Are we alone?

[geko]

The distinction is that "God" is a single supernatural being that simply wills things into existence totally outside the restraints of the natural laws of the universe.

 

Sorry mate but all 5 statements there are complete nonsensical to me, i have no knowledge of, belief, or reason to believe any of it.... best leave it there because i don't think supernatural things exist.

 

But stars on the other hand take a million years? I don't mean to patronise but i find it amusing that such a statement could be made from a stance of technology that is a million/billion, years behind what we're talking about. I'm guessing that the figure comes from the way things work and unfold in nature, and to harness, store, accumulate and 'fire up' the material would require this long? In which case it's erroneous because technology speeds things up exponentially.

 

For example, mammals took ~4 billion years to get here, humans make them in weeks.

[Moontanman]

Sorry mate but all 5 statements there are complete nonsensical to me, i have no knowledge of, belief, or reason to believe any of it.... best leave it there because i don't think supernatural things exist.

 

Your lack of knowledge or disbelief doesn't mean others do not believe or have not defined the actions of a God, God does not involve technology in any way, God will things out of nothing. In the Christan tradition it took him 6 days to create the universe and world as we see it. To me it's a fairy tail but to ignore it because I don't believe it is a mistake.

 

 

But stars on the other hand take a million years? I don't mean to patronise but i find it amusing that such a statement could be made from a stance of technology that is a million/billion, years behind what we're talking about. I'm guessing that the figure comes from the way things work and unfold in nature, and to harness, store, accumulate and 'fire up' the material would require this long? In which case it's erroneous because technology speeds things up exponentially.

 

 

There must be a limit to what technology can do, no growth is exponential for ever. to assume technology that has been around an arbitrary amount of time would be able to ignore the laws of nature is simply magical thinking, not science or technology

 

For example, mammals took ~4 billion years to get here, humans make them in weeks.

 

Please explain this, humans can make mammals from scratch in weeks? In what universe does this happen?

[geko]

Ok, last post in this thread as you created a dedicated one (and it isn't to get the last word :hihi: ), but no natural laws were assumed to be ignored in what i was saying.

 

There are over 100k ivf births every year for 1 example. We 'grow' numerous organs. We also replicate meat. Yep, we'll be eating sausages and burgers (maybe even steak!), that were grown in a lab in a couple of years.

 

And the good thing about it all is that we've only just begun...

[Moontanman]

Ok, last post in this thread as you created a dedicated one (and it isn't to get the last word :hihi: ), but no natural laws were assumed to be ignored in what i was saying.

 

When you say "God" you are assuming breaking natural laws, hence the idea of miracle!

 

There are over 100k ivf births every year for 1 example. We 'grow' numerous organs. We also replicate meat. Yep, we'll be eating sausages and burgers (maybe even steak!), that were grown in a lab in a couple of years.

 

And the good thing about it all is that we've only just begun...

 

BS pure and simple, numerous organs? Other than skin which organs would that be?

 

We replicate meat? Where, when, how?

 

IVF is not making anything from scratch, easy peasy compared to your assertion of growing mammals from nothing.

 

For example, mammals took ~4 billion years to get here, humans make them in weeks.

 

Total misrepresentation of reality.

[geko]

 

When you say "God" you are assuming breaking natural laws...

 

No.

 

 

pure and simple, numerous organs? Other than skin which organs would that be?

 

Liver, stomach, kidney, eye, blood, lung, heart, cornea, pancreas, bone and the brain.

 

 

We replicate meat? Where, when, how?

 

A quick search of it gave the top hit of Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory - Times Online

 

IVF is not making anything from scratch, easy peasy compared to your assertion of growing mammals from nothing.

 

I didn't say nothing. Please read again. Nothing comes from nothing. The only thing that even comes close is the creation of matter from random quantum fluctuations... and they are 'something'.

[Moontanman]

No.

 

YES it does, keep saying no, won't make it accurate

 

 

Liver, stomach, kidney, eye, blood, lung, heart, cornea, pancreas, bone and the brain.

 

That is such BS, of all of those i'll maybe give you bone (just a stand in, not biologically active) an external injector of insulin is not an artifical pancreas, none of the rest is even close to be true. No artifical eyes, liver, stomach, kidneys (implantable) or lungs or heart, (notice no artifical hearts lately?) corneas come from cadavors hence eye transplants, and brain? give it a rest dude.

 

 

A quick search of it gave the top hit of Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory - Times Online

 

 

yeah, i'll not hold me breath for that either

 

I didn't say nothing. Please read again. Nothing comes from nothing. The only thing that even comes close is the creation of matter from random quantum fluctuations... and they are 'something'.

 

Read your own quote, you implied we can make mammals the same way evolution did it, your own words dude.

 

For example, mammals took ~4 billion years to get here, humans make them in weeks.

[Moontanman]

Lets put this back on topic, if you want to try to convince people of God like aliens (but not really GOD like) make your own thread.

 

Are we alone? The galaxy is so vast that even if there are thousands of civilizations they would still be hundreds of light years apart if not thousands.

 

Only by searching will we ever know unless they are ..... robots? Yes yet another another possibility. Possibly biological beings like us are eventually replaced by electronic beings.

[Boerseun]

It might very well be that the biological form is merely a phase life goes through before it gets to the mechanical phase. The one leads to the other - robots need humans to get on the scene like humans needed primates to get out of the trees.

 

Flesh is a pretty useless thing in outer space. It needs to metabolize, it needs protection from the vacuum and radiation, it grows old, it dies. Robots, on the other hand, can get their energy directly from space and the resources it contains. A robot living off sunlight can be launched from Earth to some distant star system, and go into a 100,000 year hibernation in interstellar space where there is insufficient light, to come out perfectly fine on the other side and start replicating itself.

 

Meat is just a phase we're going through. Intelligent robots are our ultimate progeny and will render humans largely useless - maybe an historical oddity for robots to gape at. And we should stop thinking it's a 'bad' idea. It's not. With sufficient investment in research, if we can replicate the human brain electronically, why won't that mechanical brain be inquisitive, be self-aware, emphatic, etc.? Imagine a brain with all the positive traits a human brain has, but with an ability to learn literally at the speed of light, with an almost infinite recall capability? Why, then, would humans be bothered about humans going into outer space and colonizing the galaxy, when we can send emissaries such as these to virtually every single planet with absolutely no need for terraforming?

 

...and keeping the above in mind, won't aliens face the exact same issue?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the first ET we meet is a ten-million year old robot busy replicating himself on one of the Jovian moons after having woken from a million-year hibernation on his trip from Cygnus. And that robot will have a mechanical replica of an alien brain, it will be an alien.

[Moontanman]

It might very well be that the biological form is merely a phase life goes through before it gets to the mechanical phase. The one leads to the other - robots need humans to get on the scene like humans needed primates to get out of the trees.

 

Flesh is a pretty useless thing in outer space. It needs to metabolize, it needs protection from the vacuum and radiation, it grows old, it dies. Robots, on the other hand, can get their energy directly from space and the resources it contains. A robot living off sunlight can be launched from Earth to some distant star system, and go into a 100,000 year hibernation in interstellar space where there is insufficient light, to come out perfectly fine on the other side and start replicating itself.

 

Meat is just a phase we're going through. Intelligent robots are our ultimate progeny and will render humans largely useless - maybe an historical oddity for robots to gape at. And we should stop thinking it's a 'bad' idea. It's not. With sufficient investment in research, if we can replicate the human brain electronically, why won't that mechanical brain be inquisitive, be self-aware, emphatic, etc.? Imagine a brain with all the positive traits a human brain has, but with an ability to learn literally at the speed of light, with an almost infinite recall capability? Why, then, would humans be bothered about humans going into outer space and colonizing the galaxy, when we can send emissaries such as these to virtually every single planet with absolutely no need for terraforming?

 

...and keeping the above in mind, won't aliens face the exact same issue?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the first ET we meet is a ten-million year old robot busy replicating himself on one of the Jovian moons after having woken from a million-year hibernation on his trip from Cygnus. And that robot will have a mechanical replica of an alien brain, it will be an alien.

 

A great idea Boersuen, I had waited a while to see if this would come up, makes a lot of sense in so many different way on many levels. The whole no sex thing bothers this body of meat, aren't all our own drives related to sex and reproduction in some way? Would robots have any reason or drive to do anything but hibernate?

 

I also wonder if robots might spread humanity around, taking with them our genetic code and planting complex Earth life on other planets, hanging around as it develops to make sure humans come about?

 

Creating our own creators, almost poetic!

[modest]

Meat is just a phase we're going through. Intelligent robots are our ultimate progeny and will render humans largely useless - maybe an historical oddity for robots to gape at.

 

I've heard Stephen Hawking talk about that. I think he agrees with you. With some searching a found a similar speech to the one I remember, but not the exact one:

 

It might be possible to use genetic engineering, to make DNA based life

survive indefinitely, or at least for a hundred thousand years. But an

easier way, which is almost within our capabilities already, would be to

send machines. These could be designed to last long enough for

interstellar travel. When they arrived at a new star, they could land on

a suitable planet, and mine material to produce more machines, which

could be sent on to yet more stars. These machines would be a new form

of life, based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than

macromolecules. They could eventually replace DNA based life, just as

DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.

 

This mechanical life could also be self-designing. Thus it seems that

the external transmission period of evolution, will have been just a

very short interlude, between the Darwinian phase, and a biological, or

mechanical, self design phase. This is shown on this next diagram, which

is not to scale, because there’s no way one can show a period of ten

thousand years, on the same scale as billions of years. How long the

self-design phase will last is open to question. It may be unstable, and

life may destroy itself, or get into a dead end. If it does not, it

should be able to survive the death of the Sun, in about 5 billion

years, by moving to planets around other stars. Most stars will have

burnt out in another 15 billion years or so, and the universe will be

approaching a state of complete disorder, according to the Second Law of

Thermodynamics. But Freeman Dyson has shown that, despite this, life

could adapt to the ever-decreasing supply of ordered energy, and

therefore could, in principle, continue forever….

» Stephen Hawking on humans redesigning themselvesSonia Arrison: Technology & Society

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

Cool stuff! I find myself in good (if somewhat mechanized) company!

 

The invention of sex around a billion years ago accelerated evolution with one heck of a speed. We went from single-cell blobs of goo to brainy, space-faring humans in a billion years, where virtually nothing exciting happened for the three billion years prior to the invention of shagging.

 

Imagine if every generation is the result not of sex, but of carefully considered design and engineering of the prior generation. Within a few generations, the builders of the first generation (humans) probably will not even recognize them, and might just consider them 'godlike' in their abilities. Imagine how evolution will fly then!

[freeztar]

Imagine if every generation is the result not of sex, but of carefully considered design and engineering of the prior generation.

 

That definitely sounds godlike, with the absence of sex and the whole design thing.

 

But really, that's pretty much the state of modern day computers/tech in general.

 

Within a few generations, the builders of the first generation (humans) probably will not even recognize them, and might just consider them 'godlike' in their abilities. Imagine how evolution will fly then!

 

I don't know. We let Arnold survive after the Terminator movies and he went on to become a Governator.

[geko]

That is such BS, of all of those i'll maybe give you bone (just a stand in, not biologically active) an external injector of insulin is not an artifical pancreas, none of the rest is even close to be true. No artifical eyes, liver, stomach, kidneys (implantable) or lungs or heart, (notice no artifical hearts lately?) corneas come from cadavors hence eye transplants, and brain? give it a rest dude.

 

I suggest you spend more time reading and less time writing. The first organ to be 'grown' in a lab that i'm aware of was the liver, several years ago.

 

Human liver was grown about 4 years ago.

 

A rat heart was grown about 3 years ago.

 

The first fully engineered human organ grown from the ground up from stem cells, and successfully transplanted into a patient was the windpipe i think. Also years ago.

 

Red blood cells were also first grown years ago.

 

There's 5 examples of hundreds.

 

This news is all over for those interested. It's not even new or groundbreaking anymore.

 

 

Read your own quote, you implied we can make mammals the same way evolution did it, your own words dude.

 

Yeah i just read it. It should have been mammals took ~14 billion years to get here (not 4), humans make them in weeks.

 

I see nothing that implies evolution. I see the adjective 'make'; which we do, in ~32 weeks...10's of thousands of times a year.

[Moontanman]

Again, you are off topic geko, if you wan to discus artificial organs, especially practical organs, please start your own thread, this one is about "are we alone" not making artificial organs.

[geko]

I was just correcting errors of reference, no need for a new thread for that.

 

I was actually following the thread for a while as it was interesting reading people's ideas but since we don't know the variables that are needed to even give a probability i decided my time was better spent elsewhere.

 

But yes, i want to be a cyborg!

[Pyrotex]

Are we alone?

 

[sQUISH]

 

We are now!!!

[Turtle]

Are we alone?

 

[sQUISH]

 

:) We are now!!!

 

fortunately, i have a durable crapice...erhm...carapice. when you stepped on me by accident, the squish you heard was some mud-people riding on my back.

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

Appeal to probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.

...

Explanation

The logical idea behind this fallacy is that, given a whichever event P, if the probability of P occurring is not strictly 0, it is best to assume that P will occur, since it will almost surely happen, provided that enough time be granted. The fallacy incorrectly applies a common tenet of probability: given a sufficiently large sample space, an event X of nonzero probability P(X) will occur at least once, regardless of the magnitude of P(X). This is derived from the definition of probability. The operative term is "given a sufficiently large sample space". Virtually all events are considered for probability within a finite number of samples, and the chance that X will occur in a given finite space S is directly proportional to S. Given a finite number of events S, each of which is X or not X, a sample space Y = 2PrS exists where one possibility is that all events in S are not X. Therefore, P(X in Y) = (Y-1)/Y. Because Y-1/Y < 1 for all finite Y, P(X in Y) < 1 regardless of P(X) or Y. There is thus always a chance that X will not occur, and therefore, no proof that X will occur given its probability.

 

Δ life is not inevitable. QED