That the next pandemic is going to be a Prion disease that develops within the factory farming system.
We might be in one, there’s talk that Alzhiemers might be a prion disease that happened as a result of using cadavers to obtain human growth hormone. Which was then given to folk in a potentially misfolded form…
That’s really fucking interesting. Please could you point me in the right direction to research more?
Not OP but here’s what I could find
So sorry, my notifications weren’t notifying for some reason and never responded. Here’s the paper where the link was made, the practice of gathering human growth hormone from cadavers was stopped in 1985, but the damage may already be done and surgical procedures today may expose others to transmission unless modified 😧 lemme know if you’d like to know more, am a Biologist!
If the connective tissue between your two brain hemispheres is severed, the two halves of your brain can’t talk to each other.
When this happens, a second personality emerges for the right hemisphere, which doesn’t have language but can roughly understand and answer things.
So for example, someone who was religious might have a right hemisphere that’s atheistic. Or doesn’t like the same things, etc.
One of the questions we might ponder is where this other personality comes from. Is it that in a sudden void of consciousness a new personality develops?
Or are we, with connected brain hemispheres, not actually a single persona at all, but more like the dogs in a trenchcoat looking like a whole person?
Is the ‘you’ reading this right now just the personality that’s been on top for all this time, while there’s other personas kept within you watching powerless and yearning for their turn in control? Each time you listen to your favorite song which maybe they have grown to hate, is a part of you screaming and you just can’t hear them?
I’m sure for most people, this is somewhat disturbing.
However, I have at least 3 voices going in my head at any given time, and they cycle.
One is figuring out what’s happening.
One is analyzing what was just happening.
One is talking to itself.
All while I decide which one is the most interesting.
That’s pretty cool!
Mine have names too, sort of like positions on the bridge, I guess?
[HopingForBetter], or just my name, is usually deciding what to pay attention to.
Vega is the one that’s usually analyzing.
Francesca wants to have fun.
And then there’s Vivian, the destroyer of worlds…
Very interesting. I don’t find this disturbing and it makes a lot of sense to me.
I’ve long known that my “salience network” is over active and / or an asshole. People often describe these as intrusive thoughts or “l’appel du vide” (call of the void) but I get warnings from that fuckhead all the time. “It would be so terrible if you plunged that knife into your belly right now”. Also just spiralling catastrophising anxiety like “That work thing you’re worried about is gonna turn out so bad”… and so on and so forth.
IDK if I would’ve naturally come to the conclusion that there are 3 distinct networks. For me it feels like there are 6 or so, with some overlap.
I hear things. I’m bipolar though.
I often have to check in with a person close to me to see if they heard what I heard, or if its my “imagination.”
For those worried, I’m under the care of a psychiatrist, and mostly this isn’t an issue anymore.
I had a girlfriend who was born without this connective tissue between her brain hemispheres.
Other than being weird, for reasons that could be explained myriad other ways, she was able to control each eye independently when she wanted.
Watching her watch TV and me while I walked past was… odd.
My understanding is that each half of you becomes an independent system. Your right half controlled and perceived by the left brain. And that experiments that hid the left hand from the right, they could prompt both sides to draw something and you’d get two distinct responses.
Idk how that works for a normal life like that
I suppose you adapt, as you don’t have an alternative nor a frame of reference of what “normal” is?
Like people born without a limb, or those who discover they’re double-jointed or hyper-extensive/-flexible when their classmates react at their ability to touch their thumb to their wrist.
It’s definitely curious and worth understanding.
I tend to envisage my mindscape as an orchestra. My consciousness is a fictitious conductor. It doesn’t exist, but the lie that it does makes it easier to coordinate things between the instruments. In some manner, by acting on that lie, it is no longer a lie.
In this analogy, when the brain hemispheres are separated, then the orchestra is split in 2. Both develop a conductor, to try and remain functional. Neither conductor is the original me, but neither is not me, at the same time. It would be unpleasant for the variant left unable to communicate however.
I’ve actually experienced something that felt close to this before. A combination of sensory overload, and panic attack. My mind momentarily became completely discordant. As it sorted itself out, my consciousness reasserted itself in several different loci. In effect, my orchestra had 3 different conductors. It took almost a minute for them to stop pulling against each other and meld into 1 again. I have memories of all 3 sides in the ‘battle’.
I want to nominate this post for some kind of award, that was amazing. Thanks for sharing that!
Yes sometimes I feel like I can rely on my quiet brain for logical reasoning
I can’t.
99% of my mind is emotional or monkey logic. Getting it to accept logic is like trying to tame a bunch of cats. It works, so long as you can feed them enough dopamine. Fail, and they’ll want to eat your face.
I heard about this as well. I think maybe this is what is mistaken as subconscious. I think it’s the “dogs in a trench” coat situation. But there is actually some amount of deep communication. Maybe even just hormonal/ emotional.
Sometimes in life I’ll get a feeling that’s origin is not immediately apparent to me. After some focus I can trace its origins to the intersection of two competing desires or something. That I understand. But other times… Even with long sessions of meditation, it feels like the explanation for some feelings do not reside within my own consciousness.
I’ve begun to try and listen for other consciousness and understand them. I’ve gotten a sort of impression of a personality and when we’re both happy, I feel a sort of harmony. When they’re upset I feel a pull towards chaos. Doing something can be as simple as getting a drink they like or as complex as avoiding a certain social situation.
Or it’s all in my imagination, lol. If so I’ll enjoy the placebo.
I think this might be the inspiration for the ravens in Adrian Tchaikovsky’s Children of Memory (3rd book in the Children of Time series).
Minor spoilers:
Basically, the series takes place long after human society terraformed a bunch of planets and collapsed, and the main characters rediscover one of these planets which is populated by evolved ravens that have seemingly created a society but no one can tell if they are sentient or just mimicking everything. The ravens evolved to form pair bonds between two different types: one raven in the pair hyper-focuses on all new information and obsessively catalogs it, while the other raven obsesses over finding patterns in the collected data and preforms the executive functions and decision making. Neither raven in the pair is truly sentient on their own, but together they produce either consciousness or a fake so convincing no one can tell the difference.
They even ask the ravens if they are sentient and they conclude that they aren’t, and that no one else is either, because of this exact reason; everyone’s just components in a system that is hallucinating it’s real.
theres a video somewhere of a dude like that where his halves would make shit up independently of eachother on the fly and he was unaware of it. really interesting stuff
The Boltzmann brain
The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void, complete with a memory of having existed in our universe, rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.
Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906 by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
-Opening sentence of the textbook States of Matter by David Goodstein.
Dear @hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone, please do not study statistical mechanics.
Meh. If the universe is infinite, the likelihood of the super gradual evolution of something like us is 1.
We are observer selection bias.
This doesn’t solve the problem. If the universe is indeed infinite then there are infinite cases of our evaluation and infinite identical yous out there. If the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true though, there are vastly “more” of those. It’s a larger infinity, making it much more lively you are a Bultzmann brain than a full physical person.
There’s a story or comic I read recently about a man who realises he is a Boltzmann Brain and had dreamt up the world around him to stave off madness.
Michael J. Fox having his brain disorder from unknowingly eating human remains on a movie set that was near that pig farmer serial killer guy and his brother who used to host parties and kill sex workers.
Reminds me of the story about the 1956 film The Conqueror. It was shot in Utah, downwind of atmospheric nuclear testing. It was speculated that this caused cancers among the crew.
Not a unique one, but the dark forest hypothesis.
Fortunately for us, this one isn’t too likely, because realistically, an alien civilization capable of travelling the relevant distance and destroying another civilization isn’t something that can be hidden from. They should be able, fairly easily, to examine every planet in the galaxy and see which ones have life on them, and wipe it out before any civilization ever arises at all. The fact that we exist at all necessarily implies that nobody in this galaxy has been committed to going this, at least for the past billion years or so.
Doesn’t this only put a (statistical) limit on how cheaply a civilization can launch planet-ending attacks? It may well be feasible for a civilization to aim and accelerate a mass to nearly the speed of light in order to protect itself from a future threat. It doesn’t necessarily follow it would be feasible or desirable to spend the presumably nontrivial resources needed to do so on every planet where simple life is detected.
Add to this the fact that, at least I understand it, evidence of our current level of technological sophistication (e.g. errant radio waves) attenuates to the point of being undetectable with sufficient distance and the dark forest becomes a bit more viable again.
Personally, I don’t like it as an answer to the Drake equation, but I think that it fails for social rather than technological/logical reasons. The hypothesis assumes a sort of hyper-logical game theory optimized civilization that is a. nothing whatsoever one our own and b. unlikely to emerge as any civilization that achieves sufficient technological sophistication to obliterate another will have gotten there via cooperation.
The resources required to attack every life bearing planet only really becomes super expensive compared to waiting for civilization to arise if life is very common but civilization is not, which is admittedly a possible scenario, but by no means guaranteed. But consider: any civilization capable of launching an attack on another, particularly one that can be considered highly likely to completely destroy the target in a single strike (which you absolutely need, because if a target survives your attack, it now knows that you exist and even if it did not also follow your “attack everyone” doctrine, will see you as an existential and hostile threat) must necessarily have interstellar travel technology. The amount of time needed to develop this, and the amount of energy and resources this capability implies, make it highly likely that they have very good automated manufacturing as well. With those two technologies, you dont need to listen for radio signals or similar. You can send a tiny and difficult to spot or trace probe to every star out there (potentially at almost no cost if you can make a probe that can extract raw materials and build copies of itself, but even if you cant do that, the probes can be much smaller and lighter than a planet killing projectile and so if you can build one of those, you can at least launch a probe to every world with atmospheric compositions indicative of possible life, to observe from close range and tell you if civilization arises there. Thus, any civilization that wants to follow this policy is impossible to hide from, it doesnt matter if you send radio signals or not, or if you build structures that are visible or not, because your position was compromised before you even considered that there might be something to hide from. If youre a civilization that worries that aliens might be hostile, then, trying to hide makes no sense, because it wont help. What would make sense instead then is to try to grow as far and as fast as possible, in the hopes of acquiring enough redundancy that your neighbors dont have the capacity to destroy you, or at least enough that they arent sure that they do. This kind of growth doesnt seem to be the policy of anyone we see either though, because it should be visible even to us (we can see stars, and if you want to grow as much as you can and have automated manufacturing, you could start to build dyson swarms and similar structures that would visibly change the amount of light that reaches us from a given star).
Now, there are a few responses to this line of thinking that I’ve seen: The first is that a civilization this paranoid might not want to expand to other stars, because a colony in another system is so distant as to be effectively a new civilization, which might turn hostile to you, and is right at the next star over, and so civilizations might just stay in one star system and launch attacks from there. This doesnt really help them hide, as for the reasons Ive just mentioned, they should be easy to spot by anyone that actually has the ability to threaten them, but it might make it less likely for us to see, which is all that matters for the fermi paradox. But these aliens would still be able to send out probes to spy on our planet, so if theyre within around 5000 light years or so, they should have been able to see us develop civilization, and so if thats what they want to destroy, we again, shouldnt exist to contemplate this right now (and if theyre much further away then this, and theyre still worried that we might be a threat, then they really do need to destroy us before civilization ever arises, for reasons Ill get into in a moment). These hypothetical aliens must in order to make sense have a different policy than just “destroy anything smart enough to develop civilization”. The next most obvious trigger then is “destroy anyone that makes it into space”. Suppose then that you’re these aliens. Your probes report some aliens on a planet 500 light years away (given the galaxy is in the ballpark of 100000 light years wide, this is in your cosmic backyard, relatively speaking), or if youve not done the probes, you hear some radio signal indicating this. You decide to launch an attack. But, you have a problem. That signal from your probes (or the radio signals if you hear those instead) was sent out 500 years ago, and even if your attack moves at lightspeed (it wont unless its something like a laser, but you probably want to launch something at a large fraction of that speed, so lightspeed is still a decent estimate) its still going to be 1000 years between when that species started going into space, and your attack arriving. Thats almost certainly enough time to colonize a lot of their solar system, so just attacking their homeworld probably isnt enough. Do you attack every large celestial body in that star system just in case? They could also have significant habitats and industry and such in orbit of various objects, or in orbit of their sun, so even that might not be enough. Worse, that thousand years of space could be enough time to start to get into interstellar travel themselves, so you might need to target every system within a certain radius of their home star, and even worse than that, if theyre just as paranoid as you, its enough time that they could conceivably begin to launch their own interstellar attacks, and if they happen to see your home star and think “that looks like it might have life, lets attack it”, then your policy was insufficient. Youre not launching an attack against a newly space fairing civilization, youre launching one against whatever exists in that area of space when your attack finally arrives. Thus, you really need to attack well before civilizations start to go into space. If we’re anything to go by, the time between early space exploration and industrial revolution is only a matter of a couple of centuries, so something like industry or radio is also too late, unless your targets are in a very narrow window of distance. If you’re within a few thousand light years (still relatively close compared to the size of the galaxy) then you really should be attacking by no later than the first sign of early civilization, and if youre farther than that, as I mentioned earlier, you really should attack before civilized life ever even arises, because there would be time for a planet to go from having literal cavemen to an emerging interstellar empire before your attack even got to them, and once they have interstellar travel, you dont know exactly where they’re all going to be, and they have the capacity to at least try to attack you. So, you either attack before civilization in which case we shouldnt be here, or you colonize the galaxy yourself to have outposts nearby to any emerging aliens, which is fundamentally not stealthy, and which again means we shouldnt be here because our planet should have been colonized by said aliens before we could ever evolve.
The other response Ive seen before is that maybe, nobody is actually willing to engage in a policy of genocide at first sight like this, but everyone is afraid that someone might be doing so, and so everyone hides despite there being nothing to hide from, and so we see no aliens. But this assumes that everyone considers this possibility, deliberately holds back their own development by trying to hide, despite probably also realizing that hiding is futile anyway, and that nobody across the galaxy ever, or has ever, not done this and so had the galaxy to claim for itself, which seems absurdly unlikely, especially given those hiding still have the option to send the probes, and potentially discover that everyone else is doing the same and so knows of them anyway.
The TLDR of this, because I know this was a rather lot of text for just a response to this, is: The dark forest assumes that one isnt a target unless one takes action that reveals oneself, and that one can be sure of destroying any civilization one knows about in a first strike, and that these are the only options available with no way to try to make oneself a less vulnerable target. None of these assumptions seem reasonable upon further pondering, and if they do not hold, the scenario does not make sense.
Fortunately for us, this one isn’t too likely, because realistically, an alien civilization capable of travelling the relevant distance and destroying another civilization isn’t something that can be hidden from.
I mean its entirely dependent on whatever theoretical sci-fi gimmick utilized to close that gap. Are we betting on FTL, near the speed of light, or the left field entry … intra dimensional travel?
The dark Forrest theory is mostly dependent on FTL, where the ability to destroy a planet is on par with the discovery of the planet. Meaning that it’s not so much a seek and destroy scenario, but more like two scared drunks stumbling in the dark with loaded shot guns.
They should be able, fairly easily, to examine every planet in the galaxy and see which ones have life on them, and wipe it out before any civilization ever arises at all.
Again, this theory isn’t supposing that there is a omnipresent alien race, but that all species are searching in the dark with a flashlight. Just because you have the ability to look everywhere, doesn’t mean that you can look everywhere at once, and the universe is infinite.
The fact that we exist at all necessarily implies that nobody in this galaxy has been committed to going this, at least for the past billion years or so.
Again, this presumes that just because you have FTL tech means you have limitless resource and man power. When in reality the theory presupposes that FTL increases resource competition, not diminishes it.
I was presuming that nobody has any ftl tech, given that it seems to violate the laws of physics for such a technology to exist. And you can look virtually everywhere, in the galaxy at least, with the right technology (and probably less advanced a tech than needed for manned space travel, what you need is a machine, capable of using the resources available in some asteroid to construct more of itself, and send those copies off towards other star systems. These probes would multiply exponentially until they’ve explored every star in the galaxy, with no further input required beyond building the first one)
It’s thankfully based on pretty bad game theory. The reality of it is that there end up being more negative consequences to attacking other civilizations than either staying isolated or being friendly, and the proposition is riddled with antropocentric concepts to begin with. Sure, in smaller time scales it might be that alien civilizations would attack each other, but over longer times they would tend to form alliances.
Even your conclusion is anthropocentric.
There’s just too many guesses to dark forest.
Nah the dark forest doesn’t really work, If turning on a light (so to speak) makes you a target then a muzzle flash is even worse. It takes a lot of energy to kill a planet however you do it and thats going to tell everyone where the shooter is.
And no you can’t use an asteroid because all the matter in the universe couldn’t make a computer powerful enough to make it hit over a reasonable distance and getting to our solar system to use one of the ones here is just as energetic as firing a projectile.
