Why is this not bigger news?

Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 10.20am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger One can speculate that evolution might be a constant in the universe and that creatures that can manipulate their environment and use technology might be similar to humans allowing for their local environment. There is no way to properly predict the frequency of life or even to know for sure, although unlikely, that we are not the only example. As for the politics of the alien mind, your guess is as good as mine. I agree with that, one would expect them to be different to some or more degree, but the more different they are, the harder it would be to identify them or for them to identify us as intelligent. Problem is if we're going to look at it rationally, we can only really go on what we know, rather than what we can speculate, and expand on that. Its possible there could be alien life on any planet, provided it doesn't correspond to what we identify as life from our experience of earth (Silcone rather than carbon based, methane breathing rather than oxygen etc) but then we just end up with a prediction that is 'anything and everything' we can think of, which has no real value in the end in terms of looking at the outcome. However, I'd say as we as humans only really recognise intelligence in relation to human intelligence, I think we regard the idea of alien life in terms of a species we could identify with and understand and communicate with (rather than say Giant Space Arachnids), as such we'd expect to share a significant amount of commonality and psychology with them (in order to understand and identify them). Its entirely possible that species on earth are intelligent, or even more intelligent, its just we don't judge them on an objective basis. Take a cat. Cats, the common argument is we domesticated cats, and as such are superior. But objectively considered, those same cats have eliminated all their survival needs, and that they have in fact got us to do all their hard work for them. Granted we can read and write, and do all kinds of great things, but we needed to, they didn't. We even take care of their reproductive needs and the size of their population to create a stability, we haven't even considered for our own population problems. Cats aren't that intelligent, but they are really smart on an evolutionary basis, making the most of their limited capacity for intelligence, to effectively evolve beyond humans, by adapting perfectly (pun) to their environment. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 16 10.20am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

One can speculate that evolution might be a constant in the universe and that creatures that can manipulate their environment and use technology might be similar to humans allowing for their local environment. There is no way to properly predict the frequency of life or even to know for sure, although unlikely, that we are not the only example.
As for the politics of the alien mind, your guess is as good as mine.

I agree with that, one would expect them to be different to some or more degree, but the more different they are, the harder it would be to identify them or for them to identify us as intelligent.

Problem is if we're going to look at it rationally, we can only really go on what we know, rather than what we can speculate, and expand on that. Its possible there could be alien life on any planet, provided it doesn't correspond to what we identify as life from our experience of earth (Silcone rather than carbon based, methane breathing rather than oxygen etc) but then we just end up with a prediction that is 'anything and everything' we can think of, which has no real value in the end in terms of looking at the outcome.

However, I'd say as we as humans only really recognise intelligence in relation to human intelligence, I think we regard the idea of alien life in terms of a species we could identify with and understand and communicate with (rather than say Giant Space Arachnids), as such we'd expect to share a significant amount of commonality and psychology with them (in order to understand and identify them).

Its entirely possible that species on earth are intelligent, or even more intelligent, its just we don't judge them on an objective basis.

Take a cat. Cats, the common argument is we domesticated cats, and as such are superior. But objectively considered, those same cats have eliminated all their survival needs, and that they have in fact got us to do all their hard work for them. Granted we can read and write, and do all kinds of great things, but we needed to, they didn't. We even take care of their reproductive needs and the size of their population to create a stability, we haven't even considered for our own population problems.

Cats aren't that intelligent, but they are really smart on an evolutionary basis, making the most of their limited capacity for intelligence, to effectively evolve beyond humans, by adapting perfectly (pun) to their environment.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 13 Apr 16 10.26am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Take a cat. Cats, the common argument is we domesticated cats, and as such are superior. But objectively considered, those same cats have eliminated all their survival needs, and that they have in fact got us to do all their hard work for them. Granted we can read and write, and do all kinds of great things, but we needed to, they didn't. We even take care of their reproductive needs and the size of their population to create a stability, we haven't even considered for our own population problems. Cats aren't that intelligent, but they are really smart on an evolutionary basis, making the most of their limited capacity for intelligence, to effectively evolve beyond humans, by adapting perfectly (pun) to their environment. You make it sound like there was a big cat "council" that determined this strategy. In reality individual cats have just got on with their lives and humans have controlled them like dogs, rabbits, etc.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 13 Apr 16 10.26am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

You make it sound like there was a big cat "council" that determined this strategy.

In reality individual cats have just got on with their lives and humans have controlled them like dogs, rabbits, etc.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 11.53am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted You make it sound like there was a big cat "council" that determined this strategy. In reality individual cats have just got on with their lives and humans have controlled them like dogs, rabbits, etc. But that's a very humancentric view of evolution and intelligence, and arguably the value of that control, weighs far more in the benefit of the animal, than the human. In the context here I'm talking more about how we determine intelligence and 'position' in the animal world. So we judge many species as inferior, by that bias, that their species intelligence is not 'comparable to our own, so thus is less'. And we'd do the same judging alien life - which would mean that unless we could make direct parallels to our humanocentic view, we'd probably not regard them as intelligent. Which I would posit, supports my initial point, regarding alien life, its a risk, because intelligent alien life, for use to understand them and communicate with them, means they'd be comparable to humans and have many similarities - and judging by the way humans have generally reacted to 'inferior species' that probably doesn't bode too well - because we'd be similar to apes in their eyes (given they just built devices to travel across the gulfs of space with relative ease). If we're lucky, we'd be like Chimps or pets. Alternatively, we'd have to consider that other situations that have occured where humans have discovered lesser species which are intelligent (but we can sufficiently write off as not so intelligent as to be considered sentient - by our standards). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 16 11.53am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

You make it sound like there was a big cat "council" that determined this strategy.

In reality individual cats have just got on with their lives and humans have controlled them like dogs, rabbits, etc.

But that's a very humancentric view of evolution and intelligence, and arguably the value of that control, weighs far more in the benefit of the animal, than the human.

In the context here I'm talking more about how we determine intelligence and 'position' in the animal world.

So we judge many species as inferior, by that bias, that their species intelligence is not 'comparable to our own, so thus is less'. And we'd do the same judging alien life - which would mean that unless we could make direct parallels to our humanocentic view, we'd probably not regard them as intelligent.

Which I would posit, supports my initial point, regarding alien life, its a risk, because intelligent alien life, for use to understand them and communicate with them, means they'd be comparable to humans and have many similarities - and judging by the way humans have generally reacted to 'inferior species' that probably doesn't bode too well - because we'd be similar to apes in their eyes (given they just built devices to travel across the gulfs of space with relative ease).

If we're lucky, we'd be like Chimps or pets. Alternatively, we'd have to consider that other situations that have occured where humans have discovered lesser species which are intelligent (but we can sufficiently write off as not so intelligent as to be considered sentient - by our standards).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 13 Apr 16 11.59am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 But that's a very humancentric view of evolution and intelligence, and arguably the value of that control, weighs far more in the benefit of the animal, than the human. As a human I have difficulty thinking any other way. I suspect you do too, but are just playing Devil's Advocate again to sharpen up your debating claws.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 13 Apr 16 11.59am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

But that's a very humancentric view of evolution and intelligence, and arguably the value of that control, weighs far more in the benefit of the animal, than the human.

As a human I have difficulty thinking any other way.

I suspect you do too, but are just playing Devil's Advocate again to sharpen up your debating claws.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Apr 16 12.45pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I agree with that, one would expect them to be different to some or more degree, but the more different they are, the harder it would be to identify them or for them to identify us as intelligent. Problem is if we're going to look at it rationally, we can only really go on what we know, rather than what we can speculate, and expand on that. Its possible there could be alien life on any planet, provided it doesn't correspond to what we identify as life from our experience of earth (Silcone rather than carbon based, methane breathing rather than oxygen etc) but then we just end up with a prediction that is 'anything and everything' we can think of, which has no real value in the end in terms of looking at the outcome. However, I'd say as we as humans only really recognise intelligence in relation to human intelligence, I think we regard the idea of alien life in terms of a species we could identify with and understand and communicate with (rather than say Giant Space Arachnids), as such we'd expect to share a significant amount of commonality and psychology with them (in order to understand and identify them). Its entirely possible that species on earth are intelligent, or even more intelligent, its just we don't judge them on an objective basis. Take a cat. Cats, the common argument is we domesticated cats, and as such are superior. But objectively considered, those same cats have eliminated all their survival needs, and that they have in fact got us to do all their hard work for them. Granted we can read and write, and do all kinds of great things, but we needed to, they didn't. We even take care of their reproductive needs and the size of their population to create a stability, we haven't even considered for our own population problems. Cats aren't that intelligent, but they are really smart on an evolutionary basis, making the most of their limited capacity for intelligence, to effectively evolve beyond humans, by adapting perfectly (pun) to their environment. Pure intelligence does not necessarily mean that a creature can create technology. Elephants, dolphins are smart but up until now have not built space ships. No hands. It should be noted that life has lived on this planet for millions of years without,as far as we know, producing a creature like man who has the tools to communicate complex ideas and create complex machinery. A certain set of conditions had to be in place for this to happen. In terms of the universe, only creatures of similar ability could come here or be considered by humans as equal or superior. There might well be tribes of Cat like creatures on other planets who are very smart but if they don't have hands or can't develop complex language then they are non starters, even if they have very complex thoughts.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Apr 16 12.45pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I agree with that, one would expect them to be different to some or more degree, but the more different they are, the harder it would be to identify them or for them to identify us as intelligent.

Its entirely possible that species on earth are intelligent, or even more intelligent, its just we don't judge them on an objective basis.

Pure intelligence does not necessarily mean that a creature can create technology.
Elephants, dolphins are smart but up until now have not built space ships. No hands. It should be noted that life has lived on this planet for millions of years without,as far as we know, producing a creature like man who has the tools to communicate complex ideas and create complex machinery. A certain set of conditions had to be in place for this to happen.
In terms of the universe, only creatures of similar ability could come here or be considered by humans as equal or superior. There might well be tribes of Cat like creatures on other planets who are very smart but if they don't have hands or can't develop complex language then they are non starters, even if they have very complex thoughts.

Alert a moderator to this post

JL85 London,SE9 13 Apr 16 12.57pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Pure intelligence does not necessarily mean that a creature can create technology. Elephants, dolphins are smart but up until now have not built space ships. No hands. It should be noted that life has lived on this planet for millions of years without,as far as we know, producing a creature like man who has the tools to communicate complex ideas and create complex machinery. A certain set of conditions had to be in place for this to happen. In terms of the universe, only creatures of similar ability could come here or be considered by humans as equal or superior. There might well be tribes of Cat like creatures on other planets who are very smart but if they don't have hands or can't develop complex language then they are non starters, even if they have very complex thoughts. All this is based on what we know from our own planet so, life that could exist elsewhere is naturally thought of to be carbon based. But in the infinite amount of possibilities of a Universe we A, cannot fully see, or B, even begin to understand, life could quite possibly be silicon based. Evolution, as I understand it, happens from a necessity to survive by progressing. We are the Apex of that progression as would another life form given the time and circumstance to do so, which, given the size of the observable universe is incredibly likely.
Alert a moderator to this post

JL85

London,SE9 13 Apr 16 12.57pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

All this is based on what we know from our own planet so, life that could exist elsewhere is naturally thought of to be carbon based.

But in the infinite amount of possibilities of a Universe we A, cannot fully see, or B, even begin to understand, life could quite possibly be silicon based.

Evolution, as I understand it, happens from a necessity to survive by progressing. We are the Apex of that progression as would another life form given the time and circumstance to do so, which, given the size of the observable universe is incredibly likely.

Alert a moderator to this post

regal_eagle somewhere 13 Apr 16 12.58pm
Why is this not bigger news?? Is everyone looking at the same video of a light smear either reflecting off the window or the frame of the window as the sun rises just out of shot ? There is even a repeat of the 'blob', albeit a slightly different refraction, just to the right (near the white armature) which shows it is a light artefact, and NOT a spacecraft. No wonder people think alien believers are crack-jobs when they come up with 'evidence' like this. Better luck next time. Maybe this thread needs to be renamed: BACK ALAN PAREIDOLIA
Alert a moderator to this post

regal_eagle

somewhere 13 Apr 16 12.58pm

Why is this not bigger news?? Is everyone looking at the same video of a light smear either reflecting off the window or the frame of the window as the sun rises just out of shot ?

There is even a repeat of the 'blob', albeit a slightly different refraction, just to the right (near the white armature) which shows it is a light artefact, and NOT a spacecraft.

No wonder people think alien believers are crack-jobs when they come up with 'evidence' like this. Better luck next time.

Maybe this thread needs to be renamed: BACK ALAN PAREIDOLIA

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 1.30pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted As a human I have difficulty thinking any other way. I suspect you do too, but are just playing Devil's Advocate again to sharpen up your debating claws. Yes, but it creates the knowledge, that my own view point is itself flawed, and contains an unreliable bias, and with time, whilst not remaining objective, I can approach the subject with increased critical capability. Humans, are paradoxically, not very good at any one thing, as a species. This kind of means they don't use up a lot of neural capacity on 'super senses' (meaning there is more 'capacity' to learn). This, opposable thumbs, and an abnormality in the larynx, are largely responsible for the adaptation of humans as a 'highly successful species'. The abnormality of the larynx, whilst increasing the risk of choking, allows for 40,000 plus vocalisations, rather than between 10-40 seen in most mammals. This capacity for language, plus a relatively unspecialised brain (with great learning capacity) is mostly what attribute intelligence to (Language allows the sharing of experience, and knowledge, which arguably is the single most significant thing separating humans from other mammals). But in truth, we're not actually all that intelligent, we just have a capacity to share knowledge and information, which makes us look and feel more intelligent (i.e. we can define what is and isn't intelligent, which brings us back to an humanocentric view of existence). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 16 1.30pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

As a human I have difficulty thinking any other way.

I suspect you do too, but are just playing Devil's Advocate again to sharpen up your debating claws.

Yes, but it creates the knowledge, that my own view point is itself flawed, and contains an unreliable bias, and with time, whilst not remaining objective, I can approach the subject with increased critical capability.

Humans, are paradoxically, not very good at any one thing, as a species. This kind of means they don't use up a lot of neural capacity on 'super senses' (meaning there is more 'capacity' to learn).

This, opposable thumbs, and an abnormality in the larynx, are largely responsible for the adaptation of humans as a 'highly successful species'.

The abnormality of the larynx, whilst increasing the risk of choking, allows for 40,000 plus vocalisations, rather than between 10-40 seen in most mammals.

This capacity for language, plus a relatively unspecialised brain (with great learning capacity) is mostly what attribute intelligence to (Language allows the sharing of experience, and knowledge, which arguably is the single most significant thing separating humans from other mammals).

But in truth, we're not actually all that intelligent, we just have a capacity to share knowledge and information, which makes us look and feel more intelligent (i.e. we can define what is and isn't intelligent, which brings us back to an humanocentric view of existence).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 1.36pm
Originally posted by regal_eagle Why is this not bigger news?? Is everyone looking at the same video of a light smear either reflecting off the window or the frame of the window as the sun rises just out of shot ? There is even a repeat of the 'blob', albeit a slightly different refraction, just to the right (near the white armature) which shows it is a light artefact, and NOT a spacecraft. No wonder people think alien believers are crack-jobs when they come up with 'evidence' like this. Better luck next time. Maybe this thread needs to be renamed: BACK ALAN PAREIDOLIA I think the question could easily be rephrased as why is this considered news. You could just as easily have 'Faeries discovered in Backgarden' because a light was seen in the woods and someone found a little circle of stones. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 16 1.36pm

Originally posted by regal_eagle

Why is this not bigger news?? Is everyone looking at the same video of a light smear either reflecting off the window or the frame of the window as the sun rises just out of shot ?

There is even a repeat of the 'blob', albeit a slightly different refraction, just to the right (near the white armature) which shows it is a light artefact, and NOT a spacecraft.

No wonder people think alien believers are crack-jobs when they come up with 'evidence' like this. Better luck next time.

Maybe this thread needs to be renamed: BACK ALAN PAREIDOLIA

I think the question could easily be rephrased as why is this considered news. You could just as easily have 'Faeries discovered in Backgarden' because a light was seen in the woods and someone found a little circle of stones.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 1.54pm
Originally posted by JL85 All this is based on what we know from our own planet so, life that could exist elsewhere is naturally thought of to be carbon based. But in the infinite amount of possibilities of a Universe we A, cannot fully see, or B, even begin to understand, life could quite possibly be silicon based. Evolution, as I understand it, happens from a necessity to survive by progressing. We are the Apex of that progression as would another life form given the time and circumstance to do so, which, given the size of the observable universe is incredibly likely. Evolution is random, it doesn't happen by necessity, it just can proliferate by a development being advantageous, typically to the capacity to successfully pass on genetic material across generations (and beneficial traits can become maladaptive). The real decider is the environment, and how a trait benefits the chance of being passed on to future generations. Generally, the assumption is that if a trait gives a positive advantage in the environment, it is more likely to proliferate through the species and if its detrimental its likely to become extinct. Also, maladaption is an issue. A once beneficial trait, can become detrimental when the environment changes, and as evolution occurs over gulfs of time, it generally means that becomes detrimental. For example, the human stress response. This is very well adapted to about 80% of the human time line. However increasingly with civilisation responding to a stress in a primal manner (the flight or fight response) is damaging. The problem of course is that the efficiency of the flight or fight response in primal environments, meant that alternative traits were probably extinguished before the first humans even existed - and because it won't actually reduce your chance of spreading genetic material, its going to remain. Evolutionary benefit also isn't individual benefit. Bright plumage increases a birds chance of reproduction more than its chance of being eaten, will of course proliferate and it just ends up sharpening up how close to mating season the first bright colours arrive.... Evolution would, if we attribute it with sentience, give you cancer at the age of 40, if it meant increasing your chance to get a girl pregnant at 15. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 16 1.54pm

Originally posted by JL85

All this is based on what we know from our own planet so, life that could exist elsewhere is naturally thought of to be carbon based.

But in the infinite amount of possibilities of a Universe we A, cannot fully see, or B, even begin to understand, life could quite possibly be silicon based.

Evolution, as I understand it, happens from a necessity to survive by progressing. We are the Apex of that progression as would another life form given the time and circumstance to do so, which, given the size of the observable universe is incredibly likely.

Evolution is random, it doesn't happen by necessity, it just can proliferate by a development being advantageous, typically to the capacity to successfully pass on genetic material across generations (and beneficial traits can become maladaptive).

The real decider is the environment, and how a trait benefits the chance of being passed on to future generations. Generally, the assumption is that if a trait gives a positive advantage in the environment, it is more likely to proliferate through the species and if its detrimental its likely to become extinct.

Also, maladaption is an issue. A once beneficial trait, can become detrimental when the environment changes, and as evolution occurs over gulfs of time, it generally means that becomes detrimental.

For example, the human stress response. This is very well adapted to about 80% of the human time line. However increasingly with civilisation responding to a stress in a primal manner (the flight or fight response) is damaging. The problem of course is that the efficiency of the flight or fight response in primal environments, meant that alternative traits were probably extinguished before the first humans even existed - and because it won't actually reduce your chance of spreading genetic material, its going to remain.

Evolutionary benefit also isn't individual benefit. Bright plumage increases a birds chance of reproduction more than its chance of being eaten, will of course proliferate and it just ends up sharpening up how close to mating season the first bright colours arrive....

Evolution would, if we attribute it with sentience, give you cancer at the age of 40, if it meant increasing your chance to get a girl pregnant at 15.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

regal_eagle somewhere 13 Apr 16 3.31pm
Why isn't THIS bigger news ?!?!?!?!?!?! [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

regal_eagle

somewhere 13 Apr 16 3.31pm

Why isn't THIS bigger news ?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Apr 16 4.01pm
Originally posted by JL85 All this is based on what we know from our own planet so, life that could exist elsewhere is naturally thought of to be carbon based. But in the infinite amount of possibilities of a Universe we A, cannot fully see, or B, even begin to understand, life could quite possibly be silicon based. Evolution, as I understand it, happens from a necessity to survive by progressing. We are the Apex of that progression as would another life form given the time and circumstance to do so, which, given the size of the observable universe is incredibly likely. The type of life on other planets really depends on the rules of evolution. We only know evolution on this planet and here we see examples of parallel evolution. If there are certain constants in the formation of life and how it evolves in the universe then we could suppose that life might be restricted to certain forms and perhaps resemble forms on similar planets. Until we have examples of extraterrestrial life then we can't even begin to predict the range that might exist. One could assume that any life will be designed for survival and replication but there are many forms of life here of all shapes and sizes which are remarkable in their specificity with regard to adaptation to environment. If we have all this variation on Earth then its hard to imagine how much there might be elsewhere.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Apr 16 4.01pm

Originally posted by JL85

All this is based on what we know from our own planet so, life that could exist elsewhere is naturally thought of to be carbon based.

But in the infinite amount of possibilities of a Universe we A, cannot fully see, or B, even begin to understand, life could quite possibly be silicon based.

The type of life on other planets really depends on the rules of evolution. We only know evolution on this planet and here we see examples of parallel evolution. If there are certain constants in the formation of life and how it evolves in the universe then we could suppose that life might be restricted to certain forms and perhaps resemble forms on similar planets. Until we have examples of extraterrestrial life then we can't even begin to predict the range that might exist. One could assume that any life will be designed for survival and replication but there are many forms of life here of all shapes and sizes which are remarkable in their specificity with regard to adaptation to environment. If we have all this variation on Earth then its hard to imagine how much there might be elsewhere.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Why is this not bigger news?

Site Map

Sponsors