Hawking says contact with Aliens could be risky

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

That's what I'm saying - we are more than atoms. Divine is a loaded word. I prefer cognos.

It's about what myth gives revelation. I go for the Jews and the Greeks myself. Man has the divine spark. It makes me like us better.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

After reading that link, I think I have a lot in common with that particular race in one of the Star Trek movies that voluntarily gave up warp drives and higher technology to pursue a more simple, human life.

Sheesh, I am such a conservative.

Would you want to live with stone age tribes in New Guinea? Would they switch places with you if they could? Is their life really more simple or human?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Would you want to live with stone age tribes in New Guinea? Would they switch places with you if they could? Is their life really more simple or human?

I'd probably switch with an Athenian Greek aristocrat.

But I think there is a way to consider which technology is actually helpful to us.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'd probably switch with an Athenian Greek aristocrat.

As long as you are more human than women and slaves.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

As long as you are more human than women and slaves.

Sure, my point was that I think there are things which sustain us beyond technological material comfort.

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I remember a series of bloom county comics where Alien Invaders came to Earth and started eating humans and enslaving our woman. Their first question was "Are human beings dark or white meat"

Of course in typical bloom county fashion the aliens were pulled in front of congress and these nasty enslaving aliens looked like cute puppies.

One congressman was incensed at the hostile treatment that the aliens received and humanity fell in love with them.

I'm betting our worst nightmare hostile aliens will probably look like puppies.

as great as a Bloom County reference is, I have to refer to this classic, too:

[Bigtime]

Just think if things trend that way to us living in completely VR worlds and all connected to an advanced version of the internet we were all part of when it began. We are part of what could be the most monumental milestone in human history. Booya!

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Our accomplishments in philosophy, literature and art far outstrip those in science by a considerable amount. In fact, going back to the Greeks you can see that thinking has always been extremely sophisticated.

Sure, those things have been around for a lot longer, so that would be expected.

Originally Posted by peter12

Simply put, technological advances have no bearing on the advancement of our nature. Culturally, we are more than primitive sentients.

The first sentence is baloney. Technological advances can have a HUGE bearing on the advancement of our nature, they just aren't the sole determining factor. A technological advancement granting immortality, for example, would require a very basic change in our nature. Or discovering that free will doesn't actually exist, that the human mind is completely deterministic, that would also change philosophy drastically.

And while I would like to think that we are more than primitive sentients, all you have to do is look at our world to see that there is lots of room for growth that way. Our failure to look and plan for far down the road is something that a much more advanced civilization might have something to each us about.

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Maybe we are the most advanced civilization in the universe? If you believe in the exponential growth of technology you would have to wonder why we haven't heard from anything so far. Maybe civilizations cannot reach a level of intergalactic travel because the process by which to get to that level is too difficult socially and environmentally to the point that the civilization destroys itself in the process.

That's one resolution for the Fermi Paradox. We could also just be the first, which is HIGHLY unlikely but it has to happen to someone. Or it could just be so very rare that we're separated too far by space and time to see any evidence.. it all gets lost in the noise.

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

Our Sun will eventuallly go nova and destroy this planet.

Instead of worrying about Global Warming which will happen anyway, as the Sun heats up as it ages thereby warming the Earth, we should be developing our space travel capability in order to escape this doomed planet.

We won't have the ability to escape our planet and go somewhere else for thousands of years at the very least.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Yeah that website blows my mind when it goes into the ridiculously far into the future milestones.

Can you even imagine the death of the universe? Just think about it, crazy stuff.

http://futuretimeline.net/beyond.htm#dark

It's kind of depressing in a way.

No, I can't even come close to fathoming that far into the future - and I think that's why it is that depressing.

The absolute scariest thing, (to me at least), is that those things will happen. It might be 9 bazillion years into the future, but the simple fact that they will is what hits me.

[peter12]

The first sentence is baloney. Technological advances can have a HUGE bearing on the advancement of our nature, they just aren't the sole determining factor. A technological advancement granting immortality, for example, would require a very basic change in our nature. Or discovering that free will doesn't actually exist, that the human mind is completely deterministic, that would also change philosophy drastically.

I completely believe that technology can change nature, but I don't think that it progresses or advances. In regards to ethics and philosophy, we are right back where we started.

You're going to have to expand on your last point regarding the negation of free will. I think this perspective is highly dependent on the education we are presented with in this age.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I completely believe that technology can change nature, but I don't think that it progresses or advances. In regards to ethics and philosophy, we are right back where we started.

A good way to put it is science informs philosophy. You can use science to determine what action would produce the greatest good for specific metrics (for example), but science can't decide for you if the greatest good is worth sacrificing some liberty for.

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to your last point, I have yet to see a convincing argument that will is completely determined. This negates reason.

I didn't say it is completely determined, I said if it was found then that would change things radically.

And that doesn't negate reason, an argument is still valid or invalid regardless of if it was made by something with free will or not.

And that argument is invalid anyway, even if it did negate reason, so? Can't discard conclusions just because they aren't appealing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're going to have to expand on your last point regarding the negation of free will. I think this perspective is highly dependent on the education we are presented with in this age.

What does education have to do with it? Either our actions are deterministic or they aren't... if it were found that free will is just an illusion, a perceptional trick of the brain only, that would mean the whole concept of personal responsibility is wrong and morally bankrupt.

Again I'm not saying that it is completely deterministic, just saying that if it was then that would change the basic assumptions of a lot of things like philosophy.

[worth]

Originally Posted by Madman

That is a crazy link - and dare I say, "Mind Blasting".

That is a very cool site.

I would really love to be able to see the future. It just seems like there is so much to know. So many questions we have at this moment in time that can only be answered with more time.

But for us folk alive right now, that site is kind of depressing. Looks like things get a little worse before they get better.

Has anyone read Joe Haldeman's Forever War? I think Ridley scott is supposed to be turning that into a movie. That book had a cool take on time travel from a soldiers perspective.

Spoilers below for the book:

At the end of the book, when he finally gets back to Earth, the earth is no longer inhabited by humans, but rather Man, basically one consciousness, described on that website. Kind of interesting to think about.

[worth]

Originally Posted by hmmhmmcamo

I agree, thanks for posting it. It looks like there are a lot of interesting videos on that site. http://www.ted.com/

Are you a TED virgin? TED is one of the most awesome sites out there.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

A good way to put it is science informs philosophy. You can use science to determine what action would produce the greatest good for specific metrics (for example), but science can't decide for you if the greatest good is worth sacrificing some liberty for.



I didn't say it is completely determined, I said if it was found then that would change things radically.

And that doesn't negate reason, an argument is still valid or invalid regardless of if it was made by something with free will or not.

And that argument is invalid anyway, even if it did negate reason, so? Can't discard conclusions just because they aren't appealing.

I think there are strange conceptions of what philosophy is on this board. Science is a product of philosophers, going back to Aristotle saying that we can only study what we can sense with our senses and develop with our reason.

To take it one step further, most philosophy is political philosophy. Fundamentally, human beings are political animals. The city, polis, or human community is the framework for the development of our excellence. The fundamental question that political philosophy asks, starting with Socrates, is "what is the Good Life?"

There are many different conceptions of this and they are inseparable from philosophical perspective. The current bio-materialist of Man is very new and what surprises me, almost accepted with no questioning.

The philosophy of Science is something that must be paid attention to. What is it's purpose? What does it exist? What is it trying to say? What is the model of Man that is used for its purposes?

A scientific study that called into question the so-called metaphysical liberties of our will would have to be questioned as, given the current condition of scientific study, I am fairly certain that the conclusions would be based upon a very particular view of Man that is not set in its context.

It is so strange to me that we seem to be separating science from its common sense; relying entirely upon science to give us the answers. We know from experience that Will or Courage or Assertiveness has a dramatic impact upon the choices we have and make. Certainly biology plays a part in this. Some people have the genetic or material gifts to have more choices available to them, but we shouldn't reject the tremendous landscape of human experience to rely completely upon a confidence in scientific progressiveness.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

What does education have to do with it? Either our actions are deterministic or they aren't... if it were found that free will is just an illusion, a perceptional trick of the brain only, that would mean the whole concept of personal responsibility is wrong and morally bankrupt.

Again I'm not saying that it is completely deterministic, just saying that if it was then that would change the basic assumptions of a lot of things like philosophy.

We are educated to believe that Man is a self-interested utilitarian fooled by nature in fulfilling certain ultimate causes; mainly survival through reproduction. Think of the current condition of the sciences and humanities.

This is a narrow interpretation of Man which doesn't have much basis in reality.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

The philosophy of Science is something that must be paid attention to. What is it's purpose? What does it exist? What is it trying to say? What is the model of Man that is used for its purposes?

Of course.

Originally Posted by peter12

A scientific study that called into question the so-called metaphysical liberties of our will would have to be questioned as, given the current condition of scientific study, I am fairly certain that the conclusions would be based upon a very particular view of Man that is not set in its context.

I didn't say if it was concluded based on flawed methodologies, or if it was concluded based on a specific desired outcome, I said if it was determined period. Concluded as far as such a thing can be concluded. It's a hypothetical.

Though it is interesting that you are fairly certain of the conclusions and that you know the proper context for it.

Would you advocate not studying the brain or consciousness in case we do find out that this was the case, and we're better off thinking we have free will and unjustly holding people responsible for their actions?

Originally Posted by peter12

Some people have the genetic or material gifts to have more choices available to them, but we shouldn't reject the tremendous landscape of human experience to rely completely upon a confidence in scientific progressiveness.

Who advocates that? Science is good at giving answers, but a specific kind of answer. What you do with that answer is up to you. Just because you can use some materials to increase your food yield and be able to feed your family where some would die otherwise and you can use those exact same materials to blow up a building and kill thousands doesn't mean it's the scientific answers about the nature of nitrogen that are the problem.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

We are educated to believe that Man is a self-interested utilitarian fooled by nature in fulfilling certain ultimate causes; mainly survival through reproduction. Think of the current condition of the sciences and humanities.

This is a narrow interpretation of Man which doesn't have much basis in reality.

I certainly didn't learn that in school, and I don't know anyone who advocates that kind of view.

[hmmhmmcamo]

Originally Posted by worth

Are you a TED virgin? TED is one of the most awesome sites out there.

now that I think about it I'm pretty sure I did spend a night with TED awhile back.

I have it bookmarked now so TED and I will be spending a lot more time together!

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'll paraphrase Carl Sagan (for your sake) when discussions were going around about what messages we should or should not be broadcasting specifically for ET contact.

Sagan advised against broadcasting Mozart or Bach or something because that would be bragging.

Interesting, never heard that before. However I'd simplify this even further, while music, art and philosophy are deeply meaningful to us and encompass so much of what makes us unique and provides us inspiration; the fact is to an alien intelligence our music might sound like nails on a chalkboard or they might not have hearing.

Our accomplishments in philosophy, literature and art far outstrip those in science by a considerable amount. In fact, going back to the Greeks you can see that thinking has always been extremely sophisticated.

I always get the impression in our discussions you think I worship science and disregard philosophy, literature and art. Its simply not the case but anyhow to the point I agree those things are deeply meaningful and important. But as Troutman said we are richer for both those things and the methods of science.

I'd hope an alien race sufficiently advanced in technology for cross-galactic travel would have avoided some of the strains of progressive historicism that have infected our minds in the past century. Simply put, technological advances have no bearing on the advancement of our nature. Culturally, we are more than primitive sentients.

It would take a long time to develop communication and understanding with an alien intelligence. The immediate basic understanding we would share with them is mathematics, and it would take some time before they could even begin to understand our perceptions of art, literature and music; if they even truly could do so at all.