Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 19, 2007 19:00:17 GMT -4
You seem to imply that intelligence is absolutely tied to technological progress. That is, if a species is more intelligent than humanity then it must develop things like radio and rockets faster than humanity did. How can we prove that this is the case? Buy a puppy. You are not likely to find a better companion in the stars that is a good substitute for what you will fine at a pet store or the pound. Okay, how can you prove there isn't something better than a puppy out there? So? How can you prove that having intelligence means you will want to speak with other intelligent species? Except for a few purposes - attempts to contact them and planning for possible future meetings. SETI is "trapping" us into supporting them? I don't think they are. Some of them might have that attitude, but I think most of them are of the attitude that "the small possibility that we may actually contact other life is worth the expenditures to run SETI." I will grant you that the longer we don't have any contact the less likely it is that we ever will, but only in a very miniscule sense. Our ability to detect other intelligent life is so tiny at the moment that I feel any conclusion as to its existence is premature.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 19, 2007 19:24:29 GMT -4
Bill, would you consider the Ancient Romans or Greeks to have been intelligent? Did they have radio?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 19, 2007 21:29:05 GMT -4
Bill, would you consider the Ancient Romans or Greeks to have been intelligent? Did they have radio? On the scale of time that we are viewing for this evaluation and in the context of Fermi's Paradox that was virtually yesterday. Human beings went from fighting the Neanderthals to building the pyramids in just 35 thousand years. We went from that to walking on the moon in just a few thousand years. Thousands of years are like blinks of an eye when you are considering a galaxy that has existed for billions of years. So to answer your two questions: Yes, they were intelligent, and no they did not have radio. But that question is misleading and assumes that there could be a species out there just like us stuck in an ancient roman culture for a hundred million years or more. That is hard to imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 19, 2007 21:30:10 GMT -4
Buy a puppy. You are not likely to find a better companion in the stars that is a good substitute for what you will fine at a pet store or the pound. Okay, how can you prove there isn't something better than a puppy out there? Countless times, I have discussed that the burden of proof is on those who say something does exist, not on those who say it does not.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 19, 2007 22:18:20 GMT -4
Countless times, I have discussed that the burden of proof is on those who say something does exist, not on those who say it does not. It lies with he who cares what others think.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 19, 2007 22:40:16 GMT -4
Countless times, I have discussed that the burden of proof is on those who say something does exist, not on those who say it does not. It lies with he who cares what others think. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist as has been discussed many times before in this forum -- in fact, I think I posted it in this discussion thread. The only logical thing is for someone to prove that something does exist since nonexistence is not provable. In this situation, nonexistence is highly probable. Fermi's Observation has a powerful impact and definitely changed my mind. It is unflinching, direct, and honest. It is mathematically sound. The more logical view is that he has a point. The less logical view is that he does not. I sense that "It lies with he who cares what others think." and Jason's taking my posts out of context sentence-by-sentance also supports that this is not a scientific or mathematical discussion but an emotionally charged one. I am simply saying something that noone wants to believe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 19, 2007 23:02:52 GMT -4
It's only as sound as it's assumptions are, and you've got quite a few there without much support. One example species (us) is not give us enough information to build theories of how long it takes for an intelligent species to develop, how long it takes for them to develop technology, and whether or not they would colonize the galaxy when they get the chance. We have only one sample intelligent species, one sample bio-system, and one sample earth-like world, and no idea of how representative it is. We just can't make any generalizations about how life and civilization develops with only one sample. It's like trying to extract all of mammalian biology from one sample platypus.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 19, 2007 23:23:49 GMT -4
It's only as sound as it's assumptions are, and you've got quite a few there without much support. That is not true. I meantioned the Scientific American article for you to read. And who are we to define intelligence, then? From this viewpoint dogs might be extremely intelligent. Let's give them a few more years to go. You know, Jason, there are all sorts of things we can dream up and situations to think of. How about there are intelligent beings out there with no hands and they just sit around and discuss mathematical forumuals and feed off of low hanging fruit and do just about nothing else. And yet, there is no chance we will ever find them because they do not have radios. Well, so? Does that mean that they are there? Sure they are there, but for all practical purpuses they are just as good as not being there. It is back to the tree falling in the woods with noone around perspective. I made no such claim and neither did Fermi. There are lots of different kinds of intelligence. We got lots of them right here to observe in the sea and on land.. The issue and subject is Fermi's Paradox. That is what we are discussing. Given the billions of stars, if intelligence life was likely and common in the galaxy, ET would be walking down the street by now. That makes sense. And I did provide documentation to back up what I said. Google the Scientific American article and I suggest you read it.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 19, 2007 23:44:45 GMT -4
It is not possible to prove that something does not exist as has been discussed many times before in this forum -- in fact, I think I posted it in this discussion thread. It is usually much more difficult to prove something doesn't exist, which is why you've got a problem if you want to convince Jason. The more logical view is that he has a point. The less logical view is that he does not. Arguments are not "more" or "less" logical, they are logical or not logical. Either the conclusions follow rigorously from the premises, or they don't. More or less logical is like more or less pregnant. I sense that "It lies with he who cares what others think." and Jason's taking my posts out of context sentence-by-sentance also supports that this is not a scientific or mathematical discussion but an emotionally charged one. I am simply saying something that noone wants to believe. ] I've noticed you like to use this debating tactic. Question for you, Bill - would it have been "more logical" or "less logical" for you to find out what I think about the existence of extra-terrestial life before writing the above?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2007 0:09:34 GMT -4
I did read the Scientific American Article. It doesn't argue that there is no other intelligent life in the universe, merely that conditions similar to those on Earth may be more rare than we thought at first (and even that pre-supposes that an Earth-like planet is necessary for the development of life, something we can't be certain of).
Again I say, it's too early. When we've spread out to a few hundred other planets and have a better idea of just how rare or common Earthlike planets really are, then we can start asking where everyone else is, if we haven't already met them.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 20, 2007 0:33:14 GMT -4
Agreed that it might be hard to imagine, but then that's because we base our understanding on our society. A lot of the advances we have today are thanks to the destruction of the Roman system. Had Rome continued and western society had never introduced the Indian/Arabic nemeric system of the East, then it is possible that we would have failed to have made a number of the advancements in electronics and the areas that proceed from that whcih the Roman numerical system would simply not allowed us to do. In a society were a roman style culture evoled and stagnated, but had no enemies to bring about its collapse and the regrowth of society, it is indeed fesiable that they could be stuck for thousands of years, if not longer, not actually progressing beyond basic technology simply because they fail to possess the advanced mathematics required to enter into the deeper sciences.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 20, 2007 1:13:45 GMT -4
There are lots of different kinds of intelligence. Then quoting the time span between any two particular points of human technological development is irrelevant. There are still no water buffalo walking down my street. According to your claim, that means they don't exist anywhere. [edit: verb tenses is confusing]
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2007 12:31:13 GMT -4
I'm having real trouble finding any polar bears in my back yard too.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 20, 2007 12:34:11 GMT -4
There ARE a lot of flies here, though.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 20, 2007 14:21:49 GMT -4
Deal with facts and not suppositions before making assumptions. Anything is possible but not everything is probable.
I suppose it is possible that a race of people can live like the ancient romans for 1.2 billion years, but it is not very probable. And as far is it being unfair to judge other cultures based on what we know, what does that really mean? Of course all we have to go on is what we know. What do you suggest? we go on what delusions we can imagine? That opens the door to fantasy. The subject of this thread is "Fermi's Paradox" not, "Star Trek, The Next Generation".
I can imagine this possibility and that possibility. But that means nothing. It is all supposition. It is not fact.
Part of Fermi's Paradox is that we live in a very old universe and we are a very new species. Very old universe and a Very new species -- It is thousands of forests and each forest span millions of square miles of trees and we are the smallest sliver of wood.
Science deals in what is most likely. That is all. It is most likely Fermi had a good point. And if you can visualise the expance of time he was referring to, it is a very good point.
Sure there are possibliities that something is out there but it is improbable. It is possible Santa Claus exists too. But not very probable. Science deals in what is most likely.
|
|