4 ms·
What we get from the sun is low entropy, since all the energy that gets to Earth has to be irradiated away, else we'd cook quickly. If this low entropy carried
by namaria 3y ago
What we get from the sun is low entropy, since all the energy that gets to Earth has to be irradiated away, else we'd cook quickly.
If this low entropy carried by energy flows makes life possible, and life is how I get my consciousness. I'd say in a way my consciousness comes from the sun. The warmth of my skin and the qualia of my thoughts are movement perpetrated on Earth by the sun.
- woopsn 3y agoConsider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodicity Edit -- also, earth due to its internal heat, and perhaps fossilized remains of those organisms that benefited from geothermal heat/vents/etc during its time (nuclear power), will one day do our work on the sun
- nebben64 3y agoI discovered this phenomenon on my own - that you can deduce everything about a system from a single transitionary step.
- heresie-dabord 3y ago> I'd say in a way my consciousness comes from the sun. Our star is the major, "central" (chuckle) factor in our Goldilocks existence, but Anthropomorphism is an anthropocentric game. [1] Cyanobacteria [2] , flowering plants and pollinators would also be part of our complex Goldilocks consciousness. Our awareness of this fragile existence should encourage us to be the best version of ourselves and enjoy every moment. [1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle [2] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
- namaria 3y ago> Anthropomorphism I don't think the article or I have made any references to anthropomorphism.
- heresie-dabord 3y agoTitle of the article: Is the Sun Conscious? In the article: "Therefore anyone who supposes that the sun is conscious is making a childish error, projecting anthropomorphic illusions onto inanimate nature."
- namaria 3y agoFair, the article made a reference to it. In the first paragraph where the author is clearly making a representation of a contrary argument. A paragraph that starts "s the sun conscious? Obviously not, from the point of view of mechanistic materialism or physicalism". So I see now why you'd raise that point. Still, it is a minor throwaway figure of speech that doesn't really encapsulate what the author is discussing further in the article.