Aliens?

[Confused-by-christianity]

All the evidence I've seen indicates that consciousness is a brain process,

Not sure they know much about consciousness. I’d wait until the results are in before judging too quickly ;-)

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I think your ideas are interesting, in the sense that I'm intrigued that someone would develop such a world view with almost zero evidence for it. I don't see any harm in it and some positive aspects - for example it is implicitly humble. On the other hand I'd rather work towards a world view that had more of chance of reflecting reality. Please take this as an opinion offered in response to your question and not as a criticism.

The idea came to me through a type of IQ test. I saw that there were some questions (patterns) that some people just wouldn’t see no matter how hard they looked. Then I realised how often people can be looking directly at “order”/ “pattern” / “framework” - and not see it.
I also had a small pet. It “knew” me - it had a perception of me and perceived my hands but it would never perceive me fully. His brain just isn’t strong enough to handle the complexity of what a human is much less billions of us in huge cities etc etc. Further, I read about people blind since birth receiving sight through a medical intervention, apparently you could wave your hand in front of their face and ask if they could see your hand - they’d say no. They’d see funny light changes but no hand - seemed their brain hadn’t framed a “hand” yet and so they saw it but didn’t know it. I guess I used that as a template to understand the idea behind the spirit world being all around us and we are unable to see it ?? I wondered what else we might be looking right at and not seeing??
But it’s all speculation as you point out. I have no idea really what’s going on haha
I guess I’d have to introduce a concept of a being that had perfect senses that could detect everything in reality and a brain sophisticated enough to make sense of it all - what would that being see that we would not see (we would declare “unobservable”) ???

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

There's no reliable evidence at all for spirits or angels, etc., so I would be very surprised if anything of that sort showed up.

I’m so bored I need a good surprise. Something like finding Atlantis or the garden of Eden. Aliens are real. Something !! Something everyone thought was ridiculous that turns out to be true haha
As far as evidence of angels goes - I pull the “I don’t know” card. I haven’t catalogued all the evidence out there and tested it against a measure of some sort.

Both suggestions also fall foul of fundamental physics (unless spirits & angels are names for physical, material beings), and if you're talking about things that could influence or interact with anything material, i.e. be detectable in any way, you're talking physics.

. I don’t think they have solved physics yet or how the brain consciousness and physics all work together. I often hold back a little before accepting lots of things. I’d wait and see. (Note my chat is loaded with “I don’t know” and “I could be wrong”, “who really knows” type sentiment). Cool to think about what might be possible though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not sure they know much about consciousness. I’d wait until the results are in before judging too quickly ;-)

Who's 'they'?

I'm talking about the empirical evidence of people like Stanislas Dehaene (cognitive neuroscientist) and Antonio Damasio (head of the Brain and Creativity Institute and Professor of Psychology, Philosophy, and Neurology), not to mention V.S. Ramachandran, David Eagleman and a host of others.

I'm not saying they understand how subjective experience arises, but what the well-researched evidence indicates about its source and dependency.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Who's 'they'?

I'm talking about the empirical evidence of people like Stanislas Dehaene (cognitive neuroscientist) and Antonio Damasio (head of the Brain and Creativity Institute and Professor of Psychology, Philosophy, and Neurology), not to mention V.S. Ramachandran, David Eagleman and a host of others.

I'm not saying they understand how subjective experience arises, but what the well-researched evidence indicates about its source and dependency.

is it all solved?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I’m so bored I need a good surprise. Something like finding Atlantis or the garden of Eden. Aliens are real. Something !! Something everyone thought was ridiculous that turns out to be true haha
As far as evidence of angels goes - I pull the “I don’t know” card. I haven’t catalogued all the evidence out there and tested it against a measure of some sort.

I think there's a good chance that there is alien life somewhere out there - possibly even intelligent life.

I don’t think they have solved physics yet or how the brain consciousness and physics all work together. I often hold back a little before accepting lots of things. I’d wait and see. (Note my chat is loaded with “I don’t know” and “I could be wrong”, “who really knows” type sentiment). Cool to think about what might be possible though.

Fortunately, you don't need to 'solve' physics to know, with a very high degree of certainty, that some things are not possible - like human-scale breaches of the conservation of energy and information - which is what your suggestions would imply.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I think there's a good chance that there is alien life somewhere out there - possibly even intelligent life.


Fortunately, you don't need to 'solve' physics to know, with a very high degree of certainty, that some things are not possible - like human-scale breaches of the conservation of energy and information - which is what your suggestions would imply.

Are there angels??

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

is it all solved?

Is all what 'solved'?

The laws of physics underlying everday life at human scales are fully understood, if that's what you mean. For chapter and verse, see the video below (skip to 33 mins for specific details, and note the caveats):

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Is all what 'solved'?

The laws of physics underlying everday life at human scales are fully understood, if that's what you mean. For chapter and verse, see the video below (skip to 33 mins for specific details, and note the caveats):

Here is my quote:
“Perhaps more sense thinking you can move immaterial mind through space, rather than move a space ship much faster than the speed of light (???)
I dont know.”

What is you point??
You cannot move mind through space - everything we know about physics proves that impossible??

 

[Vap841]

I assume aliens exist. They might be watching us like we watch penguins in antarctica. They might be interfering in helpful ways. There might be different species of different visitors with different intentions.

I like combing through the different theories. The fish bowl theory, the theory that we are quarantined off like an endangered species and the UFOs we see are just illegal flybys lol, I think the one theory is hilarious that civilizations more advanced than us have long since lost interest in traveling the universe because their virtual reality toys got so good that reality is boring compared to it lol. And so on.

I tend to think we are pretty low down if you measure by intelligence and ability to "see". Meaning we are probably surrounded by all sorts of life that we cannot perceive.
Kind of like a mouse perceiving a person.

Yeah but science is all about getting behind things that can’t be seen just with our senses, as long as it’s physical.

Space travel might be better done by humans by evolving spiritually into beings that can move their consciousness perhaps??
Perhaps more sense thinking you can move immaterial mind through space, rather than move a space ship much faster than the speed of light (???)

I dont know.

What does anyone else think about moving consciousness, being surrounded by spirits (angels etc), us being pretty low level beings??

I’m not sure about us being that low level, we are top dog in this solar system for being self aware and for creative thoughts, however I could definitely see how we are primitive at comprehending non-physical thinking, just look at all the people who think that physics explains 100% of reality.

 

[SelfSim]

I’m not sure about us being that low level, we are top dog in this solar system for being self aware and for creative thoughts, however I could definitely see how we are primitive at comprehending non-physical thinking, just look at all the people who think that physics explains 100% of reality.

I would say we have an overly developed brain function for making up stories and non-physical thinking (religious beliefs and its extensive history being classic examples) .. and then assigning those beliefs, as the basis for a faith-based meaning of the concept of reality.

Scientific thinking however, follows an entirely different process for assigning meaning to its 'objective reality', (a term which I think translates to your term of 'physical reality'?)

Two different methods for coming up with two different meanings for the same term.
Its the method which explains your observation of 'physics explaining 100% of reality' .. with 'reality' there, meaning 'objective reality'.

 

[Vap841]

Scientific thinking however, follows an entirely different process for assigning meaning to its 'objective reality', (a term which I think translates to your term of 'physical reality'?)

I find that on average scientific thinking has a strange and intense fear of the T word. Teleology. A lot of times I try to point out what is obviously teleological to me, and a scientifically minded person usually seems to drop to a lower philosophical level than me and claim that it’s just an illusion of teleology and there’s in fact no such thing as teleology at all. I don’t get it.

Two different methods for coming up with two different meanings for the same term.
Its the method which explains your observation of 'physics explaining 100% of reality' .. with 'reality' there, meaning 'objective reality'.

Instead of it being the same term it is more like ‘Reality Light’ vs ‘Reality Plus’, science being reality light. Humans have a spectacular aptitude for the portion of reality that relates to physical reduction. That which is a physical “Explanation” is that which makes complete sense (to humans) when you give a complete reductive explanation of the mechanics. Conversely, merely saying that something correlates with a physical phenomenon is not an “Explanation.” Evolutionary explanations of consciousness simply tack on the added afterthought of “Oh yeah and for some apparent reason those organisms are also conscious as well.” That’s not an explanation, and the reason that an explanation isn’t even possible in a “Physical/Scientific” theory is that that which is to be explained isn’t even a physical aspect of reality, so why would you even expect it to PHYSICALLY reduce in the first place? To make a claim that my experience of feeling crippling fear is physically reducible to that clump of brain matter that’s plopped onto this table in front of us makes about as much sense to me as me saying that I’m as hungry as the color white. It doesn’t make sense because we have two completely distinct categories of reality. So I think that humans have an incredible gift for the comprehension of physical reduction, but there are other phenomena to reality where humans are more comparable to dogs trying to understand calculus.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are there angels??

I don't think angels, as the kind of supernatural emissaries of God that I was taught about in school, are physically real; but, like God, they exist in people's imaginations.

But what they teach about angels in Catholic schools may not be what you understand as angels.

 

[SelfSim]

I find that on average scientific thinking has a strange and intense fear of the T word. Teleology.

A lot of times I try to point out what is obviously teleological to me, and a scientifically minded person usually seems to drop to a lower philosophical level than me and claim that it’s just an illusion of teleology and there’s in fact no such thing as teleology at all. I don’t get it.

I watch many such conversations here and what I see, is more a bunch of folk doing their level best to explain how scientific thinking has no real reason for seeking (human) mind independent purpose/intent in our descriptions of reality. I don't see fear in their explanations .. (maybe some frustration).

Instead of it being the same term it is more like ‘Reality Light’ vs ‘Reality Plus’, science being reality light. Humans have a spectacular aptitude for the portion of reality that relates to physical reduction. That which is a physical “Explanation” is that which makes complete sense (to humans) when you give a complete reductive explanation of the mechanics. Conversely, merely saying that something correlates with a physical phenomenon is not an “Explanation.”

I would say that your 'Reality Light' there (ie: Objective Reality), has more rigorously assigned (already tested) meanings when compared with your 'Reality Plus'. The benefit there is of course, that scientific thinkers can efficiently build other descriptions using those meanings, without needing a whole lot of superfluous (often ambiguous) verbiage.

Evolutionary explanations of consciousness simply tack on the added afterthought of “Oh yeah and for some apparent reason those organisms are also conscious as well.” That’s not an explanation, and the reason that an explanation isn’t even possible in a “Physical/Scientific” theory is that that which is to be explained isn’t even a physical aspect of reality, so why would you even expect it to PHYSICALLY reduce in the first place?

Consciousness is an inescapable attribute of the model we refer to as 'the human mind'. Without acceptance of that, all bets in favour of your 'Reality Plus', as well as your 'Reality Light' models, all fall by the wayside. Whether consciousness 'physically reduces' or not, is completely moot.

To make a claim that my experience of feeling crippling fear is physically reducible to that clump of brain matter that’s plopped onto this table in front of us makes about as much sense to me as me saying that I’m as hungry as the color white.

.. Yet what you mean by 'crippling fear' there, was demonstrably assigned by your mind to your knowledge when you had that, (quite common amongst humans), experience .. Otherwise, how could you, (or I) possibly make sense of the concept you just described there?
Like it or not, your mind leaves objective evidence, (ie: its 'fingerprints'), of its activity, all over everything you articulate (or write) .. all one has to do is look for it in the shared meanings we're all using (and we all somehow know).

It doesn’t make sense because we have two completely distinct categories of reality. So I think that humans have an incredible gift for the comprehension of physical reduction, but there are other phenomena to reality where humans are more comparable to dogs trying to understand calculus.

Category errors aside, it does make perfectly clear sense, once one recognises that there is abundant evidence of the human mind's activity all over everything we describe, using language.

The confusion arises however, when one adopts (even embraces) the belief that meanings emanate from some 'thing' which exists independently from our minds, which somehow hands us those meanings on some platter or something .. somehow.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think angels, as the kind of supernatural emissaries of God that I was taught about in school, are physically real; but, like God, they exist in people's imaginations.

.. as their particular mind dependent reality

But what they teach about angels in Catholic schools may not be what you understand as angels.

Different minds perceive things in different ways .. but those perceptions are never mind independent 'things'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is you point??
You cannot move mind through space - everything we know about physics proves that impossible??

Not exactly. My point is that all the scientific evidence indicates that what we call the mind is a process, an activity of the brain. For example, every recognisable aspect of mind, self, & consciousness can be influenced, or even radically changed, by manipulating the brain. IOW, the mind is what the brain does. Given that, the mind can move through space only if the brain moves through space. By analogy, the image you see on your mobile phone screen is generated by your mobile phone, and it can only move through space if your mobile phone moves through space.

The second point is that mind independence is not supported by physics; as the video explains, we know that, besides electromagnetism, there are no unknown forces of sufficient range and strength to influence the brain or body as implied by the mind being independent or separate. Nor are there physical means to support the dynamic patterns of energy required for the information processing associated with an independent mind; there is no suitable substrate or energy source - that's what the brain and body provide.

The third point is relevant if the claim is that the mind is not physical but somehow immaterial. This is the old 'problem of interaction' that mind-body dualism has struggled with since Descartes - who acknowledged the issue, but suggested that it was unproven that the two substances he had defined, the immaterial soul or mind, and the material body, could not act on each other. However, both Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and Pierre Gassendi (themselves philosophers) pointed out that for the soul to act on the body, it must physically contact or influence the body, and to do that it must exist in space and have extension, i.e. it must be physical. By Descartes’s own criteria, this would mean the soul was physical, contradicting his original idea.

This point is also made by the video I linked. We know what the body and brain are made of and we know the particles and forces that can interact with or influence them; if you posit something that interacts with or influences the body & brain, you're making a statement of the physical - not the immaterial. You can certainly posit the immaterial, but it can have no direct influence or interaction with the physical world than anything imaginary.

None of this is proof, science doesn't do proofs, but taken together, I think the points above make a very strong case that the mind is, indeed what the brain does.

If you have a good argument or evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Vap841]

I watch many such conversations here and what I see, is more a bunch of folk doing their level best to explain how scientific thinking has no real reason for seeking (human) mind independent purpose/intent in our descriptions of reality. I don't see fear in their explanations .. (maybe some frustration).

I see both mind independent, and mind dependent purpose everywhere I look.

I would say that your 'Reality Light' there (ie: Objective Reality), has more rigorously assigned (already tested) meanings when compared with your 'Reality Plus'. The benefit there is of course, that scientific thinkers can efficiently build other descriptions using those meanings, without needing a whole lot of superfluous (often ambiguous) verbiage.

I mean that reality light is scientific knowledge, and reality plus is all knowledge, so that I just mean that scientific knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. Reality light is a subset of reality plus, reality plus containing some things that reach beyond empiricism.

Consciousness is an inescapable attribute of the model we refer to as 'the human mind'. Without acceptance of that, all bets in favour of your 'Reality Plus', as well as your 'Reality Light' models, all fall by the wayside.

I’m not pitting them against each other, I basically just made up two terms for partial knowledge and complete knowledge as I was waiting on my baked potatoes lol.

Whether consciousness 'physically reduces' or not, is completely moot.

The scientific method cannot locate consciousness, that’s significant.

.. Yet what you mean by 'crippling fear' there, was demonstrably assigned by your mind to your knowledge when you had that, (quite common amongst humans), experience .. Otherwise, how could you, (or I) possibly make sense of the concept you just described there?

The subjective experience of crippling fear is what I mean by crippling fear. Yes I agree it’s mental.

Like it or not, your mind leaves objective evidence, (ie: its 'fingerprints'), of its activity, all over everything you articulate (or write) .. all one has to do is look for it in the shared meanings we're all using (and we all somehow know).

There’s zero scientific difference between a person who genuinely has an experience of fear, and a qualia zombie clone who matches that person in every way down to the last atom yet has no such internal experience of fear. You simply have to take each test subject’s word for it if they really felt fear or not, science can’t help you, the fear experience (or lack there of) is purely subjective to each test subject. There is no objection fingerprint at all beyond the inference that “Surely these physiological markers had to be accompanied by the subjective feeling of fear.”

Category errors aside, it does make perfectly clear sense, once one recognises that there is abundant evidence of the human mind's activity all over everything we describe, using language.

By way of psychological inference not by any type of physiological evidence.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If you have a good argument or evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

We are likely not approaching the conversation with the same attitude.

I am playfully speculating and having a little fun with ideas… whilst pointing out that “I don’t know what’s really happening out there”.

the theme I intended to run through most of my posts has been - wild speculation whilst admitting I don’t know. It’s fun to think about this stuff.

Of course - if I wanted something greater than speculation, if I wanted to convince you or anyone else of something, I’d do my own research and go straight to the source. (I’d read the physics and the philosophy myself) - then present a serious case.

what I don’t intend on, is to get somehow involved in defending the idea that “mind can do serious space travel better than a space ship” - not on a serious level anyway.

The following are taken from my posts which are intended to indicate to you and others that I don't take this too seriously / don't know / don't intend to present a strong scientific argument:
1) I assume aliens exist. They might be watching us like we watch penguins in antarctica. (The penguins in antarctica was just playful).
2) They might be interfering in helpful ways.
3) There might be different species.....
4) It would be cool if the govt said one day "aliens exist......
5) My personal thoughts are: (meaning I just ponder / think about / speculate - it's not serious)
5a) I then elaborate on some speculation - the intent here is to communicate the idea that we might want to be open minded, open to learning, humble and questioning in our approach. I capped it off with... "I dont know.". This means that of everything I have just said - I don't actually know what I'm talking about.
6) What does anyone else think about moving consciousness, being surrounded by spirits (angels etc), us being pretty low level beings?? - This was an invitation for two reasons 1) I don't want to monologue and exclude others from speaking. I want to show interest in others 2) It's fun to hear. 3) What do others speculate about for fun?
7) "Not sure they know much about consciousness. I’d wait until the results are in before judging too quickly ;-)." - This was intended to follow on the theme of open mindedness - that there could be a lot of stuff out there that we have yet to discover. The winky face was intended to display the playful nature of my approach to this discussion.
8) "I wondered what else we might be looking right at and not seeing??" - This was to someone else but was along my theme of - openmindedness and humility with the intent to learn.
9) "But it’s all speculation as you point out. I have no idea really what’s going on haha" - This was intended to point out that ....well, I don't intend on laying out a strong scientific argument before the group (this was to another person, not you, but it illustrates my attitude).
10) "I’m so bored I need a good surprise...." - This again was to show........

I've just mentally crashed and haven't the will to continue this dialogue haha I should eat.

Is my position clearer now?
That I don't intend on presenting an argument or evidence to convince anyone of anything?? That I don't intend on defending my speculations? (Nor do I necessarily consider them defendable).

My question to you would be...temporarily draw a circle around everything you "know" about consciousness / mind / physics - there will be things right on the edge of knowledge that we speculate over but we just don't know the answers to. Questions which are a little bonkers but fun to think about - we love chewing over them... What are they for you?
What questions and speculations do you have about reality that are really cool to think about?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We are likely not approaching the conversation with the same attitude.

I am playfully speculating and having a little fun with ideas… whilst pointing out that “I don’t know what’s really happening out there”.

the theme I intended to run through most of my posts has been - wild speculation whilst admitting I don’t know. It’s fun to think about this stuff.

Of course - if I wanted something greater than speculation, if I wanted to convince you or anyone else of something, I’d do my own research and go straight to the source. (I’d read the physics and the philosophy myself) - then present a serious case.

what I don’t intend on, is to get somehow involved in defending the idea that “mind can do serious space travel better than a space ship” - not on a serious level anyway.

OK.

The following are taken from my posts which are intended to indicate to you and others that I don't take this too seriously / don't know / don't intend to present a strong scientific argument:
1) I assume aliens exist. They might be watching us like we watch penguins in antarctica. (The penguins in antarctica was just playful).
2) They might be interfering in helpful ways.
3) There might be different species.....
4) It would be cool if the govt said one day "aliens exist......
5) My personal thoughts are: (meaning I just ponder / think about / speculate - it's not serious)
5a) I then elaborate on some speculation - the intent here is to communicate the idea that we might want to be open minded, open to learning, humble and questioning in our approach. I capped it off with... "I dont know.". This means that of everything I have just said - I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

I agree with most of that - except that there seems little evidence of 2) and I don't know what you mean by 3).

6) What does anyone else think about moving consciousness, being surrounded by spirits (angels etc), us being pretty low level beings?? - This was an invitation for two reasons 1) I don't want to monologue and exclude others from speaking. I want to show interest in others 2) It's fun to hear. 3) What do others speculate about for fun?

That was the question I was answering ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

7) "Not sure they know much about consciousness. I’d wait until the results are in before judging too quickly ;-)." - This was intended to follow on the theme of open mindedness - that there could be a lot of stuff out there that we have yet to discover. The winky face was intended to display the playful nature of my approach to this discussion.

I thought it would be helpful to indicate where 'they' are currently at with consciousness.

8) "I wondered what else we might be looking right at and not seeing??" - This was to someone else but was along my theme of - openmindedness and humility with the intent to learn.
9) "But it’s all speculation as you point out. I have no idea really what’s going on haha" - This was intended to point out that ....well, I don't intend on laying out a strong scientific argument before the group (this was to another person, not you, but it illustrates my attitude).
10) "I’m so bored I need a good surprise...." - This again was to show........

I've just mentally crashed and haven't the will to continue this dialogue haha I should eat.

Is my position clearer now?
That I don't intend on presenting an argument or evidence to convince anyone of anything?? That I don't intend on defending my speculations? (Nor do I necessarily consider them defendable).

Sure - I don't have a problem with that, I just think that when speculating, however casually, having some background on the current state of knowledge gives useful context.

My question to you would be...temporarily draw a circle around everything you "know" about consciousness / mind / physics - there will be things right on the edge of knowledge that we speculate over but we just don't know the answers to. Questions which are a little bonkers but fun to think about - we love chewing over them... What are they for you?
What questions and speculations do you have about reality that are really cool to think about?

I'm currently interested in the various forms of proposed and predicted multiverses, their implications, and how they might relate to each other if more than one type exists and/or if there are an infinite number of universes.

Also, suggestions for extending our cosmological horizons; temporally beyond the big bang into the past, & into the future to thermal equilibrium at the heat death of the universe, and spatially, e.g. the topology of the universe, whether it is spatially infinite or finite but unbounded, and the potential implications of each.

Also, what is the correct, or most descriptive, or 'best' interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Also, the possibilities for detecting alien life, intelligent alien life, and technological alien life, and the implications.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I'm currently interested in the various forms of proposed and predicted multiverses, their implications, and how they might relate to each other if more than one type exists and/or if there are an infinite number of universes.

Also, suggestions for extending our cosmological horizons; temporally beyond the big bang into the past, & into the future to thermal equilibrium at the heat death of the universe, and spatially, e.g. the topology of the universe, whether it is spatially infinite or finite but unbounded, and the potential implications of each.

Also, what is the correct, or most descriptive, or 'best' interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Also, the possibilities for detecting alien life, intelligent alien life, and technological alien life, and the implications.

why not go through (concisely) and write what’s cool about them?