Why are we the only [known to us] beings that can do what we can do?

[dragos240]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

[Timmer1240]

Not yet!

[KdotJ]

if only dolphins could type... lol

[madjr]

Stephen hawking said:

we are thousands of years behind (we're not advanced at all), thanks to closed minds, tyrants and FEAR

Christ died 2010 years ago, but we started to make real progress just 100 years ago. yay! thousands of years of no progress...


he also said that some Alien species should be millions of years more advanced than us. So advanced and energy hungry that they most probably need to drain energy directly from stars

so... is being soooo advanced a good thing?

[jfloydb]

Here is a link to an old site that seems to me to be a good introduction to the "anthropic principle". Be sure to look at both the "weak" and "strong" versions of the anthropic principle. This may not be an answer to your question, but the anthropic principle does need to inform any answer that might be given to such a question.

http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

[dragos240]

Stephen hawking said:

we are thousands of years behind (we're not advanced at all), thanks to closed minds, tyrants and FEAR

Christ died 2010 years ago, but we started to make real progress just 100 years ago. yay! thousands of years of no progress...


he also said that some Alien species should be millions of years more advanced than us. So advanced and energy hungry that they most probably need to drain energy directly from stars

so... is being soooo advanced a good thing?
Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed,

[pwnst*r]

have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

lol.

[JDShu]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

I think the answer to that is "no". Unless you're into conspiracy theories.

[Austin25]

I have found them: Women.

[McRat]

Probably because we are alone.

As much as we would like to put on Spandex, hop in the Enterprise and mate with Green Alien Women, it's unlikely to occur.

Why there is life on earth can be left to the philosophers and clergy, but truth is, it's such a bizarre chemical anomaly that it defies logic and statistical reason.

Have you thought about why there are not parallel yet unequal evolutionary patterns? There should be millions of them. If life popped up 4 billion years ago, it should have kept occurring for at least a billion years. There should have been many "starting points" instead of one, some of them 500,000,000 years behind our current state. Pretty much all scientists agree there was one original path in the DNA.

Something to think about.

[madjr]

Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed,

where is the religion or politics ?

if you're referring about Christ, we use that as a time frame A.C. thus we measure time.

it's 2010 After Christ

also all this is from Stephen Hawking (a scientist)

you should read it better before jumping with conclusions so quickly

[juancarlospaco]

depends...

there are species faster than us, there are species stronger than us,
some fish can walk, some mammals can swim for hours,
some spiders can live underwater,
some virus dont respect newtons law and can float out of atmosphere,
some animals are poisonous and kill on seconds but they are inmmune to poison at the same time,

...we invented pollution.

:)

[jflaker]

no known references...just info gathered over time on the internets

There were civilizations that are gone now that have, utilizing the technology of the day, created "technology" that would be astounding if the knowledge was still known and would have brought the human race much further than we are today if the knowledge was not lost....

Are we alone? Well, countless stars, a good portion of those stars with rocky planets, a good portion of those with planet in the habitable zone (where water, seemingly the main ingredient to life, isn't a solid nor a gas all the time). A good portion of those likely have life in different stages of development.

Ah, but what about creation....yep...it could be life was created to be able to morph/evolve as the planet aged and became more stable......

Given the infinitesimal varieties of planet forming stars all at different ages, some much older than our own star system.....It is very likely we are NOT as advance as we would like to think. Then why haven't we seen them? Well, if those lifeforms can master interstellar travel, then I am sure that they have figured out a way not to be seen unless they wanted to be seen or it, as it were, "not so human error" they were spotted...or it may be on purpose.

I don't think we are alone....it would be quite snobby to think so.

[wilee-nilee]

It might help to research this if you want a answer through the statistical probability of other life in the Universe.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7365

Some interesting ideas have been suggested. The likelihood of earth being the only planet with life, is not even considered in the scientific community at large. A universe with about 70 billion galaxies enough for about ten per human on earth, some are dust some are gas, but many have millions to trillions of stars in them, you do the math. They are just so apart from each other, and moving closer and farther apart as the universe expands at a increased speed every day.

There has also been speculation that there may be a infinite amount of dimensions and universes wrap you mind around that.

[jflaker]

There has also been speculation that there may be a infinite amount of dimensions and universes wrap you mind around that.

Ah....An infinite amount of dimensions with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions, with each having infinite amount of dimensions,

:guitar:

[Dr Belka]

Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed,

This isn't discussing religion.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

i'd rather find a species that is better than we than find one that is comparable.

[wilee-nilee]

@jflaker wow tubular man.;)

[McRat]

It might help to research this if you want a answer through the statistical probability of other life in the Universe.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7365

Some interesting ideas have been suggested. The likelihood of earth being the only planet with life, is not even considered in the scientific community at large. A universe with about 70 billion galaxies enough for about ten per human on earth, some are dust some are gas, but many have millions to trillions of stars in them, you do the math. They are just so apart from each other, and moving closer and farther apart as the universe expands at a increased speed every day.

There has also been speculation that there may be a infinite amount of dimensions and universes wrap you mind around that.

They are making a really large leap from where they are standing.

They make the assumption that if you have a bunch of chemicals together in the right ratios, and with the right energy input that they will form life.

But they also believe that it only happened once in 5 billion years that Earth has been around.

Nor do they even have the faintest clue how it could possibly occur. "Uh, well, the chemicals will randomly make a bunch of amino acids which will chain into proteins and RNA which will get the ball rolling. They had to cheat just to make a small amount of amino acids.

It's very romantic to believe in the possibilities, but deep down most scientists know it's unlikely to impossible. Why? If they really believed it they'd petition to shut down SETI. Last thing you want to do if there is other civilizations is to advertise your presence before you can even do interstellar travel. Our experience as a race has taught us that if an advanced civilization meets one that isn't, even by 25 years, it's curtains for the weaker.

But there is little to fear, so SETI just keeps a dream alive that we want to believe will come true.

[wilee-nilee]

i'd rather find a species that is better than we than find one that is comparable.

You always have the best comments.;)

I wonder where is chucky when you need them at times.

[JDShu]

i'd rather find a species that is better than we than find one that is comparable.

What if they realize that we are a danger to the universe and decide to wipe us out? :P

[jflaker]

@jflaker wow tubular man.;)

:lolflag:
Religion not being discussed, religion was mentioned for context, but not as a subject of the conversation.

[jflaker]

What if they realize that we are a danger to the universe and decide to wipe us out? :P

Have you read the news....we'll take care of wiping ourselves out unless we wise up.

[wilee-nilee]

They are making a really large leap from where they are standing.

They make the assumption that if you have a bunch of chemicals together in the right ratios, and with the right energy input that they will form life.

But they also believe that it only happened once in 5 billion years that Earth has been around.

Nor do they even have the faintest clue how it could possibly occur. "Uh, well, the chemicals will randomly make a bunch of amino acids which will chain into proteins and RNA which will get the ball rolling. They had to cheat just to make a small amount of amino acids.

It's very romantic to believe in the possibilities, but deep down most scientists know it's unlikely to impossible. Why? If they really believed it they'd petition to shut down SETI. Last thing you want to do if there is other civilizations is to advertise your presence before you can even do interstellar travel. Our experience as a race has taught us that if an advanced civilization meets one that isn't, even by 25 years, it's curtains for the weaker.

But there is little to fear, so SETI just keeps a dream alive that we want to believe will come true.

I'm not sure what your referencing, but it is speculated that life in it's simplest forms was started more the 4 billion years ago on earth, not sure of the exact numbers.

The funny thing is what we are made of, is what is produced when stars exploded, we are all star dust and about as old as the universe itself. I'm starting to feel that old at times.

The last thing I would say is that your opinions are at best a armchair view as mine are, the people who suggest these possibilities are top rate physicists and scientists who have the ability to understand what you and me and look at with a jaundiced eye. And your reasoning is sketchy at best on a good day.

[Austin25]

No-one acknowledged my previous post?:cry:

[Shining Arcanine]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?
Because all of the other beings in the universe are intelligent enough to conceal their existences from us. What you call Asperger's Syndrome is what they call normal and considering it normal, they would need to be masochists to either contact us or enable us to contact them.

That is my 2 cents.

[jflaker]

I'm not sure what your referencing, but it is speculated that life in it's simplest forms was started more the 4 billion years ago on earth, not sure of the exact numbers.

The funny thing is what we are made of, is what is produced when stars exploded, we are all star dust and about as old as the universe itself. I'm starting to feel that old at times.

The last thing I would say is that your opinions are at best a armchair view as mine are, the people who suggest these possibilities are top rate physicists and scientists who have the ability to understand what you and me and look at with a jaundiced eye. And your reasoning is sketchy at best on a good day.

and a million monkey tapping at keyboards, in time, will produce a string of key presses that will make sense and possibly even write "War and Peace" word for word.

or

a tornado can rip through a aircraft junkyard and produce a fully operational 747 or the updated version, an A380 super jumbo jet.

[Austin25]

Because all of the other beings in the universe are intelligent enough to conceal their existences from us. What you call Asperger's Syndrome is what they call normal and considering it normal, they would need to be masochists to either contact us or enable us to contact them.

That is my 2 cents.
OMG! I was diagnosed with Asperger's, and I see many other people as mindless robots.

[McRat]

I'm not sure what your referencing, but it is speculated that life in it's simplest forms was started more the 4 billion years ago on earth, not sure of the exact numbers.

The funny thing is what we are made of, is what is produced when stars exploded, we are all star dust and about as old as the universe itself. I'm starting to feel that old at times.

The last thing I would say is that your opinions are at best a armchair view as mine are, the people who suggest these possibilities are top rate physicists and scientists who have the ability to understand what you and me and look at with a jaundiced eye. And your reasoning is sketchy at best on a good day.

Yes, but I doubt this thread was intended as anything more than food for thought.

4 billion is guess-du-jour. It changes.

Once you have amino acids EVERYWHERE, you'd think it would easy to make life. Quite the opposite, you can a bacterium die, and nothing brings it back. All the chemicals are there, and most are in the right order. It's super-fragile.

It is certainly not a slam dunk in the best of conditions.

[wilee-nilee]

No-one acknowledged my previous post?:cry:

I saw it and thought what a wise reflection for such a young person.;)

[wilee-nilee]

and a million monkey tapping at keyboards, in time, will produce a string of key presses that will make sense and possibly even write "War and Peace" word for word.

or

a tornado can rip through a aircraft junkyard and produce a fully operational 747 or the updated version, an A380 super jumbo jet.

I can appreciate the pop culture phrases, but what I have written is not pop culture but suggested by people like Lisa Randall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall
Here are some google video links it is quite fascinating stuff to me at least.
http://www.google.com/search?q=lisa+randall&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&source=vgc&aq=f

I think this one particular video is really good as it includes Lisa Randall and E.O Wilson both the top of their fields.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-45154219728824809#

[wilee-nilee]

Yes, but I doubt this thread was intended as anything more than food for thought.

4 billion is guess-du-jour. It changes.

Once you have amino acids EVERYWHERE, you'd think it would easy to make life. Quite the opposite, you can a bacterium die, and nothing brings it back. All the chemicals are there, and most are in the right order. It's super-fragile.

It is certainly not a slam dunk in the best of conditions.

I would agree basically, but with the known universe being as large as it is, the statistical possibility of other life being in it are way higher then not.

[nrs]

They are making a really large leap from where they are standing.

They make the assumption that if you have a bunch of chemicals together in the right ratios, and with the right energy input that they will form life.

But they also believe that it only happened once in 5 billion years that Earth has been around.

Nor do they even have the faintest clue how it could possibly occur. "Uh, well, the chemicals will randomly make a bunch of amino acids which will chain into proteins and RNA which will get the ball rolling. They had to cheat just to make a small amount of amino acids.

It's very romantic to believe in the possibilities, but deep down most scientists know it's unlikely to impossible. Why? If they really believed it they'd petition to shut down SETI. Last thing you want to do if there is other civilizations is to advertise your presence before you can even do interstellar travel. Our experience as a race has taught us that if an advanced civilization meets one that isn't, even by 25 years, it's curtains for the weaker.

But there is little to fear, so SETI just keeps a dream alive that we want to believe will come true.
Thinly veiled creationism? And we're not even allowed to correct because apparently science = politics. :rolleyes:

[wilee-nilee]

Thinly veiled creationism? And we're not even allowed to correct because apparently science = politics. :rolleyes:

Exactly.

[McRat]

Thinly veiled creationism? And we're not even allowed to correct because apparently science = politics. :rolleyes:

Are you saying I need to buy thicker veils?:confused:

I believed in extraterrestrial life as a kid, and was an avid SciFi reader. Then again, I was told I'd be flying my car to work by the year 2001, and we would have a manned colony on Mars.

I still believe we do not spend enough on space exploration, it should be 10% of the budget or higher.

But I also believe SETI is never going to see anything, nor are the spacecraft intended to contact other civilizations going to see anything, and we should NOT squander the limited space budget in such directions.

Not to mention if they DO contact so other civilization, there is a risk it will cause calamity to the human race.

It's lose=lose situation. Get interstellar THEN look for ET's cellphone # ...

[lostinxlation]

Study Quantum Mechanics. You might be able to invent a way to peek the different dimensions and activities going on there.

[adeypoop]

What do you mean by n do what we do" Ants can do what we do, they build structures much bigger than the ones we do compared to the scale of an indiviual, they farm aphids. Their biomass outweighs all other animals. Humans are not particularly special in any way shape or form

[nrs]

and a million monkey tapping at keyboards, in time, will produce a string of key presses that will make sense and possibly even write "War and Peace" word for word.

or

a tornado can rip through a aircraft junkyard and produce a fully operational 747 or the updated version, an A380 super jumbo jet.
That's not how it works, at all. If that's what you believe evolution is it's no wonder why you don't believe it. I wouldn't either.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ

[madjr]

Study Quantum Mechanics. You might be able to invent a way to peek the different dimensions and activities going on there.

hmm an avid fringe viewer

[pommie]

Life on this planet has independently developed in some strange and hostile places, from around deep sea volcano vents that spew out toxic fumes getting no sunlight what so ever, to the extremely acidic, hot (over 100c) springs of Yellowstone, so if life can form in such diversified environs, independently of each other, why not on other planets, our planet is nothing special, its made from the same stardust as the rest of the universe, so the chance of life on other planets is the same as the chance of life on this planet, intelligence on the other hand is a different story, but thinking that we are the only intelligent being that has ever been, or will ever be, is arrogance to the extreme :mad:
I firmly believe that there have been, and will be, other life as advanced as we are, probably more advanced, just the sheer number of stars/planets out there means the odds are for this, but, and its a big but, what the proponents of the odds theory forget is that this 'other' life is spread out over millions x billions of years, so are we the only ones, imho no, are we the only ones at this present time, quite possibly but again imho no.

Seti is only looking in a narrow waveband and then only at a very small quadrant of space, so its no surprise that the results are disappointing, Voyager has only just left the far reaches of the solar system, and even our radio waves have only traveled 80 or so light years, in other words in Galactic terms we are still that proverbial grain of sand, so if there is other intelligent life out there they have not had a chance to hear us yet, as far as them coming to Earth, first they have to find Earth, then decide whether its worth coming here, remember they will not know it is populated until they get here, and if they have come here for resources they are desperate for they will just take them, and if they do, the best we can hope for is that they treat us with indifference until they get what they want and leave :(

If you think thats a morbid outlook, it is, but just ask the American Indian, Aztec, Inca etc etc, its what we do so why expect anything else from another more advanced race.

Cheers David

[handy]

Opposable thumb. Dolphins, whales & other highly intelligent species don't have the dexterity that we have. We may also be the only so called intelligent species that has lost contact with nature, which causes us to invent all kinds of strange things to amuse ourselves, even if we destroy the environment in the process.

Which of course begs the question on how valid is this highly intelligent label some have given us...

[Frak]

That's not how it works, at all. If that's what you believe evolution is it's no wonder why you don't believe it. I wouldn't either.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
I believe he was referring to how the planet formed into a place suitable for life, not evolution itself.

[madjr]

Opposable thumb. Dolphins, whales & other highly intelligent species don't have the dexterity that we have. We may also be the only so called intelligent species that has lost contact with nature, which causes us to invent all kinds of strange things to amuse ourselves, even if we destroy the environment in the process.

Which of course begs the question on how valid is this highly intelligent label some have given us...

Opposable thumb is not exclusive to hoomans

[ElSlunko]

Check this movie out, if it hasn't already been mentioned. Available on netflix play now if you have it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

[handy]

Opposable thumb is not exclusive to hoomans

I know. My meaning was that in combination with an intelligence bent on technological innovation it sets us apart from other species that may be equally intelligent or more intelligent than us.

There is far more to intelligence than logic or abstract thought.

[jflaker]

DEFINE intelligence. Being able to abstract? Then this bird is pretty intelligent. How do you kill something for food that you would ordinarily not be able to kill with the tools you have on hand. Make it succumb to one of its few vulnerabilities, gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e2AINr0kJE

Pretty intelligent, don't you think? Not only is it ready for eating, but it has been tenderized also.

[Minipalmer]

I don't believe we're alone in the universe. To believe so is quite naive. I don't care if you're a creationist, scientologist, or atheist. There are billions of stars in billion of galaxies in a universe that is expanding and that we can't find the end of.

There has got to be something out there, even it's a small floating dust particle that tells bad jokes.

[standingwave]

I think it's unlikely that we will find anyone close to our technological level given the vast age of the universe. What would a species such as ours even look like with another 100,000 or a million years (which is nothing cosmologically) or even more behind them? What if they were to us as as we are to say, mice? Would communication even be possible?

Neil Degrasse Tyson recently put it into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugCKoj_t5Hg

[cascade9]

Stephen hawking said:

we are thousands of years behind (we're not advanced at all), thanks to closed minds, tyrants and FEAR

Christ died 2010 years ago, but we started to make real progress just 100 years ago. yay! thousands of years of no progress...

Umm....the commonly accepted figures for the life of hey-zeus (oops je-sus) is 5 B.C.E to 30 C.E.

I wouldnt say that there was thousands of years of no progress. Besides the fact that there has been progress (generally) over the whole of reccorded histry, gawds only know how much cool stuff has been forgotten. Example? 4500 years ago the indus valley civilisation had bathrooms and running sewerage systems, complete with household toilets and covered sewers.


where is the religion or politics ?

if you're referring about Christ, we use that as a time frame A.C. thus we measure time.

it's 2010 After Christ

also all this is from Stephen Hawking (a scientist)

you should read it better before jumping with conclusions so quickly

A.D. (Anno Domini), latin for 'year of our lord'. Not A.C. You should read some more before you start to say things that are totally wrong ;)


I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

Comparable to us in what way? Technologically, we are prety much alone (at least untill atlantis/mu/lemuria rises, or the greys make a breakout from area 51/hanger18 anyway :lolflag: )

As for as everything else goes, there are examples in the animal kingdom (yes, I know that is arguable). Killer whales killing seals for fun (and quick game of seal-tennis), etc..


I don't believe we're alone in the universe. To believe so is quite naive. I don't care if you're a creationist, scientologist, or atheist. There are billions of stars in billion of galaxies in a universe that is expanding and that we can't find the end of.

There has got to be something out there, even it's a small floating dust particle that tells bad jokes.

Agreed, but its not just naivety IMO. There are a lot of other issues.

[Frak]

A.D. (Anno Domini), latin for 'year of our lord'. Not A.C. You should read some more before you start to say things that are totally wrong ;)

No, it's AC for "Air Conditioners". See, we're in the year of 2010 Air Conditioners, which is why this last winter was very cold.

[Paqman]

They are making a really large leap from where they are standing.

They make the assumption that if you have a bunch of chemicals together in the right ratios, and with the right energy input that they will form life.

But they also believe that it only happened once in 5 billion years that Earth has been around.

Nor do they even have the faintest clue how it could possibly occur. "Uh, well, the chemicals will randomly make a bunch of amino acids which will chain into proteins and RNA which will get the ball rolling. They had to cheat just to make a small amount of amino acids.

It's very romantic to believe in the possibilities, but deep down most scientists know it's unlikely to impossible. Why? If they really believed it they'd petition to shut down SETI. Last thing you want to do if there is other civilizations is to advertise your presence before you can even do interstellar travel. Our experience as a race has taught us that if an advanced civilization meets one that isn't, even by 25 years, it's curtains for the weaker.

But there is little to fear, so SETI just keeps a dream alive that we want to believe will come true.

Seth Shostak from SETI just published a really good book called "Confessions of an Alien Hunter" in which he goes over a lot of these and similar points. He discusses the actual science and rationale behind SETI at some length. I think you'd find it really interesting.

BTW, there's no risk of us being discovered by passive SETI efforts, and the few stabs at active SETI have been small and uncoordinated. An alien civilisation would be millions of times more likely to discover us from our everyday TV broadcasts than from one of the handful of active SETI transmissions.

[BoneKracker]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

The only ones who can do what we do? You mean like make war on a global scale? I'm not sure that qualifies as "advanced".

We are just animals like the rest, our unique characteristics, such as possessing the ability to destroy all the others, doesn't make us better than the rest of the wiggling things that comprise the terrestrial slime infestation we know as our biosphere.

Also, a lot of this has to do with our perspective on time, which is very limited. life is nothing more than a chemical reaction, like fire, except more complex. There is no more mystery to why terrestrial life didn't start in many places at different times than why one of my farts doesn't start burning in many places at different times.

As a couple of people have tried to point out, we humans are exceedingly anthropocentric. We can't see beyond our noses. I'm sure there is other "life" in the universe, but even if was within our tiny sensory range we probably would be unable to recognize it because it may not resemble the "life" we know at all. It might be in the form of an inter-galactic cloud that happens to tend slightly more toward order than randomness. It might be in the form of the very thing we call metaphysics itself.

[koenn]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?

Your question is anthropocentric, i.e.you arbitrarily pick us, humans, as standard, as the definition of "advanced", and then measure all other species against that standard. It's obvious, then, that only humans will meet your standard.

[fatality_uk]

For: Drake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation)
Against: Fermi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)

I am more in the Drake camp. Our planet is 4.5 Billion years old (give or take a day or two), the Human race (Homo sapiens) is approx 160,000 years old and only in the last 300 years has "true" technology played a part in our lives. We only got off the ground in a powered way 107 years ago. In universal time, that if almost negligible.

We think of ourselves as advanced, but consider if a species, similar to us, lives on a similar planet to Earth, but their version of Homo sapiens started the development of technology just 1,000 years ahead of us, just 1,000!!!!

Think if the advancements in science in the last 100 years, now multiply by a factor of 10. You can see how it wouldn't take much for Humans to suddenly look like Amoeba in comparison.

[BoneKracker]

For: Drake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation)
Against: Fermi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)

I am more in the Drake camp. Our planet is 4.5 Billion years old (give or take a day or two), the Human race (Homo sapiens) is approx 160,000 years old and only in the last 300 years has "true" technology played a part in our lives. We only got off the ground in a powered way 107 years ago. In universal time, that if almost negligible.

We think of ourselves as advanced, but consider if a species, similar to us, lives on a similar planet to Earth, but their version of Homo sapiens started the development of technology just 1,000 years ahead of us, just 1,000!!!!

Think if the advancements in science in the last 100 years, now multiply by a factor of 10. You can see how it wouldn't take much for Humans to suddenly look like Amoeba in comparison.

Not only that, but other life forms are unlikely to share our perspectives of time and space. They might live their entire lives in a pico-second, or they might take billions of years to form a thought. They might exist inside a subatomic particle, or a single entity might be comprised of quantum foam within in which our "universe" is but one of a trillion bubbles.

They are infinitely more likely to be different than similar to us. This is a statistical reality that we, even our scientists, ignore because of our anthropic bent.

[Paqman]

For: Drake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation)


This is an exciting time to be alive, because we're right now starting to get a lot more hard data to fill in the guesses in the Drake Equation. We're discovering exoplanets by the hundreds and our exploration of the solar system is teaching the exobiologists a huge amount about the environments on other worlds. If nothing else we should know the answer to whether there's life elsewhere in the solar system within our lifetimes.

[sXeChris]

depends...

there are species faster than us, there are species stronger than us,
some fish can walk, some mammals can swim for hours,
some spiders can live underwater,
some virus dont respect newtons law and can float out of atmosphere,
some animals are poisonous and kill on seconds but they are inmmune to poison at the same time,

...we invented pollution.

:)
We also invented Ubuntu, which, in my opinion, is good enough to throw us up in the ranks with all those other things you listed. :-P

[Barrucadu]

Why are we the only [known to us] beings that can do what we can do?

Simple. Because we haven't found any others yet.

[proggy]

Here is a link to an old site that seems to me to be a good introduction to the "anthropic principle". Be sure to look at both the "weak" and "strong" versions of the anthropic principle. This may not be an answer to your question, but the anthropic principle does need to inform any answer that might be given to such a question.

http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html (http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/%7Elwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html)
I love how old webpages load so quickly no bunch on unnecessary crap to load up

[adeypoop]

why are we the only ones who do what we do?

do you mean why are we the best at causing extinctions of other animals, creating weapons of mass destruction, throwing the only planet we live in, the only home we have out of balance ... ?

why should we be on some pedestal because of technology we've invented, technology we have little or no control over.

Anyway we are only the most advanced because we say so ourselves. But we can't be part of the competition and judge it too.

[BoneKracker]

This is an exciting time to be alive, because we're right now starting to get a lot more hard data to fill in the guesses in the Drake Equation. We're discovering exoplanets by the hundreds and our exploration of the solar system is teaching the exobiologists a huge amount about the environments on other worlds. If nothing else we should know the answer to whether there's life elsewhere in the solar system within our lifetimes.

I think finding other planets that will support terrestrial life is much more realistic and much more important than finding other life at this stage. Our need to terraform and colonize other planets is likely to become urgent long before we happen to encounter (or become able to perceive) the extra-terrestrial life that may be out there. (Unless we can stop breeding like rats, that is, which we show little sign of being able to do.)

[n~kf)}BW%]

We are not intelligent. We are destroying our planet and all we do about it is watch :popcorn:
Do dolphins do that? Or monkeys? We are unique :)

[koenn]

if only dolphins could type... lol

you forgot about mice.

[Iehova]

and a million monkey tapping at keyboards, in time, will produce a string of key presses that will make sense and possibly even write "War and Peace" word for word.

or

a tornado can rip through a aircraft junkyard and produce a fully operational 747 or the updated version, an A380 super jumbo jet.

Abiogenesis only has to have happened once in the entire 13.7 billion year history of the universe to have produced us. Therefore it can be exceedingly rare and only occur under the most precise conditions (and bear in mind those conditions on earth were very different to how they are now.

Nonetheless, if the chance of abiogenesis occurring were just one in a billion there would still be billions of planets with life, even if it's one in a thousand billion or one in a trillion life isn't exactly uncommon. It could, however, be very common, maybe even within our own solar system. (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/06/why-is-the-hydrogen-exiting-titans-atmosphere.ars). With regards the question of why abiogenesis would only happen once (which due to its presumable rarity seems perfectly reasonable in any case) it is possible. Darwin himself, in his Origin of Species wrote that life emerged in "a few forms or... one". If we suppose, as a thought experiment, that conditions somewhere on earth were right for abiogenesis today, could it happen? I don't see why not. Would we know about it? I doubt it... the earth is pretty big and microbes are pretty small, and it would take a good billion or so years before they became noticeable, I guess. ;)

Moving on, "advanced" is a purely subjective term and it is a typical human conceit to consider ourselves to be at the top of some evolutionary pile. All of us here are the results of billions of years of successful survival and reproduction - we are winners, but so is every other living being on this planet. Almost every species extant today is incredibly well adapted for its particular habitat or niche, which goes to show that 'advanced' is a meaningless term.

On a physical level as well, as many have pointed out, many animals are more advanced than we are. The human eye pales in comparison to many animals', for instance the octopus, and other species can live in conditions that are totally inhospitable to humans, so if we wish to measure it this way, we are by no means the most advanced species. Of course, all living things are a bit of a bodge job in the end, evolution is not 'survival of the fittest', rather 'survival of the fit enough'.

Also, our ideas of what constitutes those things that are 'distinctively human' have been challenged time and time again as we have studies other animals, and really there are very few ways in which we are unique as a species.


Umm....the commonly accepted figures for the life of hey-zeus (oops je-sus) is 5 B.C.E to 30 C.E.

Hope I'm not straying into the taboo topic of religion here, but this seems rather a moot point in light of the fact that there is no contemporaneous historical evidence of the dude's very existence, so you may as well just pick numbers out of a hat.

[BoneKracker]

why are we the only ones who do what we do?

do you mean why are we the best at causing extinctions of other animals, creating weapons of mass destruction, throwing the only planet we live in, the only home we have out of balance ... ?

I've been chewing on a theory that Neanderthal Man was the real apex of individual human evolution -- that we only surpass them in the way colony-building termites might be judged superior to, say, a more individually-capable beetle. (And that we are rapidly becoming more and more ant-like and less and less individually capable.)

[Shining Arcanine]

OMG! I was diagnosed with Asperger's, and I see many other people as mindless robots.

How do you think aliens see humans in general? :P

[pommie]

Mentioning 'Neanderthal Man'(Homo neanderthalensis), do you realize that they are considered by many scholars as a separate species to us (Homo erectus) :P

If that is the case, and I am not saying it is, then there have been at least two species showing intelligence on this planet alone, which leads to the question, how many species would of gained intelligence if the dinosaurs were not raining supreme, and had them for lunch while they were in their primitive stage of development.

hmmmm, eating intelligent species, is that food for thought :-k :biggrin:

Cheers David

[kaldor]

Something that I always think of in terms of human "advancedness"

1- Some humans live in luxury like those in places like UK, Netherlands, etc while others live in little huts with a life expectancy of 30-40 years in some African countries.

2- We're heavily dependent on nature. Our drinking mugs are made of dirt. Our windows are made with sand, and even our computers have water crystals. We still live in small, wooden/brick houses in random areas. Our clothing is made out of plants (hemp, cotton, etc) and animals (wool, leather, etc).

3- People deal with things retardedly. For example, people who are too stupid to think on their own discresion at work/school etc and follow rules too much. You know, the teachers that will give you detention for being late by 5-10 seconds in elementary school because they depend too much on clocks. I recall walking into a classroom, and as soon as the bell rang I was entering the room, but the teacher ran to the door and slammed it in my face and shouted through the door for me to get a late slip at the office. I think that was about 10 years ago now; I feel old :(


In conclusion..

Advanced living is not widespread. We're dependent on the earth for almost everything. And most of all, people are not allowing advancement.

[dragos240]

OMG! I was diagnosed with Asperger's, and I see many other people as mindless robots.

You too?:KS

[kaldor]

Asperger's is an interesting subject.

I knew a guy with Asperger's in school, and he was incredibly awkward to talk to or be around due to his "blankness" but he was very bright, friendly and talkative. He didn't have a great social life, but many people accepted him at school and he had a lot of "in-school" friends as a result. I found he thought a bit more abstractly than most people tend to.

Maybe we shouldn't try to find a "fix" for autism, but maybe learn from it :)

[Shining Arcanine]

Asperger's is an interesting subject.

I knew a guy with Asperger's in school, and he was incredibly awkward to talk to or be around due to his "blankness" but he was very bright, friendly and talkative. He didn't have a great social life, but many people accepted him at school and he had a lot of "in-school" friends as a result. I found he thought a bit more abstractly than most people tend to.

Maybe we shouldn't try to find a "fix" for autism, but maybe learn from it :)

Perhaps we need to cure the people that do not have Asperger's Syndrome. They seem to be the ones responsible for issues in society like violence and organized crime.

If we manage to do that, then maybe an intelligent civilization would not find us so backward that they would allow us the privilege of initiating communication with them.

[Paqman]

I think finding other planets that will support terrestrial life is much more realistic and much more important than finding other life at this stage.

It's not an either/or, the two fields (planet hunting astronomy and exobiology) are complementary. Often they involve the use of the exact same tools, such as spectroscopy.



Our need to terraform and colonize other planets is likely to become urgent long before we happen to encounter (or become able to perceive) the extra-terrestrial life that may be out there.

Terraforming is sci-fi, not reality. We only have the faintest idea of the science, we have none of the engineering, and it's of highly questionable morality.

It also seems highly improbable that we will find a planet that's even 99.9% similar to Earth across the thousands of factors that would have to be spot on for human habitation. On top of all that, you've got the small matter of how to transport machinery to carry out a planetary scale engineering project across interstellar distances. Even if you conjure up some kind of faster-than-light travel the amount of energy you'd expend would make the whole project ludicrously inefficient.

I'm guessing you could build an artificial habitat housing billions of people a lot easier than you could terraform an existing world. The other obvious option would be modifying humans so that we could live in the conditions found naturally on an exoplanet.



Mentioning 'Neanderthal Man'(Homo neanderthalensis), do you realize that they are considered by many scholars as a separate species to us (Homo erectus) :P


We're Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus was another one of our ancestors. But yes, at times in history there have been more than one intelligent human species cohabiting on Earth.

[Dracona]

Look at the world as a whole, this planet is full of death and destruction from the beginning of recorded time. sure we have come a long ways in the past 100 or so years. so far advanced that we are capable of destroying our own planet. people have killed millions of people just in the name of religion, and they still do it to this day. The human race, in effect, is like a cancer of the earth. We have gone to war for petty things, and we have also gone to war for the greater good of things.

Now, if you were an alien looking at this planet, with all its history of death and destruction, the paranoia, why would you want to come here? knowing with all probability that we would engage them in hostilities out of fear, or just to get our hands on their spacecraft/technology.

To think that the earth is the only planet with life on it is a narrow minded point of view. Look at the sands on a beach, think of each grain of sand as a planet, we know sand crabs live there, but to pick on grain up with a sand crab on it and say that this grain of sand is the only grain of sand with a sand crab on it would be an incorrect statement, and we know that to be true.

Just in our galaxy, our planet is a grain of sand.
I for one do not believe we are alone in the universe, i think humanity on a whole is not mature enough for an alien race to come and chat with us. In a sense, it would be like an adult trying to explain the inner workings of an internal combustion engine to a kindergarten class.

Until mankind can put away its differences and learn to live with one another, how could one expect an outside life form of greater intelligence to grace us with its knowledge. If an alien race does visit us now, one would have to wonder why? what purpose are they here for? It would be a reasonable assumption to think if the ET race is advanced enough to visit other planets, conquering our would be very simple indeed.

Back to the original question, "Why are we the only [known to us] beings that can do what we can do?"
1. Opposable thumbs
2. The ability to communicate with each other.
3. The ability to reason

Im sure there are others, but thats what comes to mind first.
sure other species on this planet have some of the same abilities as us, but not all of them.

just my two cents worth.
Dracona

[Austin25]

Maybe there are, in plain sight. We simply don't recognize them.
Bees create fantastic architecture, have a sophisticated agricultural system, and can communicate amongst each other. They also have weapons and have killed people through military strategy.

[7G Operator]

....

[sudoer541]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?


Are you talking about Yoshies? Cuz I have seen one... it was green and it was wearing steel toe shoes.

[dragos240]

Maybe there are, in plain sight. We simply don't recognize them.
Bees create fantastic architecture, have a sophisticated agricultural system, and can communicate amongst each other. They also have weapons and have killed people through military strategy.

Maybe their brains connect wirelessly to a cloud.

[Danny Dubya]

Perhaps we need to cure the people that do not have Asperger's Syndrome. They seem to be the ones responsible for issues in society like violence and organized crime.

If we manage to do that, then maybe an intelligent civilization would not find us so backward that they would allow us the privilege of initiating communication with them.
That's a disgustingly arrogant view you've got there. Being diagnosed with AS myself at an early age, I've become familiarized with others who think the same way you do -- you think of those not diagnosed with that disorder as being "neurotypical", and somehow defective, right?

You're wrong. We're all defective, as long as we possess the pluralized "I"s of the intellectual animal mind within ourselves. People with AS are no better, they simply contain a different set of "I"s. We don't become truly human until we shed this mind filled with chattering thought, rationalizations and selfish desires. Aliens on other planets are far more human than we are, they've already stopped being animals. They want to help us so that we don't attempt to colonize and pollute their planets with our destructive and highly contagious negativity, but they cannot help because our inner nature rejects their help, we're scared of them and we don't want to change for the better. Hard to talk to us when we'll launch missiles at you on sight.

Now to address the myth that life is becoming better and better on this planet, I'm going to leave below this quote :

There is this great concept that we all like to believe: that life is getting better. With Fed Ex, fax machines and the internet, “Life is getting easier.” Everyone is excited, “Look at our great technology, look at our great civilization, look at all of our wonderful accomplishments;” but are we really happier?

Are we suffering less?

The evidence is otherwise. Mental illness is more common. Depression is rampant. Suicides are more common. We are packed like rats in huge stinking cities, drinking dirty water and bathing in chemicals.

We are trapped in a hugely complicated environmental decay; the whole world is trembling under the destructive activity of the human beings.

Everyday, the threats to our health and safety become greater in number and more complicated.

We are trapped in debt, working more and earning less.

Every major social structure is on the brink of disaster. The prison systems are overwhelmed and have no answers for the problems. The educational systems are overwhelmed and have no answers for their problems. The politicians are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues they are pressured by. No one has any answers, and through it all our media keeps singing its happy tune: “buy new things and you will feel better. Get plastic surgery and you will be happy. Dress well, look beautiful, attract the lust and envy of others, and you will be content.”

Deep down, we all know it is a lie. But we cannot face it because we are terrified.

If you look at it objectively, life is getting more complicated. Life is more complicated now that it was for our parents. Life is much more complicated than it was for our grandparents. The rate of change is accelerating, and with that acceleration is coming greater complication, and with the complication there is confusion, worry, doubt, fear. The despair and suffering of humanity is deepening.

[McRat]

It's not an either/or, the two fields (planet hunting astronomy and exobiology) are complementary. Often they involve the use of the exact same tools, such as spectroscopy.



Terraforming is sci-fi, not reality. We only have the faintest idea of the science, we have none of the engineering, and it's of highly questionable morality.

It also seems highly improbable that we will find a planet that's even 99.9% similar to Earth across the thousands of factors that would have to be spot on for human habitation. On top of all that, you've got the small matter of how to transport machinery to carry out a planetary scale engineering project across interstellar distances. Even if you conjure up some kind of faster-than-light travel the amount of energy you'd expend would make the whole project ludicrously inefficient.

I'm guessing you could build an artificial habitat housing billions of people a lot easier than you could terraform an existing world. The other obvious option would be modifying humans so that we could live in the conditions found naturally on an exoplanet.




We're Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus was another one of our ancestors. But yes, at times in history there have been more than one intelligent human species cohabiting on Earth.

Terraforming is just as immoral as farming. Dirt doesn't have feelings, but I can't wait for PETD to get involved (People for the Ethical Treatment of Dirt).

I define it as taking land from a distance planet and making it operate like a terran environment, dirt, water, clouds, heat, atmosphere, etc. Not neccessarily the whole planet.

The moon will have to be the first. It will have to be done with nuclear power, most likely fusion will be required.

Once the moon is terraformed, we go for terraforming Mars. But the spacecraft will always be launched from the moon. The lower gravity and lack of environmental damage will permit much more aggressive launch sites. No weather or atmosphere is a big plus. Terraforming will be limited to biospheres though. Only when no more room is left for biosphere sites will doing whole planet be reasonable.

[BoneKracker]

Terraforming is sci-fi, not reality. We only have the faintest idea of the science, we have none of the engineering, and it's of highly questionable morality.
Listen to you, talking about "exobiology" (a field which is a monument to flawed anthropocentric thought) while calling terraforming "science fiction". :lol:

Everything you say is true, but what you many be considering is that finding extraterrestrial life, or finding other planets within reach that just happen to be habitable, are even more distant possibilities than terraforming. As I've said, any life out there is infinitely more likely to be completely unlike what we know of as "life" than to be what we are stupidly searching for with our ridiculous assumptions that life must be like what we know here.

[Labus]

If the idea of an infinite universe is true, then other intelligent creatures are a unavoidable fact.
I think like this:Even if the chance of life existing on another planet is extremely small. For example 1 in 1000000000000000. (It's probably more, but that just an example)
And that number times ∞ (infinity), will result in another infinity. Thereby are there an infinite number of life forms in the universe.

But that's just how i think :)

[Ebere]

I'm thinking that your post, all by itself, sparked yet another dimension...

;)

[BoneKracker]

Perhaps if we start to open our eyes and quite frankly more importantly our hearts to the sickness of our society (capitalism) and do what we can to change it, for a more socially positive system, as opposed to looking out for number 1 attitude, competitive attitude, that obviously isnt working.

Political rants (particularly those that are vitriolic, hyperbole-filled, and worst of all, inane) are not considered acceptable behavior in these forums.

[wilee-nilee]

Political rants (particularly those that are vitriolic, hyperbole-filled, and worst of all, inane) are not considered acceptable behavior in these forums.

Oh says the infracted great one. I don't think you have a leg to stand here.

[BoneKracker]

Oh says the infracted great one. I don't think you have a leg to stand here.

Hey, how do you think I found that out? :p

(Although my post wasn't inane -- on the contrary, it was factually correct, reasonably concise, and was chock-full of entertainment value.)


This one, however... this naive, ill-informed, angst-filled pontification and prognostication is just &>/dev/null

[dragos240]

86 posts?

[Frak]

86 posts?
That's right, 3 pages.

[BoneKracker]

Worthy topic, dragos240.

[7G Operator]

...

[7G Operator]

..

[McRat]

Oh NO!!! Don't lock ET up!

Wait ...

At least he gets one call to Phone Home.

[adeypoop]

Back to the original question, "Why are we the only [known to us] beings that can do what we can do?"
1. Opposable thumbs
2. The ability to communicate with each other.
3. The ability to reason

Dracona

1. opposable thumbs is a cliche, there are numerous other physical traits we have such as large brain, upright stance, ability to climb and swim, and many more, why always pick that particular trait of the thumb, its like picking up a handlebar and saying this is the important bit of a motorbike. Yes i know it enables us to grab things but that is only a part of a big picture.

2. I am very sure that many if not most animals can communicate with each other. Even bees can communicate very complex messages about locations of flowers etc.

3. Aibility to reason, there are studies which have proved other animals can also reason. we assume too much when we think they can't.

I think as a species we are not intelligent enough to see other animals for what they really are which is a great shame, we need to get past our narrow world view and assumptions based on arrogance.

ps on the subject of extraterrestrial life I am positive it exists all over the entire universe.

[BoneKracker]

Its your sort of undermining, put other people down to try and lift yourself up mentality, that is doing nothing for the well-being of the citizens of this planet
But you see, here is where your sophomoric logic crumbles: your original diatribe was a gross example of precisely the above (in addition to being a violation of the probibition on political debate and a big-time tl;dr).

Also, I'm sorry you find big words intimidating. I didn't choose them because they were big; I chose them because they were precisely the right ones. If you would prefer, next time I'll use "double-plus bad" and the like. Now, enough with the emo drama.

[7G Operator]

.

[BoneKracker]

I'd love to school you on the flaws in your budding philosophical reasoning, but this is not the place for it.

Please take your Socialism sales pitch somewhere else.

In fact, here is the ideal place (I'm serious, and it's even a Linux forum). Tell them I sent you (really):
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewforum-f-10.html?sid=fbf63df390929f58664c0a8668b2f526

[7G Operator]

Whatever dude ;)

[pommie]

To be fair, i kinda got bored re-reading my own ramblgs though, so i don't blame ya if ya don't read it all ;) *Yawns.

Monty Python
The Galaxy Song

Whenever life get you down, Mrs. Brown
And things seem hard or tough
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft
And you feel that you've had quite enu-hu-hu-huuuuff

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour
That's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way

Our galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars
It's 100,000 light-years side-to-side
It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick
But out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide
We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point
We go round every 200 million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth

With thanks to the Monty Python crew.

Cheers David

[BoneKracker]

I wonder if any other species wonder why there are no other species as great as they.

I wonder if, when he's soaring thousands of feet in the air, scanning the small furry creatures darting for cover below, and watching humans spinning our human hamster-wheels, an eagle thinks/feels, "Man, am I awesome! Why are there no other creatures as awesome as I?"

I wonder if dolphins and whales wonder what the hell those silly herds of noisy, crawling creatures are doing, trapped on the fecund surface of their tiny, festering islands.

[Ebere]

Perfect.

[lostinxlation]

"Why are we the only [known to us] beings that can do what we can do?"

The question answered to its own question.

[luceerose]

The folklore of many South American civilizations describes how their people were given their knowledge of agriculture & astronomy by people who came down from the stars & taught them.

Other planets notwithstanding, civilization has risen right here on earth at least once before.
The architecture of the Aztecs clearly consists of newer structures being built on top of much older ones. The people built on these sites because the monuments they discovered were considered ancient & sacred.

Egypt itself was founded in much the same way. The inscription on the leg of the Sphinx says something to the effect of "Here the great pharoah Kafre uncovered this monument from the sands". Indeed MOST of the erosion on the Sphinx is from rain & ocean.
The whole of Upper Egypt, however, has been desert ever since the Pyramids & Sphinx were built according to modern accepted history.

Many objects that are quite obviously man-made have been dug up, dated & found to be up to 3.3 billion years old. Many, many such artifacts do not go on record simply because they do not fit into the currently accepted archaeological scale.

As for life being a "freak happening",
There are a small number of chemical compounds required to trigger the production of hydro-carbon based life (I think it's 7).
2 of those compounds DID NOT EXIST on earth at the time life started. One of those 2 may have came on a comet or meteorite, but the other one is thwarted by Nitrogen & COULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED in earths Nitrogenous atmosphere in large enough quantities to create life. Therefore, the final ingredient required for that life to start had to have been artificially introduced...

[v1ad]

Creationism (imho)

[alexan]

I've been wondering this for a while. We can't be the only ones this advanced. Have we found any other species that is comparable to us?
We did find, and we did kill them.
I don't quite remember were i did read/listen it; but during our cognitive phase of evolution there was other little monkeys over our same path (but slightly behind)... we did kill them.

[Paqman]

Listen to you, talking about "exobiology" (a field which is a monument to flawed anthropocentric thought) while calling terraforming "science fiction". :lol:

Everything you say is true, but what you many be considering is that finding extraterrestrial life, or finding other planets within reach that just happen to be habitable, are even more distant possibilities than terraforming. As I've said, any life out there is infinitely more likely to be completely unlike what we know of as "life" than to be what we are stupidly searching for with our ridiculous assumptions that life must be like what we know here.

I think you're underestimating the scientists working in the field. They're quite well aware that it's possible that alien life could take a very bizarre form. In fact, a lot of time and effort in exobiology is being put into the study of extremophiles. Exobiologists are very interested in finding out just how bizarre life can be.

Could alien life be even more bizarre than anything we've seen on Earth? Of course, but once you're operating beyond the known you're into the realms of speculation. It's fun to speculate, but it's hardly a sensible basis for conducting an actual search. If alien life could take any form, and live in any environment, then that narrows your search down to, hmm, THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE! Good luck with that...

[standingwave]

Many objects that are quite obviously man-made have been dug up, dated & found to be up to 3.3 billion years old. .Source?


Many, many such artifacts do not go on record simply because they do not fit into the currently accepted archaeological scale.Ah, it's a conspiracy.


There are a small number of chemical compounds required to trigger the production of hydro-carbon based life (I think it's 7). 2 of those compounds DID NOT EXIST on earth at the time life started. Source?

[forrestcupp]

What about the Cthulhu?




Many objects that are quite obviously man-made have been dug up, dated & found to be up to 3.3 billion years old.

Lol. You're the first person I've ever heard date mankind anywhere near that long. :)

Are you sure you don't mean 3.3 million years? ;)

[matthew.ball]

Yeah, taking into account the Earth is only ~4.5 billion years old (give or take a few percent), it would be surprising to find there was "intelligent" life around only a billion years after formation.

Considering the amount of time taken for our atmosphere to fully develop before any sort of non-bacterium life could develop - this isn't just limited to breathing animals, plant life in general didn't just pop up straight away.

I remember reading something about abiogensis, and how the first "life" on Earth (which probably would have been single cell prokaryotes) started to appear about a billion years after the Earth formed.

I think 3.3 million years (as forrestcupp suggested) for "intelligent" life would be more realistic.

Of course, this is only what I have read. I'm a philosophy major so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

[BoneKracker]

Many objects that are quite obviously man-made have been dug up, dated & found to be up to 3.3 billion years old. Many, many such artifacts do not go on record simply because they do not fit into the currently accepted archaeological scale.

Really? I wasn't aware of this. Could you point us to some credible sources that support this claim? 3.3-billion-year-old man-made objects: wow!



Therefore, the final ingredient required for that life to start had to have been artificially introduced...
Meteorites are "artificial"?

Following that logic, the Earth itself is "artificial", because a meteor striking the Earth is nothing more than a continuation of the very process which formed it -- the gravitational convergence of matter.

[McRat]

Really? I wasn't aware of this. Could you point us to some credible sources that support this claim? 3.3-billion-year-old man-made objects: wow!



Meteorites are "artificial"?

Following that logic, the Earth itself is "artificial", because a meteor striking the Earth is nothing more than a continuation of the very process which formed it -- the gravitational convergence of matter.

In my first apartment there was something, maybe it was a cheeseburger, who knows, that was at least 3 billion years old in one of the cupboards. Fact.

[BoneKracker]

Could alien life be even more bizarre than anything we've seen on Earth? Of course, but once you're operating beyond the known you're into the realms of speculation. It's fun to speculate, but it's hardly a sensible basis for conducting an actual search. If alien life could take any form, and live in any environment, then that narrows your search down to, hmm, THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE! Good luck with that...
Thanks for a classical "appeal to ridicule". Those always come out when somebody has a weak argument.

Also, this is the logical flaw I call the "butt-wiping" flaw. "Why bother to wipe your butt?! How absurd! You know darned well you're only going to foul it again!"

Unless you are being obtuse, you are well aware that it is completely possible to define broader definitions of "life" than what we seem to be fixated on presently (i.e. hydrocarbon-based, genetic procession, etc.). You try to ridicule speculation, while I'm sure you are aware it is the impetus of scientific discovery.

Also, given the narrow range of our sensory capability and the sparseness of space, artificially constraining a search for life in those terms is absurd. Looking for signs of hydrocarbon-based, oxygen-respiring, entities which happen to inhabit the surface of planets within the tiny reach of our telescopes. Yeah. Good luck with that. Talk about myopic thinking.

That's truly in the same bucket with the thinking that the sun must be pulled across the sky by a man driving a chariot. Really. Rather than dissipating our efforts like that, we should be looking for any evidence of order or chaos beyond what is expected, because that is evidence of an unknown actor, be that an unknown natural force or some form of life.

Now, I am not saying we should not be looking for signs of similar life forms. We should. But I repeatedly hear claims (even mathematical claims) regarding the existence, location, or nature extraterrestrial life expressed in terms of terrestrial life. As an example, we frequently hear scientists talk about "the conditions necessary to produce life", and when we do, they almost always do it in terrestrial terms, and this is absurd.

Yes, some scientists talk about how it is likely to be different and not resemble terrestrial life, but then they describe minor variations on the same theme, such as gas-bag creatures floating in the air, or creatures that have senses other than our five. Or if they are really "out of the box thinkers", maybe it's silicon-based life instead of carbon, because they live in a silicon-based environment.

That thinking is still artificially-constrained and based on what we are familiar with here. There is no reason "life" has to involve cells or liquid, planets, or even matter. The more we artificially constrain our selves with that kind of flat-world thinking, the less likely we are to truly gain an understanding.

[Khakilang]

Animals can do what we can do. They have sex and breed just like us.
:popcorn:

[Paqman]

As an example, we frequently hear scientists talk about "the conditions necessary to produce life", and when we do, they almost always do it in terrestrial terms, and this is absurd.


No it isn't. You can only base your theory on the actual data set you have. There's been a lot of thought and discussion into the possible chemical basis of alien life, but we don't have any good candidates other than what we know from Earth.

I strongly disagree with your whole assertion. The problem isn't a lack of vision, it's a lack of data. We just don't know how life would work without (for example) water as a solvent, or cells, or oxygen and carbon. Maybe it can, but for now the evidence suggests that it can't.

Nobody is suggesting that our knowledge of the nature and abundance of life in the universe is in any way adequate. But for now we have to get on with the search based on the only data that we actually have.


we should be looking for any evidence of order or chaos beyond what is expected

How would you actually measure that, and how do you identify order or chaos created by life from other processes? Sounds like a great idea in theory, but where's the engineering?


That thinking is still artificially-constrained and based on what we are familiar with here

Quite reasonably so, and people are well aware that they're applying that constraint deliberately. The idea that life could be extremely different to what we know isn't some kind of secret. Pretty much anybody who's thought about extraterrestrial life for more than about 10 seconds has probably had the same thought. The bottom line is: where does that idea lead us? Nowhere. It's not an idea that actually produces anything testable.

[BoneKracker]

I strongly disagree with your whole assertion. The problem isn't a lack of vision, it's a lack of data. We just don't know how life would work without (for example) water as a solvent, or cells, or oxygen and carbon. Maybe it can, but for now the evidence suggests that it can't.

I understand that disciplined experimental scientific processes are best taken in tiny increments, where theories are postulated as minor variations on existing accepted theories which have been confirmed and not disputed by observation (your "data"). However, one can become lost among those trees so deeply that one may not be aware of the forest, or worse yet, that one isn't even in the right forest. Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, and others made great leaps of "speculation" that were only later experimentally confirmed. The scientific process, while it does encourage rigor, does not prohibit speculation.

You talk about lack of data and evidence. Let's take that a bit further. (Be patient here and try to read several paragraphs before responding.) We have no reason to believe that life exists anywhere else. There is no evidence of it; there is no data. In fact, the data we do have suggests otherwise. Therefore, following your own logic, there is absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever for a theory that life exists anywhere else and therefore no scientific justification for searching for it. Bear with me...

We know that life exists here. At a fundamental, philosophical level, this suggests that life may exist elsewhere. We have a philosophical basis for conjecture, debate, and raw theoretical expostulation.

At a slightly more sophisticated level, we may examine the statistical likelihood that, given a googleplex (or whatever) of stars, the processes which gave rise to life here should recur. Although we are actually engaged in this, the truth is that we lack the means to quantify this with any reliability. We know little about other stars and planets and next to nothing about the chemical processes and environmental conditions on their surfaces. If we are intellectually honest, the only thing we can state with any degree of statistical certainty is that, if the universe is truly infinite, then it must be true that similar life exists elsewhere.

But that's actually next to meaningless because we don't actually understand the nature of our universe to the degree that we can claim it to be "infinite". In all intellectual honesty and with a rational perspective, we must admit that our understanding of our universe is not much beyond the understanding our ancestors had of the Earth when they claimed it rested on the back of a metaphorical turtle.

As an illustration of this, answer for yourself this question: "Where is the universe?". ("Everything in our world is located relative to something else. The universe must then be, at least conceptually, inside something.") Is it a bubble in quantum foam? If it is in fact truly infinite, where are the physics ("where's the engineering") that explain that condition of infinity and, more importantly, its context? Let's continue further. Where did the Big Bang take place? It created space, time, and matter. Before there was space, time and matter, what was the framework of existence of this singularity that then became space and time? What was the context? ("Where's the engineering?")

We are only just beginning to answer such questions. We perceive space, time, matter, and gravity, but aren't even sure how many dimensions exist must less the relationships between them or how to explore them. We are ignorant. We must admit this. We do NOT know the nature of our universe. Let's be honest with ourselves, relative to what we will need to know to answer such questions, we're not really much beyond, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Because of our inability to answer such questions, regardless of whether or not our latest myopic set of equations are holding together (or almost holding together), the truth is that we do NOT know that what we call "space" is effectively infinite or that what we call "time" began at the Big Bang. Because of the lack of context, we have no real basis to estimate the dimensions of the "universe" (or, I think I mean "the cosmos" here). For all we know, our expanding universe is simply a local event on a much, much, much larger stage; a speck of dust among many other, potentially very different, specks with different phenomena not resembling our space, time, and matter.

We are just not in a position to quantify the likelihood that the same processes which have produced what we know here as "life" have also occurred elsewhere. Furthermore, we're in no position to estimate the likelihood that, has this indeed occurred, that it would be contemporary to or even of reasonable temporal proximity with our existence. Moreover, we have no basis whatsoever to estimate the probability that this has occurred in reasonable physical proximity to us and would foreseeably be within range of our sensory capability.

With all these uncertainties of such enormous magnitude, there is no more scientific basis for a search for life that is similar to ours than life which is dissimilar. In fact, the argument for doing so is purely philosophical, and not scientific at all: one argues that since we are the only example of life we know of, we should look for something like us. This makes the philosophical presumption that nothing can exist which has not been observed and that we are primal among existence. This is akin to the geocentric thinking used to convict Gallileo. It's absurd.

Logic, on the other hand, tells us that a very large (i.e., effectively infinite) number of different processes could arise that would give rise to self-replicating order and eventually (as here) perhaps some degree of self-determination (which is I say is the essence of life, and not "carbon", "water", or "dna"). "Water" acting as a "solvent" is less prerequisite to this than Bearnaise sauce is to a meal. Logic and fundamental statistical reasoning tell us that we are almost infinitely more likely to find something wildly dissimilar to ourselves than to find something similar.


How would you actually measure that, and how do you identify order or chaos created by life from other processes? Sounds like a great idea in theory, but where's the engineering?
Engineering is not a prerequisite for a concept. It works the other way around. Data is not a prerequisite for a theory; you use data to support a theory.[QUOTE=Paqman;9428230]
You are an intelligent person. I'm sure you have, for example, measured the entropy of a system in chemistry class. Maybe you have calculated the degree of randomness of data sets in statistics class before. I'm sure you're aware of tests to which hardware and software random number generators are subject.

By searching for unexpected order, we are casting a much wider net than by searching for terrestrial life. When we find it, then we delve more deeply into its cause. I'll remind you at this point, however, that I do believe in doing both -- my point is that we are doing almost none of the one and far too much of the other because our closed-minded, in-the-box, geocentric/anthropocentric prejudices.

Now, I don't want to argue about this forever. I'll try to let you have the last word.

[7G Operator]

"If a scientist cannot tell me exactly how long a piece of string is, then you will forgive me if i do not regard his/her theories as anymore important than, say bob the builder down the street."

-ObiDan Kinobi.

Whats that Bonekracker?..waffle waffle..yawn yawn..oh you mentioned philosophy.

At a fundamental, philosophical level, this suggests that life may exist elsewhere. We have a philosophical basis for conjecture, debate, and raw theoretical expostulation.

Well i would like to take this moment amidst your prophetic preaching to point out to you that, according to the ubuntu code of conduct, talk about such things is actually prohibited in these forums. I suggest you take your inane ramblings elsewhere. ;)

Lots of love - Dan x x

[BoneKracker]

"If a scientist cannot tell me exactly how long a piece of string is, then you will forgive me if i do not regard his/her theories as anymore important than, say bob the builder down the street."

-ObiDan Kinobi.

Whats that Bonekracker?..waffle waffle..yawn yawn..oh you mentioned philosophy.


Well i would like to take this moment amidst your prophetic preaching to point out to you that, according to the ubuntu code of conduct, talk about such things is actually prohibited in these forums. I suggest you take your inane ramblings elsewhere. ;)

Lots of love - Dan x x

There is an adult conversation going on here. If you care to participate, feel free, but try to act like a normal human being.

Talk about Philosophy is not prohibited by the Code of Conduct. What is prohibited is what you are doing now -- harassment, unprovoked hostility and verbal abuse.

Also, I hope you don't think deleting your previous posts makes any difference, the mods can still see those (and for what it's worth, you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating a pattern of immature, antisocial behavior, so you might want to tone it down a bit).

[7G Operator]

I should also like to remind you that any talk outside of the extremely narrow elitest spectrum of 'science' that could cause someone somewhere in the world to become very slightly offended is also prohibited. This includes but is not limited to......

everything but science.

Conflicting views are not appreciated, nor is "free-thinking" as conforming to a preconceived politically correct mindset is paramount.

Oh dear i just used a dirty word.

Having varying opinions and beliefs is also strongly disapproved of, as this may lead to heavens forbid, heated debates/arguments, and you people are obviously not restrained enough to realise that they are nothing more than conflicting ideas and have such little faith in the human race, that you think a giant free for all is going to ensue from such conversations. To try to enforce such things is tantamount to a dictator forcing their own values upon others, and then forcing them to abide by them. Is not common sense a commodity in great abundance these days? I really do wonder sometimes. One can talk about science, but not politics, aliens but not God. Who has the right to say these things? Surely talk about science could be considered as equally as inflammatory as talk about politics? I have seen first-hand heated arguments and name calling ensuing from scientists disagreeing with one anothers theories first hand in these here forums. Yet when someone peacefully talks about their experiences of politics or of God, they are shunned. This is ridiculous is it not. Sort it out Ubuntu Forums.

Thankyou.


"Without friction there can be no forward motion."

-ObiDan Kinobi

[7G Operator]

There is an adult conversation going on here. If you care to participate, feel free, but try to act like a normal human being.Adult conversation...? Ah i see.



Also, I hope you don't think deleting your previous posts makes any difference, the mods can still see those (and for what it's worth, you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating a pattern of immature, antisocial behavior, so you might want to tone it down a bit).

Pot calling kettle black springs suddenly to mind.

No i didnt erase them for fear of moderation buddy. I erased them more out of protest. It was wasted energy in a way, no point in trying to have reasonable conversations with those incapable of seeing past their own fantabulous egos.

I stand by what i say as well. For better or for worse. If it gets me booted out. So be it. I'd rather it didn't. But i am not going to sit idly by whilst someone tries (tries being the operative word) to insult me. I suggest you take a look back through your precious messages and perhaps the error of your ways will be made all the more clear.

Cheers ;)

[BoneKracker]

I should also like to remind you that any talk outside of the extremely narrow elitest spectrum of 'science' that could cause someone somewhere in the world to become very slightly offended is also prohibited. This includes but is not limited to......

everything but science.

Conflicting views are not appreciated, nor is "free-thinking" as conforming to a preconceived politically correct mindset is paramount.

Oh dear i just used a dirty word.

Having varying opinions and beliefs is also strongly disapproved of, as this may lead to heavens forbid, heated debates/arguments, and you people are obviously not restrained enough to realise that they are nothing more than conflicting ideas and have such little faith in the human race, that you think a giant free for all is going to ensue from such conversations. To try to enforce such things is tantamount to a dictator forcing their own values upon others, and then forcing them to abide by them. Is not common sense a commodity in great abundance these days? I really do wonder sometimes. One can talk about science, but not politics, aliens but not God. Who has the right to say these things? Surely talk about science could be considered as equally as inflammatory as talk about politics? I have seen first-hand heated arguments and name calling ensuing from scientists disagreeing with one anothers theories first hand in these here forums. Yet when someone peacefully talks about their experiences of politics or of God, they are shunned. This is ridiculous is it not. Sort it out Ubuntu Forums.
It happens I agree with you. However, that is not considered acceptable here. In good faith I provided with a link to a forum I think you would enjoy, where people engage in spirited debate with few restrictions. My telling you that was not to insult you but to actually give you a forum to discuss what's on your mind.

If you have an objection to the rules here, or how someone interprets them, then the place to discuss that is in Forum Feedback, not here.

[pommie]

"If a scientist cannot tell me exactly how long a piece of string is, then you will forgive me if i do not regard his/her theories as anymore important than, say bob the builder down the street."

-ObiDan Kinobi.
Lots of love - Dan x x

Hmmm, I found out the answer to that when I was about 5yo, where have you been all these years.

Oh yeah, you will need the answer spelling out to you, will you not, it exactly twice as long as half.

Now do you mind letting the grown-ups talk, I am enjoying reading this thread.

Cheers David

[7G Operator]

So what if your on an alien planet and half means quarter? Then you would be wrong. Would you not? ;)


Now do you mind letting the grown-ups talk, I am enjoying reading this thread.Don't mind if i do, most gracious of you. ;)

Thank you so much.

Dan ;)

[7G Operator]

Ah good faith bonecracker i see. It would seem unfortunate then i suppose that your suggestion to look elsewhere, was actually prefixed by a couple of rather interesting comments as i recall, to do with inane, hyperbole and what was the other one...i can;t remember really vitriolic political rantings perhaps? Having an opninion is cool i strongly encourage it, but when you resort to name-calling one has a right to question the integrity of a 'good-faith' suggestion to post on other websites. Do they not? P.s i won't quote you, its too mainstream, everyones doing it, its way zero-cool. Look man. You have your ideas. I have mine, any sort of debasive arguments or name-calling are doing nothing more than undermining ourselves. I tried to point this out before. Differences are cool they should be celebrated, as long as both people are rational human-beings then there is no problem with that. I hereby apologize for any name-calling earlier, it was intended as nothing more than idle banter, but if i caused you offense i'm sorry.

- Dan

[BoneKracker]

Ah good faith bonecracker i see. It would seem unfortunate then i suppose that your suggestion to look elsewhere, was actually prefixed by a couple of rather interesting comments as i recall, to do with inane, hyperbole and what was the other one...i can;t remember really vitriolic political rantings perhaps? Having an opninion is cool i strongly encourage it, but when you resort to name-calling
That is not name-calling. Justifiably attacking what someone has said is not the same thing as attacking someone (i.e., ad hominem).



You have your ideas. I have mine, any sort of debasive arguments or name-calling are doing nothing more than undermining ourselves. I tried to point this out before. Differences are cool they should be celebrated, as long as both people are rational human-beings then there is no problem with that.
You initiated this by jumping into an ongoing discussion with a (yes) vitriolic and inflammatory broadside blaming the evils of capitalism for the woes of the world -- in a forum where political debate is prohibited.


I hereby apologize for any name-calling earlier, it was intended as nothing more than idle banter, but if i caused you offense i'm sorry.Apology accepted. I likewise apologize for any offense I may have caused you. All is forgotten. :)

[Smart Viking]

We have not found any species that are smarter than us because we are so stupid.

[BoneKracker]

We have not found any species that are smarter than us because we are so stupid.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? :lol:

[7G Operator]

I sincerely did not say such things to inflame others dude. I still give a **** and to see my fellow human beings souls being corroded away by such a system makes me livid. If someone was torturing your family you'd be narked would you not? We need to look out for each other, rather than attack each other, and whether you agree with me or not, in my humble opinion capitialism is not looking out for one another. Thats just an analogy though, everyone has their own views and own personal beliefs, to realise this, and to accept each others views as being of equal importance to our own. (even if they happen to be wrong ;) Perhaps this is respect.

- Dan

[BoneKracker]

I sincerely did not say such things to inflame others dude. I still give a **** and to see my fellow human beings souls being corroded away by such a system makes me livid. If someone was torturing your family you'd be narked would you not? We need to look out for each other, rather than attack each other, and whether you agree with me or not, in my humble opinion capitialism is not looking out for one another. Thats just an analogy though, everyone has their own views and own personal beliefs, to realise this, and to accept each others views as being of equal importance to our own. (even if they happen to be wrong ;) Perhaps this is respect.
I understand your point. I will only say that you should consider that you may be thinking in black and white, and that the real world is all shades of gray. This is not a permissible subject of discussion, as it is destined to become a political flame-fest. I suggest you just scratch it off your list of things to talk about in this forum (as I have had to do with some of my favorite pet-peeves).

[Edit: or if you really really want to discuss it, and you feel you must discuss it in the Ubuntu forums, start a new thread about Capitalism, approach the subject very diplomatically, and see what happens. But I would anticipate thread closure by page 2, and a possible infraction. :lol: ]

[KiwiNZ]

Thread closed