|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
 Posted - 10/24/2008 : 23:25:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
It all depends of how you define 'advanced' life-form.
As a microbiologist, I sometime argue that bacteria, often referred to as the 'most primitive life form on earth' are, in fact, more advanced than us. Just, their evolution was toward efficiency and streamlinedness rather than complexity... |
I wouldn't disagree with that.
| One could argue, however, than, in most worlds, there exist an ecological niche for a 'human-like' social and intelligent creature. |
We don't know. It has also been said that given exactly the same circumstances, mammals may not have evolved into us after the dinosaur extinction. A completely different animal might have become a prominent tool maker.
| After all, this formula was so successful here that it would seem surprising to me that it is not represented anywhere else on the likely billions of inhabited worlds in the universe... |
I'm not sure what that formula would be.
| Such a creature, occupying a very similar ecological niche as the one our ancestors did would be submitted to very similar ecological pressure and, due to convergent evolution, develop many characteristics similar to our own |
Only if they were like us. Aliens are not obligated to be like us at all. I don't necessarily mean they would breath ammonia or be made of silicon. Even with the same chemical requirements of life as we know it, starting over they could have evolved to otherwise be completely different from us including existing in a way we have no conception of at this time.
| Ecosystems are complex and varied, but I think that many of them share some 'archetypes': the primary producers; the alpha-predator... I wonder if, in the very long run 'the intelligent social specie' may not be one of these archetypes. |
Possible, but an "alien" life-form may not have developed within a predator-prey environment at all. Intelligent life with which we could (or could not) communicate might otherwise be totally alien to us.
You would have to prove a theory of evolutionary archetypes that exists outside the evolutionary developments we can observe and influences them regardless of environment. Sort of an extra-environmental "aether" through which evolution operates. This hasn't been done. (Sheldrake's weird theory of "formative causation" might be a kind of attempt at it, though he's devalued his ideas considerably by also embracing parapsychology and some pseudoscience stances.) Anyway, if you can offer proof that specific humanoid life-forms would develop given the same biology and environment, you might win a Nobel Prize.
| In my opinion, the development of civilization is the logical outcome of such a 'social intelligent specie'. |
Except that we don't know what "civilization" means when applied to alien life-forms.
Of course, the basic idea at the core of both UFOlogy and Drake's equation, that earth would be visited/contacted by aliens already make the pre-supposition that such a civilization occurred somewhere...Neither aim to apply to the 'non civilized' life forms...
|
We don't know what "non-civilized" or "civilized" means with alien life-forms. Yes, the Drake Equation isn't about UFOs visiting us but rather a tool for plugging in different hypothetical probabilities of aliens within the Milky Way capable of transmitting signals we could intercept. It doesn't define "civilization".
Regarding "the Fermi question" when someone having lunch with Fermi surmised that other worlds might be far in advance of our own and that the galaxy might have many civilizations exploring it, Fermi asked "Where are they?"
Some believe they're not here by now because they (advanced civilizations) don't exist or are very far away and extremely rare. However, that's only if we're thinking of "advanced aliens" as being in some way advanced distant versions of ourselves, making them the classic pulp SciFi and comic-book aliens. Based on how strange and wonderful life can be here on Earth, when it comes to alien life, we actually don't know. Aliens could be rare, or the galaxy could be teeming with advanced aliens and not one of them has yet to contact us directly or inadvertently.
|
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 00:14:16 [Permalink]
|
Chippewa.....
| Some believe they're not here by now because they (advanced civilizations) don't exist or are very far away and extremely rare. |
Some believe that "evidence" has to be present before we can progress beyond wild "imagination" in our thinking about such matters! Certainly that we cannot, and should not, rely upon imagination, of all things, to advance such argumentation! Or to invent or innovate! Just look at the Montgolfier brothers!
Do not imagine until there is evidence justifying your imagining!
So stop the imagining, Chippewa! You have no evidence of any sort to justify imagining aliens so different from us that we might not even recognize them as aliens! You have no business nor justification - no evidence for arguing that such realization or actual confrontation might occur in the future some time. STOP YOUR IMAGINING! There is no evidence for it, and don't presume to argue that there are things to come that have not been dreamt of in your philosophy, Horati....er, Chippewa!
Do not, under any circumstances, engage in poor argumentation relying upon imagination without evidence for maintaining that something might be "possible" at some unknown point in the future. That would be a fatal flaw in cognition, and you would be severely chastised for suggesting that such poor argumentation would be worthy of consideration by those whose comprehension of such matters surpasses yours!!
Great post, Chippewa! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 08:51:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Do not imagine until there is evidence justifying your imagining! |
What a load of crap.
Chippewa spoke of how other people's imaginings cannot be used as the basis for conclusions.
You, doctor, insist on using nothing more than your imagination as the basis for your conclusion.
Perhaps the difference is now clear?Yes, it is a great post, in part because Chippewa refuses to follow your lead. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 10:37:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...Do not imagine until there is evidence justifying your imagining!
So stop the imagining, Chippewa! You have no evidence of any sort to justify imagining aliens so different from us that we might not even recognize them as aliens!... |
Thanks but I don't understand your post. Speculation and imagination need not be wrong when we don't have answers. It is a limit in imagination to say that the reason no UFOs have landed on Earth up to now is because aliens don't exist or are very rare. It is equally valid to speculate that the reason, aside from the staggering distances between stars systems and the physical problems of actual interstellar travel, is that aliens could just as well be plentiful throughout the galaxy and not one has ever visited us in human history because there is nothing in nature that dictates that they should.
What I'm saying is, we may not understand the possible nature of life on the cosmic scale well enough to be able to explain the seeming lack of aliens today, and also we don't know what a civilization is when applied to extraterrestrial intelligence. We tend to imagine aliens as exotic advanced versions of ourselves with magical technology. As far as we know, nature is not obligated to follow that narrow line.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 13:42:57 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
A brief return to your 'impossibly' dismissive statement:Dave W.
This is simply poor argumentation. As is relying upon imagination without evidence for maintaining that something might be "possible" at some unknown point in the future. |
Let's parse your statement:
A. I imagine that aliens might visit the earth sometime in the future.imagine
1 : to form an idea of : create a mental image of <imagine accidents at every turn>
2 : to create by or as if by the imagination : FABRICATE <imagining stories to fool the public>
3 : THINK, SUPPOSE, GUESS <I imagine it will rain>
intransitive verb
2 : to use the imagination ; specifically : to form images or conceptions |
Certainly no implication that these events will occur in the future, nor any conjecture as to when such an imagined event might take place; only tentative suggestions of possibility with no modifiers of degree of probability here!
B. My imaginings do not derive from any evidence of alien visitation, because there has been no such evidence.
C. You state "This is simply poor argumentation." Thus you are saying that I am making a poor argument for the possibility, no matter how small, of future alien visitations, based upon the fact that there is no evidence that such visitations have occured in the past.
D. The conclusion one must draw from your statement is that unless there is already evidence of the existence of a phenomenon, one is not justified in imagining that such a phenomenon could possibly exist.
Further, one errs in arguing that certain things may be possible unless there already exists evidence that these things are, indeed, possible! Thus implying strongly that such things are impossible!
Am I correct in stating the meaning of your comment?
I submit that if this were true, much of the accomplishments of science and invention would never have happened! Imagination as I have sketched above, is frequently mandatory to the exploration of nature, the initiation of the Scientific Method, the pursuit of and positing of evidence, and the creation of testable hypotheses leading to the establishment of tenets and cobclusions that become the body of scientific fact! !
If I have failed in understanding your meaning, please point out my error in analysis of your statement. What did you state wrong?
However, if your statement is intended to convey the above meaning, that is that imagination is useless without prior evidence for the existence of the thing imagined, I must borrow heavily from your rhetoric.
1. This is simply poor argumentation.
2. You further this utter nonsense by insisting that I believe something that I never even hinted at - confusing "imagining" with "postulating"!
3. What a load of crap!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 16:12:21 [Permalink]
|
Once again, bngbuck, you fail to grasp my arguments. You've even failed to grasp the premises. Perhaps in part because you appear to have forgotten your own argument, the one I was arguing against.
Your argument was, simply, that because scientific conclusions have changed in the past, we are unjustified in labeling anything "impossible" that's not self-contradictory on its face. Therefore, simply because you can imagine faster-than-light travel being possible, and you can imagine science changing in some unknown way at some unknown time, you think there can be no justification in calling FTL travel impossible.
In other words, it wasn't your imagining I had a problem with, nor was it your hypotheses I had a problem with. It was your conclusion which was based upon nothing more than your imagination. No evidence, no observations.
All scientific imagination is focused on the second step of the proverbial Scientific Method. The first step is, of course, to observe some phenomenon that lacks an explanation. That is, to actually see or measure some phenomenon.
The second step is to imagine a testable explanation for the phenomenon you observed. Simply imagining stuff without observations is worthless to science. Imagining explanations that don't suggest further observations is also worthless (because that means you already know the hypothesis is true, it advances nothing).
So imagination is vital to the scientific process, but only imagination that is based upon actual observed phenomena, and seeks to explain those phenomena in a way we can test and which leads to further scientific knowledge. Imagination not based on evidence and/or not leading to tests only has a place in fiction, primarily because we've got no way to tell if it's true or not in principle.
And as I've said already, the fact that scientific conclusions have changed in the past is not predictive that any particular piece of knowledge we have today will change. You say that you have concluded that everything we know will change, but made only an argument for changes to details, in which the broad strokes may be completely unaffected.
Furthermore, we actually have evidence that says that FTL travel is impossible. It's not simply a lack of evidence, as you wrongly state, but we have, through tests of Special Relativity, hard evidence that the theory is a correct explanation (outside of black holes), and that theory says that the speed of light cannot be met, much less exceeded.
If you can make a compelling argument that there is a plausible reason for thinking that the speed of light can be exceeded, make it. Because if we consistently apply the idea that we should consider it a possibility only because at some unknown time and in some unknown way our current knowledge will be shown to be faulty, it means that we must not make any conclusions whatsoever.
After all, we might all be fish. The idea that we are mammals is based upon necessarily limited knowledge that might change in the future, so by your logic, we are not justified in calling ourselves mammals, and to do so is nothing but arrogance run a-muck. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 04:21:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Once again, bngbuck, you fail to grasp my arguments. You've even failed to grasp the premises. Perhaps in part because you appear to have forgotten your own argument, the one I was arguing against. |
Once again,Dave W. your overweening sense of your own omniscience compels you to make statements of opinion that fail to describe reality or even bear relevance to the topic of discussion!
| Therefore, simply because you can imagine faster-than-light travel being possible, and you can imagine science changing in some unknown way at some unknown time, you think there can be no justification in calling FTL travel impossible. |
Not without the modifier "according to the current stage of knowledge"
You quote me as saying| Filth, old buddy, I fear you lack imagination. First, it is nearly impossible to demonstrate that there never has been an extraterrestrial visitor in the entire history of this planet! |
...and immediately respond...| This is simply poor argumentation. |
What makes it poor argumentation? Demonstrate the converse!| It's also nearly impossible to demonstrate that there never has been a leprechaun in my basement. |
This may be a true statement, although I hesitate to contemplate the contents of your basement! But it is totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion. The presence or non-presence of an Irish ouphe residing in your basement bears no relevance to the possible history of extraterrestrtial visitation. The presence of coprolite in your cranial cavity might, however!
My first statement on this thread was in a comment directed to bmnb and was, verbatim:| I personally believe that there is a very low statistical probability that these fully investigated yet unexplained sightings are actually due to supernatural, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or other exotic causation. I do not say that such causation is impossible, just damn unlikely! |
Do you dissent with this?
My second statement was to Astropin thus:| The word "impossible" has some legitimate uses, such as describing certain language constructions that are self-contradictory, mathematics not conforming to agreed-upon criteria for that form of mathematics, |
Do we differ here, Dave?
My third comment to Filthy was:1. Speed of light limitations:
Given the current extremely unsettled condition of Particle Physics, and the almost as uncertain situation prevailing in Astrophysics, the Einsteinian dogma concerning the speed of light may or may not hold in the future development of both disciplines. Until a Unified Field Theory that is mathematically bulletproof is finally devised (some think that that will never happen), all bets are off as to much of what is presently thought to be The Final Word (actually, the Current Approximation) will be in all of the branches of physics. |
Apparently - correct me if I'm wrong - this is what prompted your preposterous position that....| As is relying upon imagination without evidence for maintaining that something might be "possible" at some unknown point in the future. |
Dave, let me try to make this clear. In my view, the position that something - anything! - might be possible in the future does not require, in any respect whatsoever, any reference to any evidence from the past or present! Imagination, in that sense, of anything that might be is not in any way constrained by "evidence"; nor is a conviction of the statistical probability of any imagining becoming fact. These are simply different thought universes! Now comes this:Dave
Your argument was, simply, that because scientific conclusions have changed in the past, we are unjustified in labeling anything "impossible" that's not self-contradictory on its face. |
Unjustified, yes! But not because of either the presence or absence of anything that has happened in the past! Unjustified by the fact that no one can demonstrate that past or present "evidence" is mandatory to the imagination of anything possible in the future! You can state it, but you cannot prove it!
My "argument" was nothing of the sort. My position is merely that outside of a few obvious situations - a mathematical contradiction, or a similar contradiction involving modal logic, syllogistic logic or the like; I cannot sustain a defense of the use of the word "impossible" without the modifier "according to the present stage of knowledge"! :| But that's not predictive that any particular conclusion we hold now will change. |
Where did I predict that any particular conclusion now held would change? I did not address particulars, I opined on broad generalities - "all things" will change eventually in greater or lesser degree, which may include any and all particulars you may care to dwell upon. And that is my unrepentant OPINION, which is precisely as subject to modification by past, present, and future events as your contrary opinion is! Evidence is completely dominant as to that which is presented as current fact; but it in no way can constrain or dictate opinion as to what may be future fact! If it did, the progress of innovation would surely slow and perhaps even stop!
| All scientific imagination is focused on the second step of the proverbial Scientific Method. The first step is, of course, to observe some phenomenon that lacks an explanation. |
What phenomenon did the Montgolfier brothers observe that lacked an explanation, and culminated in the invention of the hot air balloon?? What phenomenon did Edison observe that lacked an explanation, and led to the invention of the phonograph?| The second step is to imagine a testable explanation for the phenomenon you observed. Simply imagining stuff without observations is worthless to science. Imagining explanations that don't suggest further observations is also worthless (because that means you already know the hypothesis is true, it advances nothing). |
However I am not doing science here, or in any way attempting to utilize the scientific method - I am stating that anyone can imagine something that is currently not possible but may well become possible as knowledge advances, and that process of imagining does not need any referent field of evidence! That is not a process of prediction, merely speculation as to the possible! I fail to see the relevance of the scientific method to this topic of imagining the currently impossible! Perhaps you can explain!
| but made only an argument for changes to details, in which the broad strokes may be completely unaffected. |
Key word, may!| It's not simply a lack of evidence, as you wrongly state, but we have, through tests of Special Relativity, hard evidence that the theory is a correct explanation (outside of black holes), and that theory says that the speed of light cannot be met, much less exceeded. |
| It's not simply a lack of evidence, as you wrongly state, |
I stated nothing concerning the presence of or absence of evidence! But most astrophysicists and particle physicists agree that a Unified Field Theory may significantly change both the Special and General Relativity theories which may render such evidence inconsistent with theory!| If you can make a compelling argument that there is a plausible reason for thinking that the speed of light can be exceeded, make it. |
It is genuinely impossible for me to stop beating my wife until I start such abuse in the future!{predicate logic)| Because if we consistently apply the idea that we should consider it a possibility only because at some unknown time and in some unknown way our current knowledge will be shown to be faulty, it means that we must not make any conclusions whatsoever. |
Not at all. It simply means that any such conclusions are valid for the current state of knowledge, and may be subject to change in the future!| After all, we might all be fish. The idea that we are mammals is based upon necessarily limited knowledge that might change in the future, so by your logic, we are not justified in calling ourselves mammals, and to do so is nothing but arrogance run a-muck. |
Not my logic. My logic is that we are currently perfectly justified in calling ourselves mammals until such time that a better term may be developed! However unlikely, if that term turned out to be fish, future biologists would probably adopt it!
That great scientist, Frank Sinatra, sang long ago, "or would you rather be a fish?" To invent is to see anew. “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance.” “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Albert Einstein
Inventors often envision a new idea, seeing it in their mind. New ideas can come when the conscious mind turns away from the subject or problem, when the focus is on something else, while relaxing or sleeping. A novel idea may come in a flash - Eureka! For example, after years of working to figure out the general theory of relativity, the solution came to Einstein suddenly in a dream “like a giant die making an indelible impress, a huge map of the universe outlined itself in one clear vision.”
Wiki invention |
Hardly sounds like an exercise of the classic Scientific Method!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 09:17:42 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck, do you hold any opinions that you know to be false? Opinions are absolutely based upon evidence, otherwise the opinions a person holds would be random with respect to a person's experience. They are not. The only substantive difference between facts and opinions is popularity.
Invention, by the way, is an act of technology, not science. Inventors either base their inventions upon current known phenomena, or else say, "it works, but I don't know why it works." The phenomenon of hot air rising had already been investigated before the invention of the hot-air balloon. And Edison did not discover electromagnetism or sound vibrations, he simply harnessed them together in a new way.
But more to the point of your failures in this discussion:| I stated nothing concerning the presence of or absence of evidence! |
So you are saying that you did not say this?| Thus you are saying that I am making a poor argument for the possibility, no matter how small, of future alien visitations, based upon the fact that there is no evidence that such visitations have occured in the past. |
I was correcting you, telling you that I was saying no such thing, but now you're simply denying that you did speak of evidence. It's no wonder that you would prefer to deal in opinions, because your grasp of facts (like the fact that you said something) is tenuous, at best.
Of course, your main point in this latest post is this:| It simply means that any such conclusions are valid for the current state of knowledge, and may be subject to change in the future! |
And you simply refuse to change your conclusion opposed to the fact that when someone says, "this is impossible," they are using the present tense, and aren't arrogantly saying "this was, is and always will be impossible." You are reading things into simple statements that are not there. You say that your opinions are subject to change, but you're not demonstrating it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
UK UFO sightings declassified
