-=Aliens=-

[Emo]

Do you believe in aliens?
I certainly do, because don't you think there is a tiny possibility that there is this one planet that there is some kind of life form on it? I mean come on, there are more than enough planets in this galaxy to provide a living environment... can you imagine how many more galaxies there are?

-Emo

[CiberTHuG]

Wow, Emo, I thought my grammar was off today.

Anyway... I think this is a Clarke quote, though it may be Sagan. And if someone can find the exact quote that would be great.


There is life out there, or there is not. Either reality is mind boggling.

[Active]

There must be somewhere on the Universe where an Intelligent
form(May be biological/Non-biological) exist. But the chance that
they could ever see planet earth and it's SUN is infinitesimal.

[PJB]

I believe there is cause on South Park they put a probe in Cartman's butt

[kedaman]

I might be one, we all might be

[kedaman]

shut up

[Emo]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Wow, Emo, I thought my grammar was off today.

Well, what can I say... For one, I've only known English for about 4 years (Today it's exactly 4 :D )
And secondly, I wrote this when I was in school and I was in a hurry...


P.S. Kedaman, Congratulations for your 5000 Posts!
-Emo

[PJB]

Originally posted by Emo

Well, what can I say... For one, I've only known English for about 4 years (Today it's exactly 4 :D )
And secondly, I wrote this when I was in school and I was in a hurry...


P.S. Kedaman, Congratulations for your 5000 Posts!
-Emo

congrats Kedeman

and congrat's for everyone speaking(typing) better English than I

[kedaman]

that was neither a statement nor an advice CiberTHuG, stay away.

thanks pjb and emo :)

[Pix]

Yep I believe they're out there somewhere

[kedaman]

how am i suppose to take you seriously then, you seriously have some social problems. I won't discuss anything with you until you learn some ethics. that is final

[PJB]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG


The chances of that happening are probably half as good as my chances of being attacked by a Great White shark, while being struck by lighting, after a plane crash that was taking me to claim my winnings in the Virginia State Lottery!


happened to me once, wait, that wasn't me...

[CiberTHuG]

My nieghbor won the lottery. Won 7.2Million.

[kedaman]

Yes i was serious, but i was also inteding to be ambigous:
1. Life is conceptually alien to the physical dead matter.
2. We as a species are alien to the other on this planet.
3. We are colonists
I agree might is a vague word, but i don't agree using it is considered "silly", but instead wise. Especially when i use it in a tripple quiz.

Next, who are we to judge what is more likely, when our knowledge is limited.

Finally, A might-statement is open minded, showing no ignorance, and has a intellectual aspect deeper than you ever can imagine.

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
My nieghbor won the lottery. Won 7.2Million. I bet he's not your neighbour anymore. Now lives in a country estate with 15 MPV's and several Land Rovers.

[barrk]

Relax, Ked. I don't think he meant you any disrespect....he was only kidding. I took your answer as a light-hearted statement and he took it a little further is all. Let's not let it bring us all down!:)

[kedaman]

i find it relaxing katie, don't worry :) I bring a lot in my words but i don't care if nobody don't care to understand me, but it's quite fun if someone does. here's a bunch of smilies for you :) :) :) :)

[barrk]

Thanks!

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by chrisjk
I bet he's not your neighbour anymore. Now lives in a country estate with 15 MPV's and several Land Rovers.

Amazingly, he is pretty down to earth. He still buys used cars for himself (he did buy both of his daughters a new Volvo). He owned a lake house and a house in town before he won. He sold the house in town and moved to the lake. Other than that, he gives a big pig pickin every fall for all his family and friends and friends friends and the neighborhood.

[kedaman]

You can't classify Life that easily Ciberthug, you make a big mistake if you do because it brings aspects of uncountable abstract concepts. If you pick one, i can pick another. I'm not pleased to take advantage of this model, we are arguing in a language that lacks precision, and i can't do anything about it.

Alien is a very ambigous word, i am paying attention to the thread marginal, #3 mainly, but static threads are boring, aren't they? Now here you misunderstood mariginally bending from the topic at #3

I am aware of the evolution model and our inheritance, but i was refering to how we distinguish from the rest, not the similarities. You are bending the paper, not me.

You should know that none of your arguments are supported, but should you care to discuss further, you need to distinguish between proof and statistics, models and reality. You're basically missunderstanding each concept i bring in your favour to construct an illusion that your argumentation invalidates mine, but that won't work with me as you can see.

[Kzin]

Fittingly enough for this forum Bill Gate's is already looking for them (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/seti_funding_000801.html) with SETI :)

XP with ET technology:rolleyes:

Coincidentally if you've ever read Niven's "Tales of Known Space" Kzin are the cats who wait to hear SETI type messages which are a sign that whoever is sending them is ripe for capture/slavery/hunting/eating

On the basis that if you are sending radio messages you are saying that "here is a habitable planet which is moderately smart/industrialised/populous but not too advanced or paranoid or alien"

[CiberTHuG]

Emo, I thought you might enjoy this:

"Where Are They?" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0700issue/0700crawford.html) by Ian Crawford

[Pix]

Poor Kedaman :(

[kedaman]

don't worry pix :) i'll handle him

[Jethro]

Go to your rooms Cyber and kedaman, and keep your hands where we can see them. Chill out guys.

Anyway back to the thread............

Read an article a while ago by this guy who claimed that Spiders orignated as aliens who had landed on earth in the dim dark past as germs or something. He gave credence to this arguement by saying that arachnaphobia is a genetic trait that comes from recognising this fact. Weird but true:confused:

[kedaman]

pick the freaking dictionary and look up both alien and life yourself.
Why do we have all the litterature hanging around in our libraries, well certainly because people with respect for knowledge should enter them.
You are loosing the ethical mariginal to which we agreed to have a decent argumentation, i therefore commend you skip personal assults and REPHRASE and apologize, otherways i don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

Until then i won't comment.

[Emo]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Emo, I thought you might enjoy this:

"Where Are They?" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0700issue/0700crawford.html) by Ian Crawford

Thanks a lot! That is quite interesting...

-Emo

[Emo]

:eek: :eek:This is so freaky!!!:eek: :eek:

ORLANDO -- A very large dark UFO with two red lights hovered over the Deseret Ranch, just east of the city on Thursday night, March 28, 2001. According to the eyewitness, "I observed two slow-flying red lights that appeared to be hundreds of yards away, just above the tree line. The two red lights were moving very slowly from east to west." The lights moved in a very exacting detail, as if they were connected to each other, which would have made it one extremely big object if we could have seen the superstructure." " The object made no sound as it passed. This was observed at the Deseret Ranch, just east of the Orlando International Airport." The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormons owns the ranch. A new Mormon Temple is being built. Thanks to Rev. Billy Dee

The the best part is that my house is right by the Airport! Oh well, I didn't see anything...

-Emo

[CiberTHuG]

Yeah, Emo, I liked it, even though it does kind of kill the romantic possiblity. I read that article last year on vacation, and it has stuck with me. There was another article in that same issue that was interesting. If that type of colonization is going on near us, it should make enough noise for us to hear it.

There is also an interesting article in an old Analog that goes on about finding evidence of past visitation. I think it is called "Epislon Bootes Revisited."

[kedaman]

I was right, you have social problems.

[Jethro]

Originally posted by kedaman
I was right, you have social problems.

Play nice Boys, or l will have to take your keyboards away from you.

Emo

How come there are never any decent photos of UFOs, or other evidence. Just the usual eye witness accounts and storys of abductees....who all seem to be Americans of somewhat unstable character. May be wrong in that but it is the perception down under.

[kedaman]

Jethro: :)

[Emo]

Jethro
I don't know about photos, but once I saw a program about Extraterrestrial Life on TV and how it came here years ago and made all these signs that it did... like the pyramids in Egypt and the pyramids in Mexico (the Mayan Civilization).

Also, I'm not sure where it was, but they were showing those Huge figures carved into the Earth of some "people-looking alike" creatures and it said that it was so many thousands of years old. And they proved humans didn't do it, because the lines were so straight, that it was impossible for people at that time to make. It was only possible to make such a line with a flying object (They didn't have airplanes obviously). I'll try to find a picture of what I'm talking about!

Also, there was this temple made. Again, I forgot the place, but they said that the only way for them to cut the stones so perfectly straight was with a laser! And this temple is thousands of years old!

-Emo

[Jethro]

Originally posted by Emo
Jethro
I don't know about photos, but once I saw a program about Extraterrestrial Life on TV and how it came here years ago and made all these signs that it did... like the pyramids in Egypt and the pyramids in Mexico (the Mayan Civilization).

Also, I'm not sure where it was, but they were showing those Huge figures carved into the Earth of some "people-looking alike" creatures and it said that it was so many thousands of years old. And they proved humans didn't do it, because the lines were so straight, that it was impossible for people at that time to make. It was only possible to make such a line with a flying object (They didn't have airplanes obviously). I'll try to find a picture of what I'm talking about!

Also, there was this temple made. Again, I forgot the place, but they said that the only way for them to cut the stones so perfectly straight was with a laser! And this temple is thousands of years old!

-Emo

Good to "Chariots of the Gods" theories still abound. The fact that an ancient civilisation could construct something like the Pyramids without modern man understanding how they did it does not prove they didn't do it, or Alien intervention.

All

That Face on Mars is pretty freaky. Have an articule about it somewhere will find and post.

[kedaman]

As a side issue, Offending people gives you a bad image, also rendering you unworthy in a decent argumentation. I am able to support my arguments but there'e no pride in teaching a childish man a lesson.
Go on and offend people, i won't mind but don't expect me to take you seriously anymore.

[kedaman]

Don't make me list all your insults. This is not your argument, you quoted me and i gave you the right to confront me in a decent argument, you failed and i had to suspended it and you should now leave. If you continue to offend people i should ask John to bann you.

[Emo]

If you continue to offend people i should ask John to bann you.
Woah, :eek: I didn't expect it to go this far! I won't take any sides here, but I don't see a point of going on with this... You both have different aspects on the subject and let's leave it like that. I'll delete this thread if this continues...

-Emo

[HarryW]

CiberTHuG, why are you making such a big deal out of this? What's the big problem? Kedaman has a right, just like everyone else, to his opinions, so long as they don't interfere with other people negatively. Apart from that, from the ways you have quoted him I can see that you are reading some if what he's said in ways that are different to what he intended. Perhaps you would like to try explaining your thoughts on this to Kedaman in Finnish?

Insulting people with no provokation doesn't endear you to anyone, you're just being awkward for no good reason. If you want an argument, just say so. You'll more than likely get one.

[Beacon]

ok sunshine!(cyberthug)

In 1 of your posts you reference the word "use" which doesn't make any sense at all!
Your sentence was:
"Maybe you are too small minded, but this world is humming right along and the rest of USE understand it perfectly. "

I don't understand how can i "use understand" probably be better saying "you people"!

Definition of MIGHT!

1)Used to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact: She might help if she knew the truth.
2) Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
3) Used to express possibility or probability or permission in the past: She told him yesterday he might not go on the trip.
4) Used to express a higher degree of deference or politeness than may, ought, or should: Might I express my opinion?

I would think that Kedaman was in support of number 3! He was expressing the possibility of us bieng aliens!

And the dictionary fails to register "extra-terran" as a word!

And Also on Aliens:

cyberthug: What are you saying " Aliens Don't Exist?"

maybe a better sentence would be " Aliens Might Not Exist"
Why?
Because until you have proof of them not existing they still MIGHT!
Now, we don't have evidence that they do or don't exist!
But if we took your stance there earth would still be flat!

Quote from you again:
"That's Occam's Razor. You don't have to know the answer, or have proof, you just have to look at which one makes more sense. It won't prove anything, but it makes for a good day at the track."

Kedaman makes more sense to me! You seem to be talking crap!

Here's Some More information for you:

Alien:
Alien adj 1: not contained in or deriving from the essential nature of something; "an economic theory alien to the spirit of capitalism"; "the mysticism so foreign to the French mind and temper"; "jealousy is foreign to her nature" [syn: foreign] 2: being or from or characteristic of another place or part of the world; "alien customs"; "exotic plants in a greenhouse"; "moved to a strange country" [syn: exotic, strange] n 1: a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country [syn: foreigner, noncitizen, outlander] [ant: citizen] 2: anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found [syn: stranger, unknown] 3: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere [syn: extraterrestrial being, extraterrestrial] v : arouse enmity or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness [syn: estrange, alienate, disaffect]

Last One Now study this one!
JOKE:

Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.

[Beacon]

Already got it:

"there" instead of "the"! in my reply.

[chrismitchell]

IMHO I think that if there weren't any aliens or any other beings in this Universe it would be a big waste of space.

[Behemoth]

Ciber -
Dont take this the wrong way, read it carefully (a couple of times if necessary) before you get upset and respond rudely.

I consider your opinions in here intelligent but narrow minded, and your attitude towards your peers abrasive and "superior". I can see you as a valuable member in here, but whenever I read one of your posts, you seem to be offending someone.

On a different note, I once read something written (or spoken) by a krishna (I think he was a krishna), who said it was incredibly arrogant to assume that because we have not experienced other life, it does not exist. It was, he said, entirely possible that a lifeform from a different and unobservable universe might be sitting right next to him now, and he'd never notice.

But then we're delving into philosophy and metaphysics, and we'll start struggling for evidence.

And then the forum will be split into 2, those open minded enough to accept that there are things we dont know (AND MAY NEVER KNOW), and those who cannot accept.

An aside - I recently had a thought. What if humans were simply complex ape- like creature which can develop a complex society, and "aliens" are lifeforms which parasitise some of them. These "people" may then go on to become more than society. compare scallies who get pregnant at 16 (or whenever nature says they can) and listen to mindless chart music, with child prodigies, or the depressed thinkers, or the supremely famous and talented.

Perhaps these "super"-people really are people plus...?

[Behemoth]

"we all might be" is a silly statement from a gramattical point of view (we can't all be aliens, because then we would not be aliens), but we all might be something we don't necessarily a) believe in b) understand c)witness/notice

Anyway, I'm not :D

[Behemoth]

ok, a well made point.

Bear in mind that Kedaman is from a different culture himself and speaks a different language (or at least first language), his conceptualisation may well be the romanticising you seem to dislike. I'm tempted not to accuse him of laziness in his arguments, because he makes the effort to actually post here. I can also agree with both of his arguments (or at least your paraphrasing of them), however I think it would be nice for us all to struggle towards some sort of conclusion as opposed to just giving up. Perhaps our language is too primitive to express the true nature of whatever the topic consists of, but we should all make the effort to try.

hows that?

In response to your use of the "extra-terran" label: what the hell does it matter. These arguments are littered with made up terms and hastily constructed definitions. No matter how you try to clear up your posts and make them easier to understand, somebody will be waiting around the next corner to trip you up. It simply requires effor (yet again) to post a follow-up explaining anything necessary to those that didn't grasp what you meant first time around.
- A post debugging if you like.

:D

[kedaman]

CiberTHuG, I didn't imply i was unable to support my view, i'm just generally pissed at your immatureness. Your last post was a bit exceptional, so if you agree not to offend, I will respond in this argumention, otherways i take it that you are too immature to discuss decently. If you at any point return to your offensive attitude, you automatically agree that you are unable to respond and therefore loose the argument. Do you accept my offer?

[simonm]

Although there might be a dictionary "definition" of life, I would contest it. I don't believe that Human kind has a universally agreed and acurate definition of life attall.

The definitions of life I have heard of consist of deciding what we consider to be alive first, and then we look for all there common traits. This has got to be the wrong way of going about it as it starts with the assumption of what is or is not alive.

[simonm]

I don't think Kedaman is being vague, indeed, it seems to me that he has recently undergone a paradigm shift that has turned his perspective of reality on it's head.

Whilst some of Kedaman's arguments may appear to be obtusive, I think it is perfectly valid to question assumptions and broaden the scope of the debate rather than only using logic (to try to narrow the scope of the debate).

I think this is what Cyberthug fails to appreciate this and interprets Kedaman's statements as "being difficult".

[kedaman]

i couldn't agree with you more simon.

[Behemoth]

simon - its nice that we make the effort to try to widen the debate, however I can see problems.

Ultimately the debate is so wide open and open minded that pages and pages of this thread consist of "we will never understand, we're not worthy" and so on, until the argument collapses. In fact, the discussion itself is a delicate "organism". We need to constraint it by rules to some degree to stop it dying, but we also need to allow it its freedom for us to express unusual ideas. In this respect I can see both Ciber and Kedaman needing to pull in the reins a little.

:D

[Behemoth]

unfortunately we don't have millenia. We could do with a more user friendly method.

MRS GREN

(oho, yet again behemoth brings this old cookie up!)

[kedaman]

for the matter of intellectual competence, ask anyone on this thread, they will disagree with you. That doesn't matter though, because an argumentation without ethics leads nowhere (speaking from experience). To break the language barrier (and i realize i'm the one that has the problem with English being my second language) i expect you to try to understand and not to missunderstand me. To try to missunderstand intentionally will only delay the argumentation, because i will always be there correcting you, and bringing two extra posts per statement.

If you get upset, and you might do so because i have to make some drastical changes in your views before we can proceed, don't express them, calm down and then type your response.


- We are unable to understand it, either because man hasn't learned enough, or it is something we can never learn.
- Man doesn't have the ability to communicate such a large idea, our language is too primitive.

I think i explained how we can get around the second statement. For the first:
There is nothing wrong with our way to understand information, the problem is to decide what information is valid, we use common sense and logics. Statistics and Observations are totally irrelevant though, but we use them to refer to reality, to explain observed phenomenon, but this model doesn't proove anything. The effect in this conversation is this: You cannot use any "scientific fact" to support your statements with. To ruin it further for you, logics is also a model we developed trough experience, so logics doesn't proove anything either.

[kedaman]

you understood me. Actually that was just a test, and you passed it.
I was saying that logic isn't real. But that totally depends what can be defined as real. Now i ask you how you would define "real", just to see how we can proceed using that word.

[Behemoth]

A, B and C are all very simple concepts - thats the problem with human thought processes, simple calculations are precisely that, but delve deeper and countless variable confuse the issue.

In theory, nothing can ever be argued. However, we have to concede that "from our current technological standpoint, I believe that..."
or "Because I have yet to experience evidence to the contrary, I find it difficult to believe that..."

This entire discussion is going to be difficult to orchestrate (but orchestrate it we must...) Assumptions will have to be made, and we will NEVER find a conclusion which is agreeable to everyone. Such is human nature...

ps: whilst looking for quotes for a completely unrelated issue, I came across the following:
"One often contradicts an opinion when it is really only the way in which it has been presented that is unsympathetic." Nietzsche

[simonm]

Ok, it is obvious that everything we know is based on assumptions and if those assumptions are incorrect, everything we know is wrong.

But, we can agree on an initial set of assumptions (axioms) and work from there.

As for a definition of life,

Defining life is easy. Look around you and figure out what you consider living and what you don't. Then build a sentence that will include what you want to and exclude what you want. And remember, if you ever see something that you consider alive but doesn't meet you definition, or something you don't consider alive but does, then adjust your definition slightly.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more. If you start by deciding what is alive and what isn't, before you have established exactly what it is to be alive, you are creating a circular argument.

My definition of life is thus: Any entity who's behavior perpetuates it's own existance.

I believe that 'self perpetuation' is the key concept to life. Not reproduction, eating, excreeting, breathing or anything else like that. The above are all just particular methods of self perpetuation. We need to abstract from the specifics of what we see around us and find the underlying patterns.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by simonm
My definition of life is thus: Any entity who's behavior perpetuates it's own existance.as a generic, fine, but this does tend to leave out those who hunger-strike, and those people who don't want children

[kedaman]

i develope a robot which is programmed to avoid itself getting destroyed, is the robot alive? The defining part functions more like this:
1. filling a box with objects that qualifies to be alive
2. common properties are considered general to all living and therefore
3. you can extrapolate, and apply the life concept.
This will cause a natural diffusion where the properties almost match the common properties of life.

There are though exact definitions, but they might on the other hand rely on inexact words and we're back to the ambiguety circle.

(A=B) ^ (B=C) = (A=C) can be prooved using the replacement Theorem, and we get the axiom A = A = True, and note this is an axiom, which means this is assumed to be fact, it's nothing you can proove.

[Behemoth]

My dad's bigger than your dad. In fact, my dad's king of the world! :p

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by simonm

I believe that 'self perpetuation' is the key concept to life.

What about fire? It's self perpetuating. :)

[SurfDemon]

Interestingly I just realised the SETI is actually just searching for inteligence, not life. Maybe this is the key.

Definitions of intelligence would be far easier to come by.

i.e. - It comes near us, we kill it, and it doesn't come near us again:)

or to a higher level, we give it a mathematical sequence or constant and let it work out the next number(s)

i.e. Pi, send iyt 3.14159 and let it come back with 26544 or whatever, or a sequence of prime numbers.

This could be done with a sequence of radio/light/sound blasts and could be responded in a simalar manner.

They would have to be smart enough to work out that we were using base 10, but that shouldn't be too tricky as the largest number they would see would be 9.

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by SurfDemon


What about fire? It's self perpetuating. :)

Ah, damned good example, SD. I can not consider fire to be living.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
This could be done with a sequence of radio/light/sound blasts and could be responded in a simalar manner.

They would have to be smart enough to work out that we were using base 10, but that shouldn't be too tricky as the largest number they would see would be 9.

SD

If we were using radio, light, or sound (read: radio) then we wouldn't be using base system (or at the least base two).

*
* * *
* * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *

That would be the first five primes, and there is no reference idicating a base, it is simply a physical representation.

But anyway, yes, a definition for intellegent life would be different than the definition for life.

[kedaman]

in fact it's not a valid statement from the beginning it should be
(A=B) ^ (B=C) => (A=C)
given an implication we can proove by decuction, and substituting A with B and C with B for (A=C) which is B=B, which is true by axiom identity for =. But it's still an axiom.

[simonm]

I stand by my definition.

as a generic, fine, but this does tend to leave out those who hunger-strike, and those people who don't want children

Self-Consiousness may well be a tool of our genetics as although it enables us to act (to some degree) against our natural instincts, all in all, it gives us a better chance at survival (when in competition with creatures that don't have it). Some people are born with physical defects that end their life prematurely. With consious behavior, it is a little more complex than that but the same rule still applies: Emergent patterns that have imperfections that allow them to break down are simply flawed life forms. The perfect life form being one that can perpetuate itself indefinitely.

The swing of the arm of a grandfather clock creates the need for a back swing, and another up swing. It is nearly self perpetuating. 'Course... it isn't perpetuating its existance. But then again, how does one end ones existance? That clock still exists. There is nothing it can do to stop existing, so it is perpetuating itself by not doing anything.

The behavoir of a swinging pendulum behaves in such a way that it perpetuates the swinging motion. The pattern of motion might itself be alive but that does not suggest that the pendulum object itself is a living thing. The swinging of a pendulum does not perpetuate the existance of the pendulum itself, only the act of swinging.

[kedaman]

CiberTHuG, you can't rely on another definition for ever, you will end up with a circular argument.

[kedaman]

An axiom is a defined truth.
"A well-formed formula which is taken to be true without proof in the construction of a theory."
from the dictionary

[kedaman]

man invented logics as a tool to proove statements, but with given axioms

[Active]

'Course, now we have Einsteinian physics, and apparently we can "create" energy from matter. We aren't really creating it, but it is something that thermodynamics didn't understand at the time. -- CiberThug

Matter is a form of Energy. Energy is just converted from one form to another { E = MC2 }. Still the law of conservation of Energy holds. :D

[kedaman]

an example: the atomic bomb

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
And an axiom is not a theory, it is a truth that we have never been able to refute. It is something that is 100% accurate.

Again... how did man invent logic? nothing is 100% accurate. ever. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ensures that. Deal with it.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by Active

'Course, now we have Einsteinian physics, and apparently we can "create" energy from matter. We aren't really creating it, but it is something that thermodynamics didn't understand at the time. -- CiberThug


Active, read the entire statement. Ask if something confuses you.

[CiberTHuG]

Hmmmm... is it just me, or does my post count not go up?

*shrug* Not that it matters.

[kedaman]

the posts don't count in chitchat forum.

A=A is true only due to the axiom. This is because of common sense, but common sense is based on a genetical model, our brain.

[simonm]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle deals with subatomic particles. It doesn't deal with 1 = 1. 1 = 1 is 100% accurate, always, forever.

If everything is made up of sub-atomic particles, where does the uncertainty go, Cyberthug?

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG


Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle deals with subatomic particles. It doesn't deal with 1 = 1. 1 = 1 is 100% accurate, always, forever.

Dealer takes four. the discussion originally was about life.

All life that I know of, as well as the aforementioned clock, nuclear bomb, bacteria, and even my dad, are all made of sub atomic particles. Thus, there is always a margin for error, no matter how small.

The balance point is occam's razor - if we can simplify our theories they are probably accurate, but not definitely...

[kedaman]

I can't, but if you reason: A rock can't conclude A=A, but we can, and how? Because we have a brain.

[simonm]

I will make up an idea. I shall call it 'Hezeralpox'.

Now I shall state that 'Hezeralpox' = 'Hezeralpox'.

Have I just discovered an underlying law of reality or have I just constructed one?

Saying something equals itself is not a statement. It does not state anything and contains no information.

[Behemoth]

explain hallucinations - do they exist simply because the witnesses brain has created them? are the subatomic particles that make up the witnesses brain not susceptible to heisenbergs uncertainty principle?

[kedaman]

Originally posted by simonm
I will make up an idea. I shall call it 'Hezeralpox'.

Now I shall state that 'Hezeralpox' = 'Hezeralpox'.

Have I just discovered an underlying law of reality or have I just constructed one?

Saying something equals itself is not a statement. It does not state anything and contains no information.
You have just discovered what is called common sense, a genetical timebomb inside you that gave your brain it's form, which concluded 'Hezeralpox' = 'Hezeralpox'.
It's a statement, A=A is a statement that evaluates true, A!=A is a statement that evaluates false, and those are evaluated because that's how your brain works. And as we know our brain has been adapted to percept and understand our environment.
conclusion: the link between logic and reality is our perception.

[Behemoth]

why is does 1/Hezeralpox not equal Zunderchoo then?
Its all still vague conceptualising.

[simonm]

I must disagree with you there, Kedaman.

Firstly I do not believe in any inate form of "Common Sense". I believe it's something we aquire with experience and age.

Secondly, A=A is no more informative than saying A=B. If I have a varying definition of A that changes everytime I use it, the statement may or may not be true. A = B could always be true if I have a fixed definition of what A is and define B the same way.


The point is, we are creating meaningless statements using symbols, not stating underlying 'truths'. We attach meaning to symbols as we see fit. Common sense doesn't come into it.

[kedaman]

A statement can be a set symbols expessing a concept, so "_" is a statemnent if "_" is defined as "I don't understand". "A=A" is also a statement because it's built up of symbols and expresses the equality between A and A where A is a variable. A statements can also be evaluated from case to case. You can try putting something in A's place to test it, but you won't be able to prove it true no matter how many different stuff you put in as A, but it "seems" to be consistent: true, thereby the axiom A=A=TRUE.

[simonm]

If I invent a definition of A, then it is not an assumption that A=A.

The symbol '1' we each create our own definitions for. We try to ensure they are the same. We cannot prove that your definition of '1' = my defintion of '1' but we can be sure that my defintion of '1' = my definition of one (If I decide that my definition is fixed and independent of context).

[kedaman]

we were refering to A as a variable. If it wasn't we still have a statement, a function with no parameters. A statement is also depending on an agreement, how we interpret the symbols.

if you still disagee with me simon, you agree that A=A is a model, whether it's genetical or learnt? I am not sure myself either but i think DNA preserve knowledge for many of our models, for instance how we percept light and process it to information.

[Jethro]

Originally posted by kedaman
CiberTHuG, I didn't imply i was unable to support my view, i'm just generally pissed at your immatureness. Your last post was a bit exceptional, so if you agree not to offend, I will respond in this argumention, otherways i take it that you are too immature to discuss decently. If you at any point return to your offensive attitude, you automatically agree that you are unable to respond and therefore loose the argument. Do you accept my offer?

Why are you resorting to inflaming CiberTHug. I take your point here, but maybe you could be a bit more careful with how you put it into words. "Immatureness" is guaranteed to het Ciber's backup. Chill out about:)

[Beacon]

I must agree with simonm.

Common Sense is a learnt thought!
It's gathered on what knowledge you have learnt.

Life =

There are 4 forms of Life. Archaea, Eukaryota, Bacteria, Virus's.

The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:

(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.

(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.

(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.

(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.

(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.

(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.


Therefore A doesn't always = A. Take number (4) for example!
I could already have a = b and b=a!
And you coming and telling me a = a why does a = a? I would ask!


SETI. I don't believe SETI is the right way to search for intelligent life!
For starters why would we assume they know the simple 9 to be our simple 9! To them 9 could mean Piss off!

Then we assume they realise that it is a signal from another planet!
I mean they could be sending out messages but we don't know that!
We are also assuming that they understand radio frequency and haven't learnt another way!
Why also do we assume they are smarter than us?

[simonm]

What about fire? It's self perpetuating.

Cyberthug said in respone to the above post by SurfDemon that he could not consider fire to be 'living'.

Why not? OK, I'm not suggesting that fire has any sort of consiousness or anything like that but it does (attempt) to interact with it's environment in such a way that perpetuates itself.

Incidentally, Fire can be considered alive according to the traditional definitions of life, not only according to my definition.

[Behemoth]

does an apple = an apple?

[Behemoth]

Fire is not sensitive, therefore it does not conform to all of Mrs. Gren.

[simonm]

Fire is not sensitive, therefore it does not conform to all of Mrs. Gren.

Sensitive? What are you talking about? Sensitive to what?

[Behemoth]

fire has no senses. It does not avoid certain things because they might be harmful to it. It doesn't sniff around for stuff.

[simonm]

Could you not apply that same argument to Bacteria? Does not bactieria just grow and multiply indefinitely until it meets it's demise.

I think that if fire were considered 'living' it could only be compared to very low-level forms of life and not more complex forms such as animals.

[kedaman]

I don't think we differ at all from a rock, we all consist of matter, a form of energy, subatomical particles or whatever. Life is such a meaningless concept outside our way of thinking

[Active]

Originally posted by kedaman
I don't think we differ at all from a rock, we all consist of matter, a form of energy, subatomical particles or whatever. Life is such a meaningless concept outside our way of thinking

I don't think I differ from all these guys ! :D

Gauss Lenard Hertz Maxwell Hall Ampére Lorentz Faraday Kedaman Tesla Oersted Ohm Franklin Galvani Volta Biot Savart Watt Huygens Young Michelson Morley Planck Einstein Compton Balmer Rydberg Bohr De Broglie Davisson Germer Heisenberg

:D :D :D

[kedaman]

so you think i am alien?

[simonm]

Life is such a meaningless concept outside our way of thinking

Well then, it's lucky we're not outside of our way of thinking.

I don't think we differ at all from a rock, we all consist of matter, a form of energy, subatomical particles or whatever.

I understand where you're comming from. On a subatomic level, the particles interact in the same way (regardless of whether they're part of a rock or a human being).

But, then again, on our scale, a rock is distinctly different from a human being. The collective behaviour of the sub-atomic particles, whilst not behaving differently at their level, result in an entirely differnt form at our level. Something must be different!

[simonm]

so you think i am alien?

Do you think you're an alien?

[kedaman]

depends. In the case Active think he and my likes (Einstein & Co) are similar must mean i am the alien one, and as you can see what i think in this case.

Nothing is different! basically because life is a meaningless concept from a scientific aspect. Most of it because it does not make sense, so life is simply an illusion of a very natural phenomenon, and probably very generally missunderstood.

[simonm]

Nothing is different! basically because life is a meaningless concept from a scientific aspect. Most of it because it does not make sense, so life is simply an illusion of a very natural phenomenon, and probably very generally missunderstood.

I don't think life is a meaningless concept. I believe life is just a particular type of pattern. The life pattern is distinct from all other types of patterns in the following way: 'life' type patterns are self-reinforcing where as all other pattern types are not.

Now you could say that all patterns are meaningless when independant of context and, yes, I would agree. Context is all important to patterns. Especially 'life' type patterns as it is the pattern's interaction with it's environment that enables it to self-perpetuate.

[kedaman]

If something happens to exist and preserves, then it is a physical phenomenon called balance, If you increase the magnetic fluid trough a coil it will induce current that tries to preserve the previous magnetic field strength. You can pick any properties essential to life, i can do similar in physics -> there's nothing different!!!!!!

[simonm]

What you are describing is a feedback pattern.

The feedback pattern is a contributing factor in a 'life' pattern.

Infact, 'life' patterns are not in a balanced state. They are chaotic and unstable. It is this 'instability' that gives life patterns the ability to adapt and change with different circumstances.

[kedaman]

No you can't have both self-perpetuation and chaos as essentials to life!
But self-perpetuation does imply chaos! Otherways there would be no need to perpetuate :p The Chaos - Balance model is a very oftenly used model in all kinds of science.

[simonm]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here:

Otherways there would be no need to perpetuate The Chaos

Are you saying that chaos needs to be perpetuated? I don't understand how you think I've contradicted myself.

Could you please explain? :o

[kedaman]

LOL, place a . between perpetuate and The Chaos.
If something is perpetuating, then it's striving against chaos, to build a pattern, while chaos is the opposite to all patterns.

[simonm]

OK, Now I understand what you're saying.

I think you're confusing randomness with chaos. If there are no patterns then there is only randomness. i.e. randomness is the absense of any pattern.

A pattern could be said to be chaotic if minute changes to the pattern at one point will result in radically different behavior thereof.

[kedaman]

NO!!!! Randomness is a totally different concept! Actually to me randomness is an very missunderstood illusion. Chaos is the abscense of pattern while randomness can be described as a undeterminable factor, and such appears only in a subjective reality.

[simonm]

It all depends on what "meanings" or "definitions" you want to attach to the words random and chaotic, does it not?

What you are saying is interesting though:

...randomness can be described as a undeterminable factor, and such appears only in a subjective reality.

You seem to be suggesting here that nothing in the universe is truly random. i.e. They may only appear random due to our subjective perspective.

My definition of a 'random occurence' would be an event that occurs, not as a result of the preceeding set of circumstances, but spontaneously for no reason whatsoever.

If nothing is truly random then, does this mean that everything is pre-determined and therefore no such thing as 'free will'?

[kedaman]

- If something get's determined, then it's not random anymore, therefore nothing IS random. Completely ignoring time! Lovely thought! On the other hand everything is random as long as we know nothing. You can't distinguish between TRULY AND NOT TRULY RANDOM!

second, FREE WILL makes no sense either, it's another illusion! On the other hand for a subjective reality, you have FULL CONTROL, you can do anything!

[simonm]

If something get's determined, then it's not random anymore, therefore nothing IS random.

The above is a logically flawed statement as it assumes that everything can be determined.

Most quantum physicists would say that there are things that are un-determinable (and therefore random): Properties of sub-atomic particles.

Firstly, you cannot know two complementary properties of a sub-atomic particle (like position and velocity) at the same time.

Secondly, determining a property of a sub-atomic particle alters the course of it's subsequant behaviour. Hence, the un-disturbed state of the particle is in-determinable and therefore random.

[kedaman]

I was always picking two sides at the same time :p An objective reality and a subjective, noticed?

[Beacon]

Fire fits vaguely into am few of my afformentioned Life criteria that nobody seems to disagree with!

Numbers 2, 4 and 6!

2) = Takes energy like wind etc. to facilitate in it's growth!
4) = When waters sprayed on a Fire it responds in a physiological way.

6) = It grows!

[simonm]

Kedaman It seemed to me that you were stating randomness to be an illusion that is apparent only when there is an unknown factor. Determining this 'unknown' factor will make the randomness 'disapear'. i.e. randomness (or apparent randomness) is a symtom of ignorance or subjective reality rather than something that exists in the absolute sense.

The 'unknown' factor in quantum mechanics is not knowable. Not because we don't have the intelligence or technology to know it but because it is fundamentally unknowable. Therefore random in an objective reality (not just the subjective reality that we live in).

Beacon I think you will find that fire conforms with all the definitions of life (not just 2, 4 and 6). For example it also excreets (the waste product is smoke and ash).

[kedaman]

Quantum mechanics is fundamentally incompatible with my vision of reality. Basically because it clearly states that there is no objective reality. That implies nothing is knowable! I have to take into account both Objective and Subjective Reality, and they both contradicts each other, no science can co-operate with that :D

[simonm]

It might not be totally incompatable.

Quantum Mechanics asserts that the state of a sub-atomic particle is not defined until it is 'measured'. Until that time, all possible states coexist in parellel (or at least they are equally probable).

Your vision of reality holds that there are many planes of reality that coexist (one of them being objective and the rest being subjective).

What I am suggesting is this: Perhaps none of the parellel planes are 'objective' or 'subjective' to begin with. One of them becomes objective when the others become 'Subjective'.

Therefore, 'Objective' reality is undefined until he 'Subjective' realities have been defined. 'Objective' reality is defined by the many 'subjective' realities around it. :confused:

[kedaman]

My vision is a one line, obviously one way reality link, or a set of links where each is on a plane above the other:
Objective Reality -> Subjective Reality
for a link between two realities, and for several realities:
Root Reality -> Reality1 -> Reality2 -> Reality3.
Where each parent reality is objective the the descending subjective.
Quantum Mechanics works at a subatomic level but doesn't explain, it process no but imaginary information, It doesn't co-operate with the fact that "I think - therefore i exist". You can't be more less confused with any scientific view however my philosophy explains.

[simonm]

Quantum Mechanics works at a subatomic level but doesn't explain, it process no but imaginary information, It doesn't co-operate with the fact that "I think - therefore i exist". You can't be more less confused with any scientific view however my philosophy explains.

I am rivited (I am honest!) but I just can't quite make sense of this last statement (grammatically speaking).

I appreciate that it must be difficult for you to express yourself (especially with such difficult concepts) due to English not being your first language but could you please attempt to rephrase it?

:confused:

[kedaman]

if you meant the last line, then i was obviosly editing what i said and forgot to look trough it, well i'll totally rephrase it now.
No science does explain reality, while my philosophy does.

[simonm]

Science doesn't explain the nature of reality but can have implications that effect they way we see reality.

If you say that Quantum mechanics is totally incompatable with your "view" of reality, then do you not believe in quantum mechanics?

Quantum mechanics does (seem) to suggest that (if only on a subatomic level) that there is such a thing as randomness in an objective reality. If you do not accept this then surely you must be rejecting the whole notion of quantum mechanics?

[kedaman]

I do not believe at all. Quantum mechanics has always been totally inacceptable to me, but as a model, as all scientific models they are as you say useful. I don't think randomness is derived from any objective reality, and consists only due to the one way link to a subjective reality. I can reject the whole subjective reality complex, if i want but then i'm constructing a new paradox, that I would be totally all-knowing, that i would be a God, and as I can see, that is not the case, we live in a dreamworld.

[simonm]

Let me summarise what I think you believe:

1) Objective reality exists on a distinct plane of existance and nothing that happens within it is random and therefore the course of events is predetermined.

2) Each of us exist on a 'subjective' plane of existance that arises from ignorance of how things truly are. The more ignorant we are, the more random our world is. By becomming more disassociated from the 'objective' plane we introduce randomness and free-will but these are essentially illusions.

Am I on the right tracks?

[kedaman]

1 Is correct, Very obviously there is no need for a random factor, doesn't make sense either.

2 is almost correct.
I am only saying my own existence to have a root in a objective plane, so i can consider myself totally alone in my dream, but there is no implication. What is incorrect is that we the degree of ignorance. We know exactly nothing in our subjective reality, everything is random and the models for observation is there only to create illusions. The models for observations are our perspective of a subjective reality that doesn't co-exist with us. By leveling up you realize, and escape, "wake up" from the reality, by leveling down you "fall asleep" and construct a dream environment. Free will is illusionary at any reality plane, but is functional when you level up or down, you either create a new environment or become totally omniscent/omnipotent.

[Emo]

Whoever is interested, I found an interesting site... http://www.sciforums.com/ (BTW they use the same VBulletin forums) There you can find some good stuff about Astronomy and all kinds of other stuff... they even have a "UFO Believers" forum :D

-Emo

[Jeff_1]

We (USA) have an alien in the white house..it goes by the name of W.

[simonm]

(Good Morning)

There is one thing you could still clarify for me (if you will).

You say on the 'objective' plane there is no free will. But, the 'subjective' planes are constructed by our own imagination. These 'subjective' planes must therefore also be predetermined (like the objective plane) and so we could not actually have any control over them either. Infact we could not even have any control over the extent to which we embroiled ourselves in these 'dream' worlds.

So, are not these 'subjective' planes really just facets of the 'objective' plane? In such a way that they don't really have any independant existance?

Could it not be said then that we all just exist on the 'objective' plane but we can only experience it subjectively thus creating the illusion of free will and in-determinism?

[kedaman]

The dream concept here is the key, because that's the only way we can relate subjectiveness in different degrees.
Dreams are in a way projected from our reality, we construct and see our dreams based on our reality, but as you can see the relationships can be twisted, if your dog dies in your dream, does that imply your dog died in reality? Some people think that dreams and reality can be interactive, i am open to this idea but the one way link, the descending implication is obvious. If free will exists at any reality plane, it's used in the objective plane, but i am not going to support that implication directly unless it solves another puzzle.

So at a current subjective plane, there will be no free will, what happens at a ascending level is not known but i suspect the free will is shuffled to the root reality. Either way if you you ascend or descend, your free will is being used to create or destroy dreams.