Do you believe in aliens?

[JMorris]

I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but an appeal to authority (or argument from authority) is when you assume something to be true just because someone who may or may not be an authority on it says it's true. Whether or not that person is actually an authority on it is irrelevant. I don't care who you are, if you say 3+3=7, I'm going to question you. So, telling me Albert Einstein said 3+3=7 does no good and is an appeal to authority.

As Wiki says:



Hmmm, that sounds eerily like something I just saw upthread.



Any chance you could give us a little more to work with than "Your argument is ludicrous/pathetic"? So far, that's all I see you defending yourself with. If you want to argue it, let's argue it. If not, then please go away.

And, BTW, arguing it would include giving valid reasons why the argument you don't like is wrong other than "pathetic" and "ludicrous". For instance, you might try to explain why you think intelligence is different from eyes as far as evolution goes.

lol, you've missed the point. he's so much more intelligent than the rest of us that he dosent have to explain himself. he only has to insult us till we bow to his stunning inteligence. the fact that he calls us pathetic and ingnorant is all the proof he needs that he's right.

 

[rojse]

Given that the latter requires the former, this should be almost tautological surely?

Not at all. If we found hundreds of different forms of life, of varied origins, and none were intelligent, we would conclude intelligent life is far rarer than life. If we found hundreds of forms of life, and there was a majority which were basic lifeforms, we would say that intelligent life arising is the rare occurence, rather than life itself.

Since we only have us, though, the amount of time it took for intelligent life to arise from life in comparison for life to arise from inanimate resources seems to me to be our best indicator in this debate right now.

 

[rojse]

Think about it this way: Even if dolphins were more intelligent than humans they still couldn’t do squatt because they can’t manipulate objects sufficiently well.

We could say this of any other animal, too. Perhaps they are hiding their intellect from humans.

 

[themadhair]

Not at all. If we found hundreds of different forms of life, of varied origins, and none were intelligent, we would conclude intelligent life is far rarer than life. If we found hundreds of forms of life, and there was a majority which were basic lifeforms, we would say that intelligent life arising is the rare occurence, rather than life itself.

This makes sense, although I don’t see the disagreement with what I said.

We could say this of any other animal, too. Perhaps they are hiding their intellect from humans.

Erm…..wot?

 

[rojse]

Because it takes a long time. It's a slow process. I don't see what the length of time has to do with anything. Once life starts, it's hard to stop. Eventually, chances are it's going to turn into intelligent life.

There were quite a lot of interruptions along the way, though, and that does have to do with time. The dominance of mammals is quite a recent phenomena, only really arising after the last major extinction event that occured 65mya.

 

[rojse]

Erm…..wot?

Have you read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Mice are actually smarter than humans and dolphins.

 

[rojse]

...starting life is the hard part

So, explain why life arose within 200mya of the end of constant asteroidal impacts on earth. And I am being quite stingy with 200mya, here.

 

[linwood]

ok....still not quite sure what that meant either. im well aware not every planet is like earth. but if your trying to tell me that in the vastness of space, we are the only intelligent species, ive gotta say thats pretty laughable. life might be rare, consciousness at our level might be rare. but given the shear size, its gotta be pretty much impossible that intelligent life dosent exist elsewhere.
while i trust science on a number of issues, i dont see how science is going to prove that intelligent life (or just life) dosent exist anywhere expect on earth

Science can`t "prove" anything "doesn`t exist".
Nothing can "prove" something "doesn`t exist".

Life elsewhere in the universe?
Most definitely, I think there is enough evidence to at the very least support a very strong hypothesis in the affirmative.

Intelligent, sentient life existing elsewhere in this universe?
Possible, but lacking the evidence and truly understanding most of the events that had to happen for intelligent sentient life to have evolved here doesn`t fill me with confidence that there are any little green guys flying around in saucer shaped vehicles.

Just not something I`m willing to bet a paycheck on.

Most people really have no clue as to the astoundingly lucky lottery they`ve won just being here while having the ability to realize they`re here.

It`s nearly incomprehensible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since we only have us, though, the amount of time it took for intelligent life to arise from life in comparison for life to arise from inanimate resources seems to me to be our best indicator in this debate right now.

There exists another interesting comparison. [Some] proponents of the "likelihood" of extraterrestrial sapience point to the fact that such things as the eye have, in fact, evolved more than once. Winged flight might be an even better example. Yet the evolution of sapience appears to be a singular, fortuitous, and extremely late occurrence resulting from a myriad of factors. It is rather hard to reconcile this with an "all traits are created equal" assertion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most people really have no clue as to the astoundingly lucky lottery they`ve won just being here while having the ability to realize they`re here. It`s nearly incomprehensible.

Exactly, and this is precisely the point being made by Gould, Mayr, and others.

 

[rojse]

There exists another interesting comparison. [Some] proponents of the "likelihood" of extraterrestrial sapience point to the fact that such things as the eye have, in fact, evolved more than once. Winged flight might be an even better example. Yet the evolution of sapience appears to be a singular, fortuitous, and extremely late occurrence resulting from a myriad of factors. It is rather hard to reconcile this with an "all traits are created equal" assertion.

Oh, I can't give you frubals, but it is still an excellent post, and far better than what I have read on the last few pages.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most people really have no clue as to the astoundingly lucky lottery they`ve won just being here while having the ability to realize they`re here.

Some of us do, and we have no problem reconciling an extremely unlikely string of events occurring many times when taking into account the scale and age of our universe. Particularly when the same basic materials, laws, and structure are consistent throughout that universe.

Most people really have no clue as the astounding size and age of the universe, and how something can be both extremely rare and plentiful at the same time.

 

[JMorris]

Some of us do, and we have no problem reconciling an extremely unlikely string of events occurring many times when taking into account the scale and age of our universe. Particularly when the same basic materials, laws, and structure are consistent throughout that universe.

Most people really have no clue as the astounding size and age of the universe, and how something can be both extremely rare and plentiful at the same time.

id give you frubals if i was currently able

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most people really have no clue as the astounding size and age of the universe, and how something can be both extremely rare and plentiful at the same time.

I would suggest that people such a Gould and Mayr are not typified by most people. But let me ask you two somewhat related questions: (a) roughly, how many planets are there in our universe capable of sustaining life, and (b) how many contingent events were necessary for the evolution of sapience on Earth? I suspect that you'll find more than a few estimates for the former.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

(a) roughly, how many planets are there in our universe capable of sustaining life, and (b) how many contingent events were necessary for the evolution of sapience on Earth? I suspect that you'll find more than a few estimates for the former.

I do not know the answer to either question - although I could speculate if you want, which, incidentally, is the best anyone else can do either, regardless of their credentials.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(a) roughly, how many planets are there in our universe capable of sustaining life, and (b) how many contingent events were necessary for the evolution of sapience on Earth? I suspect that you'll find more than a few estimates for the former.

I do not know the answer to either question - although I could speculate if you want, which, incidentally, is the best anyone else can do either, regardless of their credentials.

Fair enough, I'd be interested in your speculations and the grounds for them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Fair enough, I'd be interested in your speculations and the grounds for them.

Can I ask why first? Because I'm going to have to invest a bit of time to come up with a range I have some confidence in, based on the number of variables involved, as well as addressing the various underlying assumptions. If you have somewhere you going with this, I'd appreciate if you could forgo the Socratic dialogue and just present your argument. I don't really have time to do a research paper for the purposes of discussion on this forum.

 

[cardero]

I would suggest that people such a Gould and Mayr are not typified by most people. But let me ask you two somewhat related questions: (a) roughly, how many planets are there in our universe capable of sustaining life,

Alien life or human life?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can I ask why first? Because I'm going to have to invest a bit of time to come up with a range I have some confidence in, based on the number of variables involved, as well as addressing the various underlying assumptions. If you have somewhere you going with this, I'd appreciate if you could forgo the Socratic dialogue and just present your argument. I don't really have time to do a research paper for the purposes of discussion on this forum.

As you wish ...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can I ask why first? Because I'm going to have to invest a bit of time to come up with a range I have some confidence in, based on the number of variables involved, as well as addressing the various underlying assumptions. If you have somewhere you going with this, I'd appreciate if you could forgo the Socratic dialogue and just present your argument. I don't really have time to do a research paper for the purposes of discussion on this forum.

As you wish ...

As I wish what?