www.tombraiderforums.com

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Community Forums > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-01-17, 15:24   #11
Zebra
Tomb Raider
 
Zebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,985
Default

^That's a somewhat philosophical and unscientific view of things, don't you agree (at least in the context of the current discussion)? Sure, we can be needlessly clever with definitions and semantics but when I'm referring to a person's consciousness, I don't just mean a snapshot of what that consciousness looks like at one singular point in time.
__________________
Wozu zuhören, wenn man reden kann?
Zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-17, 15:42   #12
larafan25
Legend
 
larafan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 68,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra View Post
^That's a somewhat philosophical and unscientific view of things, don't you agree (at least in the context of the current discussion)? Sure, we can be needlessly clever with definitions and semantics but when I'm referring to a person's consciousness, I don't just mean a snapshot of what that consciousness looks like at one singular point in time.
But if so much (if not all) of what the mind (consciousness) is observes is constantly changing and redefining us physically, the only consistent, unchanging element is the concept of focus-less consciousness. Pure, non-identified, uncharacteristic awareness.

I mean, where do you draw the line, separating consciousness/ awareness? Hmmm...
larafan25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-17, 22:43   #13
Niveus
Professor
 
Niveus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United Kingdom Gender: Male
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by larafan25 View Post
But if so much (if not all) of what the mind (consciousness) is observes is constantly changing and redefining us physically, the only consistent, unchanging element is the concept of focus-less consciousness. Pure, non-identified, uncharacteristic awareness.

I mean, where do you draw the line, separating consciousness/ awareness? Hmmm...
There is no solid line, in my eyes. A grey dotted one maybe. For one to be conscious one has to be self aware, otherwise we are talking in subconsciousness, unconsciousness, "pre"-consciousness, whatever you like to call it. Arguably while awareness is not necessarily consciousness, (ie, a machine or computer while not "conscious" can be aware of its external environment through some sort of sensor) self awareness / intersect / consciousness, meaning both concepts, while not identical, share aspects and cannot exist apart from one another.

With regards, to my views on whether complex life other than ourselves exists, I don't believe there is data either way. Factually, what we can honestly say about the whole business, is that the more we delve into the universe and the more we understand about extra solar planets, conditions on other planets in our own system, historical conditions on Mars, the resilience of extremophile organisms and the viability of life in space, the more encouragingly and more firmly we can confirm that that extraterrestrial life could not not exist. I don't think anything we have unearthed has ever made us think that life is any more or any less viable (or unique, however you want to view it) than we always thought it was.

Like has already been mentioned in this thread, who is to say how similar aliens would be like to us. Who is to say that they would have reached the same conclusion as us and communicate through electromagnetic waves? Who is to say that they have not thought up some other method of communicating amongst themselves and then applied it to finding civilisations like us? Like two people on a blind date, missing each other at a restaurant. This is assuming that they even want to communicate with aliens, that they have even thought of the concept of them. If they didn't care to look for messages, it is unlikely in my eyes that they would come across any, even if the whole heaven was teeming with messages from other life.

Let's make all these wild assumptions and guess that complex life exists and is looking for us, as we are looking for them, too. Still the chance of contact is really low, in my opinion. Elephants and dolphins in nature will never come in to contact, let alone effectively communicate. They are by many standards some of the most intelligent creatures that ever walked (or swam) on the Earth, they faced similar evolutionary constraints and share a whole lot of DNA. But could you conceive a cooperation between the elephants and the dolphins? Of course not, because despite their many close commonalities, they are still too different from each other.

Makes me then say, of course, that life is very common on Earth, but in all history how many times has complex, tool-harnessing, sentient life evolved? Once. Maybe the same is the case for the universe. Many civilisations might exist in the lifetime of a universe, but far too far apart, and far too long from one to the next, that they ever could come into contact.

Last edited by Niveus; 10-01-17 at 23:11.
Niveus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-17, 22:59   #14
Dustie
Relic Hunter
 
Dustie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 6,688
Default

Who else thought this thread was about the Alien film series starring Sigourney Weaver? .____.
Dustie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-17, 23:08   #15
larafan25
Legend
 
larafan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 68,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niveus View Post
There is no line, in my eyes. For one to be conscious one has to be self aware, otherwise we are talking in subconsciousness, unconsciousness, "pre"-consciousness, whatever you like to call it. Arguably while awareness is not necessarily consciousness, (ie, a machine or computer while not "conscious" can be aware of its external environment through some sort of sensor) self awareness / intersect / consciousness, meaning both concepts, while not identical, share aspects that cannot exist apart from one another.
Okay. Now that you mention computers, I want to become a "mech" human and live forever. I want to live forever so badly.

But even when I say that, I remember that "I" is only my consciousness, so, once "I" am gone... there are other "I"s to experience life. Right?

It's just weird to imagine this...
larafan25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-17, 23:26   #16
Niveus
Professor
 
Niveus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United Kingdom Gender: Male
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by larafan25 View Post
Okay. Now that you mention computers, I want to become a "mech" human and live forever. I want to live forever so badly.

But even when I say that, I remember that "I" is only my consciousness, so, once "I" am gone... there are other "I"s to experience life. Right?

It's just weird to imagine this...
Yes, it's something I often think about, out of all of the creatures on the planet, dead, alive and yet to be born, and all of those separate consciousnesses, "I" am the only entity of that "I" am in command, of that "I" am acutely aware. How was "me" made, where was "I" before "I" existed, and how is it that "I" ever even existed in the first place? The planet could have surely gone on without the thing inside my brain that makes me think and feel like I am me, couldn't it? Is there an infinite amount of consciousnesses or would that "I" feeling have been programmed on some other creature's brain had it been that I was never born?

Mostly, I think that this self-questioning and philosophical thinking is a "glitch", like a computer doing something it is programmed to and crashing when it gets caught up in its own code, and that the sense of "I" is a trick of sentience. I almost feel like creatures with low sentience are not self aware in the same way we and other similar creatures (like pigs, dolphins, apes, probably down to the level of toads and rats) are, and that this "I" feeling is a ruse that evolved to stop sentient creatures questioning their very purpose and still pursuing everything they need for survival. When we begin questioning why, (part and parcel of evolving sentience and high learning), we want love and why we want to enjoy food, enjoy life, have babies, seek answers and knowledge, we subconsciously tell ourselves: so that "I" am happy, so that "I" am not unhappy, because "I" desire it, so "I" can begin a family, I need to do this otherwise "I" may die, and my only answer would be to say that this "I" feeling is therefore something that counter-evolved to prevent sentient animals from completely giving up on it all, having become aware of the complete purposelessness and and futility of it all. A double lock survival instinct, if you want.

Now my question for you: is this making any sense to you?

Last edited by Niveus; 10-01-17 at 23:40.
Niveus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-17, 23:45   #17
larafan25
Legend
 
larafan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 68,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niveus View Post
Yes, it's something I often think about, out of all of the creatures on the planet, dead, alive and yet to be born, and all of those separate consciousnesses, "I" am the only entity of that "I" am in command, of that "I" am acutely aware. How was "me" made, where was "I" before "I" existed, and how is it that "I" ever even existed in the first place? The planet could have surely gone on without the thing inside my brain that makes me think and feel like I am me, couldn't it? Is there an infinite amount of consciousnesses or would that "I" feeling have been programmed on some other creature's brain had it been that I was never born?

Mostly, I think that this self-questioning and philosophical thinking is a "glitch", like a computer doing something it is programmed to and crashing when it gets caught up in its own code, and that the sense of "I" is a trick of sentience. I almost feel like creatures with low sentience are not self aware in the same way we and other similar creatures (like pigs, dolphins, apes, probably down to the level of toads and rats) are, and that this "I" feeling is a ruse that evolved to stop sentient creatures questioning their very purpose and still pursuing everything they need for survival. When we begin questioning why, (part and parcel of evolving sentience and high learning), we want love and why we want to enjoy food, enjoy life, have babies, seek answers and knowledge, we subconsciously tell ourselves: so that "I" am happy, so that "I" am not unhappy, because "I" desire it, so "I" can begin a family, I need to do this otherwise "I" may die, and my only answer would be to say that this "I" feeling is therefore something that counter-evolved to prevent sentient animals from completely giving up on it all, having become aware of the complete purposelessness and and futility of it all.

Now my question for you: is this making any sense to you?
That makes sense.

But, is it possible that below everything we believe is important, regardless of the label we give it, that it's just outward motion, or something?

In other words, we can't help but exist and perpetuate ourselves in the same sense that once a ball is rolling, it's going to roll, at least for a bit. Do you know what I mean? Like, we've given names and formed logic around what we do, but even what we do isn't the entire truth of it all. This is something I find hard to explain.

It's like the TRLE, you aren't actually running, and you aren't actually pulling a switch that opens a door, etc... that's just part of the illusion. Yet still there is some numbers under those animations dictating the movement, movements that for real creatures might be compulsive. No way to stop it.

It's also interesting to ponder the fact that I always see myself in third-person, even if I'm looking at my own hands, although the visual perspective is different, technically speaking another person could look over my shoulder and have that same sense experience. And so, once I am gone, no longer experiencing whatever I focus on, there are still people who may think of me, or I might still be present in images, as an image. Or someone who touched me might have that visceral, sense memory of the interaction. So, if our consciousness is really non-characterized, that experience of focusing on me, from another person's perspective, is the same as myself focusing on me.
larafan25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.