3 ms·

Despite other comments dismissing this, I do think this is a compelling and humbling question. I think its best answered with a few related questions to consid

Despite other comments dismissing this, I do think this is a compelling and humbling question. I think its best answered with a few related questions to consider what makes us lucky: 1) Longevity clearly matters, but the relativity of it is hard to assess: some sea mammals with emotionally-rich lives live twice as long. 2) Quality of life clearly matters. It's easy to imagine (and hopefully you personally know some!) pampered pets who have it unbelievably good: tasty food and nutrition, regular fun exercise, a fulfilling social and family life, a sense of purpose, etc. And on the other end of the spectrum: 3) There are untold numbers of us who pulled the short straw in life and have lives marred in tragedy and suffering -- if they even are "lucky" enough to live long enough to comprehend it. I think some of us are incredibly lucky and very much in the minority. The "luck" spectrum in life is so both deep and wide that I'm perfectly happy accepting "consciousness is everywhere" in order to focus on the question of what to do with the consciousness (and unfortunate lack of it at times) I have.

kkoncevicius 6y ago
I think this explanation goes a bit sideways - comparing emotional states and happiness, which is not directly related to consciousness. What I am surprised about is not how sentimentally lucky I am, but how unlikely it is that my consciousness (which by the theory of consciousness being everywhere) ended up in the being that we consider to be "most conscious" (human). Even if I lived a very short life full of terror and pain - I still would be just as surprised that consciousness that could have been "planted" anywhere ended up in me - a human. And so the alternative theory of "only humans have consciousness" would be more attractive.
- mr-wendel 6y ago
  Sideways indeed! I agree. I think as consciousness grows and expands it becomes increasingly clear that what we call "emotion" is an inseparable quality of being conscious. The more emotion is denied (or suppressed) the more obvious its underlying presence becomes, as it becomes a massive, unconscious (and dangerous) rudder. Personally, I find it astonishing that anyone could draw a line at humanity. For example, have you never bonded with a dog before? It's so blazingly clear that while there are obvious differences there are even more similarities behind how they think and feel. It's not just dogs: cows, pigs, and rats -- if you spend any time with them -- are obviously high on the spectrum. It's unfathomable that the line of consciousness is anywhere near being at humans alone. My intent isn't to be insulting, but inviting! There is much splendor in connecting with non-human life, even if it doesn't have all the same qualities as human life :).
kefabean 6y ago
Point 3 is rather interesting. I’d even go as far to say that the ‘marvellous’ evolutionary end-result that is us humans is the result of relentless chiselling over millions of generations by tragedy, suffering and death. Perhaps the more aggressive the chiselling the faster the evolution?

kkoncevicius 6y ago

I think this explanation goes a bit sideways - comparing emotional states and happiness, which is not directly related to consciousness. What I am surprised about is not how sentimentally lucky I am, but how unlikely it is that my consciousness (which by the theory of consciousness being everywhere) ended up in the being that we consider to be "most conscious" (human). Even if I lived a very short life full of terror and pain - I still would be just as surprised that consciousness that could have been "planted" anywhere ended up in me - a human. And so the alternative theory of "only humans have consciousness" would be more attractive.

mr-wendel 6y ago
Sideways indeed! I agree. I think as consciousness grows and expands it becomes increasingly clear that what we call "emotion" is an inseparable quality of being conscious. The more emotion is denied (or suppressed) the more obvious its underlying presence becomes, as it becomes a massive, unconscious (and dangerous) rudder. Personally, I find it astonishing that anyone could draw a line at humanity. For example, have you never bonded with a dog before? It's so blazingly clear that while there are obvious differences there are even more similarities behind how they think and feel. It's not just dogs: cows, pigs, and rats -- if you spend any time with them -- are obviously high on the spectrum. It's unfathomable that the line of consciousness is anywhere near being at humans alone. My intent isn't to be insulting, but inviting! There is much splendor in connecting with non-human life, even if it doesn't have all the same qualities as human life :).

kefabean 6y ago

Point 3 is rather interesting. I’d even go as far to say that the ‘marvellous’ evolutionary end-result that is us humans is the result of relentless chiselling over millions of generations by tragedy, suffering and death. Perhaps the more aggressive the chiselling the faster the evolution?