One of my shower thoughts (not usually in a shower – just that type of thought) about the notion of “mathematical complexity = intelligence”, where it true (always possible) is that the environment around the center area of stars could be a likely place for intelligence to exist.
Intelligence need not be reliable. It can be sporatic, rising and falling, coming in and out of existence for brief pockets and then subsuming to less organized patterns.
Oh I wasn’t thinking human intelligence at all.
Ultimately, do I believe that large numbers, complexity, chaotic systems and feedback loops = intelligence? Not really, but i’m open to the possibility of it. Were I to accept a panentheistic version of intelligence (usually refers to divinity but we tend to give intelligence a similar status), I’d be supportive of a conscious internet and a consciousness in the complexity of the subatomic relationships in my coffee even.
Now, the energies are released at different rates and the “thousands of years” is true and yet not entirely true either.
They use a coffee cup metaphor but while that is useful to describe one part of the phenomenon, it does not effectively describe all of it.
The thing is: There’s ACTION at the center of a star. Lots and lots of it. The gravitation pressure is *immense*.
Patterns self-organize out of chaos. That’s just how things go. Out of any randomness,, there will be patterns that self-organize into temporarily self-sustaining systems which can then form novel effects that would not be possible in an “ideal gas” hypothetical situation.
Lots of pressure. Plenty of time. Can photons behave more like liquid under those conditions? Can they behave more like a combination of solids and liquids under these conditions?
I think they can. Hydrogen under extreme pressures can form crystal-like lattice formations. Under laboratory conditions (an artificially perfect environment), they can be consistent.
In real-world conditions however, nothing is like a laboratory.
This is all “off the cup” speculation on my part but considering the extreme lifespans of stars, and the _potential_ for self-organinzing systems forming out of *all* of those potential combinations (think of the ‘size’ of photons vs the size of the center of a star and how many could “fit” in there…. and remember that photons are NOT grains of sand:
Also, I’m not only referring to the photons but also the chemical makeup at the center of a star which changes over time.
It’s more than just Hydrogen –> Helium going on in there.
At least it’s a stronger potential than millions of monkeys typing for millions of years. There AREN’T millions of monkeys typing for millions of years. But there *is* a unique complex situation at the center of stars.
I’m not talking about life. I’m talking about a consciousness. I’m not saying that any of this is valid. This is science fiction like parallel universes and such.
I’m suggesting the possibility (fantasy, yes) that *if* mere complexity can lead to consciousness through these things: a “singularity” situation as it were, then there’s nothing stopping it from occurring in any sufficiently set of complex interactions.
That being said, do *I* believe any of what I wrote to be true?
No. I also don’t believe that computers will ever be self-aware unless we set up the feedback loops properly and even then, just as with people, we’ll never really know but to me, it doesn’t matter.
Also important to note is that any consciousness that may arise in such circumstances would _not_ resemble human consciousness and any communication would likely be impossible. I suspect we’ll have similar issues arise in identifying any non-Earth intelligence. We have too much specialization that limits us. Even our pattern identification will always be limited to the cognitive limitations of our own systems. [the fastest, bested computers won’t be able to come up with anything that a human being isn’t potentially capable of comprehending because even if it does, we’d never be able to recognize anything outside of our ability to do so,which is limited by the set of our total capacities.