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.
Printable View
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.
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...?
"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
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
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?
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.
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".
i couldn't agree with you more simon.
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
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!)
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.
I think i explained how we can get around the second statement. For the first:Quote:
- 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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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.Quote:
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.
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.
as a generic, fine, but this does tend to leave out those who hunger-strike, and those people who don't want childrenQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
My definition of life is thus: Any entity who's behavior perpetuates it's own existance.
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.
My dad's bigger than your dad. In fact, my dad's king of the world! :p
What about fire? It's self perpetuating. :)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I believe that 'self perpetuation' is the key concept to life.
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
Ah, damned good example, SD. I can not consider fire to be living.Quote:
Originally posted by SurfDemon
What about fire? It's self perpetuating. :)
If we were using radio, light, or sound (read: radio) then we wouldn't be using base system (or at the least base two).Quote:
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
*
* * *
* * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
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.
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.
I stand by my definition.
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.Quote:
as a generic, fine, but this does tend to leave out those who hunger-strike, and those people who don't want children
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.Quote:
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.
CiberTHuG, you can't rely on another definition for ever, you will end up with a circular argument.
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
man invented logics as a tool to proove statements, but with given axioms
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. :DQuote:
'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
an example: the atomic bomb
nothing is 100% accurate. ever. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ensures that. Deal with it.Quote:
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?
Active, read the entire statement. Ask if something confuses you.Quote:
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
Hmmmm... is it just me, or does my post count not go up?
*shrug* Not that it matters.
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.
If everything is made up of sub-atomic particles, where does the uncertainty go, Cyberthug?Quote:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle deals with subatomic particles. It doesn't deal with 1 = 1. 1 = 1 is 100% accurate, always, forever.
the discussion originally was about life.Quote:
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.
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...
I can't, but if you reason: A rock can't conclude A=A, but we can, and how? Because we have a brain.
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.
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?
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'.Quote:
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.
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.
why is does 1/Hezeralpox not equal Zunderchoo then?
Its all still vague conceptualising.
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.