On Oct 23, 2:48 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
On Fri 10/22/10 15:07, WilliamMookwrote:> On Oct 5, 3:41 pm, Cardinal Chunder
<c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
On 20/09/2010 6:39, WilliamMookwrote:
Some believe the legend of aliens is a cover story to hide the fact
that the USA in the 1950s and 60s developed cybernetic organisms -
Some people are stupid then.
Not really. If given a choice between aliens and cybernetic humans,
cybernetic humans are a better bet.
If given the choice between aliens and cybernetic humans?
Yes.
Who is
proposing such a choice
I am.
and what is the basis for such a choice?
Well, if you assume that interactions with creatures inhabiting UFOs
describe a real and not an imagined experience or an effort to fool
witnesses or a hoax, then we have the following to consider.
(1) they are alien life forms;
(2) they are of human manufacture;
If they are alien there are many problems with that. First and
foremost the outline of factors that I mentioned that suggest alien
life is extremely rare on the scale of galaxies (though common on the
scale of the cosmos). This rarity makes it very unlikely that any
aliens would even find us, let alone visit us. We're a pretty small
needle in a very large haystack. That is, the number of stars versus
the number of alien worlds works against contact in two ways - us
seeing them, and them seeing us. Secondly, the aliens are
humanoid. Now, we are used to humanoid aliens because our science
fiction is written around humanoid aliens. The reasons our science
fiction uses humanoid aliens is two fold; a) prior to CGI techniques
the ability to make truly alien actors on the screen was limited by
human physiology and the fact that actors were human; b) a compelling
story requires an emotive connection with human emotion, truly alien
forms will either have no such emotive connection or an inappropriate
one. Advancing CGI in movies show this latter fact; Avatar had aliens
that were different in size and color - though generally humanoid, and
many couldn't make an emotional connection, or maintain that
connection to move the story forward - so, scenes had to be carefully
rewritten as a result; Some audiences viewing Starship Troopers didn't
feel threatened by insect like aliens which was viewed more as a chore
than a deeply involving struggle. Astronomer Fred Hoyle in his 1957
sci-fi book THE BLACK CLOUD imagined truly alien and possible life
form. Yet, his book failed to evoke a compelling struggle between
alien and humans, which in the end looked more like a natural
catastrophe rather than a deeply involving struggle.
Now, given these constraints we shouldn't look toward science fiction
to really inform us about the technology, physiology or psychology of
aliens. Science fiction is a human artistic product made for human
consumption and human reasons. Science fiction depicts aliens that
look and act pretty much like us with technology that looks pretty
much like technology we already have, or want to have.
So, real alien encounters, discounting hoaxes and products of
hallucination and imagination, are not likely to look act or convey
themselves as we would. Yet, that's exactly what 'contactees' see!
Humanoid aliens that seem to be motivated by the same things that
motivate us generally, and convey themselves in ways we would convey
ourselves had we developed space faring technology along lines we
imagine it could be developed.
This is another reason to doubt that these events if real are made by
humans.
How likely is it that cybernetic organisms have been produced by
humans? Well, I gave reference to researchers who have worked on the
problem since the 1950s. I have given references to nuclear powered
aircraft and spacecraft that could fly around the Earth and around the
inner solar system at will - using nuclear technologies first
developed in the 1950s.
Why use cyborgs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg
This idea goes back to the 50s and 60s - cyborgs take significantly
less life support and mass, so the vehicles they use are far smaller
and more capable.
That's because cybernetic humans are vastly more likely than aliens if
you believe Drake's equation and the 3.0 billion year record of life
on Earth.
Drakes equation seems to be mathematically sound.
Yes it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
However, the choice of
values for the variables is pure speculation.
No, the values I chose are based on what we understand about evolution
on our own planet, and by the features we see when we look deeply into
the cosmos.
By speculation, I mean
wild ass guesswork.
All of our mental life is nothing more than conjecture based upon
observation and analysis. Its the quality of the analysis and
observation that gives a conjecture any weight. Shared conjectures
also give emotional weight to things that may at root be false. This
is the basis of consensus reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality
The results of calculations based on guesswork have
no value in reality.
Guess work is a pejorative term to describe conjecture. ALL of
science is a conjecture based upon careful analysis of careful
observations. Astronomy is not an experimental science so it cannot
have experimental validation in the usual sense. Most of the things
we find important in life cannot be subjected to experimental
validation.
In the present argument we are looking at the relative likelihood that
reported cases of encounters of the third and fourth kind are more
likely to be encounters with aliens or human derived cyborgs. I have
provided a logical hierarchy of well founded observations that suggest
human cyborgs are vastly more likely than aliens - eliminating from
the analysis the possibilities of hoax or hallucination. This is a
form of Bayesian Analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Bayes_model
Consider that single-celled life arose only 1.5 billion years after
Earth formed, nearly the same time the surface cooled and water
accumulated. Then, it another 1.5 billion years for multicelled life
arose on Earth in the wake of the development of photosynthesis which
created a crisis with oxygen. Oxygen was a poisonous gas to the
anerobes that dominated the Earth 1.5 billion years ago. So, life
joined into a collection of cells that created a skin that excluded
oxygen from within. Then, very rapid development of organisms upon a
changing pattern of body forms. Then, it took another 1.5 billion
years for big brains to occur.
This all suggests that life is easy, bodies are hard for life to do
and brains are hard for bodies to do. So, we're at the end of two
hard to do processes. The Anthropic Principle says it doesn't matter
how hard or unusual the process, if we're here to comment on it, it
had to happen.
The Anthropic Principle is a tautology.
It can be. It is not necessarily so.
If there are living observers of
the universe, the [history of the ] universe must be compatible with the [evolution of] observers.
I added a few words. This is not a tautology. In rhetoric, a
tautology uses different words to say the same thing. The words above
describe a relationship that must be true with respect to a living
universe. It is not a tautology.
A tautology says something like all brown dogs are brown.
A statement about brown dogs says something like all brown dogs have
genes that make them brown.
The
statement cannot be disproved
A tautology cannot be disproved. We can have a golden dog with hair
dyed brown however.
but it adds nothing to our knowledge of
the universe.
The fact that we are here tells us that the physical variables at the
big bang fall within very well defined range of values. This is
something we didn't know before engaging in the analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The point of all this is that brains are doubly hard.
Now, add in technology. Technology arose in 2 million years of big
brains. This says technology is easy for creatures with brains. But,
technology creates another crisis - something on part with the oxygen
crisis caused by photosynthesis.
Some have suggested that cybernetics is the natural consequence of
technology - and the next step in evolution. We are an intermediary
form, not a final form.
The point is, the life span of a civilization may be very short - and
end up either in death of life on the world it arises on in very short
order - or spawn a stable answer that addresses the issue long term.
The point is, the Earth might have been lucky. It may not be lucky
with this crisis. If it is, it may spawn a change in living
conditions as radical as the change from a carbon dominated world with
anerobic mats and an oxygen dominated world filled with plants and
animals.
Our knowledge of life in the universe is limited to that found on our
planet.
Correct. Just as our knowledge of the cosmos is limited by our
location in space and time. This limits what we can observe, less
limited is what we can know based on careful analysis of what we see.
The probability of life on earth is 1.
This is a tautology.
Attributing the fact that
we exist to luck adds no value to our knowledge.
True, that's why I said we don't know how hard it was for life to
overcome the various crises that faced it over the history of life on
Earth. Saying that we may have been lucky is not the same thing as
saying we were lucky. We know that it took 1.5 billion years for
multi-celled life to occur. We know this was in response to the
development of photo-synthesis. We know that life nearly died out
before bodies were developed to counter the rising oxygen levels.
This suggests that what happened on Earth was unlikely. When I say
we might have been lucky is that what happened on Earth may be VERY
unlikely, making life on Earth unique in the cosmos. In my statement
where I used the word 'lucky' I was saying that I was giving the life
estimate the benefit of the doubt. It may very well be (if we were
lucky here) that we are unique in the cosmos.
Think about it his way.
I think there is good reason to believe that what happened on Earth
occurs one time in a trillion. Which gives us an estimate of 10,000
civilizations like ours. If we were lucky, it may be that what
happened on Earth occurs one time in a trillion trillion. Which means
we're alone.
Applying this to what we know about the cosmos says that life like us,
intelligent technical animals piloting starships, might be common in
the cosmos, but rare on the scale of galaxies. There are a lot of
lifeless rocks. Fewer living worlds. Fewer still with animals.
Fewer still animals with brains. Fewer still post animals with brains
spawning some stable situation after. Those other systems would find
about as much interest in us as we have in bread mold. The
intelligent technical animals with spaceships and all transitional
forms, are least likely of all. Those like us are likely number fewer
than 10,000 in a cosmos filled with 1 trillion galaxies.
"(L)ife like us, intelligent technical animals piloting starships ..."
Yes, that's what we're talking about. Close Encounters of the Third
and Fourth Kind.
Characterizing man's piloted spacecraft as 'starships' is a bit silly.
No its not. It only seems so to you because you are missing my
point. Think about it this way then you will understand. We have two
arms two legs a head and fly airplanes, drive cars, pilot ships.
Close Encounters of the Third and Fourth kind involve beings that have
two arms two legs a head and fly a conveyance from the stars. The
similarities are obvious. There is no compelling reason to believe
that an alien life form would be so like humans at so many levels.
Calculating the "likely number" of those "like us" is not possible at
our present level of knowledge.
Bayes would beg to differ. The range of values is large - 1 in a 10
trillion to 1 in a 100 trillion trillion is a very large range - but
one thing is clear. Its not ALL stars - its not 1 in 100 billion.
That is, life is rare on the scale of galaxies, but could be common on
the scale of the cosmos, assuming Earth wasn't especially lucky.
Got it? lol.
The Drake Equation estimates the number of technical species. The
best way to think about it is to first think about a light bulb
factory. The number of bulbs is equal to the rate of light bulb
production times the life of a bulb.
N = R x L
So, if 1,000 light bulbs per hour is produced and they each have a
lifespan of 3,000 hours - 3 million bulbs are in the world.
Now, consider how to compute the number of red bulbs versus white
bulbs. Lets say the some fraction is red (fr) say 1/4 -
Let's say it's some other fraction. The math will work just the same but
the result will be different.
There are a range of fractions that give a range of results. What we
know about stellar evolution and life on Earth suggests that life is
rare in the cosmos. Rare on the scale of galaxies. It may be
common on the scale of the cosmos however, unless Earth was lucky
somehow.
If we're just guessing at where to set the
ratio, the result is nothing but guesswork.
ALL observational science where you cannot do an experiment to
validate your theory involves conjecture based upon careful analysis
of careful observations. What we know at present lets us state with
high level of certainty that alien life forms are rare, more rare than
we are. We also know that alien life forms will be alien. More alien
than we can imagine. This combination suggests that anyone that has a
Close Encounter of the Third or Fourth Kind - involving humanoid
'aliens' in some sort of recognizable conveyance, is likely
encountering something of human manufacture.
N = R x f x L
So, with f=1/4, R = 1,000/hr, L = 3,000 hr then Nr = 750,000
The same calculation can be made for ETI.
N = R* x fp x fl x fb x fi x ft x L
Here fp=fraction of stars with planets
fl = fraction of planets with life, easy
fb = fraction of life with bodies, hard
fi = fraction of brains with intelligence, hard
ft = fraction of intelligence with technology, easy
L = lifetime of technology, 500 years
R* in a galaxy is bout 20 per year. fp=1, fl=.1, fb=.000001, fi=.
000001, ft=.1, L=500
20 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.000001 x 0.000001 x 0.1 x 500 = 1 in 10 trillion
stars
about 10,000 species across the cosmos.
The cosmos may be filled with cybernetic life and rotten with dead
worlds - but life like us is very precious - life like us living for
more than 500 years - more unlikely still.
Or the universe may have life on only one planet.
That is possible.
Or on tens of
thousands of planets in each galaxy.
There is no basis for an assessment this optimistic. There is also
very sound basis that alien life should it occur, will not be
recognizable to humans as even faintly humanoid.
Or any other number in whatever
area of space you choose.
If the choice of values is informed by what we now of evolution,
biology, and cosmology, alien life is rare to nonexistent, certainly
we are alone in the galaxy. Likely not in the cosmos. It is nearly
certain as well that any aliens we would meet would not be
recognizably human or their mode of transport recognizably human
either.
The results of the Drake equation will remain invalid until we can base
the values chosen for its variables on something other than guesswork.
There is no basis for this negative view. Since all observational
science is based on conjecture all we can reasonably say is that the
Drake equation gives us a wide range of values for N given our current
limited understanding and that those values give a range from 10,000
to 0 for the entire cosmos. There is no justification for N any
greater than 10,000.