I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 31

New comment
 
charter:
..... the fact that all living matter is intelligent isundeniable to me
the key word is undisputed )) you can't do that, everything can be disputed
 
charter:
..... the fact that all living matter is intelligent isundeniable to me.

Yes, it is. It's just that in the context of the "first intriguing question" it seemed reasonable to me to make a weaker assertion. I then strengthened it. ;)
 
gpwr:

I'll ask a couple of other intriguing questions.

1. According to Darwin and all modern scientific concepts, man evolved from apes, etc. It seems that any animal (not just apes) can evolve and become intelligent. However, of 5500 species of mammals (including various monkeys) on Earth, only we are the only ones who possess intelligence. Why?

2. Can the consciousness exist without matter? It is related to the question if the consciousness existed before the matter.

1. Not only us. But only we, in OUR understanding, are consciousness. Can you feel the difference? Many species communicate through colour, scent, body movement, God knows what else, and combinations of this, that, and the third all together. We just DON'T understand it. We cannot understand the chemical 'language' of a colony of ants, and there is a hell of a lot of social organization. Perhaps you call intelligence our ability to make tools? Chimpanzees are pretty good at it, too...

Homosampiens is not just a dressed up ibiziana:) Our DNA has been tampered with. You can start laughing, but 224 genes are no longer inherent in any organism on the planet. There's simply nowhere for them to have evolved from.
As indirect evidence of alien intervention in the ape, I also believe: (Warning! not inherent in anyone else on Earth!)
- dressing in rags (their absence is perceived as a willingness to reproduce)
- habitat modification instead of adaptation to the environment
- perverted omnivorousness (the cooking of dismembered carcasses of other species, etc.)
- communicating in abstractions by producing sounds, which may be replaced by images (you are reading now;)
- bright though artificial colouring of females (usually males are brighter in the wild)

We (humans) are very scary animals, if only because everything living on our planet eats everything alive, and we do not have any meaningful bodily implements but manage to short circuit this food chain. This is not achieved by evolution I believe. It's an intervention.

2. When WHAT consciousness is known, we can answer. Energy? A field? Information?

 
mikhail12:
the key word is undisputed )) you can't do that, everything can be disputed
yes you can. i wrote "for me". :) and who needs it (for their own fairy tale) let them have their fun
 
Marina_:
Marina, what is this picture? Intriguing, but you need a user manual to understand it. :)
 
moskitman:

1. We are not the only ones. It's only us who are intelligent in OUR mind. Can you feel the difference? Many species communicate through colour, scent, body movement, God knows what else, and combinations of this, that and the third together. We just DON'T understand it. We cannot understand the chemical 'language' of a colony of ants, and there is a hell of a lot of social organization. Perhaps you call intelligence our ability to make tools? Chimpanzees are pretty good at it, too...

Homosampiens is not just a clothed ibizen:) There has been extraneous interference in our DNA. You can start laughing, but 224 genes are no longer inherent in any organism on the planet. There's simply nowhere for them to have evolved from.
Indirect evidence of alien interference in the ape I also believe: (Warning! not inherent in anyone else on Earth!)
- dressing in rags (their absence is perceived as a willingness to reproduce)
- habitat modification instead of adaptation to the environment
- perverted omnivorousness (the cooking of dismembered carcasses of other species, etc.)
- communicating in abstractions by producing sounds, which may be replaced by images (you are reading now;)
- bright though artificial colouring of females (usually males are brighter in the wild)

We (humans) are very scary animals, if only because everything living on our planet eats everything alive, and we have no meaningful bodily implements and manage to short circuit this food chain. This is not achieved by evolution I believe. It's an intervention.

2. When WHAT consciousness is known, we can answer. Energy? A field? Information?

That's it, that's it for you. We can't understand ants, that's too bad... People should at least begin to understand, Weber's Encyclopaedia of Relative Knowledge says that only 10% of attempts to start a conversation are successful, the rest are ruined by lack of understanding.
 
MetaDriver:
Yes, it was. It's just that in the context of the "first intriguing question" it seemed reasonable to me to make a weaker statement. I then amplified it. ;)

When I reread it again, I pointed it out, but my post had already been published. ))

 

moskitman:
- одевание тряпок
- изменение среды обитания вместо приспособления к среде

Yes, that's just how the mind is understood. Other differences from animals could be added. The main one is the creation of various kinds of tools (labour, movement, communication, etc.).

 
moskitman:

We (humans) are very scary beasts if only because we have all living things eating all living things on our planet, and we don't have meaningful bodily implements and manage to short-circuit this food chain. This is not achieved by evolution I believe. It's an intervention.

Nuh... It's easy. You can think of this phenomenon as a "genetic defect in a genetic algorithm", but it's easily reproduced in any genetic optimizer - always some closely related set of parameter realizations takes over the dominant position in the overall parameter state space. This is equivalent to the observation that in any set of real numbers there is always a maximum. In genetic selection, when there is a maximization of some single "optimization criterion" this effect is always observable. The key word here is single. If we look at the evolution of organisms through the filter of one single criterion (e.g. 'dominance in the food chain') we will always see the evolutionary superiority of a single population. Specifically: if we use another criterion (e.g. ability to jump high, swim fast or reproduce intensively), we may see the superiority of some other population, perhaps even a single one.

//by the way, when it comes to "longevity" dead matter leads. maybe that's why some fellows are inclined to pretend to be "mentally impenetrable monolithic cliffs"... ;-)

2. When WHAT consciousness is known, one will be able to answer. Energy? A field? Information?

Here, if you look closely, 'known' (knowledge) is assumed to be something superior to 'consciousness' (awareness). I wouldn't be so sure about that... :)
 
mikhail12:
the key word is undeniable )) you can't do that, you can argue everything

Everything can be challenged, but should it be?

Every point of view is simultaneously false with its truth.

As many people as there are opinions, viewpoints and attitudes. It is impossible to see and understand the whole world from one point of view.

There will always be a silly argument between two characters looking at a pyramid from different angles and proving their case that it is a triangle or a square without seeing the whole figure.

Our world is much, much more complex than this simple geometric figure.

1...242526272829303132333435
New comment
Reason: