• Benj96
    2.3k
    Take the following set of 3 conscious beings (2 of which may be considered hypothetical) :
    Being one: is small, conceived, grows up, lives their entire life and dies within 1 nanosecond.
    Being two: is human, achieves the process of a fully experienced life over 80 - 90 years
    Being 3: is large, it takes millenia to be conceived, several hundred more to mature, myriad eons further to grow old and centuries in the dying process (like the sun for lack of a better comparison).

    All are conscious, and all consider their lifespan normal and the properties required to give rise to that consciousness.

    For being one: bacteria are huge, static and ever enduring - many thousands of years old (but only a few hours - days from the reference of being 2).

    To being 2). Being one has little more in behavioural traits than simple spontaneous appearance and disappearance. On the other hand being 3s behaviour is understood as physical constants and laws, as from our perspective they appear to be unchanging between every measurement.

    To being 3, humans are merely a flitting blur, the briefest blink, barely perceptible, only with the highest fps high speed microscopic instruments, and even then little detail can be elucidated as to our nature. The entirety of human evolution and transformation of the planet occurs in just a few seconds. As for Being 1, it isn't even detectable by being 3 as its existence is too brief for them to discern.

    This hypothetical is designed to put into perspective the importance of the percieved passage of time in conscious awareness.

    Consciousness could possibly operate in such a multi-level format, and we would not consider either being 1 or being 3 to be conscious as they are so extremely outside of 1). our accepted frame-rate of existence and 2). Our ability to qualify their behaviours as being like/similar to our own conscious behaviour. Nor would being 1 or 3 think the same of us in equal respect.

    On the contrary, just like many other conditions in the universe, perhaps consciousness has a goldilocks zone, that human consciousness falls directly in the center of.

    If consciousness is fundamental it must operate on all magnitudes. If it is emergent, then perhaps we are the only things within the correct range of rate for such a property to emerge.

    The idea that such starkly different consciousness could exist would make it very difficult to define what consciousness is.

    Looking at a vine from human frame rate it appears motionless. But a time-lapse shows a writhing, swirling, active, feeling plant stretching out its tendrils, flexing its foliage and reaching for the skies. Very much alive. And much more sentient seeming.
  • Vera Mont
    4.2k
    The idea that such starkly different consciousness could exist would make it very difficult to define what consciousness is.Benj96

    I think each being would define consciousness - would define everything that it encounters, learns and experiences - according to its own understanding. These beings could never communicate with one another, never share descriptions or concepts, so they would content with their own species-centric explanation of the world in which they live, just as vines and whales do.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    That is an interesting observation.

    Our consciousness does seem require us to travel at a particular time flow to maintain coherency.

    Although that seems to apply when we want to take action in the world and form concepts.

    In terms of dreams I find it hard to fit a time scale to that state of consciousness.

    It could be that consciousness is all we have and time is illusory and a product of consciousness or it could be that perception of time is relative to perceiver.

    I think who the perceiver is a n ignored but integral part of consciousness. Someone has a conscious experience. I refer to that someone as the self. The subject of experience. I can't imagine bacteria or planets as having selves.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.1k
    This issue is very similar to the question of how long (temporal duration) the present is. Each of your three proposed beings has a different length of "now", or "present". You can see that having a different length of "now" results in having a completely different perspective on the universe. Because of this (and other issues with time) some philosophers have suggested that a true understanding of time would require a two dimensional time. The second dimension would provide a true representation of the width or breadth of the present.

    On the contrary, just like many other conditions in the universe, perhaps consciousness has a goldilocks zone, that human consciousness falls directly in the center of.

    If consciousness is fundamental it must operate on all magnitudes. If it is emergent, then perhaps we are the only things within the correct range of rate for such a property to emerge.

    The idea that such starkly different consciousness could exist would make it very difficult to define what consciousness is.

    Looking at a vine from human frame rate it appears motionless. But a time-lapse shows a writhing, swirling, active, feeling plant stretching out its tendrils, flexing its foliage and reaching for the skies. Very much alive. And much more sentient seeming.
    Benj96

    This is why it is necessary to have a true understanding of time in order to have any adequate understanding of consciousness or the universe in general. We need real principles as to exactly what the present is, and if it is necessary to assume a second dimension of time we need real principles to base that in. Until we discover these principles, any designation as to how long the present is, will be arbitrary.
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    I think each being would define consciousness - would define everything that it encounters, learns and experiences - according to its own understanding. These beings could never communicate with one another, never share descriptions or concepts, so they would content with their own species-centric explanation of the world in which they live, just as vines and whales do.Vera Mont
    Yes, astute!
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    The speed of life differs from organism to organism. A Mayfly experiences everything a Greenland shark experiences but in a fraction of the time. A mature Mayfly adult is only 24 hours old I hear.
  • Vera Mont
    4.2k
    A Mayfly experiences everything a Greenland shark experiences but in a fraction of the time.Agent Smith

    I have trouble picturing that. Their lives are very different. One is short, yes, and in that short time, the mayfly goes through the cycle of birth, maturation, reproduction and death. But it doesn't have very much more experience than that: warm or hot day, sunny of cloudy; good night. The shark has to evade predators when young, become a predator and chase its food when older, find receptive/productive sexual opposites, master the intricacies of mating, evade human hunters, find its migration routes and feeding grounds, and live through another cycle, and another, and another... in varying and changing conditions. In a long life, those conditions may change quite radically and call for a series of adaptations.
    A bacterium doesn't experience very much in its brief lifetime; it doesn't need to prepare for or learn much. A human does, if it's to be successful. I think the size and complexity of the brain gives us some indication of how much experience a creature is capable of.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k


    It's not a perfect match, but the overall life histories are comparable. It's also a lesson on essentials and true not all individuals are a success story.
  • GBG
    7
    Time is a created concept. It gives a conscious mind purpose and is irrelevant to anything else without a conscious mind.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment