4 ms·

> In the same way that looking out into the universe makes me feel very small it's my personal project to get people to stop thinking and feeling this: we are

> In the same way that looking out into the universe makes me feel very small it's my personal project to get people to stop thinking and feeling this: we are not insignificant specks, we are close to all there is. Till we humans discover any alien intelligence out there (and we've tried), we (and our creations if you want to include AIs) are the most complex and interesting things that we know of. When you look out at the universe you should see a whole lot of nothing: what is the sun but a giant agglomeration of a few processes (a few different fusions, radiation and absorption) and what are the other stars but more of the same, with a deep gravity well here and there. Rather, it's us who is something, it's us who even created the concept of something, and the concept of significance. We assign those values. Without us, the universe might just be dead. > In the same way that looking out into the universe makes me feel very large indeed, the notion of history spanning back such a short time to encompass all of us and our thinking, the only thinking we know of, gives us a great connection to these lives of other people, even outside of our own species, and should fill us with pride, the only pride there is in the universe afaik. Sagan, Harari, Hossenfelder, and Feynmann to name a few, are always selling us ideas like "math and science make nature more beautiful". No, humans make nature, and math and science, beautiful. Everywhere in the universe they say, "you want to make an apple pie from scratch? First you must ask a human."

HankB99 3y ago
> ... we (and our creations if you want to include AIs) are the most complex and interesting things that we know of. One viewpoint, I suppose. I think the cosmos and all of the things that compose it (including us) is the most complex and interesting thing that we (partially) know. And there is much yet to learn.
dotancohen 3y ago
Every single stellar system that we've explored has been found to have intelligent life. Now with a sample size of one you could argue that I'm being optimistically misleading - and you would be correct. But likewise I respect but respectfully disagree with the notion that we are likely the only intelligent life in the universe. We might never communicate with an extra-solar being, simply due to the sheer size of the universe. But it is extraordinarily pompous to think that we are unique, special, or even alone.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  you're focusing on the wrong aspect. We remain the most complex things we know of, the only things we know of complex enough to engage in all that goes into this discussion, including the discussion. If we found other intelligent life, it would only diminish us if that life were formed like the most erotic of sci-fi fantasies, those species that have evolved past corporeal form, an erotic fantasy I should mention, that we came up with
- qup 3y ago
  If I'm not special, I can't wait for an alien to come tell me about it. Just squash me and my insignificant plans. But until then, I'm with the other guy. We're it, buddy. It's hubris, and some find that particularly ugly. But it's got a foundation.
steve_adams_86 3y ago
I agree partially, but I think it’s possible to hold opposing ideas here. Both perspectives are incredible and valid in their own ways. I’m very small, yet I’m the epitome of intelligent life as we know it. Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  >I’m very small, yet I think we evolved an inherent sense of value or awe toward size because bigger things are harder to get to the other side of, are more likely to bop us on the head with impunity, but can also feed more people at the same time. Otherwise, what meaning is there in size? Microelectronics work better precisely because they are small. > Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum. my point is that the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good While I fully support the idea that we should expand our thinking in areas we’ve neglected, how is intentionally deemphasizing a recognition of our relative smallness “unalloyed good”? For many, this recognition is a primary source of awe and wonder, and has no tension whatsoever with a recognition of the importance and usefulness of smallness. If anything, this recognition of smallness is exactly the thing that highlights how rare and interesting we seem to be. Our “insignificance” is also the source of our significance. We also seem prone to binary thinking and false dichotomies. Very few things are purely good or purely bad. Recognizing our smallness doesn’t have to be synonymous with concluding that we are unimportant.
hoseja 3y ago
>what is the sun but a giant agglomeration of a few processes (a few different fusions, radiation and absorption) Also incomprehensibly messy and vast mass of thermonuclearmagnetohydrodynamic interactions that may very well give rise to some sort of persistent, replicating structure and we'd have no way of knowing.
nequo 3y ago
There are many other species here on earth that have intelligence (problem solving skills, tool use) and culture (locally shared behaviors, dialects). Some may be more intelligent than us but less able to put it to the domination of their environment. Orcas and sperm whales for example have brain sizes that outrank us by several kilograms, and brain-to-body-size ratios that are comparable to ours. Neanderthals themselves had larger brains than us too. Crows have smaller brains but have problem solving skills on par with 7-year-old humans. We are far from being the only complex thing on this planet.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  I agree completely. I initially wrote that with a frame of “epitome of intelligence as we define/know it”, but felt that nuance wouldn’t sit well with most people or even register. Humans are extremely anthropocentric in their understanding of intelligence. A lot of my comments on HN actually pertain to this; I think animals are far more capable, competent, and intelligent than we give credit. I see a sort of irony in that we’re often not intelligent enough to recognize intelligence in others, even within our own species. But thanks for adding that. It’s a really important thing to consider. It actually feeds into the “smallness”, as well.
mistrial9 3y ago
this is paradox .. senior faculty at the Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco had recurrent versions of this discussion annually In Hindu traditions, this is expressed (I claim) in "atman - Brahman" Like Brahman, Atman is also eternal, infinite, invisible, formless, and beyond the mind and senses. In beings, Atman remains enveloped by Nature and remains bound to the mind and body and the cycle of births and deaths.
taskforcegemini 3y ago
IMHO it depends of the scope you are looking at. if you change the focus in space (cells, atoms etc, or planets, galaxies) or time (plants, planets), ones significance can easily be questioned. not seeing it that way would be egocentric

HankB99 3y ago

> ... we (and our creations if you want to include AIs) are the most complex and interesting things that we know of. One viewpoint, I suppose. I think the cosmos and all of the things that compose it (including us) is the most complex and interesting thing that we (partially) know. And there is much yet to learn.

dotancohen 3y ago

Every single stellar system that we've explored has been found to have intelligent life. Now with a sample size of one you could argue that I'm being optimistically misleading - and you would be correct. But likewise I respect but respectfully disagree with the notion that we are likely the only intelligent life in the universe. We might never communicate with an extra-solar being, simply due to the sheer size of the universe. But it is extraordinarily pompous to think that we are unique, special, or even alone.

fsckboy 3y ago
you're focusing on the wrong aspect. We remain the most complex things we know of, the only things we know of complex enough to engage in all that goes into this discussion, including the discussion. If we found other intelligent life, it would only diminish us if that life were formed like the most erotic of sci-fi fantasies, those species that have evolved past corporeal form, an erotic fantasy I should mention, that we came up with
qup 3y ago
If I'm not special, I can't wait for an alien to come tell me about it. Just squash me and my insignificant plans. But until then, I'm with the other guy. We're it, buddy. It's hubris, and some find that particularly ugly. But it's got a foundation.

steve_adams_86 3y ago

I agree partially, but I think it’s possible to hold opposing ideas here. Both perspectives are incredible and valid in their own ways. I’m very small, yet I’m the epitome of intelligent life as we know it. Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum.

fsckboy 3y ago
>I’m very small, yet I think we evolved an inherent sense of value or awe toward size because bigger things are harder to get to the other side of, are more likely to bop us on the head with impunity, but can also feed more people at the same time. Otherwise, what meaning is there in size? Microelectronics work better precisely because they are small. > Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum. my point is that the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good.
- haswell 3y ago
  > the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good While I fully support the idea that we should expand our thinking in areas we’ve neglected, how is intentionally deemphasizing a recognition of our relative smallness “unalloyed good”? For many, this recognition is a primary source of awe and wonder, and has no tension whatsoever with a recognition of the importance and usefulness of smallness. If anything, this recognition of smallness is exactly the thing that highlights how rare and interesting we seem to be. Our “insignificance” is also the source of our significance. We also seem prone to binary thinking and false dichotomies. Very few things are purely good or purely bad. Recognizing our smallness doesn’t have to be synonymous with concluding that we are unimportant.

hoseja 3y ago

>what is the sun but a giant agglomeration of a few processes (a few different fusions, radiation and absorption) Also incomprehensibly messy and vast mass of thermonuclearmagnetohydrodynamic interactions that may very well give rise to some sort of persistent, replicating structure and we'd have no way of knowing.

nequo 3y ago

There are many other species here on earth that have intelligence (problem solving skills, tool use) and culture (locally shared behaviors, dialects). Some may be more intelligent than us but less able to put it to the domination of their environment. Orcas and sperm whales for example have brain sizes that outrank us by several kilograms, and brain-to-body-size ratios that are comparable to ours. Neanderthals themselves had larger brains than us too. Crows have smaller brains but have problem solving skills on par with 7-year-old humans. We are far from being the only complex thing on this planet.

steve_adams_86 3y ago
I agree completely. I initially wrote that with a frame of “epitome of intelligence as we define/know it”, but felt that nuance wouldn’t sit well with most people or even register. Humans are extremely anthropocentric in their understanding of intelligence. A lot of my comments on HN actually pertain to this; I think animals are far more capable, competent, and intelligent than we give credit. I see a sort of irony in that we’re often not intelligent enough to recognize intelligence in others, even within our own species. But thanks for adding that. It’s a really important thing to consider. It actually feeds into the “smallness”, as well.

mistrial9 3y ago

this is paradox .. senior faculty at the Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco had recurrent versions of this discussion annually In Hindu traditions, this is expressed (I claim) in "atman - Brahman" Like Brahman, Atman is also eternal, infinite, invisible, formless, and beyond the mind and senses. In beings, Atman remains enveloped by Nature and remains bound to the mind and body and the cycle of births and deaths.

taskforcegemini 3y ago

IMHO it depends of the scope you are looking at. if you change the focus in space (cells, atoms etc, or planets, galaxies) or time (plants, planets), ones significance can easily be questioned. not seeing it that way would be egocentric