What Are Extraterrestrials Watching?

[bitrex]

On 08/20/2017 09:09 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

Guys and gals:

PLEASE!! Look up "Pathetic Fallacy".

Now. Apply it to any sort of ET from any sort of source, near or far.

With "Humans" as the objects to which 'feelings' are attributed.

This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, from any source, near or far.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

There's also the Copernican principle which would say that humanity is
more-or-less an "average" technological civilization, in orbit around an
average star, at an average point in the Universe's history.

If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe,
i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to
assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent
evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar
enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through
language.

With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification
for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods
and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise.

 

On Monday, 21 August 2017 15:01:31 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 08/20/2017 09:09 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
Guys and gals:

PLEASE!! Look up "Pathetic Fallacy".

Now. Apply it to any sort of ET from any sort of source, near or far.

With "Humans" as the objects to which 'feelings' are attributed.

This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, from any source, near or far.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


There's also the Copernican principle which would say that humanity is
more-or-less an "average" technological civilization, in orbit around an
average star, at an average point in the Universe's history.

If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe,
i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to
assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent
evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar
enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through
language.

With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification
for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods
and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise.

I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist.


NT

 

[bitrex]

On 08/21/2017 11:57 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe,
i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to
assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent
evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar
enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through
language.

With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification
for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods
and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise.

I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist.


NT

At the moment you naturally have to start with an _assumption_ (i.e.
theory), either they exist, or they don't. If you assume they don't then
there's little more to say. If you assume they do then, currently, the
only further hypothesis which is logically justified from your axiom is
that humanity is a typical example.

None of the above is non-science, but it is as far as science can
currently take you with a data point of one. Regression to the mean
is a real science thing, and if it is actually science and holds true
for populations on Earth then to be so it should hold true for
populations of things everywhere, not just on Earth. There is no reason
to assume a-priori that it doesn't.

Speculation about how we're just like ants in a Universe filled with
inscrutable intelligent beings of inscrutable purpose is at this point
philosophy, not science.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Consider the string of necessary coincidences in assuming we are any sort of "average".

Water (hydrogen & oxygen in massive quantities within a specific temperature range).
Carbon.
Iron.
Copper.

These four things within a specific set of chemical parameters are what permit life such as ours within our temperature band on our planet. Change any one of the above, or the surrounding chemistry and "we" are not possible

Nor is there any reason to believe that the concept of "language" applies. Of course, there will be commonality as required by any 'developed' civilization, one being the periodic table. But how to convey that between identities is the difficulty. We cannot even assume that we might recognize intelligence in an ET, nor they in us.

Not suggesting gods vs. spiders. What I am suggesting is that we share much with spiders, somewhere around 50% of our genome. We will not have that commonality with an ET, nor will ETs have a genome to compare. That is the point.

Evolution converging is touching and naive. There is no reason for it to do so, and if there is an 'imperative' towards life and/or intelligence, convergence would be counter to that imperative. Where there is free energy, there is a potential for life. It need not be based on water, carbon, iron, or copper, all or any. We have the sun as our source. Might be something else, elsewhere.

But, let's assume intelligent life with a similar chemistry operating within a similar temperature range. Meaning that they will want roughly the same things we do, and must go through roughly the same steps to get them. A lot of other assumptions follow necessarily as well. Now, give them FTL drive..

How successful have we as a species been at meeting new people 'just like us' but for skin color and environmental development? Not very. Not even with those just like us separated by only a bit of land or water. Now, make that 'other' not even a little bit like us. Perhaps as different as a lemur and an octopus.

Now, consider where we are at this moment.

The state of the planet.
Population.
Feeding that population.
Natural resources.
Clean water.
Clean air.

We are reaching the point of unsustainability. Will the theoretical ET source be any different. Or, will they need resources. Remember, Lemur & Octopus, Human and Spider. And we share genes with them. They will need resources, and find a the functional equivalent of a bunch of spiders as the only impediment. We certainly do not treat strange humans well. They will have absolutely no incentive to treat us well.

Guys and gals, there may well be, and very likely are ETs. But they won't care about us. They may need what we have, and they will take it if they can.

Further, if they are not based on water/iron/copper/carbon, we are well-and-truly SOL, assuming that they come here. For sure, they will not be coming 'to us'. Just here.

More light reading: Not Final by Isaac Asimov.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Monday, 21 August 2017 17:18:40 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 08/21/2017 11:57 AM, tabbypurr wrote:

If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe,
i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to
assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent
evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar
enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through
language.

With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification
for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods
and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise.

I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist.

At the moment you naturally have to start with an _assumption_ (i.e.
theory), either they exist, or they don't.

obviously not. Indeed it would be daft to do so

If you assume they don't then
there's little more to say. If you assume they do then, currently, the
only further hypothesis which is logically justified from your axiom is
that humanity is a typical example.

patently illogical

None of the above is non-science, but it is as far as science can
currently take you with a data point of one.

Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science.


NT

Regression to the mean
is a real science thing, and if it is actually science and holds true
for populations on Earth then to be so it should hold true for
populations of things everywhere, not just on Earth. There is no reason
to assume a-priori that it doesn't.

Speculation about how we're just like ants in a Universe filled with
inscrutable intelligent beings of inscrutable purpose is at this point
philosophy, not science.

 

[bitrex]

On 08/21/2017 02:44 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science.


NT

IIRC you're a nobody who also thinks the thousands of climate scientists
with advanced degrees who actually do it for a living "fundamentally
misunderstand" science, too. IOW, get stuffed, chump.

 

On Monday, 21 August 2017 17:18:40 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 08/21/2017 11:57 AM, tabbypurr wrote:

If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe,
i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to
assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent
evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar
enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through
language.

With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification
for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods
and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise.

I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist.

At the moment you naturally have to start with an _assumption_ (i.e.
theory), either they exist, or they don't. If you assume they don't then
there's little more to say. If you assume they do then, currently, the
only further hypothesis which is logically justified from your axiom is
that humanity is a typical example.

None of the above is non-science, but it is as far as science can
currently take you with a data point of one. Regression to the mean
is a real science thing, and if it is actually science and holds true
for populations on Earth then to be so it should hold true for
populations of things everywhere, not just on Earth. There is no reason
to assume a-priori that it doesn't.

Speculation about how we're just like ants in a Universe filled with
inscrutable intelligent beings of inscrutable purpose is at this point
philosophy, not science.

you've certainly confirmed you do not understand what science is. Or logic.


NT

 

On Monday, 21 August 2017 22:35:30 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 08/21/2017 02:44 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science.

IIRC you're a nobody who also thinks the thousands of climate scientists
with advanced degrees who actually do it for a living "fundamentally
misunderstand" science, too. IOW, get stuffed, chump.

Abuse does not remedy the absence of fact or logic.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:28:18 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:

A suitably advanced gregarious civilization capable of directing
"trumpet blasts" like that probably already has sufficiently powerful
space-based imaging to directly look the planetary surfaces of any
inhabited worlds within say 50 light years down to maybe several
hundreds of meters resolution, evaluate the civilizations they see
there, and decide whether they look like a species worth contacting, or not.

STILL PRETTY QUIET 'ROUND HERE

The possibilities of gregarious extraterrestrials have been explored
well in fiction. In Clarke's '2001', ...2010, 2061, "3001: The Final Odyssey"
he suggests one-way communication to young intelligences, and
general encouragement, at the behest of a distant ancient E.T. actor.

Stanislaw Lem's "Fiasco" is a more realistic treatment: we've just barely
arranged communication with a couple of Earth species, but the
long-lived social animals like great whales, elephants, aren't really talking
to us. What would they say?

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 10:09:05 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

The possibilities of gregarious extraterrestrials have been explored
well in fiction.

More like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdl24bLAs1k

From Damon Knight.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:12:18 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

> Abuse does not remedy the absence of fact or logic.

Actually for Antifa, its acolytes and apologists, it most assuredly
does!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[bitrex]

On 08/21/2017 07:10 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, 21 August 2017 17:18:40 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 08/21/2017 11:57 AM, tabbypurr wrote:

If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe,
i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to
assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent
evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar
enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through
language.

With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification
for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods
and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise.

I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist.

At the moment you naturally have to start with an _assumption_ (i.e.
theory), either they exist, or they don't. If you assume they don't then
there's little more to say. If you assume they do then, currently, the
only further hypothesis which is logically justified from your axiom is
that humanity is a typical example.

None of the above is non-science, but it is as far as science can
currently take you with a data point of one. Regression to the mean
is a real science thing, and if it is actually science and holds true
for populations on Earth then to be so it should hold true for
populations of things everywhere, not just on Earth. There is no reason
to assume a-priori that it doesn't.

Speculation about how we're just like ants in a Universe filled with
inscrutable intelligent beings of inscrutable purpose is at this point
philosophy, not science.

you've certainly confirmed you do not understand what science is. Or logic.


NT

You've got nothing.

 

[bitrex]

On 08/21/2017 07:12 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, 21 August 2017 22:35:30 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 08/21/2017 02:44 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science.

IIRC you're a nobody who also thinks the thousands of climate scientists
with advanced degrees who actually do it for a living "fundamentally
misunderstand" science, too. IOW, get stuffed, chump.

Abuse does not remedy the absence of fact or logic.

You've got nothing.

 

[bitrex]

On 08/22/2017 07:03 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:12:18 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

Abuse does not remedy the absence of fact or logic.

Actually for Antifa, its acolytes and apologists, it most assuredly
does!

He has no science facts or logical statements to present. He's being a
very grumpy old contrarian. Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

On Thursday, 24 August 2017 07:04:57 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 08/21/2017 07:12 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 21 August 2017 22:35:30 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 08/21/2017 02:44 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science.

IIRC you're a nobody who also thinks the thousands of climate scientists
with advanced degrees who actually do it for a living "fundamentally
misunderstand" science, too. IOW, get stuffed, chump.

Abuse does not remedy the absence of fact or logic.


You've got nothing.

lol. Troll plonked.