Pentagon releases UFO videos

[jammies]

It must be time for another faith vs reason discussion! Woo hoo!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jammies

It must be time for another faith vs reason discussion! Woo hoo!

I have faith the discussion will be reasonable.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yeah, I didn't get that and I don't think it was broadly understood that way either. It's also really silly to suggest that. To know everything is to become God. When we learn the answer to one problem, we come up with two new questions. We will never know everything because there is just too much to know. I suspect our species will die out before that possibility has potential to play out. I don't think we take into consideration the knowledge loss we will experience as well. I don't think people are aware just how much knowledge we have lost during the rise and fall of civilizations. This cycle will continue meaning knowing everything is unlikely.

I think we grossly overplay what we think we know and where we are technologically. You do realize it has only been 10 years since the UK converted to fully digital television service and the US only an additional six years. We still have analog telephone services in place in many countries, including the US! We have been broadcasting very weak radio signals for just over 125 years, commercial strength broadcasts for less than a century. Those signals have yet to reach even the boundary of the intermediate arm of our spiral galaxy, or not even 1/3 of the way to center of the galaxy. That should be sobering to consider. Our tech is not strong and our knowledge is in its infancy when measured on the galactic scale. Until we understand our own planet I don't see any hope of understanding the complexities of the universe.

You’re still confusing “knowing everything” with the capability to understand everything. So, a lot of this God talk and stuff about the rise and fall of civilisations is mostly irrelevant.

There remains the distinct and very real possibility that there is nothing we as a species are incapable of understanding (which again doesn’t mean we know everything or could easily know everything, just that nothing is beyond us). In addition, there’s a real possibility that despite any shortcomings, we’re the absolute pinnacle of intellect and intelligence. There’s the possibility that the conditions that make intelligent life possible on Earth are the very best conditions of any planet, anywhere, and at best our conditions could be matched, and say there’s 10000 other planets that match these ideal conditions, 100 where intelligent life actually took, and we’re the furthest along.

You say our tech is not strong and our knowledge is in it’s infancy when measured on “a galactic scale” but it’s just as likely our technology is the strongest and our knowledge far beyond anything else out there by a significant margin. It’s possible that we’re 1/3 of the way towards nothing significant and there’s much more nothing ahead. It’s possible that we’ll eventually hit a natural/environmental limit to what’s actually possible to learn and discover, but that doesn’t mean it’s a limitation of our capacity as humans to understand it.

All this to say that dismissing the failure of basic logic checks against some alien/UFO theories based on the premise that “they could be operating in a way that is beyond our ability to understand!” is just a lazy cop out. You look at a post like karl’s and, despite it being facetious, it’s just as realistic and likely as his actual beliefs. Whether you call my beliefs some cross between rare Earth, great filter, brief window, etc etc, it doesn’t matter.

Suggesting that humans are the pinnacle, or that there is nothing we are incapable of understanding, is far more realistic and less silly than theories about alien scientists studying us like toddlers. I’m sure, like believing in God, there’s comfort that comes with thinking we’re a violent mess with unmet potential but there are these great, peaceful, extremely intelligent beings watching us and that the universe is this magic place of wonder, but that’s a lot less likely than the most intelligent life outside Earth being equivalent to a cow, while we’re the shining star of it all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There’s the possibility that the conditions that make intelligent life possible on Earth are the very best conditions of any planet, anywhere, and at best our conditions could be matched, and say there’s 10000 other planets that match these ideal conditions, 100 where intelligent life actually took, and we’re the furthest along.

You say our tech is not strong and our knowledge is in it’s infancy when measured on “a galactic scale” but it’s just as likely our technology is the strongest and our knowledge far beyond anything else out there by a significant margin. It’s possible that we’re 1/3 of the way towards nothing significant and there’s much more nothing ahead. It’s possible that we’ll eventually hit a natural/environmental limit to what’s actually possible to learn and discover, but that doesn’t mean it’s a limitation of our capacity as humans to understand it.

It’s not just as likely that our technology is leading the universe unless their are only two life forms out there. Us and the Aliens. As soon as you allow for life to exist elsewhere you would get a bell curve of technological achievement centred around the maximum life creating point in the universe. We are far more likely to be in the middle standard deviation then the outliers and when you look at the age of the universe relative to the age of our sun we would be likely not be at forefront.

I think the most likely answer is we are separated temporally and spacialy such that there is never meaningful contact.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s not just as likely that our technology is leading the universe unless their are only two life forms out there. Us and the Aliens. As soon as you allow for life to exist elsewhere you would get a bell curve of technological achievement centred around the maximum life creating point in the universe. We are far more likely to be in the middle standard deviation then the outliers and when you look at the age of the universe relative to the age of our sun we would be likely not be at forefront.

I think the most likely answer is we are separated temporally and spacialy such that there is never meaningful contact.

Sure it is. Your conclusions and hypothesis is just based on wild assumptions, so it’s not like it’s any more likely.

You don’t have to look beyond our planet to see humans buck the trend. Out of millions of species, we’re the most advanced form of life by an incredibly wide margin. Nothing else comes close, again, out of millions of species. You could make the logical argument that a monkey is relatively close compared to a plant, but the gap is still very large.

You also make the same assumptions believers usually make beyond the simple “life exists elsewhere” which is that:
1. life exists with motivations/interests similar to humans (space exploration, scientific observation, advanced invention)
2. life exists with a combination of physical and mental characteristics similar to humans (imagination/curious combined with the physical ability to create)
3. advanced life exists on planets with raw materials conducive to creating advanced technology
4. Advanced life exists on planets that are not only capable of supporting life, but capable of maintaining it without disruption (species or natural occurrence-based) long enough that a species can advance far enough along
5. Life exists that follows the same (or improved) rules of evolution that Earth does and includes species with the same (or improved) potential as humans have.

All of these things might be true. But they aren’t likely to be true, and your assumption of us being merely average fails without them all being true many, many times over.

You could just as easily say every form of life above us in the universe is a carbon-based blob where travel is completely inessential so all of their advanced intelligence goes into inventing more comfortable, stationary blob lives. Just because there might be more intelligent life out there, doesn’t mean there’s better technology and life that has the same outward interests we do.

[Fuzz]

I'm interested in your theories on Blob Life and would like to subscribe to your news letter. Just don't make me do anything to have it happen.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don’t have to look beyond our planet to see humans buck the trend. Out of millions of species, we’re the most advanced form of life by an incredibly wide margin. Nothing else comes close, again, out of millions of species. You could make the logical argument that a monkey is relatively close compared to a plant, but the gap is still very large.

Were Neanderthals "human" or a distinct species?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...them%20do%20so.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by troutman

Were Neanderthals "human" or a distinct species?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...them%20do%20so.

Those dummies weren’t ever going to space.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re still confusing “knowing everything” with the capability to understand everything. So, a lot of this God talk and stuff about the rise and fall of civilisations is mostly irrelevant. There remains the distinct and very real possibility that there is nothing we as a species are incapable of understanding (which again doesn’t mean we know everything or could easily know everything, just that nothing is beyond us).

Oh great, this is going to devolve into a Corsi level game of semantics, because if you understand something you have to know about something to understand it. If you understand everything, you know everything. Except there appears to be plenty beyond us. For example, we don't understand gravity. We don't understand dreaming. We don't understand yawning. We don't understand consciousness. We don't understand quantum mechanics. We don't even understand matter, which makes up everything around us. We don't understand and that has involved the greatest minds in the history of humankind taking on these questions. I'm certain your next play is to say we "could some day" understand these things, but that is a guestimation or projection, not unlike looking at the math and making the assumption there are thousands of other intelligent life forms in the universe and applying the bell curve to determine we are possibly in the middle (at best). Do the math. It's not hard. Well, it's a little harder than Euclid's common notions, and you screwed those up, so maybe it is harder than it looks.

[Monahammer]

From an anthropological perspective, it remains an open question exactly how intelligent other homo species were compared to homo sapiens. In the end, not intelligent enough to outlive us I suppose. But in terms of cranial capacity it seems Neanderthal and maybe denisovans had sapiens beat.

[troutman]

Episode 28: Frank Drake’s cosmic road map
More than six decades after Frank Drake wrote an equation to help find out if we are alone in the universe, scientists may soon have the answer.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/p...osmic-road-map

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Oh great, this is going to devolve into a Corsi level game of semantics, because if you understand something you have to know about something to understand it. If you understand everything, you know everything. Except there appears to be plenty beyond us. For example, we don't understand gravity. We don't understand dreaming. We don't understand yawning. We don't understand consciousness. We don't understand quantum mechanics. We don't even understand matter, which makes up everything around us. We don't understand and that has involved the greatest minds in the history of humankind taking on these questions. I'm certain your next play is to say we "could some day" understand these things, but that is a guestimation or projection, not unlike looking at the math and making the assumption there are thousands of other intelligent life forms in the universe and applying the bell curve to determine we are possibly in the middle (at best). Do the math. It's not hard. Well, it's a little harder than Euclid's common notions, and you screwed those up, so maybe it is harder than it looks.

It's not a game of semantics, you just want to make it one because it's easier to admit you don't understand the basic point. No sense in doubling down.

I can simplify it for you:
- knowing everything = being aware of "everything" (everything there is to be aware of) through observation, inquiry, or information
- the capability to understand everything = the power or ability to interpret or perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of everything

So, we don't "know" what gravity is, but we do have some "understanding" of gravity. We can measure gravity. We understand how things behave on Earth in relation to gravity and how they would behave differently somewhere like the moon.

And of course suggesting that we have the capability to understand everything, despite not yet doing so, is a guess. It's an educated guess, just like "there is life beyond our planet" is an educated guess. You get to decide if, based on "the math" or really any and all of the knowledge we've acquired thus far, whether it's more or less likely than us currently being observed by a peaceful alien species that views us as violent toddlers. I'm sure that, too, is an educated guess, right? If you decide my educated guess is less likely than yours, I'd love for you to do the math for all of us, since it isn't hard.

Go on and show your work. I'm excited to see it.

[Ozy_Flame]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1555555538108309508

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's not a game of semantics, you just want to make it one because it's easier to admit you don't understand the basic point. No sense in doubling down.

I can simplify it for you:
- knowing everything = being aware of "everything" (everything there is to be aware of) through observation, inquiry, or information
- the capability to understand everything = the power or ability to interpret or perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of everything

So, we don't "know" what gravity is, but we do have some "understanding" of gravity. We can measure gravity. We understand how things behave on Earth in relation to gravity and how they would behave differently somewhere like the moon.

And of course suggesting that we have the capability to understand everything, despite not yet doing so, is a guess. It's an educated guess, just like "there is life beyond our planet" is an educated guess. You get to decide if, based on "the math" or really any and all of the knowledge we've acquired thus far, whether it's more or less likely than us currently being observed by a peaceful alien species that views us as violent toddlers. I'm sure that, too, is an educated guess, right? If you decide my educated guess is less likely than yours, I'd love for you to do the math for all of us, since it isn't hard.

Go on and show your work. I'm excited to see it.

Hahahaha. No. That's not the way it works. You got called out, do your own work. Don't try and pass that off onto someone else. And don't think for a second you get to use the term "educated" guess, because you are as uneducated as they come, and proud of that fact. I've never seen anyone so confident in their high school education in my life. Shut up, do your own work, and prove just how highly functioning you are. You won't, because you're only as good as your last google search. So show your work there big fella. Or just continue to move the goal posts further to obfuscate the issue. Because that's what you do.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hahahaha. No. That's not the way it works. You got called out, do your own work. Don't try and pass that off onto someone else. And don't think for a second you get to use the term "educated" guess, because you are as uneducated as they come, and proud of that fact. I've never seen anyone so confident in their high school education in my life. Shut up, do your own work, and prove just how highly functioning you are. You won't, because you're only as good as your last google search. So show your work there big fella. Or just continue to move the goal posts further to obfuscate the issue. Because that's what you do.

What are you talking about? You're the one who mentioned "the math" and said it was easy. Quote:

"not unlike looking at the math and making the assumption there are thousands of other intelligent life forms in the universe and applying the bell curve to determine we are possibly in the middle (at best). Do the math. It's not hard. Well, it's a little harder than Euclid's common notions, and you screwed those up, so maybe it is harder than it looks."

Instead of making personal jabs and guessing at my education level, wouldn't it be easier to educate me with this seemingly simple math you have on hand? Replacing intellect with insults to take the conversation away from your "math" isn't that interesting to me, you can call me whatever you want, so long as you educate me with your simple math. Please and thanks.

As far as an "educated" guess goes, would David Deutsch be educated enough for you? He'd guess the same, which is how I got onto the idea. Are you telling me I shouldn't trust his education or insights into anything?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure it is. Your conclusions and hypothesis is just based on wild assumptions, so it’s not like it’s any more likely.

You don’t have to look beyond our planet to see humans buck the trend. Out of millions of species, we’re the most advanced form of life by an incredibly wide margin. Nothing else comes close, again, out of millions of species. You could make the logical argument that a monkey is relatively close compared to a plant, but the gap is still very large.

You also make the same assumptions believers usually make beyond the simple “life exists elsewhere” which is that:
1. life exists with motivations/interests similar to humans (space exploration, scientific observation, advanced invention)
2. life exists with a combination of physical and mental characteristics similar to humans (imagination/curious combined with the physical ability to create)
3. advanced life exists on planets with raw materials conducive to creating advanced technology
4. Advanced life exists on planets that are not only capable of supporting life, but capable of maintaining it without disruption (species or natural occurrence-based) long enough that a species can advance far enough along
5. Life exists that follows the same (or improved) rules of evolution that Earth does and includes species with the same (or improved) potential as humans have.

All of these things might be true. But they aren’t likely to be true, and your assumption of us being merely average fails without them all being true many, many times over.

You could just as easily say every form of life above us in the universe is a carbon-based blob where travel is completely inessential so all of their advanced intelligence goes into inventing more comfortable, stationary blob lives. Just because there might be more intelligent life out there, doesn’t mean there’s better technology and life that has the same outward interests we do.

Your bogged down in anthropic logic

Your logic only holds if there are 0 or 1 other intelligent species in the universe at this point. The math essentially points to 0 other or many other. As soon as you allow for life the experience of earth is one of endless variety

And when it comes to assessing technological capabilities we have literally no idea what these others would be like: Hence the only logical spot on the bell curve of intelligent life is the middle adjusted for duration in the universe.

If you are arguing rare earth is equally likely to life somewhere I think you could be making a reasonable argument one I disagree with but reasonable none the less.

But it sounds like you are suggesting life is out there but we are equally likely to be most advanced.

Even if you include rare earth the statement equally likely implies an absurd level of precision that does not exist.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your bogged down in anthropic logic

Your logic only holds if there are 0 or 1 other intelligent species in the universe at this point. The math essentially points to 0 other or many other. As soon as you allow for life the experience of earth is one of endless variety

And when it comes to assessing technological capabilities we have literally no idea what these others would be like: Hence the only logical spot on the bell curve of intelligent life is the middle adjusted for duration in the universe.

If you are arguing rare earth is equally likely to life somewhere I think you could be making a reasonable argument one I disagree with but reasonable none the less.

But it sounds like you are suggesting life is out there but we are equally likely to be most advanced.

Even if you include rare earth the statement equally likely implies an absurd level of precision that does not exist.

Then show the math.

My statement wasn’t meant to be precise, but general. I’d assume that would be an obvious given that we’re talking about something nobody has any evidence of at all. I’m also, for that reason, talking in hypotheticals in some cases. I believe there is “probably” life out there. It could be a single plant on the planet Urbetiopocino 475. The post you responded to was specifically a response about “technology” and what is “possible.” I don’t see how you’ve presented a reasonable argument as to why it’s not possible that humans have the most advanced technology, period. Just that it’s unlikely, which… who cares? Alien life that would be intelligent by our standards is unlikely. Humanity itself is unlikely. A large portion of this thread includes things that are unlikely but theoretically possible. I find it completely hilarious that “it’s just as likely our technology is the best there is as it is that our technology pales in comparison to alien technology” gets your back up, and not because of the mention of alien technology which the only evidence we have is (none) and we’re going off the speculation that it might exist… maybe, but because it makes the superiority of human technology, which is the only real technology we know to exist and have mountains of evidence for… too likely. lol.

When you look at the history of evolution on Earth that led us to where we are today, there are a large number of unlikely (rare) or unique (non-repeating) events that made human life possible. But you seem to be saying that intelligence is inevitable, despite the fact that we don’t know that to be true about Earth, so it’s completely absurd to think it’s true of every other life-sustaining planet, if any actually exist, in whatever form life comes in on that planet.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then show the math.

My statement wasn’t meant to be precise, but general. I’d assume that would be an obvious given that we’re talking about something nobody has any evidence of at all. I’m also, for that reason, talking in hypotheticals in some cases. I believe there is “probably” life out there. It could be a single plant on the planet Urbetiopocino 475. The post you responded to was specifically a response about “technology” and what is “possible.” I don’t see how you’ve presented a reasonable argument as to why it’s not possible that humans have the most advanced technology, period. Just that it’s unlikely, which… who cares? Alien life that would be intelligent by our standards is unlikely. Humanity itself is unlikely. A large portion of this thread includes things that are unlikely but theoretically possible. I find it completely hilarious that “it’s just as likely our technology is the best there is as it is that our technology pales in comparison to alien technology” gets your back up, and not because of the mention of alien technology which the only evidence we have is (none) and we’re going off the speculation that it might exist… maybe, but because it makes the superiority of human technology, which is the only real technology we know to exist and have mountains of evidence for… too likely. lol.

When you look at the history of evolution on Earth that led us to where we are today, there are a large number of unlikely (rare) or unique (non-repeating) events that made human life possible. But you seem to be saying that intelligence is inevitable, despite the fact that we don’t know that to be true about Earth, so it’s completely absurd to think it’s true of every other life-sustaining planet, if any actually exist, in whatever form life comes in on that planet.

Your initial statement was that us being the most advanced was equally likely. I took issue with a roughly equal chance that we were the most advanced versus being anywhere else on the development curve. You seem to agree with me now it’s unlikely that humans are the most technologically advanced in the universe.

I didn’t say we weren’t just that it’s not a roughly equal chance.

As for the math again we go back to Drake.

Stars formed each year by a galaxy is about 1
Stars with planets is now probability of 1
Green belt planets is roughly .1- .4 these days

Likelihood of abiogenesis
Liklyhood of evolution -

These are the two unknowns we get to play with. We have a sample size of 1 right now. Find bacteria on mars and Venus and abiogenesis odds jump almost to unity.

Likelihood of evolution has two camps some suggesting it’s rare others saying given enough time the natural outcome of selection pressures is increasing complexity and intelligence.

Fraction getting to space communication and duration of such communication are purely speculative values.

So you end up with a range from essentially 0 to about 15 million life forms. The cases which we have the best technology or an equally likely chance of having the best technology are 1 and 2 other species. I’m the remaining set of possible outcomes we are not “equally likely” to be the most advanced.

It’s funny because I think I had this same argument with Lanny a few months ago when I was saying that there is no requirement for other intelligent life to exist in the universe.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your initial statement was that us being the most advanced was equally likely. I took issue with a roughly equal chance that we were the most advanced versus being anywhere else on the development curve. You seem to agree with me now it’s unlikely that humans are the most technologically advanced in the universe.

I didn’t say we weren’t just that it’s not a roughly equal chance.

As for the math again we go back to Drake.

Stars formed each year by a galaxy is about 1
Stars with planets is now probability of 1
Green belt planets is roughly .1- .4 these days

Likelihood of abiogenesis
Liklyhood of evolution -

These are the two unknowns we get to play with. We have a sample size of 1 right now. Find bacteria on mars and Venus and abiogenesis odds jump almost to unity.

Likelihood of evolution has two camps some suggesting it’s rare others saying given enough time the natural outcome of selection pressures is increasing complexity and intelligence.

Fraction getting to space communication and duration of such communication are purely speculative values.

So you end up with a range from essentially 0 to about 15 million life forms. The cases which we have the best technology or an equally likely chance of having the best technology are 1 and 2 other species. I’m the remaining set of possible outcomes we are not “equally likely” to be the most advanced.

It’s funny because I think I had this same argument with Lanny a few months ago when I was saying that there is no requirement for other intelligent life to exist in the universe.

The obvious problem is that the equation you have is so heavily based on speculation and lacking evidence that it’s as meaningless as a complete guess.

The secondary problem is that it doesn’t actually prove that “Earth has the best technology” is less or more likely than “Earth’s technology is in it’s infancy compared to all the other technology out there.”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The obvious problem is that the equation you have is so heavily based on speculation and lacking evidence that it’s as meaningless as a complete guess.

The secondary problem is that it doesn’t actually prove that “Earth has the best technology” is less or more likely than “Earth’s technology is in it’s infancy compared to all the other technology out there.”

You made the claim equally likely, not me.