h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

> 10%. I thought that 20% was a shocking estimate!

It is shocking, isn't it. It's naturally a very rough estimate which is quite dependent on the value you prefer for 'Omega', the ratio of the density of our universe to the density of a universe necessary so that its expansion rate is just barely sufficient to prevent a recollapse (in a closed - eventually recollapsing - universe Omega > 1, in an eternally expanding universe Omega < 1, in a 'flat' universe Omega = 1). If our universe is 'flat', dark matter would have to be 95%(!), but current evidence (which is pretty thin) suggests Omega is about 0.4, giving about 88% for dark matter.

I had to see it several times before, a. I understood what it meant, b. I believed it was serious

> Communicate how?

Any way that enables us to feel that we have some kind of useful dialogue (vague, I know, but it's a difficult question).

> Even with humans we have to assume a lot, don't you think?

Yes, it's a major difficulty - we don't really know what's going on in another mind.

> I communicate with the cats in my house in various ways. They are
> obviously conscious beings with personalities.

Me too. My cat obviously has a sense of humour, likes games, fake chases, and we have trained each other in various ways.

> people believe that animal consciousness is not as sophisticated as
> human consciousness. Why? Because animals don't have language?

When it isn't simple arrogance, it seems to be that many people don't discriminate between consciousness, self-awareness, and intelligence. Admittedly, they are ill-defined and hard to separate terms.

It seems to me that there are degrees of animal consciousness, just as there are degrees of self-awareness. Cats seem to have quite a high level of consciousness, and mine has seems to have slightly below average intelligence (for a cat - e.g. he doesn't figure things out or learn things very quickly or easily), and he seems to have some (fairly limited) self awareness (he shows embarassment, guilt, remorse, and seems to be aware enough of his internal 'primitive' level of irritation to deliberately walk away when at risk of triggering the 'clawing, scratching' reflex - I think you know what I mean).

It's hard to explain how one attributes these nebulous characteristics to another animal - I think you have to live with them for a while to be sure it's not just wishful anthropomorhism (as some psychologists maintain). Certain behaviours seem to emerge over time from a joint understanding, trust, and humour between you and the animal - for example, my cat likes to sleep at the top of the stairs, but if I'm nearby and he's on his way up, he'll pause near the bottom looking back at me, waiting for me to do my dog impression and make as if to chase him up the stairs (I stop at the bottom). He then rushes up the stairs as if all the devils in hell were at his furry heels, then settles down to sleep. I think it just gives him a buzz...

It's also hard to tell who has trained whom... as that wonderful Fabulous Furry Freak Brother's offshoot cartoon strip 'Fat Freddy's Cat' showed it, when Freddy was opening a tin of cat food and thinking "I wonder why they rub around your legs when you open their food?" and the cat was thinking "I wonder why they open your food when you rub around their legs?".

Higg's Bosun,

Well, as much as I do love my cats I don't believe I am guilty of anthropomorphism. It's quite obvious to me that these guys are cats. They have the pointy ears and whiskers, they are covered in fur and walk on all fours (except for the one with only three legs). Also I will never have to put them through university, thank gawd.

But they are lovely flatmates to have and they do have their own language. Each one communicates quite differently, usually quite vocally. As for intelligence, one is very cranky but clever, another is very sensual and quite good at 'emotional manipulation' and the third is basically a dog, very friendly and affectionate but also kind of, well, not very smart.

Yes, I agree that certain behaviour patterns do emerge after awhile of living together with an animal (for both the animal and the human ). But I don't actually attribute characteristics to the cats. The characteristics are there for all to see.

And so I am living with these little furry beasts with definite personalities and various means of expression. How can they not have souls? They are very conscious of who they are. Sometimes I think they are more self-aware than I am.

btw. When it comes to cats, it's not difficult at all to know who has trained whom. Basically I am a very well-trained human.



az

Wonder Newt

>>Indeed Churches historically practiced bigotry, but heathendom historically practiced human sacrifice<<

Yes. Most religions have killed in the name of their gods. Most modern religions still do. Pagans don't.

In historical heathenry, the sacrifice of a man to Odin was the highest rite imaginable. Mainly, it was done by the person dedicating themselves to their god and setting out into battle with the intention of arriving that night in Valhalla. Very occasionally, there are accounts in the sagas of someone from a defeated enemy group being deliberately sent to Valhalla. It is abhorrent to a modern person's viewpoint, even to those who follow Odin (which I personally do not.). But even now, there are heathen soldiers who have dedicated themselves to Odin, as his warrior, and who join their countries' armed services in the knowledge that they may die in his service and arrive, as their spiritual ancestors have done, in Valhalla.

There are similar people in the other main religions. I am thinking not only of those who join the armed forces, but also of those who declare themselves to be Islamic warriors, or who strap explosives to themselves and then walk into an oppressing country... We cannot understand them, and we are shocked by them, but they exist.

It is all sacrifice.

Historically, from the point of view of Christianity and Islam, there were jihads, crusades, witch-hunts, and religious wars, all committed well after the date that the last man was given to Odin against his will.

And in India and the other countries of the subcontinent, there are religious wars aplenty between Muslim and Hindu... even occasionally Buddhists... And, of course, there have been many cases in Tibet of Buddhists sacrificing themselves in the name of their philosophy (not a religion) to prevent and contain the recurrent atrocities performed by the Chinese occupying regime.

Bigotry, of course, is with us still... But as I say, heathenry seems to have outgrown it during its long spell underground and in stasis, apart from the racist (folkish) elements which abound mainly in the US of A, where they seems to have taken on a particularly american form of the old fascism of the pure race type philosophy which is rejected by all the heathen groups I know of in the UK and certainly by those I associate with.

The racist elements are as foreign to mainstream heathenry as the KKK is to mainstream Christianity. For instance, there is a site which came to my attention recently which attempts to link the C of E to its racist policies, and has the annoying (to me, as a follower of the Anglo-saxon pantheon) title of theanglo-saxons.co.uk (or it might be theanglo-saxon.co.uk ). There site, full of mis-spelt and poorly-constructed english, seems innocuous until it is read right through... Racism comes in many forms, as does bigotry.

We are all prejudiced. It is the way we are made. As children, we know that anyone different will be the butt of taunts. And that because everyone is different, in some way, no-one, not even the best of us, is safe. The trick is to recognise it, to fight it, to use reason to refute it and to grow out of it, as the society has to grow out of all forms of childish petulance.

But the bigotry of the Catholic Church, the biggest mainstream form of Christianity, is unfortunately a proven fact, even if the latest stupidity of this advice on HIV and condoms is a false story.

Jez - heathen, witch and as tolerant as she can manage, except of stupidity, which the human race cannot afford to encourage.

Definitions of things like personal identity tend to be implicit, and only as complete as they need to be. In normal experience a particular mind is conjoined with a particular body, and so we don't have to choose between them. Thought experiments that disrupt this normality give rise, inevitably, to confusion. Where the disruption is minimal (a single body/mind transferred from one location to another, for example) we can stretch our normal intuitions to accommodate it; when it's more profound the difficulty increases.

Noggin

Dam. Just spootted the tipo. Soooorry

Jez - heethin and which and no moor purrfect then enywone els

"Why should souls be made of matter? A magnetic field isn't."

A magnetic field is made of matter! Photons.

I've given up on links Toxx.

Alji

Alji!

[Scribbles out massive bits of his play involving Alji's alledged 'link trances' - a meditative state which helps him discover relevent links.]

Oh, and Alji is correct, to the best of my knowledge - magnetic fields are mediated through photons.

- Jordan

> How can they not have souls?

If we have souls, then I don't see why they shouldn't.

However, I don't really see what a soul is supposed to be or do, or why they are thought to be necessary.

Hi, Noggin. Missed your input of late. As regards my recent questions, you have kindly cast a certain amount of darkness upon them!

Jordan. Kind of you to fill in for me while I was visiting the shrink. I didn't quite mean that though. I meant that if we really arrived at a correct *conceptual* analysis (not something you scientists have much time for) of a person, then maybe no physical method could transfer 100% of a person from A to C without passing through B if you get my meaning. That would make it logically impossible.

Are you saying that, should we arrive at a working definition of a 'person,' might we discover that transportation of a person is impossible?

I assumed that we were thinking of something of a miracle device here. The technology of a transporter or perfect remote duplicator would be formidable, and perhaps impossible to build such that we actually could transfer a person from one place to another without destroying them or altering them fundamentally. If it is physically impossible to transport a person, then the actual question 'is it the same person' is academic unless there is some other issue to which it is relevent.

- Jordan

At home, we have an IBM, but sadly, we don't have Internet at home any more. Here at the library, it's a goodness-only-knows, with a Phillips monitor, and at my tertiary institution, whatever is available!
At the library, I am able to go to only a few approved sites, luckily, h2g2 is one of them. The library computers are pants, and so I thought the problem was them, but then it was just as bad at Unitec yesterday.

Aha, the other thread where you accused my sister Adele of being a hypocritical pill-using Catholic. (She's neither of course, but you just jumped to a conclusion.)
FYI, I do not agree with the Catholic church stand on contraception. It's far preferable to abortion, but I know that all the Catholic church wants people to do, as someone interviewed about this very issue on the BBC WS yesterday said, is to live in relationships, give up bed hopping and other much less savoury practices and setlle down, so that the very idea of children doesn't fill them with horror! I am not saying they're right about contraception, of course not, but you have to admit if people kept sex to within heterosexual monogamous relationships (except in the case of spousal abuse, obviously, where a change of relationship is *very Much* advised), there'd be a fraction of the demand for abortion, need for contraception or prevalence of STDs!

Suppose that it is physically possible. Would you be transporting a body, a person, or (my question) the same person? The question concerning the 'same person' it a question of logical possibility. It's a philosophical question and even Noggin seems to be baffled by it.

Dammit, Jordan. 'Academic' is what I'm all about. Academic questions are good questions. I think you must be using the word in an odd way.

Jordan. No not 'physically' impossible. The task might be the equivalent of finding two integers which when divided will yield the square root of two, for example. That is 'logically' impossible just because of the concept of root 2. The concept of a person if correctly analysed might yield a similar result with regard to the suggested form of transportation.

> The concept of a person if correctly analysed might yield a similar
> result with regard to the suggested form of transportation.

Can you suggest an hypothetical example of such a person concept?

Higgs. Here you go: "A person is something that cannot be transported by informational means". Far from complete but an example of what you requested.