Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The silence is deafening....

  • Please log in to reply
690 replies to this topic

#401 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 25220
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

:shameonyou: :4

#402 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19041
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:07 PM

In "T"-no Veritas.

#403 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: OR CA

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

The Drake and other like equations are IMO just an attempt to address the idea of putting what we currently know and think we know into a harness to discuss possibilities, nothing more.

It could be called a classical misuse of math? I'm unsure the underlying logic is sound from a set theoretic standpoint or axiomatic scrutiny, maybe it is just a tautology in disguise. I say this as I don't see a reasonable null hypothesis it could form that leads anywhere at all.

In my gut (meaning, I haven't thought this through with either rigourous logic or serious intellectual research) I feel this silence betokens either there is no intelligent/sentient life elsewhere, or that the geometries of scale in the universe are so large and the limitations of physics so severe even they can't overcome them.

Your thoughts, please.


This makes an assumption that we are by some measure 'intellegent' and that it somehow would apply somewhere else - but we have a sample of one. This 'idea' of intellegent is in many ways debated, so it's not that there is a clear definition. If the equation could apply to bacteria in a Petri dish then I rest my case. Let me take the opposite side and say we are not intelligent, and then proceed - then there is a possibility that an intelligence from elsewhere would avoid us beyond cataloging that we are here.

#404 Mister T

Mister T

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1483
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

:mrevil:

#405 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2708
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

This 'idea' of intellegent is in many ways debated, so it's not that there is a clear definition. If the equation could apply to bacteria in a Petri dish then I rest my case. Let me take the opposite side and say we are not intelligent, and then proceed - then there is a possibility that an intelligence from elsewhere would avoid us beyond cataloging that we are here.



On the intelligence spectrum, I think a clear distinction could be made between bacteria in a petri dish and bacteria who design and build their own dish, find ways to the move the container from place to place, and develop strategies and technologies to communicate with colonies of bacteria in other dishes near and far.

#406 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3200
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:00 PM

This makes an assumption that we are by some measure 'intellegent' and that it somehow would apply somewhere else - but we have a sample of one. This 'idea' of intellegent is in many ways debated, so it's not that there is a clear definition. If the equation could apply to bacteria in a Petri dish then I rest my case. Let me take the opposite side and say we are not intelligent, and then proceed - then there is a possibility that an intelligence from elsewhere would avoid us beyond cataloging that we are here.


Good point. Dogs are really intelligent and really quite good at being 'dogs'.

Cro-magnum man was probably just as intelligent as modern man..we just have more developed tools and social interaction than they had.

Pesse (My Girlfriend calls me a mouth breathing Neanderthal...I am not sure, but I don't think it's a compliment.) Mist

#407 Skip

Skip

    Starlifter Driver

  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:02 PM

Well at least you are not considered a "knuckle-dragging Neanderthal". :lol:

#408 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 25220
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:34 PM

This 'idea' of intellegent is in many ways debated, so it's not that there is a clear definition. If the equation could apply to bacteria in a Petri dish then I rest my case. Let me take the opposite side and say we are not intelligent, and then proceed - then there is a possibility that an intelligence from elsewhere would avoid us beyond cataloging that we are here.



On the intelligence spectrum, I think a clear distinction could be made between bacteria in a petri dish and bacteria who design and build their own dish, find ways to the move the container from place to place, and develop strategies and technologies to communicate with colonies of bacteria in other dishes near and far.


Exactly. What we are looking for when we mention extraterrestrial "intelligence" is actually technology on a level that we ourselves can recognize and understand. High intelligence without technology wouldn't show up on our radar.

#409 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3200
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:13 PM

Exactly. What we are looking for when we mention extraterrestrial "intelligence" is actually technology on a level that we ourselves can recognize and understand. High intelligence without technology wouldn't show up on our radar.


Right-o Technology too far behind us isn't work acknowledging and to far advanced to us and we sacrifice virgins to it.

Pesse (It's a Goldilocks conundrum) Mist

#410 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1779
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

We have no evidence of the existence of the extra-terrestrials. Further, we have no evidence of communication by or contact made with us by sentient extra-terrestrials.

The geometries of the universe (distance, time, volume, material saturation) and the technologies of space travel we are currently able to envisage are the preferred reasons for why we lack evidence of existence and contact.

While I affirm the likelihood of these two reasons sufficiently accounting for the deafening silence, there is another explanation I would like to offer; the role of anonymity. The role of anonymity as a partial explanation for the deafening silence is meant not as an alternative explanation. It may play only a piece, but, perhaps, an important piece.

Personally and professionally I have known hundreds of individuals who are, or have been while still alive, in recovery from substance and/or behavioral addictions. Many, but not all, of these individuals with whom I have interacted credit this accomplishment to twelve step programs; the classic example of which is Alcoholics Anonymous. For those unfamiliar with this recovery program, the program of recovery includes many suggestions among which the twelve steps constitute the most important, but not exclusive, part. Another piece of these recovery programs is the twelve traditions, the eleventh of which is, “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.”

It is the opinion of many who have sought and experienced recovery as a result of participation in this program that the practice of anonymity is an essential element in their individual recovery and in the continued availability of this program. More specifically, members have found it valuable to avoid identifying themselves as members of these twelve step programs when engaged in public affairs not associated with the twelve step program to which they belong individually. Nearing the end of its first century of existence, twelve step programs have deep memories of the disastrous effects of individuals in recovery failing to practice anonymity in all of their affairs. In some cases, the lack of anonymity has negatively impacted the reputation and availability of the program for others who might have need of it. Second, failing to practice anonymity of action tends to be related to a return to addictive substance use and other behaviors.

In everyday practice this anonymity takes the forms of (1) not identifying oneself as a member of the program when involved in other public activities unrelated to the twelve step program to which they belong, and (2) when doing acts of service these individuals attempt to perform the service in such a way that few if any know they (the individuals in recovery) were the ones doing the service. An example of the first might be a corporate executive or politician involved in initiating a program of public education in substance abuse who refrains from also identifying herself as a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. An example of the second might be the man who anonymously picks up hand wiping paper towels off the restroom floor at his place of employment whenever he uses the same facility.

{edited by moderator}

Modern day psychology, being as it is, largely reduced to psycho-metrics, is the first to assert that the behaviors, actions, and ideas of those in addiction recovery are in fact empirical, objective phenomena which can be scientifically examined and mathematically described.

For argument sake, let us assume the empirical and objective results of such recovery programs evidence the value of anonymous service. This assumption having been made, it would then follow that sentient extra-terrestrial beings, possessing vastly superior reasoning ability and technological proficiency might see it beneficial for us, human beings, that they keep their presence among us secret and beneficial activities as anonymous as possible.

#411 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8002
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:30 PM

Umm....no, there is NO evidence of life elsewhere, saying they are here and want to remain secret is wild, baseless psycho-babble like saying Elvis is still alive and he's keeping it a secret because the aliens told him to.

#412 TL2101

TL2101

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 947
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Concord, CA

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:37 PM


Looks like we may soon have a warp drive only problem we blow ourselves and everyone around us up when we stop. The Aliens aren't going to like this. :o

link

#413 Joad

Joad

    Wordsmith

  • *****
  • Posts: 18176
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2005

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:51 PM

Otto, you continue to make pseudo-arguments that begin "for the sake of argument." But your "for the sake of" premise is actually your conclusion. Whether this is an example of circular reasoning, or of begging the question, it is a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Someone with your philosophical training should know that.

You also keep trying to slip what are essentially your religious beliefs into your posts in this forum. It is blatantly obvious.

#414 mich_al

mich_al

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
  • Joined: 10 May 2009
  • Loc: Rural central lower Michigan Yellow Skies

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

Otto, you continue to make pseudo-arguments that begin "for the sake of argument." But your "for the sake of" premise is actually your conclusion. Whether this is an example of circular reasoning, or of begging the question, it is a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Someone with your philosophical training should know that.

You also keep trying to slip what are essentially your religious beliefs into your posts in this forum. It is blatantly obvious.



AND continues to dig the hole deeper. EVERY time. What is the saying? Clarity is the cube root of vebosity?

#415 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1779
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

Anonymous service is, as all of us know, not unique to those striving to recover from substance or behavioral addictions. It is practiced by members of many groups. It is often done by parents for their children, by coaches for the athletes under their care, by health care workers for the physically and mentally ill, by teachers for their students. In each case it is done by someone who has a comparative advantage of experience, or knowledge, or aptitude, or ability to those they seek to serve; to help. In some, perhaps many, certainly not all, and perhaps most of such situations, the desire is altruistic and the effort is healthy and helpful.

Operating under the assumption that most sentient extra-terrestrials who could have contact or communication with us are vastly superior in knowledge, ability, experience, and aptitude to us, is it a stretch to imagine that they have reached the same conclusion as the addict in recovery, the parent, the coach, the teacher? Is it reasonable to suggest that in their interactions with us they too might seek to use the advantages anonymity of action provide and avoid some of the dangers inherent in placing their own identities and egos in-front of their actions?

What are your thoughts about this possibility?

Otto

#416 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19041
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:47 PM

Is it folly to think that the universe is teeming with life and the only reason there is silence, is because we are on the wrong side? Dark matter/energy...maybe that's where the party is, we just can't interact with them.


I dunno, folks; I still think Shawnhar has thrown in the most interesting idea of this whole thread...

#417 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19041
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:51 PM

The existence of a spiritual being is not a topic proper to this forum as decided by its facilitators. This forum is reserved for discussions of empirical, objective, phenomena which can be scientifically examined and mathematically described.


... Which has been pointed out any number of times. But that doesn't some folks from doing it over and over and over, does it?
No quitters, they!

#418 Mike Casey

Mike Casey

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2004
  • Loc: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:27 AM

The silence is .........? Huh? What did you say?

#419 Mister T

Mister T

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1483
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:24 AM

I said: The SCIENCE is deafening!!! :mad: ;)

#420 Qwickdraw

Qwickdraw

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:51 AM

Otto, you continue to make pseudo-arguments that begin "for the sake of argument." But your "for the sake of" premise is actually your conclusion. Whether this is an example of circular reasoning, or of begging the question, it is a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Someone with your philosophical training should know that.

You also keep trying to slip what are essentially your religious beliefs into your posts in this forum. It is blatantly obvious.


So the reasonable question is at what point is it allowed to discuss an intelligent being/race or combination that has transcended the physical and mental barriers we are enslaved to every day?

We can discuss extraterrestrial life forms, even intelligent ones without any evidence they exist but when does it become acceptable to theorize about a vastly superior intellect which has harnessed the ability to defy physical constraints?

We can discuss warp drives, abiogenesis, teleportation, direct neural interfaces, etc. but we can’t discuss a being which has harnessed all of these to perfection?

We already see behaviors such as quantum entanglement may be redefining what we once thought was impossible.

If humans were only allowed to contemplate what we thought was possible we may still be living in the Stone Age. It is imagining the impossible that sets us apart. A notion or idea without any supporting examples or basis can be thought up in the human mind.

#421 simpleisbetter

simpleisbetter

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2011

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:18 AM

Otto, you continue to make pseudo-arguments that begin "for the sake of argument." But your "for the sake of" premise is actually your conclusion. Whether this is an example of circular reasoning, or of begging the question, it is a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Someone with your philosophical training should know that.

You also keep trying to slip what are essentially your religious beliefs into your posts in this forum. It is blatantly obvious.


So the reasonable question is at what point is it allowed to discuss an intelligent being/race or combination that has transcended the physical and mental barriers we are enslaved to every day?

We can discuss extraterrestrial life forms, even intelligent ones without any evidence they exist but when does it become acceptable to theorize about a vastly superior intellect which has harnessed the ability to defy physical constraints?

We can discuss warp drives, abiogenesis, teleportation, direct neural interfaces, etc. but we can’t discuss a being which has harnessed all of these to perfection?

We already see behaviors such as quantum entanglement may be redefining what we once thought was impossible.

If humans were only allowed to contemplate what we thought was possible we may still be living in the Stone Age. It is imagining the impossible that sets us apart. A notion or idea without any supporting examples or basis can be thought up in the human mind.


:waytogo:

#422 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1779
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:39 AM

Wise, intelligent, capable persons act in anonymous ways in order to benefit others. Is it reasonable that extra-terrestrials, whose intelligence and technical aptitude far surpass the intelligence and capabilities of any of the wisest human persons, would do the same?

Otto

#423 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 25220
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:40 AM

Intelligence is not the same as "wisdom". No, there's no necessary correlation between technological advancement and personal behavior that you find attractive.

#424 mountain monk

mountain monk

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2397
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Grand Teton National Park

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

It's likely that this has been mentioned somewhere is this long thread, but I'll quote it again just to make sure:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." C. Hitchens

I would shorten it even more, leaving out the last two words...

Enjoy the night sky.

Jack

#425 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 25220
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

Otto, you continue to make pseudo-arguments that begin "for the sake of argument." But your "for the sake of" premise is actually your conclusion. Whether this is an example of circular reasoning, or of begging the question, it is a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Someone with your philosophical training should know that.

You also keep trying to slip what are essentially your religious beliefs into your posts in this forum. It is blatantly obvious.


So the reasonable question is at what point is it allowed to discuss an intelligent being/race or combination that has transcended the physical and mental barriers we are enslaved to every day?

We can discuss extraterrestrial life forms, even intelligent ones without any evidence they exist but when does it become acceptable to theorize about a vastly superior intellect which has harnessed the ability to defy physical constraints?

We can discuss warp drives, abiogenesis, teleportation, direct neural interfaces, etc. but we can’t discuss a being which has harnessed all of these to perfection?

We already see behaviors such as quantum entanglement may be redefining what we once thought was impossible.

If humans were only allowed to contemplate what we thought was possible we may still be living in the Stone Age. It is imagining the impossible that sets us apart. A notion or idea without any supporting examples or basis can be thought up in the human mind.


Because there's nothing there to discuss. You can't even define what "perfection" is for all these concepts that we know in name only. You by definition cannot "theorize about a vastly superior intellect which has harnessed the ability to defy physical constraints", because by any scientific definition to theorize about something is to place it in a context of mappable physical constraints. You notice we don't spend much time talking about teleportation here, unless there's a news item where specific research has addressed the problem in some small way. We talk about abiogenesis only to the extent that we can conceive of chemical/energetic process that might play a role in a phenomenon that we have very good evidence has already occurred at least once. I don't recall much discussion of direct neural interfaces, but if we did, it would still be something you could point to with some sort of credible theory and research program. Quantum entanglement has been mentioned, but so have its very real limitations. It's not "magic", and you won't find us here discussing it as such. When you get the technical background to start a technical discussion of a technology that can be used in a tangible way, then it becomes appropriate for this forum. Beyond that, the only reasonable response is an occasional humorous aside. We don't under any circumstances entertain ideas here that "defy physical constraints", and none of the other ideas you mentioned, no matter how aetherial, claim such a leap.

Science does not defy physical constraints, it defines them. When you can come up with a topic that credibly defines a set of physical constraints on some imaginative phenomenon, then I think it will work here. Otherwise, it's not science, and you're simply in the wrong forum.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics