Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Jklint]

In our case, by completely avoiding the use of it. Absolute power has seldom been used constructively. Humans have demonstrated that the opposite is true. Absolute power can only be positive when controlled by a supremely refined civilization. We've never had any and likely never will. Whenever held, it only served to demean absolutely those who had it. The ability to use such power signifies the extent of advancement in any civilization whether ours or an alien one, "ours" seemingly becoming more alien every day.

This is also why I'd worry, if we ever did contact an advanced alien species, that it's quite a credible concern that we'd be a global version of the Belgian Congo within a decade.

Anything is possible. The bottom line is we don't know what's out there which means we can't trust anything heading our way. I always respected Carl Sagan for his insightful views but one thing I found really stupid and dangerous was sending out information on the whereabouts of this planet and that there's an intelligent species living on it as if to imply our citizenship in the universe. It's a poetic idea but dangerously impractical.

[Sy Borg]

... one thing I found really stupid and dangerous was sending out information on the whereabouts of this planet and that there's an intelligent species living on it as if to imply our citizenship in the universe. It's a poetic idea but dangerously impractical.

I think this showed that Sagan had faith in the civilising effects of advancement. I am guessing he figures that any civilisation advanced enough to be capable of practical interstellar travel would probably be as careful with us as we have been in trying to avoid potential contamination of bacterial life on Mars and the Saturnian moons. Amusing as it seems but perhaps the most logical approach for intelligent aliens in studying humans would be surreptitious abductions.

However, I have heard that the latest hypothetical calculations support the rare Earth theory, and the possibility that we are probably the only intelligent life in the universe so these concerns may not be an issue at all.

[Jklint]

... one thing I found really stupid and dangerous was sending out information on the whereabouts of this planet and that there's an intelligent species living on it as if to imply our citizenship in the universe. It's a poetic idea but dangerously impractical.

However, I have heard that the latest hypothetical calculations support the rare Earth theory, and the possibility that we are probably the only intelligent life in the universe so these concerns may not be an issue at all.

I agree. Relative to the danger we pose to ourselves the extra-terrestrial kind is less than minuscule. But there are billions of galaxies. While many may have nothing advanced within them others there may be with at least two or three intelligent entities corresponding to ours. Given the size of the universe, this would make intelligent life extremely rare in any event.

The probability of us being the ONLY such creatures in the entire universe to me is absolutely null. I don't believe in literal miracles because if that were true the ultimate miracle would be it's designed exclusion of all other possibilities. In effect, this would have to be contrived. If I'm going to accept that, I'd be forced to believe in an Entity which purposely causes such an exclusion...which makes no sense even in terms of the most limited probability.

[UniversalAlien]

I still can't follow what you're saying all the time. Are you role-playing as some kind of extraterrestrial or do you actually believe yourself to be one..?

In classical philosophy there is a term called "Fictionalism" - This is a term used to describe a philosophers
use of fictional stories to convey some type of philosophical idea or ideas - A noteworthy case would be
"Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Similar to 'Fictionalism' is my concept called "ScienceFictionalism"
See:
"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... uture.html

Where we deliberately hypothesize science fiction type ideas for the future - If it is possible we believe
it is worthy of a tale - And some tales, like some science fiction turn out true in the future.

So you see Human - There is still hope for your species - Just keep an open mind

- UniversalAlien

[Thrylix]

What drives the desire for interaction with inferiors? Clearly the ability to win consistently. Which if one already routinely wins amongst one's peers looks hollow and lame. However, if one doesn't typically have that experience could be the best game in town.

Well, being a tyrant could be fun even if you already live a good life.

[LuckyR]

What drives the desire for interaction with inferiors? Clearly the ability to win consistently. Which if one already routinely wins amongst one's peers looks hollow and lame. However, if one doesn't typically have that experience could be the best game in town.

Well, being a tyrant could be fun even if you already live a good life.

Yes and no. A tyrant of your peers appeals to many, a tyrant of ants appeals to no one I know.

[Sy Borg]

The probability of us being the ONLY such creatures in the entire universe to me is absolutely null. I don't believe in literal miracles because if that were true the ultimate miracle would be it's designed exclusion of all other possibilities. In effect, this would have to be contrived. If I'm going to accept that, I'd be forced to believe in an Entity which purposely causes such an exclusion...which makes no sense even in terms of the most limited probability.

Given that the number of stars and galaxies capable of hosting habitable planets is wildly overestimated, it is still possible that we are the first or the only. That would not make life on Earth a miracle, just unique or rare.

[Jklint]

The probability of us being the ONLY such creatures in the entire universe to me is absolutely null. I don't believe in literal miracles because if that were true the ultimate miracle would be it's designed exclusion of all other possibilities. In effect, this would have to be contrived. If I'm going to accept that, I'd be forced to believe in an Entity which purposely causes such an exclusion...which makes no sense even in terms of the most limited probability.

Given that the number of stars and galaxies capable of hosting habitable planets is wildly overestimated, it is still possible that we are the first or the only. That would not make life on Earth a miracle, just unique or rare.

On that we disagree. How wildly overestimated habitable planets may be it's only that, an estimation. How many galaxies have we examined beyond our own? Do we really have any idea of how many there are with the potential to host intelligent life?

It wouldn't say much for the universe either if we were the only intelligent or even the most intelligent within it. For me, such a scenario amounts to the ultimate absurdity equivalent to Earth having hosted only one human. If we are here, assuming "here" is where we think it is and not manufactured in some computer as a "virtual reality", the possibility of such a singularity owning all the galaxies out there, even if we'll never get to claim direct ownership, is a complete non-sequitur. In a manifold as incomprehensibly huge and complex as the universe wherever there's one there's invariably more than one. If not true then our existence simply defaults to an accident never meant to exist in the first place. It requires a god to cradle life on one rock among the trillions that exist in the universe.

If the laws or processes which created us are indigenous to the universe overall and not merely centered on one place in it called Earth the possibility of there being only one of anything is zero.

[Sy Borg]

Given that the number of stars and galaxies capable of hosting habitable planets is wildly overestimated, it is still possible that we are the first or the only. That would not make life on Earth a miracle, just unique or rare.

On that we disagree. How wildly overestimated habitable planets may be it's only that, an estimation. How many galaxies have we examined beyond our own? Do we really have any idea of how many there are with the potential to host intelligent life?

It wouldn't say much for the universe either if we were the only intelligent or even the most intelligent within it. For me, such a scenario amounts to the ultimate absurdity equivalent to Earth having hosted only one human. If we are here, assuming "here" is where we think it is and not manufactured in some computer as a "virtual reality", the possibility of such a singularity owning all the galaxies out there, even if we'll never get to claim direct ownership, is a complete non-sequitur. In a manifold as incomprehensibly huge and complex as the universe wherever there's one there's invariably more than one. If not true then our existence simply defaults to an accident never meant to exist in the first place. It requires a god to cradle life on one rock among the trillions that exist in the universe.

If the laws or processes which created us are indigenous to the universe overall and not merely centered on one place in it called Earth the possibility of there being only one of anything is zero.

Yes, if humanity is the peak of the universe's intelligence then it belongs in the dunce corner of the multiverse (maybe).

Still, there's much overestimation, akin to looking at the Earth and wondering why there's no human settlements at the bottom of the ocean (most of the Earth is inhospitable to complex life). The inner and outer parts of galaxies are most unlikely to host multicellular life due to either excess radiation and activity or a lack of heavy elements respectively. Further, the spiral arms themselves are thought to be highly energetic and possibly hazardous. That leaves the spurs of the arms and the spaces between them. Further, galactic superclusters also probably have habitable zones and otherwise (it would not surprise if galaxies near The Great Attractor, for instance, were sterile).

This update (also in a TED talk) on the Drake equation seems credible, if a dull conclusion: https://www.universetoday.com/139467/ne ... -universe/

Still, the universe is about 13.8b years old and the Stelliferous Era should last for another trillion years. The cosmos is still in its infancy - in a juvenile form, so to speak. Thus it's all just (interesting) guesswork at this stage. Our apparent isolation may stem from being in a relatively young an active galaxy too. It has been postulated that intelligent life may well be much more rare in a spiral than in ancient elliptical galaxies, where there's very little star formation and is thus a much more stable and less fiercely irradiated environment.

[UniversalAlien]

But if we assume, at least the possibility of ET life ...........

What will extraterrestrial life look like?

3: Paul Davies: indescribable
In a 2016 paper, The “Hard Problem” of Life, written with Sara Imari Walker, astrobiologist Paul Davies begins with a well-known problem. Given that all life on Earth arose from a single common ancestor, we have no way of knowing what aspects of it are law-like – found in all life, across the universe – and which are specific only to our own biosphere.

It follows that life elsewhere need not involve Earth-like biology or chemistry. Indeed, write Davies and Walker, it is possible that it “will not ultimately be reducible to known physical principles”.

The pair suggests that the true essential for life is information – which somehow “calls the shots”.

Those things that we assume to be fundamental – replication and metabolism – might be features only of “Earth-like” biologies. There is a risk that should we ever encounter ET, we might not recognise it because we lack “a general-purpose set of criteria for identifying it”.

See whole article here:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/what-w ... -look-like


This is one reason any equation or formula for determining the existence of ET is not good
- Man basses his concept on alien life on himself - Alien life may be very, very, different.
For how many centuries did Man exist before he realized bacteria that he could not see was
endlessly interacting with him and the environment?

[Thrylix]

Well, being a tyrant could be fun even if you already live a good life.

Yes and no. A tyrant of your peers appeals to many, a tyrant of ants appeals to no one I know.

Well, I'd agree that being a tyrant to ants is not appealing. Ants are basically mindless drones. However, the scenario in question is one in which the beings are ant-sized but have the same level of intelligence and sophistication as their human counterparts, just much tinier in scale. But they'd basically have the same technology. So being a tyrant to them would be appealing, or at least it would be to a guy like me.

[Sy Borg]

Yes and no. A tyrant of your peers appeals to many, a tyrant of ants appeals to no one I know.

Well, I'd agree that being a tyrant to ants is not appealing. Ants are basically mindless drones. However, the scenario in question is one in which the beings are ant-sized but have the same level of intelligence and sophistication as their human counterparts, just much tinier in scale. But they'd basically have the same technology. So being a tyrant to them would be appealing, or at least it would be to a guy like me.

Oh, I didn't realise! We are honoured to have you here at our humble forum, Mr President

Ants are underestimated, much brighter than most people assume, especially the larger ones. The nest has a collective intelligence too, which is well documented now.

[Thrylix]

Ants aren't really "bright" in the way you may be thinking. Their behavior is governed chiefly by their sensitivity to pheromones and other chemical signals.

[Sy Borg]

Ants aren't really "bright" in the way you may be thinking. Their behavior is governed chiefly by their sensitivity to pheromones and other chemical signals. :P

But, Mr President Sir, while not equating ant minds with ours, we humans are often highly mechanical in our responses. For instance, if a human is dissected alive, do they not mindlessly scream and writhe?

Recent studies have shown that, the smaller the brain, the more efficient it is in terms of functionality per neuron. Here's a nice piece on ant intelligence: https://theconversation.com/weve-been-l ... -way-17619

[Thrylix]

Why the Mr President ad hominem?

Yes, ants are collectively sophisticated and demonstrate a sort of intelligence. However, as you said, the nest's intelligence is a collective one. But individually they are basically nature's automatons, unable to function well on their own and easily replaceable. Therefore, I wouldn't think much of going and squashing a bunch of them; and I've done that plenty of times. The colony will continue and repair itself.

In that vein, if an ant-sized race of people existed, I wouldn't think it that egregious for me to plant a massive foot on one of their schools or a densely populated residential area in order to get my point across. It would give the little guys something to do and they could always rebuild.