have they found anything?

[amb]

For the record, Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Brownlee is as an astronomer and astrobiologist

So at least Brownlee should know what he is talking about then?

 

[amb]

In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.

Perhaps it originates on each suitable planet given the right conditions.
Amino acids have been discovered in space along with other essential elements such as carbon which is available in abundance in nebula.
An asteroid/meteor could have easily transported these elements to the early Earth.

 

[amb]

So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.
Some much more so than others.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.

This is not a play on words.

You simply misspoke in your attempt to make humans something different in kind from all the other animals. (Again, this is a typical Creationist perspective.)

 

[Roboramma]

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.
Some much more so than others.

Yes, and an elephant is a very big animal. But we've been through all this already, I was just hoping you had something new to add.

 

[amb]

I find it very frustrating you not been able to understand my point. Why bring up the animal example of life on Earth?
My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy, not animal life which may be in abundance in more places than we can imagine. The universe may be teeming with Microbial life, and in some suitable places, even complex animal life, It's homo sapiens like intelligence I'm arguing may be extremely rare, Earth like homo sapiens, get it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy,

But what you've offered as the "case" for that assertion has failed. That's primarily what I've disagreed with--your backwards arguing about probabilities of something evolving, about how conditions have to be oh-so-friendly for complex life, and your argument that there hasn't been enough time (except, presumably, here on Earth, even though as I've pointed out, no more time has elapsed here than anywhere else), and the other Rare Earth arguments (that a large moon, a Mars like planet, a Jupiter-like planet, etc. are all prerequisites to complex life.)

Actually, as worded, nobody disagrees that intelligence "may be" rare. (Would you accept that it may not be rare?) And I've also pointed out that there's rare and then there's rare. (IIRC, you at one point said there were no other ETIs in our galaxy and probably no more than a dozen in the entire universe.)

I personally suspect humans will never encounter an ETI, and that there still may be hundreds or thousands of them in our galaxy alone spread apart in space and time.

 

[Roboramma]

I find it very frustrating you not been able to understand my point. Why bring up the animal example of life on Earth?
My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy, not animal life which may be in abundance in more places than we can imagine. The universe may be teeming with Microbial life, and in some suitable places, even complex animal life, It's homo sapiens like intelligence I'm arguing may be extremely rare, Earth like homo sapiens, get it?

And what I find increadibly frustrating is that you simply keep on asserting that this is true without actually addressing the arguments made against it.

Let me spell it out, again: there is no difference in kind between human intelligence and the intelligence of other animals on the earth. If it is possible for that kind of intelligence to evolve elsewhere, then it is possible for our kind of intelligence to evolve, because they are the same kind. The difference is one of degree.

Now, if you want to say, "no, it is a difference in kind." then go ahead and show it. Joe and I have both given examples of animal intelligence that is similar to human intelligence in many ways. Of course we are able to do some things with our intelligence that they are not: just like Micheal Jordan can do some things with his body that I can't, but those differences flow from a difference in the degree of intelligence.
Their brains have neurons. They work by the same principles. Ours are bigger and a little more complex, but there is nothing in evolutionary biology that makes the evolution of human-like intelligence from crow-like intelligence impossible.
In fact, given that it's happened once, it necessarily is possible. So we have to move to the question of whether or not it's probable, and how probable or improbable it is.

On that, I don't know, though I think the fact that lineages other than our own have evolved from less intelligence to more intelligence suggests that it isn't all that improbable. Nevertheless, I'm willing to admit to not having much to go on here. But as I've said before, neither do you. And if you claim to know, you'll need to do something to back that up.

And if you want to just say, again, "Human intelligence is very rare in the universe, though animal intelligence may not be", then you will have to give some sort of argument as to what it is that makes our intelligence particularly different from other animals, and what gives you confidence that it is particularly unlikely to evolve.

 

[amb]

I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

 

[Roboramma]

And what I find increadibly frustrating is that you simply keep on asserting that this is true without actually addressing the arguments made against it.

And once again you've completely ignored those arguments.

 

[Roboramma]

this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.

And that interstellar travel is practical and possible. And that they would actually want to do it, and...

You are making assumptions which may or may not be valid.

Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god.

But just because we would consider them godlike doesn't mean that they would be capable of anything that we think a god would be capable of.
Earlier, for instance, I made the point that there are some things which are simply physically impossible, there are limits to technology no matter how old a civilization may be. But of course you ignored that.

The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less.

Where did you get that idea from? And that particular number?
What does that sentence even mean?

They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

I don't know, but Joe has given you a great number of possibilities. If you think the only possibility is "they don't exist" then you're failing to really consider the issue. That's clearly a possibility, but it's not obvious that it's even the most likely one.

 

[Nosi]

In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.

Same goes for the Rhino virus. Still making folks miserable after all these eons...probably been making dinos miserable back in the day...

Kachoo

 

[Nosi]

I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

Who is to say they are not here.

They can be in need of resources that we may not consider resources. They may consider (I know this will squick you out) us a kind of zoo specimen they are watching for their own amusement. Think on it, birds hop about oblivious to mankind all around. What if one of them is the size of a pea hiding in a rock or maybe in a star formation? We sure as heck are not going to see them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This kind of ET would want to colonize the galaxy if it hasn't already done so.

No. A HUMAN BEING would want to do that. Who says that any sort of ETI would posses any of our human motivations? They could be vastly more intelligent than us, yet be satisfied with a society based on philosophy or art. Who says that all ETIs will do technology like us?

Again, I keep harping on this, stop thinking like a human...

Are there any lifeforms on Earth that refuse to colonize a space they are capable of colonizing? I know of some that have apparent checks on their reproduction when resources are low, but I can't think of any that arbitrarily stop at some boundary they can cross.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Not really. There's a logical argument, and your position isn't logical. (See again the numbered points that refute your argument based on Fermi's Paradox.)

You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.

 

[Roboramma]

You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.

It's called a paradox because it's the observation of two apparently contradictory things: the expectation that intelligent life is common in the universe, and the fact that it hasn't arrived here yet.

There is necessarily an explanation that shows that these two things are not in fact contradictory. One is the one that amb is trumpeting: that the first "expectation" is wrong. The other class of explanations is that the second expectation: that if intelligent life is common it would have arrived here, is wrong.

There are many ways to go into both sides of that: for instance, amb has argued that complex life in general is rare, but he's also argued that animal life in general may be common, but intelligent life very rare. Those are two different explanations that focus on that side of the equation. Another is that while intelligent life may commonly arise it doesn't last long, and so at any point in time is rare.

The other class of explanations is of the sort that say, while intelligent life it common it simply hasn't arrived here. Of this sort are: interstellar travel is either too hard or impossible, civilizations at that level simply aren't interested in travelling to other stars, they do tend to do so, but just slower than we expect, or they have been here but simply haven't made contact. (there are others).

I expect that the real explanation is some combination of both sides of the equation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

This is just a rephrasing of your Fermi's Paradox argument.

I refer you again to the numbered list I've given you months ago--any one of which is sufficient to refute this argument.

Before I quote them again here for you to continue ignoring them, I'll point out that at best all you're arguing for is that a billion year old intelligent civilization hasn't existed long enough to make evidence of their existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. You can't go from that to your position that there might not be dozens or hundreds or thousands of intelligent civilizations similar to our own spread out in space and time in our own galaxy.

___
1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with evidence of their existence. You've done nothing to address the possibility of the existence of civilizations on par with our own.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's an especially weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do or that they lack the motivation to do it.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.

Nonsense. Can you refute each of my numbered points?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Nonsense. Can you refute each of my numbered points?

Believing in ETI is a faith not a science.

"Refuting" it would be like refuting Mormonism to a Mormon.

As technology advances and we learn more we find that the Universe is Life Hostile and we are just very lucky to have had Earth form the way it did. Fermi had a point. There is no paradox. People call it a paradox because they refuse to believe it.

I remember you had some sort of elaborate and incorrect interpretation on what Fermi meant. So I am going to pass on reading your apologist postings supporting your faith.

Let me ask you this. Are YOU a scientist? What is your profession?





Why not start a discussion threat supporting the existance of Santa Claus. I am completely serious. The logic to explain away Fermi's Paradox could just as easily be applied to the existance of Santa Claus. One could say "The North Pole is a huge area. It is absurd to think there is no Santa Claus there." just as logically as saying "There are billions of stars. It is absurd to think there is no other ETI near by".

If you study logic you will see that it is not possible to prove a negative. ONe cannot PROVE that there is no Santa Claus. People who want to believe will find a way to make up some reason why Santa exists. The same is with the ideas denouncing Fermi's Observation. I could fly you over the North Pole and you could say "Santa knew you were coming and he hid". To me it sounds exactly like the explainations for Fermi's paradox.

Are YOU a scientist? What is your profession?

I sense you are just a wishful thinking and hopeful sci-fi buff.

The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here.

And if a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, for all practical purposes, it did not make a noise.

There are other universes too. Some could be filled to the brim with life. But for all practical purposes, they are not there to us.

Dude, Star Trek is a fantasy. There is no warp drive. We ain't going to find the places that cannot be found.

5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

Are you good at math? I am serious. Fermi did not have probes in mind. He had colonization. When he asked "where are they" he knew in his mathicaly genius mind that if life was common in the Universe, the galaxy should be colonized by now. That is it. That is the end of story. No probes, dude. Someone taught you a buchet of hog wash.

 

[Bill Thompson]

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with evidence of their existence. You've done nothing to address the possibility of the existence of civilizations on par with our own.

Exactly like ours? Statistically improbable. We are late comers. If life like ours comes about frequently, the galaxy should be colonized by now. This point is wrong

2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near light speed transportation will never be achieved, but it's an especially weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.

That is right. You don't know. You don't know that FTL is not possible mathematically. You do not know the rules set down by the theory of relativity. This is why no one wants to argue with you about it.

You also do not know that Fermi's Paradox has nothing to do with FTL travel.

3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do or that they lack the motivation to do it.

It does not matter why they are not here and why we seem to be alone. THe point is that it seems we are.

4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?

Why are you into probes? probes were sent to the moon before people walked on it. It is just a stepping stone.

Once again, it is about colonization, not exploration. If life like ours statistically came about often in the universe, our galaxy should be colonized by now.

5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

If you do not understand science, physics, mathematics, cosmology and Fermi's paradox, you should not argue against it. It is not about probes. It is about colonization.

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in a court of law, in science, and in the scientific method. Your cute, musical sounding saying is just that and nothing more but a sing-song way to convince you of what you want to believe.