fsmind Posted December 21, 2004 Report Posted December 21, 2004 As Human Species become consume with the search for intelligent life here on Earth or throughout the universe. The Human Species must first remove the covers from its eyes, mind, and its own young intelligent existent to understand that other intelligent life forms exist in places in which the Human Species can not. The universe is forever changing by the second however; there is one element that remains a constant and that is the evolution of Life itself. The Earth is just one in a billion young civilization in this community called the universe. Do you really think the Human Species is all alone in this universe? Quote
Tormod Posted December 21, 2004 Report Posted December 21, 2004 Welcome to our community, fsmind. The Earth is just one in a billion young civilization in this community called the universe. Prove it. Do you really think the Human Species is all alone in this universe? No. There are a lot of other species on this planet. And I also like to think that there is life elsewhere but I can't prove it. :D Quote
pgrmdave Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 there is one element that remains a constant and that is the evolution of Life itself. How about the speed of light? Be careful what you say, you might be called upon to prove it. Quote
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 there is one element that remains a constant and that is the evolution of Life itself.what about before the time there was life? Quote
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 i remember FT mentioned in the other thread about the physical attributes suitable for intelligent organisms such as high dexterity to make full use of the intellect. There would be no use for a jellyfish to know how computer programming Quote
sanctus Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 Tormod (and the others may read as well :-) ),I actually think it is possible to provee the existence of other lifeforms, as long as one starts from the theory that, in black holes for example, there exists passages to parallel universes (I think it's a consequence of General relativity). Well our univrse is really huge and let's assume that we are the only ones in our universe, this still means that there is 1 planet which hosts life out of X, where X denotes the number of planets of our univrse. Now if you take enough parallel universes to have at least 2X planets, you can statistically be sure that there is another planet which hosts life. Quote
Tormod Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 I think any such attempt at a proof will have the basic flaw that it cannot be falsified, thus it is not a valid theory. Quote
sanctus Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 Yes it can be falsified, just by proving GR wrong. By the way, are you saying that a theory is only valid if it can be falsified? But as soon as a theory is falsified it becomes an invalid theory. What is your (and probably the current) definition of valid theory? Quote
Tormod Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 Yes it can be falsified, just by proving GR wrong. No...you don't prove/disprove the existence of multiple universes by proving GR wrong. You only strengthen any theory that assumes so if it is based on the necessity for GR to be wrong! By the way, are you saying that a theory is only valid if it can be falsified? But as soon as a theory is falsified it becomes an invalid theory. What is your (and probably the current) definition of valid theory? Sorry, a bit of sloppy phrasing on my behalf. What I meant was that for a theory to be a valid theory, it must be possible to TEST it - not only theoretically, but practically. :D I would be very interested in learning how you would test for multiple universes. Quote
Freethinker Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 Wow! Not only an interesting thread to start with, but the replies, in there approach, are easily as interesting. Welcome fsmind. Hope you aren't too scared off by the agressive replies. The immediate demand for proof of claims. The picking apart of individual items in the post for internal accuracy and consistancy. Looks like I'm not needed around here anymore! :-) (Whistles while walking into the sunset...) Tinny, what I was getting at (and without going back to check, hoped I structured correctly) was not that species lacking dexterity could not develop an higher intellect, but they could not implement it in manufacturing technology. This in a discussion RE communicating with them. e.g. I remember some years ago reading some story which was theorizing what type of life might exist on other planets in our solar system, including intellegent life. Just life that could not take advantage of technology for dexterity reasons. Such as the suggestion of "floaters" in Jupiter's atmosphere. In fact something like a jellyfish that would float thru the atmosphere. In fact (and who would be surprised) there are sites that discuss it: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/J/Jupiterlife.html Santus you are confusing the ABILITY to falsify with actually proving something to be false. The idea being that something can not be shown to be true, if it is not also possible to show that it could be false. Not IS, but COULD BE. fsmind, I agree that we need to remove our anthropomorphic biases if we are interested in allowing the greatest possibility of finding extraterrestrial life. And No I do not think we are the only species in the universe. And not just the other species here on earth. (getting picky Tormod? lol) As in the book I have suggested on other threads here is titles "Probability One", the probability of intellegent life elsewhere in the universe is so high it is for all intents and purposes ONE (100%) Quote
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 how can an organism be intelligent if all is predetermined? it does nothing as a unit. it just appears to be intelligent, but actually is a mere manifestation of electrochemical interactions. unless, that is the definition of intelligence. am i implying freewill = intelligence? is it wrong? what is intelligence? Quote
Freethinker Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 how can an organism be intelligent if all is predetermined? it does nothing as a unit. it just appears to be intelligent, but actually is a mere manifestation of electrochemical interactions. unless, that is the definition of intelligence. am i implying freewill = intelligence? is it wrong? what is intelligence?Well done Tinny! Yes it is a dilema. If all is purely deterimistic, then what is intellect? If an individual bee is not intellegent, can the hive be considered intellegent? "It" functions in specific goal driven processes. Consciousness seems to be the problem. It is what makes us think we have free will. But we don't know what conscieous is and therefore how it all ties together. That's the problem isn't it? Quote
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 Well done Tinny!Don't try to condition me! I can utilize my inner speech to nullify your influence :DConsciousness seems to be the problem. It is what makes us think we have free will. But we don't know what conscieous is and therefore how it all ties together.as i said, complex groupings of subatomc particles will bring a whole new set of paradigms.Such high levels of complexity might bring about that intelligence, or free will. am i just repeating what you said? how about quantum consciousness? http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/quantum.html Quote
fsmind Posted December 23, 2004 Author Report Posted December 23, 2004 There is a theory that whatever the Human Species find simple its turns complex and whatever it find complex it will simplify. This statement is made to help keep all of you focus on the fact that intelligent life is a constant in the universe. Yes, the directions in which a few of you are heading is understood. However, remember the first evidence that life in itself is intelligent is at the moment it exhibits a desire or instinct to survive. Your open-minds in which you are willing to entertain on this subject are most welcome. To take this a step further, in the universe the one fact holds true and that is Life evolves from Life. The Human Species consider itself to be a highly intelligence Life here on Earth. Is Life, highly intelligence Life of a Non-Human type capable of evolving from the Human Species? Quote
Tormod Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 Is Life, highly intelligence Life of a Non-Human type capable of evolving from the Human Species? Undoubtedly. Quote
TINNY Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 so how should that Life appearance be? what's the next level of intelligence? Quote
pgrmdave Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 However, remember the first evidence that life in itself is intelligent is at the moment it exhibits a desire or instinct to survive. Is this really evidence of intelligence? Plants instinctually survive, through chemical reactions that allow them to react to their environment, but I don't consider them intelligent. At what point does a simple reaction to environmental changes become intelligence? I don't disagree that there is other intelligent life, but how do we define intelligence? To take this a step further, in the universe the one fact holds true and that is Life evolves from Life. Are you implying that life can only come from life, or that once life exists, it will evolve? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.