2 ms·

"Consciousness is useful for life. But in the case of the sun, what is it adapting to, and what does it have to protect? Nothing" You don't know that. Maybe it

by lukan 3y ago

"Consciousness is useful for life. But in the case of the sun, what is it adapting to, and what does it have to protect? Nothing" You don't know that. Maybe it is us, or other life in general it wants to sustain and protect. We know very little about consciousness or how life in general came to being. Maybe it is connected to other suns and the black hole in the center of the milky way, to exchange ideas, philosophy, or just exitement about being alive. Or preparing something we know nothing about. A meeting of galaxies. Now I surely don't claim I know what consciousness is and I certainly do not claim the sun is. I am just hesistant to make absolute judgements about systems, where I can only catch a glimpse from the outside.

layer8 3y ago
"Want" is not a concept of evolution. Evolution is not a teleological mechanism. You'd have to argue how mutation and selection pressure works for stars, and how their traits would be passed from one star generation to the next, so that they would develop a consciousness with "wants". Given that the sun is a third the age of the universe, it seems unlikely that the sun is the evolutionary result of an ancestry of stars of any relevant length.
- lukan 3y ago
  I am not sure, if our concept of evolution can be applied to the stars, assuming they have consciousness. Asking why they evolved consciousness, would be the same to me as asking why the big bang happened and what was before that. No idea, this is way beyond my understanding. But I doubt there is any human who has these insights. So to clarify, I do not claim anything here, I just state how little we know about the grand picture and the rest is speculation, which I am aware is entering theological realms.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > which I am aware is entering theological realms Theological realms are where people tend to go when they feel they must have an explanation to something unexplainable. I think it’s important to preserve a non-theological space that allows one to acknowledge how little we know without defaulting to a theological position, and to highlight that acknowledging these unknowns does not make one a believer in deities. Not saying this is what you’re doing by the way, but it’s a kind of binary choice that many people seem to force on the situation.
    - lukan 3y ago
      Not every religion works with the concept of absolute truth and dogma (see Mysticism, Taoism, various pagan ones, ..) and I was speculating above, whether the sun cares about and supports us. That is probably in the theological realm by common understanding. Or maybe more philosophical? Who knows, probably more philosophical, but I think the lines can get blurry.

by lukan 3y ago

layer8 3y ago

"Want" is not a concept of evolution. Evolution is not a teleological mechanism. You'd have to argue how mutation and selection pressure works for stars, and how their traits would be passed from one star generation to the next, so that they would develop a consciousness with "wants". Given that the sun is a third the age of the universe, it seems unlikely that the sun is the evolutionary result of an ancestry of stars of any relevant length.

lukan 3y ago
I am not sure, if our concept of evolution can be applied to the stars, assuming they have consciousness. Asking why they evolved consciousness, would be the same to me as asking why the big bang happened and what was before that. No idea, this is way beyond my understanding. But I doubt there is any human who has these insights. So to clarify, I do not claim anything here, I just state how little we know about the grand picture and the rest is speculation, which I am aware is entering theological realms.
- haswell 3y ago
  > which I am aware is entering theological realms Theological realms are where people tend to go when they feel they must have an explanation to something unexplainable. I think it’s important to preserve a non-theological space that allows one to acknowledge how little we know without defaulting to a theological position, and to highlight that acknowledging these unknowns does not make one a believer in deities. Not saying this is what you’re doing by the way, but it’s a kind of binary choice that many people seem to force on the situation.
  - lukan 3y ago
    Not every religion works with the concept of absolute truth and dogma (see Mysticism, Taoism, various pagan ones, ..) and I was speculating above, whether the sun cares about and supports us. That is probably in the theological realm by common understanding. Or maybe more philosophical? Who knows, probably more philosophical, but I think the lines can get blurry.