Richard Feynman why magnets work, he spends almost 10 minutes talking about how a scientist assigns meaning to a question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q "When you explain a 'Why', you have to be in some framework where you allow things to be true." So what I would say is that people generally allow Cartesian Dualism to be "true" and that's the thing that needs to be challenged. Sometimes this is called Nondualism or Nonduality. If you look at it that way, the idea that the consciousness problem is an appropriate area for inquiry seems like a straightforward idea. As far as Carl Sagan being wrong, he was big on the idea that our subjective minds are just a thing that hydrogen atoms do, if you give them billions of years to do it. But he never came out as a Strict Materialist. He also liked to poke holes in religion but never came out as an Atheist. Yes, he was being clever and cute about it. But I don't think that makes him wrong, just that he was onto something more subtle about the nature of what we are. Human beings are a way for the universe to know itself.
      - morpheos137 6y ago
        >As far as Carl Sagan being wrong, he was big on the idea that our subjective minds are just a thing that hydrogen atoms do, if you give them billions of years to do it. That is a beautiful thought. But it is not clear life is inevitable at all. We only have one example of a planet containing life. The normal flow of the universe is toward increasing levels of entropy. I suppose gravity wells containing stars reverse this on some scales. The early post big bang universe was in an extremely low entropy state. Personally I am not a materialist. I also do not believe that we know what we are talking about when we attempt to talk about consciousness. I think the noun is imprecisely defined.

morpheos137 6y ago

>I mean do you agree that the universe would still exist? I have no basis for answering this question either way. Maybe the universe requires a conscious observer for wave function collapse. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Who knows. >Do you think some other life in the universe might have consciousness, even if it's organized in a way that would be unrecognizable to us? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how rare life is in the universe. So far we have one example. >How would you go about examining that question? I wouldn't since earth would be blown up and I wouldn't exist. If you mean when earth is still here then I wouldn't because unless intelligent life is very common space is simply too vast to find it. Sagan was wrong about a lot of things. Anyway not to be a downer but if other intelligent life exists in the universe the chances of us meeting it is very low. So low that the human race is more likely to go extinct before meeting creatures from another star system. If a superposition of universes exists in the same region of meta-space-time then maybe it is higher. For example UFOs may be from "here" just another plane that some times leaks into ours. Imagine multiple earths in multiple universes some of whose inhabitants have learned to cross between.

RichardCA 6y ago
Apply Occam's Razor. You're not concerned with it because it doesn't concern you. You're offering a tautology.
- morpheos137 6y ago
  The theory that consciousness exists IS a tautology itself. I think therefore I am. So what new information does that tell me?
  - RichardCA 6y ago
    You asked the question, "Why is the hard problem a problem?" There's a documentary where someone asked Richard Feynman why magnets work, he spends almost 10 minutes talking about how a scientist assigns meaning to a question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q "When you explain a 'Why', you have to be in some framework where you allow things to be true." So what I would say is that people generally allow Cartesian Dualism to be "true" and that's the thing that needs to be challenged. Sometimes this is called Nondualism or Nonduality. If you look at it that way, the idea that the consciousness problem is an appropriate area for inquiry seems like a straightforward idea. As far as Carl Sagan being wrong, he was big on the idea that our subjective minds are just a thing that hydrogen atoms do, if you give them billions of years to do it. But he never came out as a Strict Materialist. He also liked to poke holes in religion but never came out as an Atheist. Yes, he was being clever and cute about it. But I don't think that makes him wrong, just that he was onto something more subtle about the nature of what we are. Human beings are a way for the universe to know itself.
    - morpheos137 6y ago
      >As far as Carl Sagan being wrong, he was big on the idea that our subjective minds are just a thing that hydrogen atoms do, if you give them billions of years to do it. That is a beautiful thought. But it is not clear life is inevitable at all. We only have one example of a planet containing life. The normal flow of the universe is toward increasing levels of entropy. I suppose gravity wells containing stars reverse this on some scales. The early post big bang universe was in an extremely low entropy state. Personally I am not a materialist. I also do not believe that we know what we are talking about when we attempt to talk about consciousness. I think the noun is imprecisely defined.