Support NeoGAF

[The Lunch Legend]

Hey all, just sharing this interesting idea with you as it's definitely something that interests me.

There's a theory that all living things belong to a dimension. We are obviously in the third dimension. The idea, is that there are higher dimensions out there with far more intelligent creatures than that on earth. The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are. According to the theory, we belong to a higher dimension but were 'sent down' or 'banished' from the higher dimensions for whatever reason, or perhaps we moved across ourselves so that we could be dominant in the third dimension. The fact that we are far more intelligent by a hundredfold, far more advanced and far more evolved than any creature on Earth just doesn't make sense. We don't fit in at all. It's as if we belong to another dimension, which is what this theory proposes.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, one of the most important things to human survival. If we had no logic and could not reason, we would likely be extinct. No other animal on earth has logic and reasoning, why is this? An animal will always react off of survival instincts regardless of the situation.

If we do belong to another dimension, what dimension would that be? How high up do we really belong? Why did we leave (if at all)? What else is there in those dimensions? Were we 'pets' to something greater?



This theory brings up a lot of ideas and is just generally very interesting. I'm not saying I believe it and I'm not trying to convince you to believe it, but anyone who's interested in it and wants to voice their opinion is welcome.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Smoke some DMT, see your theory vindicated...

 

[Knch]

Smoke some DMT, see your theory vindicated...

Is that you Joe (Rogan)?

 

[triplestation]

 

[abstract alien]

The only issue I have with theories such as this, though fascinating, is that they are ultimately egotistical. The difference between humanity and the rest of life on Earth may be large from our perspective, but ultimately, it could be miniscule by the standards of a multidimensional universe. A bird building it's nest and a human going to a neighboring planet could be small in comparison to what's actually happening.

 

[Airola]

The only issue I have with theories such as this, though fascinating, is that they are ultimately egotistical. The difference between humanity and the rest of life on Earth may be large from our perspective, but ultimately, it could be miniscule by the standards of a multidimensional universe. A bird building it's nest and a human going to a neighboring planet could be small in comparison to what's actually happening.

Could be. Something being egotistical though hasn't got anything to do with the possibility of it being the truth though.

 

[synchronicity]

Any limits on the definition of "you" are imposed by the mind alone.

At what point does the river become the ocean?

 

[Riven326]

Right. And the reapers exterminate all life in the galaxy in order to preserve it. GTFO.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Hey all, just sharing this interesting idea with you as it's definitely something that interests me.

There's a theory that all living things belong to a dimension. We are obviously in the third dimension. The idea, is that there are higher dimensions out there with far more intelligent creatures than that on earth. The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are. According to the theory, we belong to a higher dimension but were 'sent down' or 'banished' from the higher dimensions for whatever reason, or perhaps we moved across ourselves so that we could be dominant in the third dimension. The fact that we are far more intelligent by a hundredfold, far more advanced and far more evolved than any creature on Earth just doesn't make sense. We don't fit in at all. It's as if we belong to another dimension, which is what this theory proposes.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, one of the most important things to human survival. If we had no logic and could not reason, we would likely be extinct. No other animal on earth has logic and reasoning, why is this? An animal will always react off of survival instincts regardless of the situation.

If we do belong to another dimension, what dimension would that be? How high up do we really belong? Why did we leave (if at all)? What else is there in those dimensions? Were we 'pets' to something greater?



This theory brings up a lot of ideas and is just generally very interesting. I'm not saying I believe it and I'm not trying to convince you to believe it, but anyone who's interested in it and wants to voice their opinion is welcome.

Interstellar taught me that Love transcends dimensional constraints.

 

[Bildo_Shaggins]

OP, check out quantum immortality and various Mandela Effects.

 

[iconmaster]

The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are.

Why would # of dimensions have any bearing on intelligence?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

first of all, of course we are multi dimensional. are we one dimensional? no. two? no. three? that's multiple dimensions.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning

this is a giant assumption. interestingly, anthropomorphism seems to be a common thread in both religious and secular cosmologies.

If we do belong to another dimension, what dimension would that be? How high up do we really belong? Why did we leave (if at all)?

dimensions don't work like that, from what i can tell. for instance a sphere is a 3 dimensional object, but when viewed by a 2 dimensional being, appears as a circle. it's not that it leaves one dimension and enter another. it's that the dimensions themselves provide greater and greater fidelity of the true reality existing at the base. the 2 dimensional creatures are only seeing the data from the third dimension that they can comprehend, but it isn't the full picture. in reality all dimensions exist at once, but your comprehension is related to whatever your "home" dimension is.

how high does it go up? i mean that's a question asked by philosophers and mystics for thousands of years. the mind/body problem. maybe someday humanity will solve this question, maybe never.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Consciousness takes place in another dimension, of sorts.

 

[V4skunk]

Go watch Elon's latest JR podcast!
The neuro link brainchip stuff is very interesting!

 

[Mr Nash]

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Yeah, no. I was with you until you mentioned being banished like this some kind of bad movie idea.

 

[synchronicity]

Consciousness takes place in another dimension, of sorts.

Does consciousness exist in bodies or bodies within consciousness? My experience says it's the latter.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Does consciousness exist in bodies or bodies within consciousness? My experience says it's the latter.

Yeah, I think the latter too. Even the smallest of objects, if they're alive, have consciousness IMO. Can't really prove or disprove it, unfortunately.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Does consciousness exist in bodies or bodies within consciousness? My experience says it's the latter.

Consciousness moves the body like a robot and receives feedback via the senses and by the brain's own pathways. Consciousness is also self-reflective and can remember, so in a sense it allows for a loose flow of time, a permanence that otherwise would not exist. Not even animals can create artificial permanence, but human can. Memories from the past can influence future behavior in ways that transcend simple animal instinct (humans have those kinds of instinctual memories, too).

There is a 'self' floating above the controls. that is connected but distinct from the brain-mush that moves the body.

I don't know what 'bodies within consciousness' would be. Are we talking monism, all is one, reality is just a spark of the magical Consciousness that we all share, something of that nature?

 

[SurprisedPikachu]

Hey all, just sharing this interesting idea with you as it's definitely something that interests me.

There's a theory that all living things belong to a dimension. We are obviously in the third dimension. The idea, is that there are higher dimensions out there with far more intelligent creatures than that on earth. The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are. According to the theory, we belong to a higher dimension but were 'sent down' or 'banished' from the higher dimensions for whatever reason, or perhaps we moved across ourselves so that we could be dominant in the third dimension. The fact that we are far more intelligent by a hundredfold, far more advanced and far more evolved than any creature on Earth just doesn't make sense. We don't fit in at all. It's as if we belong to another dimension, which is what this theory proposes.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, one of the most important things to human survival. If we had no logic and could not reason, we would likely be extinct. No other animal on earth has logic and reasoning, why is this? An animal will always react off of survival instincts regardless of the situation.

If we do belong to another dimension, what dimension would that be? How high up do we really belong? Why did we leave (if at all)? What else is there in those dimensions? Were we 'pets' to something greater?



This theory brings up a lot of ideas and is just generally very interesting. I'm not saying I believe it and I'm not trying to convince you to believe it, but anyone who's interested in it and wants to voice their opinion is welcome.

What level OT are you, The Lunch Legend ?

 

[synchronicity]

I don't know what 'bodies within consciousness' would be. Are we talking monism, all is one, reality is just a spark of the magical Consciousness that we all share, something of that nature?

Yes, consciousness as primary.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Consciousness moves the body like a robot and receives feedback via the senses and by the brain's own pathways. Consciousness is also self-reflective and can remember, so in a sense it allows for a loose flow of time, a permanence that otherwise would not exist. Not even animals can create artificial permanence, but human can. Memories from the past can influence future behavior in ways that transcend simple animal instinct (humans have those kinds of instinctual memories, too).

There is a 'self' floating above the controls. that is connected but distinct from the brain-mush that moves the body.

I don't know what 'bodies within consciousness' would be. Are we talking monism, all is one, reality is just a spark of the magical Consciousness that we all share, something of that nature?

Memories of the past are just a construct of how something was perceived by the host and is often remembered incorrectly so is it really true consciousness?

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Can't you just argue primary consciousness is just a side evolutionary benefit for certain species? There's no benefit for something like a fruit fly to have something like this.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yes, consciousness as primary.

I believe in a Primary Consciousness, but I am not it nor am I a fragment or underdeveloped version of it.

Memories of the past are just a construct of how something was perceived by the host and is often remembered incorrectly so is it really true consciousness?

The point isn't that the memories are remembered perfectly but that they can inspire a biological creature to act on it. This happens in animals too, like when you train a dog not to do a certain behavior.

 

[kingbean]

I think we're pretty solidly in the 3rd dimension and that's likely where we will stay.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

I believe in a Primary Consciousness, but I am not it nor am I a fragment or underdeveloped version of it.


The point isn't that the memories are remembered perfectly but that they can inspire a biological creature to act on it. This happens in animals too, like when you train a dog not to do a certain behavior.

Ah, gotcha. Wouldn't our physical forms define which dimension or dimensions we are tied to? Whatever our physical limitations are would define the dimensions we are tied to?

 

[synchronicity]

I believe in a Primary Consciousness, but I am not it nor am I a fragment or underdeveloped version of it.

I can only speak for "myself", but I am unable to distinguish the "self" as separate from the whole. I can say that there is awareness of a body, but I cannot pinpoint the origin of that awareness as originating biologically. I know it is the presumed state, however. I can say that I am, but the "I" of that phrase cannot be pinned down without making assumptions.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Ah, gotcha. Wouldn't our physical forms define which dimension or dimensions we are tied to? Whatever our physical limitations are would define the dimensions we are tied to?

Yeah, we're certainly tied down to limitations imposed by our physical bodies. But that doesn't prevent us from thinking up the concept of higher dimensions in the first place. That's the power of human consciousness, the ability to fathom and puzzle out and communicate those discoveries to future humans for the continual fathoming and puzzling-out. No other known species performs this ritual.

I can only speak for "myself", but I am unable to distinguish the "self" as separate from the whole. I can say that there is awareness of a body, but I cannot pinpoint the origin of that awareness as originating biologically. I know it is the presumed state, however. I can say that I am, but the "I" of that phrase cannot be pinned down without making assumptions.

I don't think your awareness originates biologically or that your "self" originates from the body. I reject the materialistic notion that all thoughts and behaviors are cause-and-effect biological processes that take place within the brain.

However, it doesn't mean that your individual 'self' is a separated part of a Whole that was split apart or fragmented in some way, nor do I believe that the body hides or obstructs a deeper inherent 'unity' that our 'selfs' would otherwise be able to freely enjoy between one another. I don't think we're all the disconnected 'tendrils' of one all-unifying energy force or conscious field that exists beneath our physical forms, just waiting to be rejoined.

 

[Whitesnake]

There's a theory that all living things belong to a dimension. We are obviously in the third dimension.

That’s not how dimensions work.

No other animal on earth has logic and reasoning

What does this even mean?

Crows and other corvids have been shown to have extensive problem-solving capabilities, as well as relatively complex communication behaviors.

Groups of orca whales have been shown to improvise team strategies to get food, and lone orcas have been seen using dead fish as bait to attract larger prey.

Our level of learning and thinking is on another level from other animals, absolutely. But to claim that no other animal has any capacity for logical thinking is just factually false.

why is this?

Because our ecological niche was such that advanced learning and complex communication behaviors greatly benefited our species’s survival. We created tools and came up with team strategies in order overcome our physical shortcomings, and enhance our physical strengths.

Our dextrous arms and hands, originally evolved for the purpose of carrying many pieces of fruit at a time, turned out to be the best at precision throwing among the animal kingdom. Suddenly, killing animals from a distance became a viable strategy of obtaining food.

Our stamina, owed to our ability to sweat through our skin, was already such that we could slowly but surely pursue any retreating animal, regardless of how much faster they were than us. Being able to injure prey from afar means that they won’t be able to run as far, meaning you won’t have to use as much energy hunting it down AND you won’t have to carry it as far of a distance, which potentially means you‘ll have more energy and less distance to cover when carrying back larger prey.

And we most certainly killed larger prey. Sure, normally a mammoth can squish or gore you in a second, but what if you and your tribe were on top a of a cliff (where it cannot reach you) and chucking spears at it? Suddenly this unstoppable, immovable creature becomes a banquet. It also becomes a ton of skin and fur to use as clothing shelter.

Indeed, our own hairless skin is both our boon and our bane, as while it provides us with the very important ability to sweat it also makes us especially prone to dangers such insects or the natural elements. But if we can use pelts to create clothing then we can travel in most climates. And if we use pelts to make tents, we can settle down almost anywhere, without the need to worry about finding naturally-made dwellings like caves.

But the ability that encompasses all of those traits is the ability to teach. Teaching isn’t unique to humans, but we are the species that has used it to the greatest possible extent. We have the ability to pass down behaviors that would not be passed down by genetics and would not be taught by the natural environment. Things like creating tools, creating shelter, hunting strategically. These are all skills that, in any other species, would likely have dies with the individuals who discovered/invented them.
For example, some chimps are smart of enough to put a stick into a termite mound to retrieve the bugs inside (to eat them), but that chimp will not go out of its way to teach its offspring this trick, and said offspring probably won’t think of that strategy on its own.
But with our advanced communication skills, we can pass down complex skills and knowledge throughout the generations.


So no, it is not because we “descend from a higher plane” or whatever. Our intelligence very much fits within our understanding of earth’s life, and in fact can even be traced through humanity’s prehistoric past.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Yeah, we're certainly tied down to limitations imposed by our physical bodies. But that doesn't prevent us from thinking up the concept of higher dimensions in the first place. That's the power of human consciousness, the ability to fathom and puzzle out and communicate those discoveries to future humans for the continual fathoming and puzzling-out. No other known species performs this ritual.

But physical bodies means our brains as well.

That’s not how dimensions work.




What does this even mean?

Crows and other corvids have been shown to have extensive problem-solving capabilities, as well as relatively complex communication behaviors.

Groups of orca whales have been shown to improvise team strategies to get food, and lone orcas have been seen using dead fish as bait to attract larger prey.

Our level of learning and thinking is on another level from other animals, absolutely. But to claim that no other animal has any capacity for logical thinking is just factually false.



Because our ecological niche was such that advanced learning and complex communication behaviors greatly benefited our species’s survival. We created tools and came up with team strategies in order overcome our physical shortcomings, and enhance our physical strengths.

Our dextrous arms and hands, originally evolved for the purpose of carrying many pieces of fruit at a time, turned out to be the best at precision throwing among the animal kingdom. Suddenly, killing animals from a distance became a viable strategy of obtaining food.

Our stamina, owed to our ability to sweat through our skin, was already such that we could slowly but surely pursue any retreating animal, regardless of how much faster they were than us. Being able to injure prey from afar means that they won’t be able to run as far, meaning you won’t have to use as much energy hunting it down AND you won’t have to carry it as far of a distance, which potentially means you‘ll have more energy and less distance to cover when carrying back larger prey.

And we most certainly killed larger prey. Sure, normally a mammoth can squish or gore you in a second, but what if you and your tribe were on top a of a cliff (where it cannot reach you) and chucking spears at it? Suddenly this unstoppable, immovable creature becomes a banquet. It also becomes a ton of skin and fur to use as clothing shelter.

Indeed, our own hairless skin is both our boon and our bane, as while it provides us with the very important ability to sweat it also makes us especially prone to dangers such insects or the natural elements. But if we can use pelts to create clothing then we can travel in most climates. And if we use pelts to make tents, we can settle down almost anywhere, without the need to worry about finding naturally-made dwellings like caves.

But the ability that encompasses all of those traits is the ability to teach. Teaching isn’t unique to humans, but we are the species that has used it to the greatest possible extent. We have the ability to pass down behaviors that would not be passed down by genetics and would not be taught by the natural environment. Things like creating tools, creating shelter, hunting strategically. These are all skills that, in any other species, would likely have dies with the individuals who discovered/invented them.
For example, some chimps are smart of enough to put a stick into a termite mound to retrieve the bugs inside (to eat them), but that chimp will not go out of its way to teach its offspring this trick, and said offspring probably won’t think of that strategy on its own.
But with our advanced communication skills, we can pass down complex skills and knowledge throughout the generations.


So no, it is not because we “descend from a higher plane” or whatever. Our intelligence very much fits within our understanding of earth’s life, and in fact can even be traced through humanity’s prehistoric past.

This. All these things are just a byproduct of our evolution and not some flat earth level theory of stupidity that we were banished to a lower realm.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

But physical bodies means our brains as well.

Sure does. The question is whether the phenomenon of 'consciousness' and its intricacies can be fully explained by the physical brain or not. Opinions differ.

This. All these things are just a byproduct of our evolution and not some flat earth level theory of stupidity that we were banished to a lower realm.

Yeah, the paradox has only puzzled humans for thousands of years. Silly humans, if only they'd learned philosophy from tryhard YouTube channels.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Consciousness is something designed as part of our evolution in order to occupy our brain so it doesn't fry itself with the millions of complex tasks carried out every second.

It's similar to distracting a dog on the pavement by jingling shiny keys in front of him so he doesn't walk in to traffic

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Sure does. The question is whether the phenomenon of 'consciousness' and its intricacies can be fully explained by the physical brain or not. Opinions differ.


Yeah, the paradox has only puzzled humans for thousands of years. Silly humans, if only they'd learned philosophy from tryhard YouTube channels.

Well, I'm of the mind we are incapable of understanding things on that high of a level. The same way I can't truly conceptualize large numbers like distances between planets or 100 years versus 1000. Doesn't mean these distances aren't real and vast but it's relative, no?

 

[DESTROYA]

You say animals have no reasoning skills so how do you explain this

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Consciousness is something designed as part of our evolution in order to occupy our brain so it doesn't fry itself with the millions of complex tasks carried out every second.

It's similar to distracting a dog on the pavement by jingling shiny keys in front of him so he doesn't walk in to traffic

Evolution doesn't intelligently select traits, certain bugs just survive. Unless you're suggesting Evolution is itself a conscious guiding force, I cannot fathom how the species lasted long enough for you and I to even be having this conversation. And at one point do you wish to separate 'consciousness' from regular old 'animal cognition'? I'm not challenging the fact that both humans and lemurs respond to brain chemicals in similar ways, but only one of those creatures ponders it, utilizes a symbolic communication medium to elucidate it, invent wires and technology to communicate it to another consciousness across the world, like you and I are doing.

I mean, it's easy to dismiss consciousness as nothing interesting from a zoomed out view, but once you compare the details it's really quite embarrassing to write it off so casually, especially since we know very little about how consciousness "developed" in the human species. If you have peer-reviewed information showing how consciousness developed on an evolutionary scale, I'm open to reading it. We have plenty of information on how consciousness developed on a social scale -- we have the last several thousand years to examine -- but I don't know much about the tens of millions of years leading up to that, at least as far as the finer points of consciousness are concerned.

Instead, we have scholars who posit how it might have happened in pre-recorded history and then pass it off as plausible fact.

Well, I'm of the mind we are incapable of understanding things on that high of a level. The same way I can't truly conceptualize large numbers like distances between planets or 100 years versus 1000. Doesn't mean these distances aren't real and vast but it's relative, no?

Well, there's where the idea of divine knowledge comes into play. Meta-knowledge ("things on that high of a level") must somehow get handed down into a lower layer. Wittgenstein and Godel both separately identified this as the inscrutable Rule that cannot be explained by the set of rules (or numbers) itself.

The existence of unknowable meta-knowledge is as real as E=MC2, proven many decades ago though mathematics and logical positivism. Information does not appear from nowhere, yet every aspect of reality is guided by a body of information whose existence cannot be explained by the information itself. Science keeps digging deeper to find that guiding Rule, that God Particle, that Mandelbrot Set which explains how so many disconnected, unrelated things to suddenly become unified. Religion and spiritualism are also means by which someone is trying to grasp at that same unknowable meta-knowledge, however foolishly and unsuccessfully the efforts might be.

At the end of the day, this is just one more question that boils down into whether or not you're a materialist: can all phenomenon in the universe -- including all thoughts that have been thought and all ideas that have been conceived -- be the sole result of unthinking interactions between inanimate, unthinking, unconscious molecules?

One's answer to that question informs the rest of the paradigm. It is an ancient question and science hasn't adequately answered it, in my opinion, nor will it.

 

[Tesseract]

extra dimensions in math and physics are legitimate constructs, hoof got us awfully close with his holographic principle but einstein's symmetry throes remain (it's a question of physicality, not metric tensor and electromagnetic potential)

i don't consider consciousness special (thought makes man, not the other way around)

we'll get there eventually, accuracy and precision be damned

 

[Tesseract]

consciousness is one of those things that we needn't understand how it works

kinda like QED SUAC, the results will speak for themselves as general ai finds its floor

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Evolution doesn't intelligently select traits, certain bugs just survive. Unless you're suggesting Evolution is itself a conscious guiding force, I cannot fathom how the species lasted long enough for you and I to even be having this conversation. And at one point do you wish to separate 'consciousness' from regular old 'animal cognition'? I'm not challenging the fact that both humans and lemurs respond to brain chemicals in similar ways, but only one of those creatures ponders it, utilizes a symbolic communication medium to elucidate it, invent wires and technology to communicate it to another consciousness across the world, like you and I are doing.

I mean, it's easy to dismiss consciousness as nothing interesting from a zoomed out view, but once you compare the details it's really quite embarrassing to write it off so casually, especially since we know very little about how consciousness "developed" in the human species. If you have peer-reviewed information showing how consciousness developed on an evolutionary scale, I'm open to reading it. We have plenty of information on how consciousness developed on a social scale -- we have the last several thousand years to examine -- but I don't know much about the tens of millions of years leading up to that, at least as far as the finer points of consciousness are concerned.

Instead, we have scholars who posit how it might have happened in pre-recorded history and then pass it off as plausible fact.


Well, there's where the idea of divine knowledge comes into play. Meta-knowledge ("things on that high of a level") must somehow get handed down into a lower layer. Wittgenstein and Godel both separately identified this as the inscrutable Rule that cannot be explained by the set of rules (or numbers) itself.

The existence of unknowable meta-knowledge is as real as E=MC2, proven many decades ago though mathematics and logical positivism. Information does not appear from nowhere, yet every aspect of reality is guided by a body of information whose existence cannot be explained by the information itself. Science keeps digging deeper to find that guiding Rule, that God Particle, that Mandelbrot Set which explains how so many disconnected, unrelated things to suddenly become unified. Religion and spiritualism are also means by which someone is trying to grasp at that same unknowable meta-knowledge, however foolishly and unsuccessfully the efforts might be.

At the end of the day, this is just one more question that boils down into whether or not you're a materialist: can all phenomenon in the universe -- including all thoughts that have been thought and all ideas that have been conceived -- be the sole result of unthinking interactions between inanimate, unthinking, unconscious molecules?

One's answer to that question informs the rest of the paradigm. It is an ancient question and science hasn't adequately answered it, in my opinion, nor will it.

I just mean, those beings born with higher intelligence and the cognitive ability that didn't have consciousness (which is to say, no species we know of ever) would have died out. Any genetic mutation from non-cognitive to cognitive that didn't have the ability to perceive consciousness in the traditional sense, would have been overloaded by the information. IMO. I have no evidence other than the lack of evidence

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

Evolution doesn't intelligently select traits, certain bugs just survive. Unless you're suggesting Evolution is itself a conscious guiding force, I cannot fathom how the species lasted long enough for you and I to even be having this conversation. And at one point do you wish to separate 'consciousness' from regular old 'animal cognition'? I'm not challenging the fact that both humans and lemurs respond to brain chemicals in similar ways, but only one of those creatures ponders it, utilizes a symbolic communication medium to elucidate it, invent wires and technology to communicate it to another consciousness across the world, like you and I are doing.

I mean, it's easy to dismiss consciousness as nothing interesting from a zoomed out view, but once you compare the details it's really quite embarrassing to write it off so casually, especially since we know very little about how consciousness "developed" in the human species. If you have peer-reviewed information showing how consciousness developed on an evolutionary scale, I'm open to reading it. We have plenty of information on how consciousness developed on a social scale -- we have the last several thousand years to examine -- but I don't know much about the tens of millions of years leading up to that, at least as far as the finer points of consciousness are concerned.

Instead, we have scholars who posit how it might have happened in pre-recorded history and then pass it off as plausible fact.


Well, there's where the idea of divine knowledge comes into play. Meta-knowledge ("things on that high of a level") must somehow get handed down into a lower layer. Wittgenstein and Godel both separately identified this as the inscrutable Rule that cannot be explained by the set of rules (or numbers) itself.

The existence of unknowable meta-knowledge is as real as E=MC2, proven many decades ago though mathematics and logical positivism. Information does not appear from nowhere, yet every aspect of reality is guided by a body of information whose existence cannot be explained by the information itself. Science keeps digging deeper to find that guiding Rule, that God Particle, that Mandelbrot Set which explains how so many disconnected, unrelated things to suddenly become unified. Religion and spiritualism are also means by which someone is trying to grasp at that same unknowable meta-knowledge, however foolishly and unsuccessfully the efforts might be.

At the end of the day, this is just one more question that boils down into whether or not you're a materialist: can all phenomenon in the universe -- including all thoughts that have been thought and all ideas that have been conceived -- be the sole result of unthinking interactions between inanimate, unthinking, unconscious molecules?

One's answer to that question informs the rest of the paradigm. It is an ancient question and science hasn't adequately answered it, in my opinion, nor will it.

Trying to think of how to word this... Couldn't you argue that every measurable object from the smallest to largest is a universe within itself and there are certain laws, the meta-knowledge that you mention, that govern the relationships between those universes? A universe would just a sphere of activity that has the goal of existing? Say for example a cell would be a universe within itself that consisted of certain laws potentially unique to itself or not that existed within another universe that housed that cell and other cells and in that universe the laws would be between cells and then another universe that housed those cells was housed by something else and so on and so on? Not sure if that makes sense. Essentially my body is made up of cells, those cells exist within their environment and can only conceptualize within their universe, those cells make up organs which operate as individual things but have relations to other organs and their own set of laws and interactions and those organs make up a body which exists in a higher realm which has its own set of laws and whatnot. And so on and so on... I really jumbled this thing, I hope I got the basic concept down?

 

[synchronicity]

Any deep conversation about the fundamental nature of things always raises the question - for me anyway - of what truly *can* be known. I would say that the answer to that is almost nothing. In fact, it's so limited that it almost destroys the very concept of "knowledge".

And for me, that is incredibly liberating. To let go of tenuous-at-best mental positions is freeing and opens up the magic of being as the only type of knowing.

 

[Tesseract]

i'm of the opinion that if it can be thought, it can be created and therefore understood

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I just mean, those beings born with higher intelligence and the cognitive ability that didn't have consciousness (which is to say, no species we know of ever) would have died out. Any genetic mutation from non-cognitive to cognitive that didn't have the ability to perceive consciousness in the traditional sense, would have been overloaded by the information. IMO. I have no evidence other than the lack of evidence

So if I am understanding you, we infer that the trait of consciousness must have evolved because humans have it now and humans evolved. The humans that didn't have it must have been 'overloaded' (though we have no physical example or any discrete explanation of how this would take place or why they would die out).

Well. That doesn't explain the origins of consciousness. If you can point to a portion of the human body that encompasses "consciousness" and then show me how our current consciousness differs from that of a pre-man ape 10 million years ago, I will begin to understand your line of thinking. What part of the brain would have been overloaded by the information? It still doesn't explain why the brain invented a 'self' to help contain this chaos.

And I'm not trying to set up an impossible question just to cross my arms and smirk. Let's imagine you have perfect knowledge. What would be the pieces of information you currently have and the blanks that you still need to fill in with facts to come to your conclusion that consciousness evolved as a natural trait?

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, it boils down to one dividing question: is consciousness a distinct phenomenon, unexplainable by the total knowledge of all biological parts used in the process of generating consciousness?

With perfect knowledge of how the human brain operates, would we be able to explain consciousness?

Or to put the same ancient question yet another way: assuming you had perfect working knowledge of the human brain and could explain how all its neurons interacted, could we come to the scientific conclusion that all aspects of consciousness are rooted in physical properties? We would discover that no metaphysical or otherwise external influence or imprinting is necessary for human consicousness, that's the argument of materialism.

The nihilistic and absurd implications of what I describe above are philosophical questions, not rooted in empirical reality, so I want to make sure I understand the position in its own scientific terms.

Trying to think of how to word this... Couldn't you argue that every measurable object from the smallest to largest is a universe within itself and there are certain laws, the meta-knowledge that you mention, that govern the relationships between those universes?

In a manner of speaking, sure, you could say that all scales of the universe operate along the same patterns and equations, from the largest to the smallest particles, from the weakest to the most destructive releases of energy. This doesn't mean that a dust mote is actually a universe with people inside thinking these thoughts. I don't believe in a multiverse (but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise).

A universe would just a sphere of activity that has the goal of existing? Say for example a cell would be a universe within itself that
consisted of certain laws potentially unique to itself or not that existed within another universe that housed that cell and other cells and in that universe the laws would be between cells and then another universe that housed those cells was housed by something else and so on and so on?

A "goal of existing" implies an arrow of time and entropy. Do either of these exist in the world of physics? We can observe their effects, but can you prove them in the same way that we would prove a higher/lower dimension or a 'consciousness'?

Not sure if that makes sense. Essentially my body is made up of cells, those cells exist within their environment and can only conceptualize within their universe, those cells make up organs which operate as individual things but have relations to other organs and their own set of laws and interactions and those organs make up a body which exists in a higher realm which has its own set of laws and whatnot. And so on and so on... I really jumbled this thing, I hope I got the basic concept down?

The cell's version of "conceptualizing" would be when it is responding mechanically to stimulus, that's it. The cell doesn't possess the biology to self-reflect on its own behavior, or its own biology, or its existence. The cell is still guided unknowingly by certain a priori instincts like the need to reproduce, the need to seek nutrients, the need to defend, and so forth. Chemicals don't decide whether or not to defend themselves. Minerals don't seek to reproduce. These behaviors cannot be explained simply by the physical structures and the chemical interactions that carry out the behaviors, even on a microscopic, single-celled level.

 

[GAMETA]

I think you overestimate the human capacity, man.

Animals are very capable of understanding basic logic such as "push this button to get food" and even more complex instructions. We have animals escaping mazes, dolphins helping fishermen to "hunt" fish, mamals raising other species cubs, etc. Other primates have shown capacity to utilize tools and ponder on its usage, and elephants have shown capacity to feel, to communicate, to mourn loved ones, as well as recognize and amuse themselves and basic tool and logic usage.

Are we superior? Sure, but the human capacity today lies solely on the accumulation of information and technology. You look at our tech today and imagine we're far superior, but reality is, all this tech is based on very basic principles we discovered in nature throughout the ages and accumulated, and, had the information been completely lost, we'd lose the capacity to do create such tech...

From a technical point of view, you can think of CPU processors as an example: Without the previous versions of CPUs we wouldn't be able to create new ones. The complexity is far beyond what humans can do naturally, but it's possible with the accumulation of technology.

There's also the fact that not every human is capable of such feats. Very few exceptional humans created and figured out things that helped evolve human tech and behavior as a whole, and from there, the technology was adapted to be understood by other humans.

How many humans can create a light bulb? How many can learn how to flip a switch? A dog can flip a switch too. You can notice that in kids and how easily they learn how to use technology that's been made for human usage and consumption, but when it comes to creating it, things change completely. The basic functions of our intelligence are the same as those found in animals, so are our capabilities of feeling, and I'd say even our notion of consciousness can be found in other mammals like elephants and dolphins.

I don't think there's anything unusual or special about human intelligence. It's not different than animal intelligence in essence, just more developed.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I'd like a plausible explanation of consciousness that explains how it came to exist instead of just saying how it's nothing special because animals have some facets of it, too.

Here's a plausible explanation I've heard, for example of what I have in mind:

At some time in the past and over the course of many years, our monkey ancestors ate psychotropic and neutropic mushrooms (which still exist today have effects today on biologically-modern humans). These mushrooms killed some monkeys, and others experienced strange hallucinations with symbolic imagery of past events in the monkey's memory. The monkey race slowly gained symbolic representation as they ate shrooms and tripped out to jumbled symbolic images as their brains attempted to return to chemical equilibrium. Over time, the brain-damaging use of drugs caused the monkey's brains to grow bigger in certain ways until they one day became self-aware by stumbling upon the metaphysical, a priori concept of the 'self'. With a 'self' follows the expansion of the brain to communicate ideas linguistically and artistically. Over time the success of this tool called 'language' encouraged the monkey-brains to keep growing in certain ways until we reach the biologically-modern human with a fully-formed consciousness and 'self'.

See, that wasn't so hard. I farted out a pop-science explanation for human consciousness without breaking a sweat. How much of it is rooted in science, though?

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

So if I am understanding you, we infer that the trait of consciousness must have evolved because humans have it now and humans evolved. The humans that didn't have it must have been 'overloaded' (though we have no physical example or any discrete explanation of how this would take place or why they would die out).

Consciousness is the sum of its parts. Those parts were achieved through evolution. It doesn't just apply to humans but to many types of animals. In the same way, you can bake many types of bread that have their own unique properties. The bread is the consciousness, the different types of bread are the species. Elephants, dolphins, whales, primates all have consciousness. However we were able to evolve further to develop introspection, to convey these concepts, to discuss them. Consciousness is something that occurs when certain criteria are met.

Well. That doesn't explain the origins of consciousness. If you can point to a portion of the human body that encompasses "consciousness" and then show me how our current consciousness differs from that of a pre-man ape 10 million years ago, I will begin to understand your line of thinking. What part of the brain would have been overloaded by the information? It still doesn't explain why the brain invented a 'self' to help contain this chaos.

It wouldn't be overloaded with the information because it wasn't capable of grasping it. As we continued to evolve, so did our mental capacity and through observation and study and experimenting we gained knowledge which in turn helped grow our understanding of the world and thus our consciousness. We believed you'd fall off the planet if you sailed far enough into the horizon, we learned that was wrong.


And I'm not trying to set up an impossible question just to cross my arms and smirk. Let's imagine you have perfect knowledge. What would be the pieces of information you currently have and the blanks that you still need to fill in with facts to come to your conclusion that consciousness evolved as a natural trait?

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, it boils down to one dividing question: is consciousness a distinct phenomenon, unexplainable by the total knowledge of all biological parts used in the process of generating consciousness?



With perfect knowledge of how the human brain operates, would we be able to explain consciousness?

No, because we are limited by the physical properties of our bodies. It's like asking if the illogical knows it's illogical.

Or to put the same ancient question yet another way: assuming you had perfect working knowledge of the human brain and could explain how all its neurons interacted, could we come to the scientific conclusion that all aspects of consciousness are rooted in physical properties? We would discover that no metaphysical or otherwise external influence or imprinting is necessary for human consicousness, that's the argument of materialism.

The nihilistic and absurd implications of what I describe above are philosophical questions, not rooted in empirical reality, so I want to make sure I understand the position in its own scientific terms.


In a manner of speaking, sure, you could say that all scales of the universe operate along the same patterns and equations, from the largest to the smallest particles, from the weakest to the most destructive releases of energy. This doesn't mean that a dust mote is actually a universe with people inside thinking these thoughts. I don't believe in a multiverse (but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise).

When I mentioned a universe within say a dust mite, I didn't mean the universe was like ours with humans inside of it. But that within that "universe" were living things (energy) that existed and operated with their own set of laws to keep the dust mite alive. The same way a rock is alive.

A "goal of existing" implies an arrow of time and entropy. Do either of these exist in the world of physics? We can observe their effects, but can you prove them in the same way that we would prove a higher/lower dimension or a 'consciousness'?

Yes, all things decay.


The cell's version of "conceptualizing" would be when it is responding mechanically to stimulus, that's it. The cell doesn't possess the biology to self-reflect on its own behavior, or its own biology, or its existence. The cell is still guided unknowingly by certain a priori instincts like the need to reproduce, the need to seek nutrients, the need to defend, and so forth. Chemicals don't decide whether or not to defend themselves. Minerals don't seek to reproduce. These behaviors cannot be explained simply by the physical structures and the chemical interactions that carry out the behaviors, even on a microscopic, single-celled level.

Yes, it isn't conscious but it's still living.

 

[GobbledeeGoo]

I'd like a plausible explanation of consciousness that explains how it came to exist instead of just saying how it's nothing special because animals have some facets of it, too.

Here's a plausible explanation I've heard, for example of what I have in mind:

At some time in the past and over the course of many years, our monkey ancestors ate psychotropic and neutropic mushrooms (which still exist today have effects today on biologically-modern humans). These mushrooms killed some monkeys, and others experienced strange hallucinations with symbolic imagery of past events in the monkey's memory. The monkey race slowly gained symbolic representation as they ate shrooms and tripped out to jumbled symbolic images as their brains attempted to return to chemical equilibrium. Over time, the brain-damaging use of drugs caused the monkey's brains to grow bigger in certain ways until they one day became self-aware by stumbling upon the metaphysical, a priori concept of the 'self'. With a 'self' follows the expansion of the brain to communicate ideas linguistically and artistically. Over time the success of this tool called 'language' encouraged the monkey-brains to keep growing in certain ways until we reach the biologically-modern human with a fully-formed consciousness and 'self'.

See, that wasn't so hard. I farted out a pop-science explanation for human consciousness without breaking a sweat. How much of it is rooted in science, though?

Well, consciousness VERY special. Incredibly rare beyond comprehension. Animals may possess it but in the grand scheme of how many living things have existed, animals or not, it is incredibly rare. And as humans, we are the only ones capable of studying what consciousness is and what other creatures may possess it and so on and so on.

 

[Rentahamster]

We are obviously in the third dimension.

Obviously? How do you know? Do you not consider time a dimension as well? We move through time like we move through space, just with less mobility.

The idea, is that there are higher dimensions out there with far more intelligent creatures than that on earth. The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are. According to the theory, we belong to a higher dimension but were 'sent down' or 'banished' from the higher dimensions for whatever reason, or perhaps we moved across ourselves so that we could be dominant in the third dimension.

What is the basis for this theory and how do you go about testing it to see if it's true?

The fact that we are far more intelligent by a hundredfold, far more advanced and far more evolved than any creature on Earth just doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't that make any sense? First of all, "evolved" doesn't necessarily equate to "functionality" or "complexity". We've been evolving just as much as any other life form on this planet that has existed as long as we have. We're not more "evolved" than a dog or a pine tree or a salmon. We're definitely "smarter", but not more "evolved". Evolution is how life changes over time. Those changes are influenced by selective pressure. Bigger claws, smaller claws, different shaped mouths, different ways of storing fat or water, differences in color, intelligence - these either increase the likelihood of something surviving or it doesn't, depending on its environment. None of these traits are inherently "special". They are merely functional.

Intelligence, for our species, just so happens to confer us an evolutionary advantage, so we kept it over millions of years. There also used to be lots of "smart" hominids, but for some reason the rest of them died out and we're the only ones left.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, one of the most important things to human survival.

There are other animals that can use problem solving and tools to achieve goals. We can do it "better", but that's the only difference. Logic and reasoning are also not the most important things to human survival. Imagine a severely mentally handicapped person, and imagine Albert Einstein without lungs. Now imagine which one survives the next 5 minutes.

If we had no logic and could not reason, we would likely be extinct.

How do you know that? By your own words, you said that we are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, which means that logic and reasoning are the exceptions, not the rule. There are billions of other species that don't have logic and reasoning and are very much not extinct. Every other life form that did evolve higher levels of logic and reasoning, like neanderthals and denisovans, went extinct. Except for us. That makes more examples of logic and reasoning being associated with extinction than not.

 

[GAMETA]

I'd like a plausible explanation of consciousness that explains how it came to exist instead of just saying how it's nothing special because animals have some facets of it, too.

Here's a plausible explanation I've heard, for example of what I have in mind:

At some time in the past and over the course of many years, our monkey ancestors ate psychotropic and neutropic mushrooms (which still exist today have effects today on biologically-modern humans). These mushrooms killed some monkeys, and others experienced strange hallucinations with symbolic imagery of past events in the monkey's memory. The monkey race slowly gained symbolic representation as they ate shrooms and tripped out to jumbled symbolic images as their brains attempted to return to chemical equilibrium. Over time, the brain-damaging use of drugs caused the monkey's brains to grow bigger in certain ways until they one day became self-aware by stumbling upon the metaphysical, a priori concept of the 'self'. With a 'self' follows the expansion of the brain to communicate ideas linguistically and artistically. Over time the success of this tool called 'language' encouraged the monkey-brains to keep growing in certain ways until we reach the biologically-modern human with a fully-formed consciousness and 'self'.

See, that wasn't so hard. I farted out a pop-science explanation for human consciousness without breaking a sweat. How much of it is rooted in science, though?

You're watching too much Joe Rogan, my dude, hahaha

The usage of drugs changing biologic characteristics would imply Lamarckism, and, although we may in fact share memories in DNA, acquired phenotype physical characteristics do not pass on.

 

[Kenpachii]

Hey all, just sharing this interesting idea with you as it's definitely something that interests me.

There's a theory that all living things belong to a dimension. We are obviously in the third dimension. The idea, is that there are higher dimensions out there with far more intelligent creatures than that on earth. The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are. According to the theory, we belong to a higher dimension but were 'sent down' or 'banished' from the higher dimensions for whatever reason, or perhaps we moved across ourselves so that we could be dominant in the third dimension. The fact that we are far more intelligent by a hundredfold, far more advanced and far more evolved than any creature on Earth just doesn't make sense. We don't fit in at all. It's as if we belong to another dimension, which is what this theory proposes.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, one of the most important things to human survival. If we had no logic and could not reason, we would likely be extinct. No other animal on earth has logic and reasoning, why is this? An animal will always react off of survival instincts regardless of the situation.

If we do belong to another dimension, what dimension would that be? How high up do we really belong? Why did we leave (if at all)? What else is there in those dimensions? Were we 'pets' to something greater?



This theory brings up a lot of ideas and is just generally very interesting. I'm not saying I believe it and I'm not trying to convince you to believe it, but anyone who's interested in it and wants to voice their opinion is welcome.

There's a theory that all living things belong to a dimension. We are obviously in the third dimension. The idea, is that there are higher dimensions out there with far more intelligent creatures than that on earth. The higher the dimensions, typically, the more intelligent and evolved the living things are

But if we live in the 3rd dimension and we are far more itelligent then the second dimension why can we not find any living creature or object that sits in the second dimension right now.

The fact that we can't perceive the second dimension creatures or objects does that make them also not more intelligent then us?

See how that makes no sense.

The reason why it makes no sense is because there are no dimensions, there is one dimension. Dimensions are made up for math and nothing else.

We are the only animal on Earth that has the ability to think with logic and reasoning, one of the most important things to human survival. If we had no logic and could not reason, we would likely be extinct

This makes no sense at all.

So in your view we are on the only animal on earth that uses logic and reasoning. which isn't the case lots of animals do by the way.

But then you state if we didn't use logic and reasoning we would be extinct, yet all those other animals ( as u call humans also animals ) are not extinct while they lack exatly that. Would we not just be that animal?

See how that makes no sense at all

If we do belong to another dimension, what dimension would that be? How high up do we really belong? Why did we leave (if at all)? What else is there in those dimensions? Were we 'pets' to something greater?

There are no dimensions, there is not a single proof of evidence that dimensions exist. It's made up for math and that's about it.

I am a believer in the fact that everything is just more of the same on what u see around you.

We live in layers.

earth > water > air > space > ?????

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You're watching too much Joe Rogan, my dude, hahaha

The usage of drugs changing biologic characteristics would imply Lamarckism, and, although we may in fact share memories in DNA, acquired phenotype physical characteristics do not pass on.

I didn't say I agreed with it, but so far I've given more detail and argument as to why consciousness came naturally from apes than anyone else in the thread. I'd ilke to see similar attempts to at least explain how our concsiousness came to exist. Please base the explanation on actual knowledge of pre-human development (I made an attempt lol).

So far all I hear are plausible explanations. Evolutionary science in particular really really loves its plausible explanations, but this has led to assumptions that later turned out to be completely incorrect.