Religion

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)

25. " the top of the multiverse's, or even this universe's, food chain"

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:49 PM

May 2014

is a concept that makes no sense. A "food chain" makes sense only within an ecosystem, or more broadly a biosphere A "universe" is not an ecosystem unless you can provide evidence of any significant biological interaction across galaxies, across solar systems, or even across planets. And more importantly, aliens are not feeding on any life forms here, nor are we eating alien life forms.

You probably meant something closer to "the universe's most advanced life form", which is only related to a food chain in that an advanced life form is likely to be at the top of its food chain in its biosphere. The view that we are "the universe's most advanced life form" is true only if qualified by "that we know of", and is highly likely to be proven false in the future.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Consciousness: often even scientifically minded people make unscientific assumptions [View all] cpwm17 May 2014 OP

your comments seem to rely heavily on "infinite", a term that doesn't appear in the dawkins extract unblock May 2014 #1

Yup. You have it right. longship May 2014 #2

Richard Dawkins didn't bring up "infinite" cpwm17 May 2014 #5

if your quibble is about the finite number of finite genes required to for your counscious-self unblock May 2014 #6

That was just minor aside concerning Richard Dawsons' assumptions cpwm17 May 2014 #9

No, you still don't understand the concept skepticscott May 2014 #11

I Googled it cpwm17 May 2014 #13

I got 133 hits. Igel May 2014 #14

Thanks for the nice reply cpwm17 May 2014 #20

from your selfish perspective, with an understanding of this concept, you would recognize unblock May 2014 #34

I think it's also well analogized (is that a word?) by AleksS May 2014 #51

Not all improbable coincidences are created equal cpwm17 May 2014 #59

The other two posters here have explained it nicely skepticscott May 2014 #35

When you Google "necessary improbability" cpwm17 May 2014 #36

You are confusing large numbers, which are finite intaglio May 2014 #3

You apparently don't understand the concept skepticscott May 2014 #4

I can guess what "necessary improbability" means cpwm17 May 2014 #8

Your particular consciousness was no more a "goal" skepticscott May 2014 #10

From my perspective it is a goal cpwm17 May 2014 #12

Your consciousness is an emergent property of many different processes of the brain... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #41

I am sorry you spent edhopper May 2014 #7

Are you arguing that Dawkins claims you do not exist? LiberalAndProud May 2014 #15

No, I just think he should rethink some of his assumptions concerning consciousness cpwm17 May 2014 #21

I'm not terribly familiar with theories of multiverse. LiberalAndProud May 2014 #24

I've heard similar speculations concerning the multiverse cpwm17 May 2014 #40

While his explanation makes some sense when describing the biologic entity that is a person, cbayer May 2014 #16

Based on the fact that ones consciousness diminishes or dies from brain damage cpwm17 May 2014 #22

I tend to lean towards it all being neurochemical, but cbayer May 2014 #23

" the top of the multiverse's, or even this universe's, food chain" Warren Stupidity May 2014 #25

(somewhat aside) I used to wonder how other species experience their "universes". pinto May 2014 #17

I've wondered that as well. cbayer May 2014 #18

LOL. Maybe there's only now to them...not such a bad thing in some ways. pinto May 2014 #19

Consciousness is the result of neural activity, and no two brains are the same arcane1 May 2014 #26

Are you certain you are gone? Is that a belief, by any chance? cbayer May 2014 #27

It is what the evidence points to. arcane1 May 2014 #28

I think you are most likely right, but I don't really know. cbayer May 2014 #29

Indeed, I certainly don't know. arcane1 May 2014 #30

You really must. It will awaken and revitalize the tiredest of souls. cbayer May 2014 #31

Thanks for the encouragement, I need it! :) arcane1 May 2014 #32

My guess is that it's Venus Jim__ May 2014 #48

I meant to take my star gazer app on deck last night, but forgot it. cbayer May 2014 #49

You can claim that it is impossible for a consciousness to return after the body dies cpwm17 May 2014 #33

The twin issue is fascinating. cbayer May 2014 #37

Yes, I see why it could be tempting to believing in a soul cpwm17 May 2014 #38

I don't know and am not sure we will ever know. cbayer May 2014 #39

there is no twin issue with respect to consciousness. Warren Stupidity May 2014 #52

Your mistake is assuming that consciousness is, in itself, an individual process of the brain... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #42

In my way of looking at things, what you describe is personality, not consciousness. cbayer May 2014 #43

I would consider your personality as a part of your consciousness... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #44

I see your point. I think we may be just speaking from different definitions. cbayer May 2014 #45

I blame you for what I'm doing now, watching Crash Course: Psychology on youtube... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #46

Lol, hope you enjoy it. cbayer May 2014 #47

Where I write about a brain process that creates consciousness cpwm17 May 2014 #50

I think its better to say "construct" rather than illusion... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #53

Since consciousness is extremely difficult for science to study cpwm17 May 2014 #54

I think the easiest way to think of consciousness is that its an emergent property of complex... Humanist_Activist May 2014 #57

Multicellular animal life did not evolve until 520 million years ago cpwm17 May 2014 #58

My bad! WovenGems May 2014 #55

And they're all Republicans cpwm17 May 2014 #56