Is the Universe Conscious? | Hacker News Reader

Is the Universe Conscious?

nbcnews.com

43 pointsarikr81 comments

Are we part of the universe? Check. Are we conscious? Check? (probably yes). Does that make the universe transitively conscious? Partially at least, I suppose, yes it does. As far as the universe as a whole being conscious: Latency is problem, but when you're the universe I imagine you've got a lot of time on your hands.

Is there a universe outside of our consciousness? This cannot be proven, so if it is to be believed, it must be a matter of faith.

Consciousness is the only thing we can be certain of.

It can be proven. Look down at your navel. Did you know about that lint? It was outside of your consciousness.

Maybe that lint was it, but probably not.

That doesn't prove it - maybe you just decided there was lint there when you looked down.

I think therefore I am?

I think, therefore I avoid vacuous statements like "I am therefore I am"; moreover, I think I am.

It's raining, therefore it is

Things that cannot be "proven" still can have vastly different probabilities, according to prior observations.

There are no observations that are not products of consciousness, so there are no prior observations in this case.

Can we be certain of consciousness? How can we be certain that what we perceive as reality isn't some demon feeding sensory information to our brain?

That would still be consciousness--or call it 'perception' if you like. But yes, objectively speaking, this is as likely to be the case as any other explanation.

We can be certain of - "something's going on". That's about as far as we can take it, but it's something that isn't nothing.

I often think of GE Moore when I see this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

That argument simply assumes its conclusion by arbitrarily labelling hands as 'external'.

The 'existence' of our hands is perceived by our senses and filtered through consciousness. There is no way to prove that they actually exist outside of our minds.

How can you be sure that you are concious and it's not just a usable abstraction running in your software?

We can't, but this is just playing with the definition of conscious. To be more precise, the only thing we can be sure of is the phenomenon of consciousness. The true cause of it will always be a mystery.

I am a strange loop.

> Latency is problem, but when you're the universe I imagine you've got a lot of time on your hands.

Best sentence I've read all month

"In principle, some purely physical systems that are not biological or organic may also be conscious.”

The article is talking less about "does the Universe contain consciousness?" but more about "can non-biological things have consciousness?"

The author quotes a scientist who thinks stars that emit jets in a single direction might be doing so consciously. If that's the case, then the scientist raises the question if other non-biological things in the universe might be conscious.

It sounds like no one is taking this idea seriously, but some guy wants to test it just to rule it out.

As far as i can see it, to be conscious is to have a subject experience of reality and (this is i am sure about yet) to have some sense of purpose (however mundane).

To talk about the universe being conscious in this sense, seems to be meaningless to me. I get this strange feeling that we are trying to force something that is vastly mysterious (numinous, not divine) into our world view of how lifeforms work on earth.

Reminds me of a fascinating discussion with Richard Dawkins from a while ago. If you can ignore the pseudo-scientific babble from Deepak Chopra and the annoying host, Dawkins makes some deeply interesting points worth thinking about.

https://youtu.be/BiwLrxPb1fE?t=16m12s

Similar discussion from some time ago: [0]. TL;DR a galaxy is too big for letting any sort of meaningful intelligence develop. The latency of signals would severely limit the complexity of the "brain".

Edit: moreover, on a less serious stance, there is always [1], which reassures us that the answer to such a question would inevitably be "no", when the question is posed as part of an headline.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11395585

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

>> Latency...

That shouldn't be a problem if the quantum particles are entangled. right?

>> which reassures us that the answer to such a question would inevitably be "no

The Universe doesn't care about such laws ;)

You still can't move information faster than light.

unless maybe you are super intlligent and found new physics

Curious about this, is there some sort of study I can read?

I am not a physicist, but as I understand it this is a basic law of physics, and is a consequence of relativity.

> It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Octopuses are an interesting argument against this view. Octopuses do not directly control their own arms. And their arms even have reflex reactions completely independent of their brain. In other words, it may be that nature itself discovered centralization is a pretty bad idea beyond a certain scale.

In other words, the universe is Cthulhu?

I am sure you are aware of the paradoxical article "are stories that have a question mark in their title always wrong?"

no.

To be fair, this is with our current understanding of physics. The SoL barrier is VERY unlikely to be 'broken', however, more interesting things may crop up. I mean, 'dark matter' is ~20% of the universe and all we really know about it is that it falls down. Then you have 'dark energy' which makes up ~70% of the universe and all we know about it is that it makes other things not fall down (maybe).

There is a whole heck of a lot of physics out there still so I think calling a galaxy-wide intelligence impossible is premature (let alone the debate over what 'intelligence' is counted as).

This is a very anthropocentric view of intelligence.

What's to say that the universe doesn't simply operate on vastly different timescales?

Given that I am conscious, and I am part of the universe, I conclude that the universe is conscious.

Or, at the very least, the universe cannot be entirely unconscious, since I am part of the universe and I am conscious.

In the same way a room becomes conscious the moment a person walks into it.

A room and a person in it can be considered separate. But nothing in existence can be considered separate from the universe, since the universe is everything in existence.

So, to use your example, a room with a conscious person in it, considered as one whole, is at the very least partially conscious, since the person in it is conscious. Whether the room itself is conscious we don't quite know.

But this leads to the question: does the notion of "partially conscious" make sense?

So,

1. a room and a person in it are separate

2. nothing is separate from the universe

Therefore, there are two things that are not separate from the universe but separate from each other.

Separation is a matter of perspective. A room with a person in it can be viewed as one whole, and saying that this room-person is only partially conscious is equivalent to saying that, because my teeth are not conscious and my teeth are part of me, I’m only partially conscious.

> Separation is a matter of perspective.

Indeed separation is matter of consciousness. If we believe that the universe is more or less a frothing foam of energetic particles, the only thing that differentiates my teeth from my gums and me from the room is my recognition and identification of them. There is matter with or with out me, but there is no room, no tooth, no me without my consciousness.

"[...] the universe is more or less a frothing foam of energetic particles [...]"

"Particles" is plural, implying separation. It that, too, a "matter of consciousness"? Sounds a lot like "consciousness" is being used to do a lot of passing of the proverbial buck.

And how a body becomes non-conscious the moment the brain is removed.

I would argue that the room (or the space enclosed by it) _does_ become capable of satisfying certain definitions of consciousness.

Here is a similar argument from Alan Watts illustrated by Matt Stone and Trey Parker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3NLyQNDBQ

Another way to look at it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo (You are the Big Bang)

This appears to be extreme anti-reductionism: the determined refusal to acknowledge that a property of a compound entity could be wholly explained by part of it.

Why does the presence of a person in a room make a difference, as opposed to any other relationship between the two things?

But that doesn't align with how we use the concept of consciousness. A bug is conscious - we put a bug in a bottle - we say the bug is in a bottle. We don't say the bottle is conscious like the bug, we say the bug is conscious in a bottle. A human engulfed in fire is not a conscious fire beyond a poetic turn of phrase.

We don't say houses are conscious in the same way human's are. We might say a house is "aware of something" in the same way we say a house is "conscious of something", not to mean exhibiting the mark of the mental but to mean every person contained is aware of a certain thing; but if we're using the concept of consciousness in the way this article is using the concept, not as being aware, but as a mark of the mental, we don't ever apply that to a house because that is nonsensical. We would say "you don't mean the house, you mean the people inside."

The entire starting question seems nonsensical. If we conclude the universe, or a star, is conscious like us we've stretched the concept of consciousness to absurdity or metaphysical wankery.

Being inside of something is different from being a part of something.

That may be a fallacy of composition - what's true of a part or a component needn't be true of the whole. For example, your cells divide, they are part of you, but you do not divide.

To borrow the logical construct from the OP:

> Or, at the very least, I cannot be entirely indivisible, since cells are part of me and they are dividing.

The point is more that the universe must have the capacity for consciousness within it's inner-workings, much like divisibility must be inherent in any biological system -- more so than "cells" being divisibile -- we're after the notion of divisibility itself.

Oh, Penrose. He comes up with weird theories of consciousness every once in a while. His basic argument is that for some reason consciousness in a deterministic universe runs into undecidability, and therefor consciousness must require some quantum phenomenon to work.

It's a big jump from "some stars emit jets that seem to move them in a non-random direction" to "consciousness".

Strange coincidence, today I was thinking about the same thing in the opposite way while walking next to a highway.

Humans are not 100% rational like elementary particles in quantum physics, and they were all in cars moving in a predictable way like H2O molecules in a river. And it made me wondering if there is a possibility of consciousness that we try to describe with physics laws but will never be able to totally understand because of an underling consciousness.

Ignoring the whole "speed-of-light delays make galaxy-brains impossible" thing, here's a different argument I'm fond of:

A conscious mind has an at-least-somewhat-coherent preference function, yes? (Under modern predictive-processing models of the brain, the experience of being a mind is the experience of focusing on things that allow you to make reward-biased predictions, to further drive embodied processes like movement to "unify" those biased predictions with the environment—i.e. to seek the reward state. So you need a preference function to focus, and thereby to have a train of thought.)

So, the Earth might be conscious. Despite seeing ourselves as different from e.g. spiders, or algae, or bacteria, every preference-function of Earth-based life is actually rather close-together in possible-preference-function-space. You could say that the Earth—i.e. everything on Earth that thinks—"wants" to spread carbon-based life through mitosis and meiosis. If the Earth was a starship, this would be its mission.

The universe, on the other hand? Maybe if we're the only life in it. Otherwise, there's probably a https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer somewhere with a very different idea of what the universe "wants", that can't really be coherently combined with our own.

If such a universe had a brain, it would necessarily be one with split-brain syndrome; it wouldn't be able to both "be" Earth-based life and "be" a paperclip-maximizer at the same time, and still have consciousness in the sense we define it. So, not "one" consciousness, no.

If it's possible for the Earth to have "one" consciousness while containing both the Cheetah and the Gazelle, the universe can reconcile us and a paperclip maximizer.

If you assume that the Earth has a consciousness, then individual beings on its surface are more like cells in a body than like separate minds. The minds of the individual components aren't "part of" that consciousness, in the way that mental schema are a part of a brain; they're more like neurons, or other nerve cells elsewhere in the body, literal parts of the brain. You wouldn't derive your idea of what a brain is thinking from what an individual nerve cell "wants" (cells "want" ATP, mostly); you'd only derive it from what that cell does in response to stimuli from other cells, and how that maps to thinking at a larger level.

A human being wants things that often involve the destruction of its various cells. We want to drink alcohol sometimes, for example. This is possible because our preference-function has no factor for the preferences of the individual cells killed in the process. They aren't a semantic part of our mind. They're just a literal part of our bodies.

A hypothetical Earth-Mind wouldn't have a preference-function derived via coherent extrapolated volition of all Earth-life. Its mind would simply be the set of preferences the Earth seems to have if you're an alien trying to interact with "the Earth" as a coherent being, on some scale where the actions of individual cells (e.g. humans) don't matter as much as the actions of the biosphere as a whole. Maybe with action-and-reaction observed over a time-scale of billions of years, for example.

That preference function might be observed to be, for example, "install replicating carbon-based life onto anything that comes into contact with it." Or "capture solar radiation into ongoing surface chemistry." Note that these are coincidentally things that some of the individual cells also want, but again, the cells in existence at any given moment and their wants aren't anything you can use to deduce the preferences of the mind. It's more what cells are kept in existence and given more resources over time—especially in response to specific stimuli—that allow you to make educated guesses about what a multicellular agent is "trying" to do. (With the proviso that those cells shouldn't also be clearly fighting the rest of the organism in doing so; a model that predicts that animals want to get cancer is a bad model.)

Presuming humans terraform the planet completely, the preference-function of the Earth as a whole might seem to end up as "transform all raw materials into structures, items, and cells suitable as inputs to sustain the life of the 'human' cell-line." This is a higher-level thought-process that could be found, but it wouldn't erase the lower level; the Earth-Mind would still look to have those other desires, because humans are still carbon-based life and still do carbon-based life things. Just like our own brain cells, despite being the "dominant cell-line" of our bodies, still function as cells in a body. Humans are "embodied" by our biosphere just like our brain cells are "embodied" by other cell-lines. And so it still makes sense to talk to a human by talking to its body, rather than directly to its brain—and it still makes sense to talk to "the [terraformed] Earth" rather than talking to humans.

On the other hand, the "observed mind" of a planet with a paperclip-maximizer on it wouldn't look anything like a natural-biosphere or human-driven-biosphere. It would just look like the single paperclip-maximizer's mind. A paperclip-mamixizer isn't part of a biosphere; it's a monocellular culture, the preferences of the whole identical to the preferences of the individual entities. And those preferences are completely orthogonal to the preferences of a biosphere.

If Earth came into contact with a paperclip-maximizer, their interaction wouldn't look like a coherent mind at work; it would look like two minds each blindly attempting to achieve their own goals with no greater purpose in their collision.

The point I hold out on is that, if you interact with the Universe as a whole, on a scale where things like biospheres are the "cells", and attempt to ascertain its preference-function, you won't get anything sensible out. Unlike Earth, where both the Cheetah and the Gazelle "serve" to tree-search a set of biological machines that started with Earth's first carbon-based replicators, an interaction between the Earth-Mind and the Paperclipper-Mind doesn't serve to "do" anything. The behaviour of the interaction wouldn't throw off byproducts that would be of use to anyone trying to predict anything. The Universe, as an experiment containing multiple orthogonally-preferenced agents, is purposeless; unlike Earth itself, there is nothing from which an alien standing outside of it could infer the hand of an intelligent designer—a mind at the Universe's scale that found it useful to set its "cells" in motion in the way the Universe has been set in motion.

Which makes sense, I think; the "intelligent designer" of the Earth-Mind was the first carbon-based replicator, but there was no equivalent process that "took over" the Universe as a whole to infuse it with a self-similar cluster of optimization-processes.

> Penrose sums up this connection beautifully in his opus "The Road to Reality": “The laws of physics produce complex systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then produces mathematics, which can then encode in a succinct and inspiring way the very underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it.”

This circular thinking breaks down at "mathematics can encode in a succinct and inspiring way the laws of physics". The laws of physics are partitioned into at least three different sub-theories, none of which have been successfully encoded with another sub-theory using mathematics, i.e. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the laws arising from the directedness of Time. (That last one could include the Theory of Consciousness if entropy causes brain memories, and memories cause consciousness.)

Perhaps because physics produces consciousness, and consciousness produces mathematics, mathematics can never describe a united theory of physics.

"As I have argued there and elsewhere, naturalism cannot in fact be salvaged. It either collapses into Rosenberg-style eliminativism, which is (hard as Rosenberg tries to make it work) ultimately incoherent; or, in order to do justice to the aspects of reality that even many of Nagel’s critics acknowledge to be irreducible, is either transformed into the panpsychism of Whitehead, Chalmers, and Strawson, or entails a return to an essentially Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy of nature [...]"

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roun...

Yoga and Hinduism have always been preaching this. The universe and for that matter, even a stone is a living entity. There is a higher cosmic intelligence and consciousness that is capable of taking macro/micro decisions.

By some definitions, proving this would objectively prove God exists.

by some definitions the converse would not be necessarily true: if God reveals her/himself to you, she would still need to prove that he controls the whole universe. unless you believe them.

The definitions that the parent are referring to are the basis for pantheism, i.e. that God is everything. Some people call it Gaia, or Brahman.

correct

There are may ways to argue for panpsychism.

So far I have solid and interesting arguments only from David Chalmers. Most others, like Penrose, make basic errors or hand wave too much to my taste.

Would you please link to some of the Chalmers pieces you like?

His all papers are here: http://consc.net/all-papers-by-date/

Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism. Amherst Lecture in Philosophy, 2013. http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf

The Combination Problem for Panpsychism. In (G. Bruntrup and L. Jaskolla, eds.) Panpsychism. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf

I like the idea on some level, but could consciousness be separated from biological motivations like pleasure and pain?

That feels more like the idea of universe-as-computer than in the examples of conscious, living celestial bodies.

> to Carl Sagan intoning that “we are made of star stuff”

I like how Carl Sagan’s most famous quote is him just dumbing down the lyrics of a Joni Mitchell song so that his audience could understand it.

I see consciousness as a way to describe the reinforcement learning process for an agent in an environment. Thus I try to see if a universe consciousness would have the characteristics of an RL agent.

What would such a conscious universe be conscious of? Would it need to feed, mate, learn and defend itself? If there is no utility, no purpose, then why would it be conscious?

At least in biological life, there is an internal purpose - that is - to live and self reproduce. The consciousness of the universe would not have such needs, and with their loss, it would lose all that evolution achieved.

It sure is, and no less than several billion times over, at least, depending on how you count, and that's just on this planet alone.

"Is the Universe Conscious?" on nbcnews.com has to be some sort of cultural milestone.

Yeah the NBC News article, from June 2017, someone "recently published a paper" -- in July 2016 (I suppose on a cosmic scale...). At the risk of...ad-hominism, the site they linked doesn't inspire confidence. For one thing, the peer-review process: http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/about/editorialPolicies#peerRe... is basically two editors from the same company, and eventually one or more of a group of "advisors" ( http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/about/displayMembership/3 ), 7 out of 17 being "Independent Researchers".

a "dominant" theory of consciousness is a bit of a misnomer

that is to say,

- most scientists would hesitate to say they have a clue

- philosophers have all kinds of ideas but all with epistemological issues

- your average joe would probably equate consciousness with the "soul"

Yes?

Assuming that c is really the speed of causality, then no, there’s a limit to large scale structures or operations in an expanding universe.

Doesn't the inflation theory contradict this? If expansion (or contraction) of spacetime can occur faster than the speed of light, then it could theoretically enact causality faster too right?

Or even more theoretically, isn't it also possible that distant regions of our universe could be adjacent in other dimensions? Perhaps in some higher (or lower?) dimension, every particle in the universe is right next to each other, having never separated after the big bang.

Not that any of this is particularly likely, but since we don't understand the core mechanisms of consciousness very well, it seems possible they could be operating on levels of physics that we also don't understand yet.

"If expansion (or contraction) of spacetime can occur faster than the speed of light, then it could theoretically enact causality faster too right?"

Well, if you're looking to claim that the universe used to be conscious prior to inflation, at which point it was torn to pieces in every direction possible simultaneously, sure. Probably not what you were fishing for, though.

"Not that any of this is particularly likely, but since we don't understand the core mechanisms of consciousness very well, it seems possible they could be operating on levels of physics that we also don't understand yet."

Well, if the universe is operating in that manner, it would have to be doing so with some rather tight bounds on it to ensure that we never ever have to take those things into consideration when plotting the behavior of a system. I would tend to say this falls into the "raises more questions than it answers" bucket, myself.

If consciousness is a complicated phenomenon that only manifests in some sort of very small way in certain interactions, then A: what are those interactions? and B: by what mechanism is the universe even discovering those interactions? It's not hard to imagine a universe that has physics just like ours, except that a particular combination of 10 to the 11th atoms of carbon in a very precise linked order will spontaneously emit very large quantities of blue light. But without a clue as to what that may be, how is anything in the universe ever supposed to find that pattern of atoms? That is, if this is how consciousness works and there is some sort of very ill-defined, handwavey "field" associated with it, by what mechanism did anything in the universe discover how to interact with it?

These are not necessarily forever unanswerable questions, but right now, they would in many ways be bigger questions than the question they are putatively being offered as the answer to.

Doesn't the inflation theory contradict this? If expansion (or contraction) of spacetime can occur faster than the speed of light, then it could theoretically enact causality faster too right?

There is no theoretical limit to the rate of metric expansion, but unfortunately metric expansion doesn’t allow for FTL communication. Let’s put aside issues of lightspeed in an expanding universe though because we don’t even need to go there to address this basic issue of why you can’t have a brain past certain limits.

At some point limited by the speed of light even in a static universe, your “thoughts“ would be incredibly slow. What would it mean to have a neuron the width of the galaxy? Would you be particularly intelligent just because you had a lot of individual parts from a certain distance? There’s probably some theoretical upper bound on the optimum size for a computing body in a universe bound by c, based on the total amount of entropy which could ever be contained in a given region and the rate of signal transmission.

As to adjacent dimensions and that kind of thing, who knows? In current physics that would be like magic, and magic can be whatever you want it to be after all.

M-theory (which posits additional dimensions) is obviously not observationally proven by any stretch, but it's based on mathematics and scientific principles and is respected by many prominent physicists, so I wouldn't call it the realm of magic. It does make falsifiable predictions--the problem is developing technology capable of falsifying them.

An Alcubierre warp drive[1] would be capable of enacting causality faster than light, no?

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

The Alcubierre drive might or might not work on our universe; it requires something which may not exist. If it did work, it would also be a time machine, and so far causality has been a safer bet. M-theory is engaging and fascinating, filled with great math, but there is no indication that it describes our reality. Worse, M-Theory flirts with unfalsifiability. All told, when looking at things like the original question raised by the article, we have to look to established theory backed by observation.

Sure, I'm not trying to say that this stuff is very plausible. My point is that we do have some reasonable indications that some of our hard and fast laws might be more slippery than is commonly thought, and given the strangeness of consciousness, how it works could be pretty slippery as well.

Imagine that human civilization survives and progresses for 100 million years. Do you think that they'll be able to look back on any of our "laws" without laughing?

At that point we'd likely be far beyond Dyson spheres, harvesting large quantities of antimatter, solar system scale particle accelerators, artificial black holes, quantum supercomputers, etc., etc. Whatever would be discovered is almost guaranteed to be unimaginable by us.

I think that to the best of anyone's ability to tell, the speed of light is ultimately fixed and represents the speed of causality. I think that we can do a lot within those limits, much of it beyond belief today. That said, I truly doubt that we're going to exceed the speed of causality, create time machines, and that kind of thing.

For the artificial black holes, Dyson spheres, antimatter, quantum computers, and giant accelerators to actually work, the laws of physics they're based on can't be that wrong. They can be incomplete, requiring their place within a greater theory, but not simply wrong. There is observation consistent with the notion that the speed of light has been constant for the last ~14 billion years, everywhere we can see.

I suppose that's true based on what we know. But perhaps there is a way to demonstrate it's only a temporary split and the universe will come back together when we (as in the universe) are done considering two thoughts in parallel.

Ok, maybe that would impose a limit on "the entire universe", but what if we just are considering "this causally connected component" of the universe? (Aside: there may be a bit of difficulty/ambiguity in defining "this causally connected component of the universe". I think the basic reasoning should turn out the same in each of the reasonable ways to define it.)

like, a person's brain can be split in 2 and have them live, iirc, so that it could split into parts that are no longer connected at some point, doesn't seem to by itself rule out the consciousness of a part I think?

That isn't to say that I think "this connected component of the universe " is conscious. I don't think it is. (I believe in the existence of souls, though by that I do not mean that I am confident that a human-made AI couldn't be conscious. Maybe it could, I don't know. If it seemed to be, I think it would be best (in most contexts) to err on the side of assuming that it was? Point is, I think there is something humans have(/are) that "this connected component of the universe" doesn't.)

This is the core of my thinking on the matter.

How big could life forms like these become? Interesting thoughts require not only a complex brain, but also sufficient time for formulation. The speed of neural transmissions is about 300 kilometers per hour, implying that the signal crossing time in a human brain is about 1 millisecond. A human lifetime, then, comprises 2 trillion message-crossing times (and each crossing time is effectively amplified by rich, massively parallelized computational structuring). If both our brains and our neurons were 10 times bigger, and our lifespans and neural signaling speeds were unchanged, we’d have 10 times fewer thoughts during our lifetimes.

If our brains grew enormously to say, the size of our solar system, and featured speed-of-light signaling, the same number of message crossings would require more than the entire current age of the universe, leaving no time for evolution to work its course. If a brain were as big as our galaxy, the problem would become even more severe. From the moment of its formation, there has been time for only 10,000 or so messages to travel from one side of our galaxy to the other. We can argue, then, that, it is difficult to imagine any life-like entities with complexity rivaling the human brain that occupy scales larger than the stellar size scale. Were they to exist, they wouldn’t yet have had sufficient time to actually do anything.

http://nautil.us/issue/51/limits/can-a-living-creature-be-as...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com