Sorry to interrupt your stimulating discussion :D .... Well we know that something existed in the universe before the first particles of matter formed, so these particles of matter formed from what was there before, which was according to our best knowledge unbound forms of energy. So all matter literally consists of energy in the standard model of particle physics.

I have just logged on again to this forum after 2 years, and I find many new posts. Proof positive that the world exists and it does not give a damn about me! :D

But I don't quite see your point on saying that it is all energy. There are more than energy in the world. Don't you see the sky, the stars, clouds, sun, the mountains, hills, rivers, sea, the roads, buildings, houses, cars and the people? They are not all energy. They are the physical objects in the world, with which you interact in your daily life. — Corvus

But the energy is just trapped in the matter, and can be released. All matter in the universe contains a lot of energy and is in the end equivalent to energy via E=mc2. I am surprised by the above statement, I thought this was at least since a hundred years a majority view that the universe consists only of Energy/Information and that all visible or invisible matter is just a manifestation of that energy.

We don't have temple prostitutes. Prostitution is dishonorable in our world (for the most part). This makes that path problematic for some. — frank

It is interesting to speculate whether prostitution might have become dishonorable only after the invention of marriage, precisely to protect the new social institution of marriage. Groups of Chimpanzees or primitive stone age people may have non-dishonorable prostitution, but they don't have marriage, and they would have non-eligible male group members (involuntary not celibate, but companionless, chimpanzees). Apparently what involuntary celibates struggle with is not so much lack of sex, but lack of companionship and perhaps more importantly, lack of recognition by the other sex.

Maybe, but whatever the basis might be for the institution of marriage, it has served as a source of stability for quite a while. — frank

It absolutely has, which was also my point why I believe it was introduced in the first place, to stabilize the social group. It is therefore interesting to observe the development of current (post)modern society where there are no more forced marriages, only love marriages, which fact could provide an answer to the original poster's question why the "incel" problem is becoming more noticeable and online "incel" groups are attracting a following. Societies which still follow to a large extent the traditional model of forced or arranged marriage (like India or other parts of the world) should have comparatively small "incel" (online) groups, because here forced marriage still arguably successfully helps to stabilize society.

But even though prostitution and unlimited amount of online porn is available today, it does not help the modern day "incels" in their feeling of inferiority. Marriage is a ruse laid by the tribal leaders to make every man in the group feel more equal and more valuable. The leaders give up their rights to exclusive access to all females and parentship of all children in the group, in exchange for having a stronger group. There might have been a critical size of the tribe that has necessitated this social development.

Coming back to the original premise of the thread, and apologies if this was perhaps stated before, but I always thought that the institution of marriage itself was most probably invented to deal with the problem of "incels" in the group or tribe in the first place. By having marriage as a social institution, the tribe leaders could use the now no longer "incels" for war and other productive activity to benefit the tribe, rather than perhaps sabotaging it. This way, the leaders could save the energy needed to control the incels and prevent them from raping the female members, which would need to be punished and result in the loss of a potential warrior. So tribal societies that had the institution of marriage must have been more competitive than the ones that didn't, hence virtually all primitive societies have it.

The Beta version of world-parliament.org is a positive vision of a democratic future in a federal global republic, employing a mix of direct democracy and representative democracy known as liquid democracy. It allows voters to choose between exercising their voting rights themselves or delegating to trusted representatives, like in classical representative systems.

It seems instead to me that materialism is an idea which can never be verified, as for it to be verified, it would require proving that there is something existing independently of conscious beings. But do do so, one must step outside of subjective experience. But obviously, that is not possible. You cannot stop being conscious and still experience the world around you. When you stop being conscious, you’re either asleep, knocked out, or dead. — Hello Human

The dinosaurs were conscious, but they were not philosophers. By their fossils we can know that they existed, independent of us. Independent of human consciousness ever coming into existence on earth. Because we are not imagining the fossils, they are remnants of a former time in the universe. That of course doesn't mean that the universe cannot be a simulation, or another manifestation of a higher consciousness. But we can clearly rule out that any form of human consciousness is a prerequisite for an external world existing, if that is what we mean with anti-materialism (I do not know whether this would correctly be called solipsism, idealism or subjectivism)?

You seem to be defining interestingness as a net change in activity level / information content over time. Why would destructive activity be more prone to leave a stasis in its wake than constructive activity? I think you need to elaborate here. People tend to be fascinated by war and crime events, they find them very interesting, often more interesting than the invention of a new constructive technology.

Hi Jack

one way to look at the notion of end of history is to look at the likely end of competing political systems at some stage in human history. In the best case as a stable world democracy, in the worst case as a technology-supported world tyranny.

Why a world state is inevitable
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9672&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Another way of course is to look at an impending technological singularity, at which point human history as we know it would stop

Technological Singularity and the End of Human History
https://interestingengineering.com/technological-singularity-an-impending-intelligence-explosion

Best wishes for the future :)

I appreciate the points you raise. I would answer that identity is not exclusive to one geographical or even linguistic level. Would you say you are not a resident of planet earth? At the same time, you are a resident of your country, your state, your region, your city, your neighborhood. You identify with all of these, all these are identities, stacked on top of each other.

You know what you are not. You are not from the other neighbourhood, the other city, the other state, the other country. But we are all from earth.

In the interest of both peace and economic prosperity, I advertise a global level of identification with our planet earth, our unique home in the universe. No neighbors to compare ourselves to. This takes nothing away from regional and local levels of identification, languages and culture. That is why the olympics are such a powerful symbol of the togetherness of humans on this planet.

Hi Jack
I posted on the other thread, because it was referenced in the first post of your thread, and also asked outright for a definition of evil, so I thought my observation is also relevant there. I can see however that it is gone from the start page now, so I hope it is fine to continue here.

The first thing I think I would like to add is that there seems to be a wide consensus that in the animal world, there is no good or evil. They don't exist because there is no standard to measure against. This standard only exists in human societies. Again, Fascism and Racism want to go back to the animal world where no good or evil exist, and only the right of the stronger defines the right to live. So Nietzsche challenged the very standard of the Golden Rule. Here we have a direct connection from Nietzsche to Hitler.

We are looking for a clean definition of what is Evil.
In this light, the Golden Rule is very relevant, since it exists in similar form in many if not all worlds cultures. It is furthermore very valid because in order not to have it, you would need to posit that different people have different rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. This runs counter to the base ethical assumptions we make in human societies, namely that all men should enjoy equal rights in this regard. Therefore I believe that purposeful violation of the rule provides the easiest and cleanest definition of evil. We intuitively know what is evil when we encounter it, yet it seems so hard to define.

Purposeful breakers of the Golden Rule
Nietzsche, Hitler, Charles Manson, Stalin, ISIS terrorists, anyone who thinks they have justification to deny other humans the same right to life and happiness

The UN is a covenant between nations, to establish global agreement on topics of global interest, but they are not binding, countries can leave individual agreements any time. It doesn't delegate any real power to the global level, and therefore doesn't resolve the prisoner's dilemma, that in a game of many stakeholders, an individual choice might not yield the best potential global outcome compared with another choice that requires a higher level of trust and goodwill.

• Can the UN effectively curb climate change? -> no, it pays off for some countries not to participate
• Can the UN effectively prevent war -> no, only the relative power between nations, in combination with MAD, decides about war/no war. We live in a state of global anarchy, the UN covenant is simply a mitigation exercise.
• Can the UN stop species extinction and plastic and toxic pollution of the land and seas, ie. negative external effects of economic activity -> no, it pays off for some corrupt governments to not participate
• Can the UN effectively enforce even the lowest of global labour standards (no child labour, no more than 12 hour days, basic safety in work environments)? -> no, it pays off for some corrupt governments to undermine such standards
  
  I am looking at global governance mainly from an economic and game theory perspective, and the simple conclusion I am coming to is that there needs to be a global set of enforceable rules because
  a) else we forego the best economic outcome for the greatest number of people as well as the global environment
  b) in terms of conflict, no government meaning anarchy is just the law of the stronger, might is right, and we don't want to be ending up on the weaker side of that equation.
  
  We treat the right to self-governance of nations as a holy cow, and it is limiting our outlook on global democracy. Everybody can observe on the African continent, what fruits the right to self-governance has borne there so far. By what law does a tyrannical government derive a right to govern its people? Sheer violence, combined with fostering fear of external threat. Democracy is the only political form of government (=agreement on managing power), in which all men have equal rights to enjoy their Life and Liberty and pursue their own Happiness. I hope I am not alone in contending that this pursuit and enjoyment does not depend on IQ. We should cherish and nurture democracy, more than anything else, and therefore stand up against the global anarchy that has been ruling human history and is still ruling our globe at this time.

I think we currently live in relative freedom in the western world, because our societies are still more powerful (economically and military) than the non-free societies, but I am afraid of the day a non-free society becomes the most powerful on earth

I think we should be happy about having even the existing global decision making process we enjoy now. — ssu

You mean might is right, which is the real principle behind the current political state of the world? I don´t think that is a good basis for decision making at all, especially when the autocratic states become more and more economically powerful. Peace among the powers endures currently basically because NATO still dominates but cannot invade atomic powers. Everybody else can be bullied around.

Independence of communities and local decision making would still be guaranteed in a global democratic federation, just like it is now in the US. But not in a global tyranny employing techology to hold down democracy, and that is the scenario that I am most afraid of.

I think it is very easy to define Evil. Evil is the intentional violation of the Golden Rule Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .”
Ideologies like Nazi Fascism, Islamic State etc. purposefully do to others what they would not have done unto themselves, they are therefore easily identifiable as evil. They invoke a dog eat dog survival of the fittest rationale to apply to human races / religions.
Thieves, rapists, murderers, do the same, they purposefully break the Golden Rule, and their acts are therefore considered evil.

Hi Jack, I think it is very easy to define Evil. Evil is the intentional violation of the Golden Rule Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .”
Ideologies like Nazi Fascism, Islamic State etc. purposefully do to others what they would not have done unto themselves, they are therefore easily identifiable as evil. They invoke a dog eat dog survival of the fittest rationale to apply to human races / religions.
Thieves, rapists, murderers, do the same, they purposefully break the Golden Rule, and their acts are therefore considered evil.

Be consequent and boycott Russia and Saudi-Arabia too. But then it would be cold in your house in winter (if you leave in Europe) and you wouldn`t have a car to pull your motor home for the holidays (if your dutch). Is that why people think it is easier to have opinions on Chinese affairs?

The gold standard of ethics
'In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets'
It is interesting to put the golden rule into a power relationship context, such as employing someone or parenting kids.
I believe employer-employee relationships can be both ethical or non-ethical. Non-ethical is when either party abuse their relative power to behave in a way they would not like to be treated, if they were in the other's position. This is of course much more likely to be the case for the employer, who has usually far more power. Employees either have little or no power at all, or only relative power in that their contribution cannot be substituted without significant cost to the employer (finding and building a new employee with intermittent loss of productivity for the company). In situations of relative power, and employee can sabotage his employers targets by willful idling or willful wrong advice/consultation, in which case the employee would also act unethical.

The soul itself has been transformed by philosophy to recognize only the base concerns of the body, and to delight only in its barbaric emanations. Beethoven and Mozart are accessible to all; whose soul is moved by them? — Todd Martin

Some interesting thoughts. You may want to check the comments section on youtube for Mozart's piano concertos. But that same comment section reveals also what technology has taken away from us, namely the ability to eloquently express our thoughts and feelings in writing, and this deterioration in linguistic abilities and modes of expression results of course in a change of the soul, I completely agree with you here. As for genius, surely there are now more people alive as brilliant as Mozart or Einstein, than there were in their own age. Let history decide who will be considered the geniuses of our age with hindsight, which breakthroughs of science and technology, and which works of art will be considered milestones in human achievements, and which not.

Therefore, the universe, along with the number of things, actions, or concepts, is not, and cannot be infinite, not even potentially. Right? — Zelebg

If the frame has an infinite number of pixels then the possible images are even more infinite than the number of pixels. If it is1x1 with 2 colors it can only have 2 possible images.

I am surprised this thread got so long, who in his right mind would disagree with the statement of the original post?
'Science is a good thing'

-> Science is the best thing that has ever happened to humankind. :strong: We'd literally be living in clay huts with a life expectancy of 40 years max and infant mortality rates up to 50% without science... no offense Chad and Niger, you'll catch up soon :victory:

Science even enables us to find new solutions for the environmental problems it is creating due to its high speed development. Governance simply cannot catch up fast enough with all the new stuff.
Do you blame the politicians of the 50s and 60s for not having put regulations on all those new synthetic materials, for not realizing we had once again stolen fire from the gods and had begun creating compounds that do not occur in nature?
Compounds that god did not create in the entire universe?
That we had become the agents that god needed to create first in order to create such compound materials?
They should have. People should have. Now the shit has hit the fan, but science will come again to the rescue and help to clean up the pollution. That is why science is the best thing that has ever happened on this planet (or in the universe?)

NB: Speculative cosmology [metaphysics] gradually became physical cosmology [physics] – wholly abstract 'why this cosmos exists?' reformulated into 'how this cosmos began and evolves?' increasing grounded in observation & evidence. — 180 Proof

I think this is correct.
The ancients could only speculate what the ultimate nature of reality was (fire, water, air?). Now in the beginning of the 21st century we are a few very significant steps further, but not that much further really than where we started out. We can classify the world into 4 fundamental forces. It is physics (not philosophy) that is striving to combine the theories of these forces into a theory of everything (ToE). Speculative cosmology continues to become testable cosmology. But all is cosmology. We could say that metaphysics aka ontology is the speculative branch of cosmology, the one that provides the questions and impetus to continue researching, and physical cosmology is tasked with providing evidence or refutations. After all, only physical cosmology can hope to provide answers to the questions it continuously keeps creating by its new discoveries, since the days of Aristotle.

Metaphysics and ontology don't really have theories in this sense — Manuel

Yes so they are not sciences, in the sense that they are seeking to increase knowledge, but rather speculation or mental exercises beyond that which can be scientifically observed.
However, Cosmology is more and more involved in theorizing about concepts that cannot (yet?) be falsified by observation, e.g. when it comes to string theory, simulation theory, multiverse theory, information theory. Doesn't it then already cover the totality of the quest for what is there (ontology) and what is the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics)? The line gets blurry here, because of course cosmology is seeking knowledge about ultimate reality. It is not about materialism, because physics itself found that the building blocks of matter are themselves immaterial, physics is so to speak 'catching up' with metaphysics (what used to be thought of as beyond physics).
I cannot argue the usefulness of these terms for others, if some people find them useful, then they are certainly useful for them, however I myself don't find them particularly useful.

Thank you for your answer! I wanted to provoke some thinking about and beyond the labels we have given to our fields of enquiry.
Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the field of philosophy that seeks to elucidate most general features of reality. — Manuel

Arguably, cosmology and ontology also try to elucidate exactly the same thing.

Ontology = why is there something rather than nothing and what is that something (Being)?
Cosmology = why is there something rather than nothing and what is that something (The Cosmos)?
Metaphysics = why is there something rather than nothing and what is that something (The Ultimate Reality)?

I think too many labels just lead to unclarity and confusion, when it is ultimately the same thing that we are curious about.

But which government is governing the mutlinational businesses?
Which government is internalising the external effects the multinational businesses create across borders?
Which government has the power to even persecute or demand extradition of criminal business managers (think of the Charles Ghosn case)?

It gets really crazy though when you think that mass and therefore matter, is just a property of a particular set of fields of elementary particles. So materialism is just one aspect of monism. The quest for a vindication of monism is the scientific search for a unified theory of gravitational and quantum fields. But to believe that our consciousness does not ultimately consist of these energy fields, would be a quite unsubstantiable view of the natural reality.

To anyone who is interested, I found this great programme which goes really quite deep into the subject matter of discussing possible geometries of the cosmos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJevBNQsKtU

I agree 'misinterpreted' was not the best choice of words, since of course Jesus expanded the concept of the golden rule knowingly into a more altruistic and non-violent direction. Arguably however, an effect of talking about both concepts in the same sermon that persists down to this day is that the Golden Rule is falsely seen by many as a kind of altruistic principle in itself. Kant thought that the criminal could argue for forgiveness based on the Golden Rule, but to forgive and not punish is a moral principle that goes beyond the Golden Rule as you have correctly stated. The Golden Rule would have the criminal punished, since he offended against it.

As for punitive practices like capital punishment being at variance with the golden rule, I can only say that punitive measures come into play only after a moral code is violated. For this discussion it means that all punishment are simply consequences of the golden rule being broken. To hope for some form of reprieve from a death sentence incurred by moral transgression, invariably involving breaking the golden rule, by appeal to very same rule one has just breached may require a level of compassion our fellow humans simply don't possess. In short, once a moral code has been violated, the culprit loses the protection offered by the golden rule. — TheMadFool

I could not agree more. This reciprocity of accepting to have done to ourselves how we treated others is inherent in the Golden Rule.

I wouldn't call a moral code that transcends social, geopolitical, and culutural borders, as you yourself stated in your opening remarks, a failure. Wouldn't that count as a success story for an idea? — TheMadFool

I think the Golden Rule can work effectively only in democratic society under rule of law and an independent judiciary. If a tyrant can exempt himself from suffering the consequences of the rule, then it will break down. That is why even though the idea persists, it can be put into effective practice only in parts of the world. And even in democratic countries with independent judiciary, the rule is diluted by mercy justice, which exactly exempts the perpetrators from the consequences of the actions they have done to others.
And on a last note, the laws of deuteronomy that we still observe in practice today in some countries with muslim law, are of course themselves gross violations of the Golden Rule, in that the prescribed punishments are completely out of proportion with the deed, e.g. stoning for adultery.

Thanks for posting the excerpt from the original text.


Translating the Categorical Imperative into everyday language:
"Whatever you do, only do things of which you think they are in accordance with a law by which everybody should abide"

I think this is great, but does it imply a moral duty to oneself, or a duty of benevolence to others?
Would such a benevolence be prescribed by the universal law? Do we want e.g. a duty to charity prescribed as a law? And why would a law need to prescribe a moral duty to oneself that goes beyond the simple Golden Rule?

What it does, is that it would enforce a principle of strict obligation to one another. I think the example with the criminal and the judge is the main thought that prompted Kant to theorize how to make the Golden Rule into a Universal Law. However I argue here that the Golden Rule if it literally were a law would do exactly that, it enforces a principle of obligation to one another.

If the law literally read: "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you", a thief could not object to having to give an additional object to the person he stole from, in addition to returning the stolen goods. A murderer could not object to having his own life taken. The judge is not judging on behalf of his own person, but on behalf of the wronged person and as part of the leviathan, on behalf of the whole society, based on the Golden Rule.

Hi Julia, yes, my point was that Jesus was against the death penalty because his teachings went beyond the golden rule, he wanted us to be better than just good and introduced an altruistic element in his Christianity. The prophet Mohammed can rightfully be labelled the Anti-Christ in that, because he did not accept that Jesus was the Christ and that that there could be such a thing as a Son of God, he reversed these altruistic teachings again, coming back to the simple Golden Rule and Eye for an Eye principle, the law of Moses and the unaltered Abrahamic religion.

Important: Neither the Golden Rule nor the Categorical Imperative are in themselves altruistic statements.

Let Obama come back for a third term. It's a time of national emergency. I would like to see an Obama vs. Trump election.

Do you mean to say that the golden rule is in itself not a sane principle, or not a practical principle?

The Golden Rule
7.12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Eye for Eye
5.38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
5.43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In your reasoning in the Golden Rule discussion, you were saying that if people truly followed the Golden Rule, then they would accept punishment e.g. if they murdered someone they would accept to get capital punishment too, for they would receive what they have knowingly and intentionally done unto others.
I think this is correct, and that the Eye for an Eye principle is not a contradiction of the Golden Rule. I think Jesus misinterpreted the rule in the Sermon of the Mount and carried it into an altruistic direction that we are still suffering confusion from to this day, by mixing it up with his other cheek and love all teachings.

What is good and what is evil? Whoever follows the Golden Rule, acts good. Whoever breaks the Golden Rule, acts evil. If all members of a society have decided to delegate the power of the individuals to judge and to punish to a common government, then it is not evil of society to punish a murderer. Neither is there an additional moral quality in turning the other cheek. You don't become better than good, by turning the other cheek. Just stick to the Golden Rule.

Hi Professor Death,

What is the timeframe of your question?
Were there any new ideas the last ten years? the last 25? the last 100?

By new thoughts I assume that you mainly are thinking in the direction of new philosophical thoughts, such as a new definition of what is good and evil, a new compelling reasoning on what we ought and ought not to do, or on how societies should govern themselves, or a new theory of what the universe looks like or the ultimate nature of reality.

There are of course an unknown number of fictional characters which were novel at some point, but owing to their great appeal combined with sheer laziness get reused all over again, such as the kid wizard, the pirate captain, the genius sleuth, the damsel in distress, the evil madman etc. ad nauseam.

In terms of scientific and philosophic ideas, here I would say that the idea of gravity, of physical relativity, the idea of uncertainty, the idea of strings, the idea of multiverses, the idea of reality as a sociological construct, the ideas of democracy and of dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea of scientific positivism, were all novel at some point in history, so there is definitely new thoughts coming along, so the timeframe of your question becomes really relevant to what I would answer.

I personally think new ideas are coming along all the time. I remember in 8th grade I had an idea and voiced it in biology class, that within each atom is contained another complete universe. It may be wrong, but was for me a novel idea, and I certainly didn't pick that up from any TV show or books I had read so far. And youtube and google weren't around at that time.

Fortunately we are not even close to 1% or >70 million dead yet

Thanks for the paper recommendation, I will check that out! Appreciated

If I am just briefly allowed to continue the analogy, the flat earth problem was of course a tremendous puzzle to our ancestors. A flat earth theory lacked aesthetics, it is 'ugly' to have to conceptualize either 'edges of the world' or an infinite flat surface, because it poses more questions than it gives answers, it is an incomplete theory. Although the theory corresponded to the world it as it was perceived, to prove the apparent obvious that earth was indeed flat was practically impossible. Since the theory was false, it could never be empirically confirmed by experiment or observation, and was eventually disproven by observation of another kind.

Whereas the explanation of the sphere effortlessly and beautifully explained the problem even before it was shown to be true and the flat earth theory was disproven. So the model that turned out to correspond to reality was not the more simple, but the more aesthetically appealing, and it was also the only of the two that ever had a chance of practical scientific confirmation.

So far goes the analogy, whether it is valid to extrapolate this reasoning to another dimension, can of course be debated, and I trust that science will eventually provide better explanations to the topology of the universe than we have currently.

Maybe my original post was a little clumsy, but I was not actually suggesting that the topology of the universe could be spherical. Rather, that in order for the universe to be infinite, its topology would likely be closed.

It is difficult for me to imagine an infinite white sheet. But it is easy to imagine infinity on a closed surface. This infinity is not real infinity, but is caused by recursiveness, meaning if I travel long enough in one direction, I will eventually come back to the same point that I started from. Therefore I made an analogy to the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere.

Now of course we cannot visualize a closed topography that has a 3-dimensional 'surface', but for me recursiveness would in absence of better theories be the best explanation for the finiteness vs. infiniteness problem of the universe.

I really like this original post. It is very lucid and concise. I also subscribe to the idea that consciousness has evolved gradually, and gave organisms ever increasing evolutionary advantages. To me an interesting thought is also that if humans will technologically be able to connect their brains into an integrated network of brains (not in a primitive way as on this forum, but completely connected), whether a 'network' consciousness would evolve and what it could mean.