‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating
‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating
The leap in temperatures over the past 13 months has exceeded the global heating forecasts – is this just a blip or a systemic shift?
Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.
In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.
Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.
You're viewing part of a thread.
i mean you probably influence them, but much like dreams, are they really representative of anything other than your mind left to its own devices?
Human conception may start at the sperm race, but human consciousness doesn't begin until a few years into childhood, so at the end of the day, who knows.
Can thought be considered a process that begins after being affected by an external stimulus? And without prior experience on which to base our response, we can only react according to the conditions set by that stimulus?
So is it truly we who control our thoughts or are we just acting in a predetermined set of reactionary impulses based on the accumulation of our personal experiences and gained knowledge over our lifetime so far?
We who are so easily influenced into outrage by trigger phrases specific to our fears or spurred into action by resonating soundbites promising our desires, are those our thoughts or are they just the mind left to its own devices?
I really don't know. But it's probably some food for thought in a way.
Can thought be considered a process that begins after being affected by an external stimulus? And without prior experience on which to base our response, we can only react according to the conditions set by that stimulus?
thought must be influenced by some level of internal stimulation, as you can deprive your senses and still think. Likewise, before you have the capability of memory, you are not conscious, it is simply impossible. Consciousness is directly tied to the ability to remember. Thusly it must be some mix of the two, life experiences, and remembered experiences.
Just one or the other is incapable of providing anything interesting.
You have to have some level over the control of your thoughts, otherwise you wouldn't be capable of typing, or speaking, or most things in life really. If everything is predetermined it has to be predetermined at a higher level, quantum mechanics and multiverse theory for example. In some capacity, the vast majority of judgements we make in our lifetimes is based on the cumulative life experience we have gained, as well as a ability to engage in critical thinking allowing us to process said experience and to formulate an action to follow.
We who are so easily influenced into outrage by trigger phrases specific to our fears or spurred into action by resonating soundbites promising our desires, are those our thoughts or are they just the mind left to its own devices?
both, kind of. The mind left to it's own devices will formulate thoughts for you to hold, it doesn't like the lack of thought and understanding, it's probably the reasoning behind religion, and it's certainly the driver behind science. We're also social animals, and as a result we like to conform to the pack, it's what keeps us alive, so if other people are saying something, we have some fundamental level of bias against the alternative. Racism is a good example of this.
thought must be influenced by some level of internal stimulation, as you can deprive your senses and still think. Likewise, before you have the capability of memory, you are not conscious, it is simply impossible. Consciousness is directly tied to the ability to remember. Thusly it must be some mix of the two, life experiences, and remembered experiences.
Isn't the internal stimulation just the nervous system zapping things to get a response? And doesn't that need a trigger to get it going?
Anyway, I feel like I'm heading into contested territory here, but I gotta ask. At which point can we consider babies as conscious?
Most people will claim their earliest memory is at the age of 4 or 5 years old. So that time is probably considered as the general start of conscious identity. Yet some have reported that simulating the conditions in a womb such as sleeping in a fetal position or floating aimlessly within a larger body of water will grant them an instinctual sense of serenity. So it can be argued that at some level, we remember our time in the womb, even though we are not able to recall it directly.
And I've seen babies aged around 1-2 years old trying (unsuccessfully) to hide from their parents in order to attempt an action that had been forbidden several times before.
How early does our capability to store memory actually start? And at which point will the amount of stored and remembered experience be enough to count as consciousness?
Isn’t the internal stimulation just the nervous system zapping things to get a response? And doesn’t that need a trigger to get it going?
yes but between external stimuli, vision for example, and internal stimulation, memories, you generally need both in order to be able to conceptualize it and make practical use of it.
Anyway, I feel like I’m heading into contested territory here, but I gotta ask. At which point can we consider babies as conscious?
personally, by the time memory is formulated and they can start to remember things. Otherwise it's debatable whether or not something can experience in a conscious literal sense, the effects of pain and suffering. We know that most animals must experience some level of consciousness, but between birth and the capability of general consciousness, the specific level of consciousness available is not very clear to anybody.
We know that newborns have a lot of fundamental primal responses, holding their breath, hanging onto things, facial recognition. ETC. we know that young animals also experience similar things, though it's contested how much of this is just a primal built in, or a learned behavior.
And if we're talking about learned behavior in the context of consciousness it's even weirder because the matchbox tic tac toe (MENACE) experiment proves that a collection of matchboxes playing tic tac toe can clearly demonstrate the ability to learn and reflectively act upon it's learned experience, however, it is in no way a conscious entity, it is merely a statistical representation of a conscious entity.
if we're talking about consciousness in the form of abortion, generally i follow up to about the first trimester, with the usual "if deemed necessary" post first trimester. As most abortions happen very early on. Although realistically, i'm never going to have children, so it's not really my problem to deal with, so my ultimate opinion doesn't exist past "non infringement of rights"
Most people will claim their earliest memory is at the age of 4 or 5 years old. So that time is probably considered as the general start of conscious identity. Yet some have reported that simulating the conditions in a womb such as sleeping in a fetal position or floating aimlessly within a larger body of water will grant them an instinctual sense of serenity. So it can be argued that at some level, we remember our time in the womb, even though we are not able to recall it directly.
i believe it's about 2-5 years old that memory starts to develop in general, though don't quote me on that. I don't think it's "remembering being in the womb" so much as it is post-hoc rationalization and creation of those memories, and also primal programming that influences us to be receptive to those things more generally. It could also be in the case of fetal position, that a subtle psychological reasoning is present. Having your extremities nearer to the rest of your body means you have less to worry about, and puts you in a more defensible position for example.
And I’ve seen babies aged around 1-2 years old trying (unsuccessfully) to hide from their parents in order to attempt an action that had been forbidden several times before.
we see similar things with animals as well, birds, dogs, cats etc. They all do similar things, and they almost definitely have a lesser level of consciousness. In fact we ascribe them a higher level of consciousness than they likely have. It's attributable to a simple level of relations between objects. Doing X is bad because Y doesn't like it. Therefore if i do X outside of the existence of Y it is no longer bad. Which is probably a reason that we see this behaviorism. Though it is obviously later learned that regardless of what happens and where, it is bad. And we do still see that behavior with a guilt response upon being caught. Though presumably this is due to some level of independent thought.
How early does our capability to store memory actually start? And at which point will the amount of stored and remembered experience be enough to count as consciousness?
I'm a bit of an absolutist in regards to this one, but i think that generally, the first thing you can remember, constitutes your first memory. However i don't think it has to be something that you explicitly remembered as your brain can segregate things into different groups, and intentionally block out certain parts of it, while making others more explicitly important, but even that aspect, has an influence on your memory, the things you remember, and your general behaviorism so i would count that as "memory" also, even though it's probably not.
How early does our capability to store memory actually start? And at which point will the amount of stored and remembered experience be enough to count as consciousness?
Consciousness as a concept is pretty tricky to nail properly in a sterilized environment, but personally i subscribe to the meta theory, where once you can personally conceptualize your own consciousness, the second you realize you are capable of being a conscious entity, is the second where you gain consciousness.
as for how it starts, it's pretty clear through biology that it's related to the structures of the brain, neurons inside of the brain and the paths built between them that are made more robust through continual usage are what constitute the ability to remember things, if you do not use them, you lose them, and it makes way for new paths and new memories to form, however there is generally some form of residual memory, similar to how data is written to disk and deleted.
apologies if this is somewhat schizo and badly formatted, i'm writing this while listening to a debate and playing factorio in the background, and i also spent some time talking in discord, so it's probably a little bit disjointed lol.
It's a very nice set of replies. Quite pleasant to read. Thank you for the whole thing.
np, i enjoy philosophy so this kind of thing is rather cathartic for me lol. Although that probably makes me mentally disturbed to some degree, such is life though. The most disturbed people are the most interesting/productive. The normal ones are boring.
I'm of the belief that we're all a little disturbed in some way, only that most people prefer the comfort of boring over the satisfaction of disturbing. And the most boring of people are simply better at hiding their quirks.
yeah, i think similarly, though i think there is a spectrum of disturbedness, where at a certain point, your disturbedness outclasses your normalcy and you simply no longer fit in with normal people enough to daylight as a normal person.
Most normal people are a little disturbed, but not significantly enough to experience life outside of that range, whatever it is.
Whereas most disturbed people are somewhere outside of that range, and as a result, usually have some sort of "disturbance radar" which let's them identify people who they should, and shouldn't be following.
It's certainly an interesting experience. It's as if there's a "socially normal" bubble, and then people who exist outside of that are kind of just, on their own. It's like a latch circuit. It's unlatched until it reaches the threshold where it latches, and once that threshold is reached, it's pretty much stuck there until forcibly unlatched.