PDA

View Full Version : We are not alone



safetyman
03-23-2011, 08:03 AM
New Estimate for Alien Earths: 2 Billion in Our Galaxy Alone...

http://www.space.com/11188-alien-earths-planets-sun-stars.html

Kinda throws that whole "life is scarce" theory out with the trash.

oliversimonnet
03-23-2011, 08:15 AM
WOAh thats a lot of "alien Earth's"

SBowie
03-23-2011, 08:20 AM
Well, at least we finally have an explanation as to why L.A. gets attacked by aliens so frequently. (Clearly, since they are in the immediate neighborhood, they get the same t.v. programming we get originating from Hollywood, and have decided to end it.)

cgisoul
03-23-2011, 08:44 AM
Don't you just love Science! Oh boy! :)
Comparing to what they though there was only 1 Earth alike planet.
Now, they have more reasons to go deeper and further.

erikals
03-26-2011, 01:59 AM
Nooooooo!! http://erikalstad.com/backup/anims.php_files/eek.gif

http://erikalstad.com/backup/anims.php_files/alien.gif

crashnburn
03-26-2011, 10:00 AM
I've seen Men in Black, many a true word spoken in jest. Anyone got thoughts on who could be a secret alien? I reckon Mel Gibson is a candidate.

wrench
03-26-2011, 05:57 PM
The Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) has says that there has to be alien life around us, although Enrico Fermi, while agreeing with Frank, posited the what has become called the Fermi Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox).

B

safetyman
03-27-2011, 06:44 AM
"The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it."

Just because one hasn't observed something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And who says we don't have evidence here on Earth? Some have suggested that Machu Pichu, or even the Pyramids are evidence that we have been visited.

Nicolas Jordan
03-27-2011, 06:56 AM
If the intelligent inhabitants of those earth like planets are anything like us they probably exterminated themselves long ago. :D

erikals
03-27-2011, 10:20 AM
"The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it."

not really,... if you look at the earth from outer space, just how easy is it to see that it supports life(?) not very imo...

prometheus
03-27-2011, 10:24 AM
Are there any statistic calculations on the life span syncronisation?

life, civilizations could have died out thousands or millions of years ago, or havenīt reached the peak where they have such intelligense to communicate with radiowaves etc.

civilizations need to find eachother in space And in time to get connected I guess, and Itīs awfully quiet out there It seems.

Personally I donīt believe there is That many civilization that has reach our level or beyond it..and if there is I believe they might be so extremly far away that we canīt even find their signals.

but because of the vast distances It might just be possible that our civilization is just to young and have only searched the skies for signals in a short life span.

what do you guys think about the quiet space?
is it..

1. the alien life is hiding their signals, to be safe?

2. the signals gets washed out along with other space noise?

3. we cant search the skies properly and need better tools`

4. they are just so far from us and are not syncronized in time( civilizations died out or are still developing techniques)?

5. there are no such advanced alien life forms, earth is unique..sure there are millions of alien life forms, but hasnīt reached our level of communication?

or any other suggestions?
I wish I could chime in with that movie quote from contact thou..
"Itīs an awful waste of space otherwise"

Michael

cresshead
03-27-2011, 10:47 AM
well 'we' have only been capable of beaming signals for around 50 years....our nearest star is 4.2 light years away [not including our own star - sol]
so our nearest star has only had 42 years to reply from the VERY first signal arriving...

prometheus
03-27-2011, 10:52 AM
well 'we' have only been capable of beaming signals for around 50 years....our nearest star is 4.2 light years away

Not entirely correct, our nearest star is 8 minutes and aprox 19 seconds away in lightspeed measure :)

but I guess the alien lifeforms arenīt playing hide and seek behind that star :santa:

but I get what you mean..the other way around might be more confusing thou, that we donīt spot anything, wich might suggest that possible civilizations might
be very young too.

Michael

cresshead
03-27-2011, 10:53 AM
so there's 23 stars within 30 light years from us...taking into account them recieving our first signal...understanding it and then sending a reply back... [50 years of light travel]

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-ks.htm#20-30

you have to remember we're not anyway near the centre of our galaxy...but just a non descript star system on the outer spiral arm.

prometheus
03-27-2011, 11:47 AM
so there's 23 stars within 30 light years from us...taking into account them recieving our first signal...understanding it and then sending a reply back... [50 years of light travel]

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-ks.htm#20-30

you have to remember we're not anyway near the centre of our galaxy...but just a non descript star system on the outer spiral arm.

I donīt think there should have been a need for us to send signals first, we should have heard signals from those regions anyway.
23 stars you say, and how many has planets? and how many of them are habitable, and If habitable how many has evolved living life, and how many has evolved to...the list goes on and on of circumstances that might be reuqired for life to show up, and even more settings to allow the life to evolve and survive through millions of years and lastly evolve to such high intelligence that it can communicate through some kind of radiowaves.

I have my mind set to believe that there are lifeforms evolved to a certain level, but I donīt think there are that many (if any) lifeforms highly advanced in our galaxy...that is what my gut says to me and are by no way supported by some kind of scientific research by me whatsoever..just personal beliefs.
I do wish I could be wrong on that thou, It would be awesome if there were literally thousands of highly advanced civilizations far beyond our selfe, and the signals might just be a couple of decennium before such
contacts are made.

I believe that in such case It would be most certainly impossible for our generation to make physical contact, but perhaps communications could be established through years where a common language and exchange of data is transfered between us, with everything from how they look like and how they live and where, that would be so rocking cool..if they are nice thou, maybe some alien life forms have seen our war transmissions and decided not to contact us yet.

Michael

cresshead
03-27-2011, 11:56 AM
i think it's quite unreasonable to think they should contact us first...we're nothing special location wise..why would they be looking this way..if they are further than 50 light years away they would have heard nothing from us so far...our planet is quite small so is had to find any info about...just as we have struggled to 'see' any planet even if it's the size of jupiter [x1000 our size]

radio signals are the only way for reasonable communication as travelling distances in light years is very problematic as we currently understand.

i believe there is a reasonable probability that there are indeed thousands of populated planets with intelligent life within our huge galaxy...however there are undeniable problems in transport and communications.

prometheus
03-27-2011, 12:07 PM
i think it's quite unreasonable to think they should contact us first...we're nothing special location wise..why would they be looking this way.

That is true, but Im not talking about the fact that they are trying to contact us, Im talking about that we should probably have intercepted radio transmissions from their early stage of technological acvances at
early radio communications without them aiming for contacting anyone, much as like we have done.

Michael

cresshead
03-27-2011, 12:17 PM
That is true, but Im not talking about the fact that they are trying to contact us, Im talking about that we should probably have intercepted radio transmissions from their early stage of technological acvances at
early radio communications without them aiming for contacting anyone, much as like we have done.

Michael

yeh, well we might have...but our governments might not think we deserve to know.:D

or aliens might have sent messages for hundreds of years while 'we' were still hunter gatherer's or in the middle ages...then decided it was a dead zone and moved on in their search

100 years ago we've just started making the combustion engine useful and were about to learn to fly...no computers...telegrams were cutting edge communication.

prometheus
03-27-2011, 12:59 PM
I can almost see a james woods character in "contact" ahead of me, being paranoid about hostile aliens.:D

I wonder what the goverments over the world has set as an agenda or should I say policy regarding contacts with aliens, didnīt reagan start something in the us?

I believe thereīs some minor policys in sweden discussing that, not sure thou if thereīs any declaration on that.

Ivé seen that the brilliant mind wrangler Stephen Hawking is very confident on that is unlikely that we should be alone as intelligent life, I agree on that, but how many he predicts doesnīt come through from what Ivé read?

He also seem to believe that such intelligent life might be or perhaps most likely would be an alien lifeform that uses up planet resources and moves on to the next not caring about origin civilizations and draws similarities with our selves throu ages.

I donīt agree or believe those thoughts of Steven Hawking to be true thou..

I think we as a civlization have to learn to communicate with our own countries our fellow humans and even animals in order for us to survive and reach that level of advanced civilization, for us to travel to other habital planets.

Now ..everything might not just be one way or other, black or white..it could possible be that there are such hostile civilizations anyway, alongside with many others that would respect other civilizations and so advanced that they could find other resources not already populated.

Michael

cresshead
03-27-2011, 01:16 PM
you never know who's coming to visit :D


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_26QJBcCUFjg/TPEF15P_F6I/AAAAAAAAA_E/mFI-YOBmfcY/s1600/cybermen002.jpg

http://www.dalek6388.co.uk/images/destiny-dalek-seven-ii.png

cresshead
03-27-2011, 07:01 PM
worth a look

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0101h6w/Wonders_of_the_Universe_Messengers/

Dexter2999
03-27-2011, 09:56 PM
So, to get to even the closest habitable planet, will require generational ships (because I just don't buy into cryogenics or "stasis" and don't see "wormholes" as being highly viable). Do you think they will try to build ships that go from point A to point B straight on through? Or do you think there will be ships sent to "checkpoints" to build waystations for ships to hook up with for possible repairs and whatnot?

prometheus
03-27-2011, 11:08 PM
sounds most logical to me that we should travel to the most habitable planets found, and learn how to travel between checkpoints,and probably doing so by generations, cryogenics..well swell if that works, but It more sounds like a dream for us now to actually beeing able to travel there in our lifetime.


Michael

meshpig
03-28-2011, 03:34 AM
The Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) has says that there has to be alien life around us, although Enrico Fermi, while agreeing with Frank, posited the what has become called the Fermi Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox).

B

Personally, I think Drake was a bit of an over enthusiastic dullard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Criticismand

besides you don't need the Fermi paradox to get that, given 2 billion earth like planets in a galaxy 150 000 lr across ( 9,460,528,410,545,436 m x 150 000) the chances are still slim that one of them will really be "like" earth.

- 4.5 billion years ago Earth was dominated by the then most advanced species, the Stromatolites and for a Billion years. Factor that into the Drake equation and the chances of humans coinciding with some counterpart nearby are reduced to a big fat zero.

Bill Carey
03-28-2011, 03:47 AM
I don't know if it's quite 0, but the odds of an alien species being millions of years ahead or behind us are a lot better than having one that still uses radio waves being around just now. There may be signs of advanced civilizations using stellar engineering around, we're just to dim to understand what we're seeing. Encyclopedia Galactica might be broadcasting all around us using methods we can't detect. All we can do is keep chipping away at our ignorance.

meshpig
03-28-2011, 03:53 AM
I believe that cryonics will be viable within about 25 years or so.

Yeah sure Megalodon, societies around the world can't get their head around euthanasia year after year yet what makes you think freezing people will be any different if it ever does become possible?

meshpig
03-28-2011, 04:35 AM
I don't know if it's quite 0, but the odds of an alien species being millions of years ahead or behind us are a lot better than having one that still uses radio waves being around just now. There may be signs of advanced civilizations using stellar engineering around, we're just to dim to understand what we're seeing. Encyclopedia Galactica might be broadcasting all around us using methods we can't detect. All we can do is keep chipping away at our ignorance.

Advanced civilisations and earth like planets?... you kinda need an earth like planet first before you entertain the possibility of "civilisations".

So called civilised beings arose here on earth only after a billion billion other species lived and died here over a few billions years first without it ever even having been remotely necessary. So, if you have 2 billion earth like planets in the galaxy you have to multiply that by a large trillion for each planet then by 2 billion to find another animal which you might call 'civilised" in the sense "we" mean it.

prometheus
03-28-2011, 05:14 AM
Letīs hope they donīt complicate the signals, what could be more easier than true/false 0/1..black and white:)

Michael

meshpig
03-28-2011, 05:22 AM
Letīs hope they donīt complicate the signals, what could be more easier than true/false 0/1..black and white:)

Michael

Try "Johnny B Good"/Chuck Berry which went out with Voyager in the late 70's? It's pretty fanciful stuff... or pissing in the wind?:)

meshpig
03-28-2011, 05:30 AM
worth a look

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0101h6w/Wonders_of_the_Universe_Messengers/

What's happened to the freakin BBC lately? "Not available in your area"... mmm? Seen it anyway and yeah, what happened to the BBC?

Hominid 3D
03-28-2011, 05:33 AM
I donīt believe that any moderately advanced civilization would be interested in any contact whatsoever with a species that fights itself in wars or pollutes the atmosphere it lives in.

For all ends and purposes to them weīre just monkeys throwing poo at each other.

Itīs like many big minds have been saying lately. Contact could end very badly for us.

safetyman
03-28-2011, 05:42 AM
Advanced civilisations and earth like planets?... you kinda need an earth like planet first before you entertain the possibility of "civilisations".

So called civilised beings arose here on earth only after a billion billion other species lived and died here over a few billions years first without it ever even having been remotely necessary. So, if you have 2 billion earth like planets in the galaxy you have to multiply that by a large trillion for each planet then by 2 billion to find another animal which you might call 'civilised" in the sense "we" mean it.

I don't believe you can base ALL life in the universe by what happens here on Earth. We are still babies and overall ignorant when it comes to understanding how the universe works. Heck, it's only been in the last few years that we've been able to determine how black holes are involved with galaxy creation. A lot of the "science" that exists in this area is theory. For us to say, "The steps it took for intelligent life to form on Earth were mainly based on unique and/or random events = very little possibility for other intelligent life to exist elsewhere" is flawed logic.

Speaking of which: I saw a piece on Science Channel or Discovery about some guy who created a formula for traveling across the universe very quickly (almost instantaneously in fact) -- something about warping space/time. Other scientists confirmed his formula as valid. The only problem is, it would require an enormous amount of power to work, something equivalent to the power generated by a star.

meshpig
03-28-2011, 06:47 AM
I donīt believe that any moderately advanced civilization would be interested in any contact whatsoever with a species that fights itself in wars or pollutes the atmosphere it lives in.

For all ends and purposes to them weīre just monkeys throwing poo at each other.

Itīs like many big minds have been saying lately. Contact could end very badly for us.

The obvious flaw there is that a "grown-up" civilisation would be any less infantile since "civilisation", whilst portending to the opposite is borne of monkeys throwing poo at each other. If they didn't, we wouldn't and it's hard to see how it would have happened otherwise.

meshpig
03-28-2011, 07:09 AM
I don't believe you can base ALL life in the universe by what happens here on Earth. We are still babies and overall ignorant when it comes to understanding how the universe works.

Cool, try telling that to a snail. I mean you can't but they are an advanced life form compared to the sort of life science is really looking for in the process.

I fail to see how we're ignorant though since most likely the only sentient beings within giga parsecs who understand that the universe lit up 9 billion years ago with a whole new generation of stars...

The test of all these phantasms should be lets see if we can also find a snail somewhere else in the galaxy.

Bill Carey
03-28-2011, 04:12 PM
Advanced civilisations and earth like planets?... you kinda need an earth like planet first before you entertain the possibility of "civilisations".

So called civilised beings arose here on earth only after a billion billion other species lived and died here over a few billions years first without it ever even having been remotely necessary. So, if you have 2 billion earth like planets in the galaxy you have to multiply that by a large trillion for each planet then by 2 billion to find another animal which you might call 'civilised" in the sense "we" mean it.

I'm nowhere near as sure as you are that an earth like planet is needed to have a civilization, but ok. As far as we can tell, the sun is an average star, the earth an average planet. It is also an average AGE, meaning the average earth-like planet will also be 5 billion years old, give or take. Plenty of time. I think there are likely others out there, or at least were/will be depending on the average civilizations lifespan, but they are farther from us than cavemen. Having a dialog is probably pointless, for either party.

meshpig
03-28-2011, 11:30 PM
Uhmm.... they are already freezing people - after they're dead. When nanotechology matures, reviving these "patients" will be possible. And when that nanotech DOES mature, freezing people will be quite viable and I have no doubt, widespread.

Freezing people when they're dead is one thing but freezing a perfectly healthy person another. The obvious ethical problem is the same as for euthanasia... who would you trust to administer the freezers? Would the state use it in place of incarceration, would a child mature in cryogenic suspension...

Who in any case would need to be frozen apart from astronauts on long journeys? You seem to forget that most people on earth die of really simple and curable diseases like gastroenteritis.

meshpig
03-28-2011, 11:59 PM
I'm nowhere near as sure as you are that an earth like planet is needed to have a civilization, but ok. As far as we can tell, the sun is an average star, the earth an average planet. It is also an average AGE, meaning the average earth-like planet will also be 5 billion years old, give or take. Plenty of time. I think there are likely others out there, or at least were/will be depending on the average civilizations lifespan, but they are farther from us than cavemen. Having a dialog is probably pointless, for either party.

Just that "civilisation" is an arbitrary concept if you think about how many other species have existed here without it in the past 4 billion years. It's relatively new and by no means necessary for life to evolve and neither is it the purpose of evolution.

Because the sun is an average star there will be billions of other earth like planets in the galaxy all of about the same age but what if our species just didn't survive the relatively recent Ice Age? ; (Millions of species don't survive) you'd have an earth like planet teeming with life minus humans.

Statistically, given average earths across the galaxy only one species out of billions here does civilisation. Maybe insects are already in contact with other life forms on other worlds...:)

prometheus
03-29-2011, 12:44 AM
with all the species on the earth, thereīs only one?
evolved to a high civilization, what are the odds for that.

a bit worrying if it was a fluke that our brains developed they way they did.

Acording to some sience program I watched, they stated that it was in fact a genetic disorder/mutation that led to some changes on the cranium
and gave a not so strong jaw part, and because of that the sections covering the brain become more flexible thus allowing the brain to become bigger.
(allowing for a richer language etc.)

Apart from all those variables required to sustain life, it seems to be even more variables to have life evolved to a higher level of communication.

I think I got some good communications going with catīs thou:)

Michael

prometheus
03-29-2011, 12:45 AM
Okay...

One. AGAIN.... when nanotech matures, people can be frozen BEFORE they die to "save" them from diseases or severe problems that they - at the time - have no solutions for. Then when solutions are found, they can be cured and re-animated. It's not that hard to conceive OR wrap your head around. Nor is it a crazy option when everything else ends with death and people want to live.

Two. Who would I trust? Good question. Perhaps my relatives to make sure that everything stays in order. Perhaps one day THEY will need something similar and would want others watching out for them too. Also, the organization Alcor has been around quite some time and AFAIK none of their "patients" have yet defrosted. They take good care of them.

Three. Demolition Man? Why bother?

Four. Child maturing in cryonic suspension? Huh?


At some point it may not be a "need" but perhaps a "want." Some people may get tired of the rat race and if they could afford it, skip forward to some time better. Who knows. And again... incurable patients may WANT to be frozen who would otherwise die. That would be a need.

And what does your last point have to do with anything about cryonics? Nothing.

Cool down guys:)

meshpig
03-29-2011, 01:30 AM
Okay...

One. AGAIN.... when nanotech matures, people can be frozen BEFORE they die to "save" them from diseases or severe problems that they - at the time - have no solutions for. Then when solutions are found, they can be cured and re-animated. It's not that hard to conceive OR wrap your head around. Nor is it a crazy option when everything else ends with death and people want to live.

Two. Who would I trust? Good question. Perhaps my relatives to make sure that everything stays in order. Perhaps one day THEY will need something similar and would want others watching out for them too. Also, the organization Alcor has been around quite some time and AFAIK none of their "patients" have yet defrosted. They take good care of them.

Three. Demolition Man? Why bother?

Four. Child maturing in cryonic suspension? Huh?


At some point it may not be a "need" but perhaps a "want." Some people may get tired of the rat race and if they could afford it, skip forward to some time better. Who knows. And again... incurable patients may WANT to be frozen who would otherwise die. That would be a need.

And what does your last point have to do with anything about cryonics? Nothing.

Last point is just a simple reckoning given the number of people on the planet ... so you really think reviving dead people in the future will be widespread?

- It's true, some frogs freeze and go on living but how would you ethically commit even a dying person to what amounts to death (because nano or any other technology will never be that simple... nothing else is) without the same ethical questions arising?

- OK, so you put an healthy four year old in the deep freeze. What happens to their development? Do they wake up in an entirely different world and have to begin over at age four or what? Again, ethical questions arise.

- Nanotech too will depend on whether the LHC finds the Higgs boson particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

and even if they do what accelerates technology is usually war be it actually out of necessity or the artificial variety built into the system. Point being you can't simply solve anything with technological advancement.

meshpig
03-29-2011, 01:43 AM
with all the species on the earth, thereīs only one?
evolved to a high civilization, what are the odds for that.

a bit worrying if it was a fluke that our brains developed they way they did.

Acording to some sience program I watched, they stated that it was in fact a genetic disorder/mutation that led to some changes on the cranium
and gave a not so strong jaw part, and because of that the sections covering the brain become more flexible thus allowing the brain to become bigger.
(allowing for a richer language etc.)

Apart from all those variables required to sustain life, it seems to be even more variables to have life evolved to a higher level of communication.

I think I got some good communications going with catīs thou:)

Michael

Yes and speech didn't become possible until the snout became a jaw and apes moved into a place where they could be heard without having to shriek. Like opera singers can't enunciate words at high C.

meshpig
03-29-2011, 02:40 AM
Read up on cryonics. Then perhaps you will understand. I have no idea what the Higgs boson particle has to do with nanotech. Answer: nothing.

http://www.alcor.org/index.html

You crack me up, that reads like a bad holiday brochure. None of those stupid [Edited by moderator - language: let's clean it up] will ever be revived.

"What Cryonics Is

Cryonics is a speculative life support technology that seeks to preserve human life in a state that will be viable and treatable by future medicine."

... so are bio magnetic blankets which claim to affect the iron in yer blood. Speculative if not complete rubbish.

meshpig
03-29-2011, 03:26 AM
I crack YOU up? You've just shown your complete ignorance of the subject. Ralph Merkle of Xerox Parc is a cryonics member (whom I've met) as well as Eric Drexler and many other reputable scientists.

Like I came down in the last shower? I dunno I've known a few important Scientists in my time both members of the Royal Society and one nominated for a Nobel prize at one point. I was there when Jimmy Carter made the call.

One was a geologist who discovered the age of the moon and the other a geneticist who was also such a prick I never took him seriously as a person.

They're scientists not philosophers... like who the F is Ralph Merkle as if any living entity should give a sh*it? Like are you dead already.

meshpig
03-29-2011, 05:43 AM
Oh... and unsubscribed. :)

Temper temper... you have to sort of tacitly admit that all this cryogenic crap is just an extension of the same moribund but utopian story of jesus and the afterlife or any other would be king seeking immortality.

Sorry but I don't give a flying rats arse for what corporate heads think.

safetyman
03-29-2011, 10:29 AM
Rats can fly? C'mon guys, it's meant to be an interesting topic, not a slugfest.

erikals
03-29-2011, 11:52 AM
be constructive. nothing more, nothing less. thanks.

erikals
03-29-2011, 01:59 PM
zombie dog,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431294/posts

erikals
03-29-2011, 02:18 PM
it will be possible in the future, i'm sure, it's just a matter of time...
(my guess, 75 years, maybe less)

Dexter2999
03-29-2011, 02:22 PM
Well, "dead" being a state of decay is probably going to remain fairly consistent. The freezing technique of cryonics is supposed to stop the decay. But an unfrozen brain without oxygen deteriorates pretty rapidly from my understanding.

As a side note to the cryonics issue...
I thought I read online (so it must be true) that most of the people who have been cryogenically frozen, have had only their heads done. Is this right? Are they operating on the assumption that new bodies will be cloned? And won't that require overcoming the ethical ban of cloning humans?

EDIT:: Also, in cloning is this true or just Sci-Fi? The prefered cells for cloning come from the torso. Stem cells, "core" cells that have the most adaptable coding? Or are they thinking yo could drop any DNA sample into a vat of stem cells to get a clone?

glebe digital
03-29-2011, 02:24 PM
If you deep-freeze the dead dude, what happens to his soul?
And if there's transmigration of consciousness, wouldn't you just be warming-up a zombie?

erikals
03-29-2011, 02:35 PM
yes it's right, and it's weird, but as far as recreating the body, no, no ethical issues, scientists are actually pretty close to creating the rest organs (close being about 50 years away or so) some have already been created with success, one being skin (yep, skin is an organ) but surely it's far away, as the nervous system will have to be compensated for, plus a bunch of other issues.

erikals
03-29-2011, 02:39 PM
If you deep-freeze the dead dude, what happens to his soul?

some people have 1/4 of their brain removed and are still pretty much the same mentally, the personality is located in the forehead from what i remember, so i guess that's where the soul would be... maybe...
just a theory...

people who damages their forehead often gets an altered personality.

so, it should be fine, sort of like drowning, for then to be revived...
without the bad drowning part of course...

from a physiological point though it might be very strange to find all your loved ones are dead,
even the parrot you loved so much (fun fact: some parrots gets 70 years old)
 

erikals
03-29-2011, 03:14 PM
New Heart Built With Stem Cells
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9hEFUpTVPA

Stem Cells Made From Human Skin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSpjcLlOKw8

 

erikals
03-29-2011, 03:18 PM
Anthony Atala: Printing a human kidney
http://ted.tv.magnify.net/video/Anthony-Atala-Printing-a-human

 

erikals
03-29-2011, 03:37 PM
Doctors hail paralysis breakthrough
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-62919/Doctors-hail-paralysis-breakthrough.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x8e2qsAVGc


 

meshpig
03-30-2011, 12:04 AM
Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. And the fact that you ignored my statement about it shows that you most likely realize that. Now why don't you go off on some tangent and tell us why - in so many large words - why the Higgs boson particle is important to nanotech? Again, answer: you can't. It has nothing to do with it. The "God particle" does not relate to nanotech.


I was taking the piss... :D Scientists believe all sorts of things just like everyone else. Some scientists believe in global warming others don't. Because one scientist believes you can dip someone in liquid nitrogen ( which means instant death) and revive them later with a technology that isn't yet capable is a matter of some kind of faith.



Nanotechnology is a legitimate science and cryonics is merely an extension of that. As stated at the link I provided:
"Cryonics is a technological proposition, not a new natural phenomenon. Its feasibility can be examined using known science just as spaceflight was proven theoretically possible decades before it was actually demonstrated."


Yes a "technological proposition". My issue isn't with nanotechnology or even cryonics but rather with those particular looneys who believe anyone is going to resurrect a dead person (or a dead head as the case maybe) when the technology becomes available... and for it all to be free of distress or difficulty.

Look at the congenitally blind; someone who has never seen anything when given sight usually don't cope with it well and so when one of those vain heads is defrosted and planted onto a new body they will most likely not even be able to understand the language being spoken around them, they will have no friends or living relatives, no passport, no qualifications, no source of income, no citizenship so who's going to pay for some relic from another time aged 70 who will need a decade to adjust?

By the same token, the first commercial space flight hasn't really happened yet. It's impossible to predict when but since space is such a rat f*cked place to be for humans it will probably end up like nuclear power; obviously not safe but necessary. I believe in the future but don't think it belongs to science alone.



You seem to want to lump anything that YOU don't understand under the realm of a "religion" where "faith" is required. There is no religious faith here. It is simply an extrapolation of SCIENCE. Just because you have no idea as to the details doesn't make it illegitimate. Perhaps you should try to understand it before you mislabel it. But that's not your way, is it? You prefer to make blanket statements without thought OR knowledge.You act as if you know that what you are saying is fact without knowing anything truly about the topic is sad. And this is evident in your statements.

Oh you old woman, get a grip:)

meshpig
03-30-2011, 12:42 AM
From the Alcor site:

"Alcor has no specific interest in preserving heads. Alcor's interest is preserving people. In the entire human body, there is one organ that is absolutely essential to personhood: the brain. Injuries outside the brain are wounds to be healed. Injuries to the brain are injuries to who we are.

Alcor's neuropreservation option therefore seeks to preserve the brain with the highest possible fidelity. By directing preservation efforts toward the brain, it is possible to cryopreserve a brain with better quality than is possible if an entire body is cryopreserved. It is expected that the ability to regrow a new body around a repaired brain will be part of the capabilities of future medicine. However, removing a brain today from its protective enclosure (the skull) would cause unnecessary damage. Alcor therefore leaves the brain protected within the head during preservation and storage. While neuropreservation may seem strange, it is scientifically the best way known to preserve a human life indefinitely. Alcor preserves people, not "heads."



Give us a break

-"it is possible to cryopreserve a brain with better quality than is possible if an entire body is cryopreserved."; They preserve heads the head shrinking necrophile's from hell!

- "While neuropreservation may seem strange, it is scientifically the best way known to preserve a human life indefinitely. Alcor preserves people, not "heads.""; They preserve heads in any other language, FRANKENSTEIN weirdos for rich and f**cked up americans.

Advertising copy for a funeral parlour with an angle, where's the science?

meshpig
03-30-2011, 01:11 AM
If you deep-freeze the dead dude, what happens to his soul?
And if there's transmigration of consciousness, wouldn't you just be warming-up a zombie?

Yes is called a humour bypass...

meshpig
03-30-2011, 02:25 AM
:ohmy: . :foreheads . ;D

Sorry, I didn't get to the cost of all that looney Alcor stuff but I know of and have seen many death masks done for a tenth of the price I bet... :)

OFF
03-30-2011, 05:21 AM
old but good theme - BlueBeam project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPAYbbGLYlE&feature=related

erikals
03-30-2011, 10:45 AM
ok, back to the aliens...

meshpig
03-31-2011, 12:30 AM
ok, back to the aliens...

...well, this Alcor thing is interesting. How can you call something scientific when it can't be proven?

-No critical thinking being applied... for example, Mr. Merkle mc'shirkle has a PhD in electrical engineering with absolutely no qualifications to make pronouncements about human physiology especially neurological function.

-His articles when discussing biomedical issues rely on vague referencing to pages in the Scientific American and every one of his pages also has an ad for, gee Alcor.

-Even if you google "cryonics scepticism" you get an FAQ from Alcor.

With science you get critical thinking...

erikals
03-31-2011, 12:06 PM
skepticism and critical thinking are the number 1 rules to follow to get ahead in life,
so yes, i agree to a lot of the above.
it's rather easy to calculate that cryonics will work and possibly be used in the future though, it's just a matter of time.
but how long, we don't know...
personally i think life extension is more interesting, as cryonics basically just can be used in a few occasions...

meshpig
04-01-2011, 01:54 AM
it's rather easy to calculate that cryonics will work and possibly be used in the future though, it's just a matter of time.


Freezing and reviving organs including the brain yes, expecting the same "person" to be revived... not likely.

- The idea of stitching a whole head to a new body is ludicrous anyway and belongs to a former age not the distant future.

meshpig
04-01-2011, 04:55 AM
It's amazing that you can actually continue to comment on something that AGAIN you obviously know nothing about. You really don't, and anyone familiar with cryonics can see this. The more you "talk" the more you look inane. :thumbsup:

Show me how you become familiar with cryonics without Alcor then? It's their idea, even a dictionary search of the word will reveal that.

- Yet no serious scientific papers exist on the subject. Why? Because those who actually do brain research don't waste their precious time on two bit, totally idiotic revisitations of Frankenstein.

- The Brain doesn't end at the neck, it's rhizomatic, connected to every single cell in the body so what use just stitching a head to a body like in some C17 nursery rhyme?

Oh sorry, some PhD engineer reckons nanotechnology will make it all possible in the future. You haven't even thought about it, you can't show me any credible science regarding cryonics, you have no grasp of the existing ethical/legal/political/social implications just a weird belief that one day in the future somehow science will vanquish death.

Not likely and thankfully. You want Moammar Gaddafi or Ronald Reagan for 300 years? Get a freakin grip.

glebe digital
04-01-2011, 06:24 AM
The only good thing to come out of cryonics....

Sleeper - Jewish Robot Tailors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV2N4KSh3x4

meshpig
04-01-2011, 07:20 AM
The only good thing to come out of cryonics....

Sleeper - Jewish Robot Tailors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV2N4KSh3x4

Yep! There was I looking up remedies for hysteria:)

SBowie
04-01-2011, 08:09 PM
I'm not going to bother reading back through all of this to see who was rude first. I'm just going to say "Knock it off". I might add that, while I generally don't lean towards censorship, I doubt many would feel that consigning this thread to the Wayback Machine would pose a great loss to either humanity or the sciences, so it won't require a lot of provocation.

meshpig
04-01-2011, 08:15 PM
You must be deliberately obtuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics



You must be ever so slightly thick? It's just speculation. A promise without a single shred of scientific evidence behind it.

The same as if you joined a UFO cult in the promise of a super advanced alien species being on it's way from a distant galaxy... they're just not here yet. There's nothing to prove or disprove you either believe it or you don't.

So, it all might be possible in the future? Every type of futurology fails, the "future"
invariably doesn't turn not how people imagine it. Just more speculation.

So, I speculate that when the brain becomes transplantable and is hooked up to a new body the former inhabitant of the brain won't exist anyway since the brain is the body. It will be informed and stimulated by the new body effectively making an entirely different person who may or may not remember it's previous existence.:)

jeric_synergy
04-02-2011, 12:14 AM
Just realized I skipped 3 pages of posts... oh well. {{edit and now I see it was just as well. Save your brickbats for Newtek fellas.}}

1) Earth like planets, or planets in an earth-like ORBIT? One theory says that having a big moon makes it FARRRrrrrrrr more likely to have life develop, or at least develop fast. So, put Venus in Earth's orbit, nada. So, that's gonna drop those odds a lot.

2) Aren't we radiating less and less EM as technology advances? And as encryption gets more and more advanced don't signals look more and more like noise? The period of time a civilization generates easily understood signals may be quite short.

3) the SF literature is full of reasons civilizations may want to keep their 'heads' down.

4) I was a bit confused about the nanotech link, BUT I remembered that a very good SF writer wrote a story and there was a line: "The first thing we get with nanotechnology is immortality." Now, that's a bit of a reach: The FIRST thing we get is really intrusive government surveillance and covert assassination. But rich and powerful people will get their lives extended by nanotech-- when everything is reparable, what do you die from?

5) Back to Earths: since we haven't yet discovered ONE instance extraterrestial life, we're rather short on data points about how often it arises in even an ideal situation. So the fact of billions of "earths" is ..... merely interesting, not conclusive.

AND, any resurrection scheme for cryonics is probably going to require nanotechnological neuronic 'trawling' to work, so there's that.

Lotta acrimonious heat for what was supposed to be a nice diversion. Save your anger for poorly implemented features and missing documentation.

meshpig
04-02-2011, 12:44 AM
Point me to the ANY papers that state anything like this.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376983/?page=1

"Do brain tissue transplants alter personal identity? Inadequacies of some "standard" arguments."

... food for thought; presumably when a brain is transplanted the existing spinal cortex of the new body would be considered as "foreign tissue". At least when you read a proper scientific paper you can see how much more complex these things are.

- Even though head transplants on animals have been "successful" ( 2 headed dogs and the like) no such thing is ever likely to happen to a human in the realms of legitimate medical science primarily because it was only necessary with animals in the process of developing organ transplants generally.

Brain transplants are thus perhaps more likely in the future but the real implications of brain identity under those circumstances are too remote to speculate.

- The point I'm making is Alcor aren't neurosurgeons, scientists, or doctors they're technicians like in a beauty parlour. It's not science or medicine.:)


PS. SBowie. I hardly think this is a slanging match.

meshpig
04-02-2011, 12:54 AM
5) Back to Earths: since we haven't yet discovered ONE instance extraterrestial life, we're rather short on data points about how often it arises in even an ideal situation. So the fact of billions of "earths" is ..... merely interesting, not conclusive.



Yes, the "rare earth" theory is the most appealing because it doesn't rule out
there being other earths with varying degrees of complex life whilst at the same time expresses just how accidental and transient civilisations are.

jeric_synergy
04-02-2011, 01:20 AM
I'm a big fan of Greg Egan (damn that dude is smart), and his vision of everybody migrating into software is pretty cool.

When your entire civilization can exist in a computer a few yards across, and rather inward looking, hiding your existence is pretty easy.

meshpig
04-02-2011, 03:17 AM
Sorry Steve.... :yingyang:

No animosity here...

- So, they have a scientific advisory board. So do Tobacco companies; does that mean cigarette smoke is not carcinogenic as they used to say until recently?

The Nuclear power industry too has thousands of PhD's all lining up to say it's %100 safe... but it obviously isn't.

glebe digital
04-02-2011, 05:53 AM
Aliens.....hmm

Disclosure!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTmuamGrBQY

meshpig
04-02-2011, 06:17 AM
I'm not going to bother reading back through all of this to see who was rude first. I'm just going to say "Knock it off". I might add that, while I generally don't lean towards censorship, I doubt many would feel that consigning this thread to the Wayback Machine would pose a great loss to either humanity or the sciences, so it won't require a lot of provocation.

Actually, this post is really irritating now I come to think of it. You can't be bothered reading through the whole thread but have the hide to come in half cocked and talk of rudeness?

Kindly leave it out, close this thread down or keep your jurisprudential fantasies to yourself in future.

meshpig
04-02-2011, 06:44 AM
... "Alcor's neuropreservation option therefore seeks to preserve the brain with the highest possible fidelity."

OK, I think I'll go for that option right now but can I also get it in a different colour? Maybe so it matches the door frames. Also, I still have a HI FI system so does that mean I can play my brain on the hi fidelity turntable and get the same neuropreservation?

What if the freezer breaks down in an earthquake or are they going to be prevented by nanotechnology too? What if the company goes belly up or is the rest of the world who die anyway expected to pay for some dumb investment scheme in the US, again? Ooo noo I think I'll just go have an ice cream right now.

SBowie
04-02-2011, 01:57 PM
You can't be bothered reading through the whole thread but have the hide to come in half cocked and talk of rudeness? I don't need to see which feline started a catfight to recognize one, either. Amazing, right? And better yet, I arrived fully cocked, locked, and ready to rock.


kindly leave it out, close this thread down or keep your jurisprudential fantasies to yourself in future.Close it down? I could, but there are other measures available, and perhaps it won't be necessary. Let's see.
(Jurisprudential fantasies? Nice turn of a phrase, but it's not a fantasy.)

erikals
04-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Even though head transplants on animals have been "successful" ( 2 headed dogs and the like) no such thing is ever likely to happen to a human in the realms of legitimate medical science primarily because it was only necessary with animals in the process of developing organ transplants generally....

hm, never read that,...
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/head-transplant.html
interesting, but if true, not very "humane" to do...

 

safetyman
04-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Yes, the "rare earth" theory is the most appealing because it doesn't rule out
there being other earths with varying degrees of complex life whilst at the same time expresses just how accidental and transient civilisations are.

If there are potentially billions of earths with potentially (insert # here) civilizations how can that be considered accidental? If something happens by accident enough times, doesn't it become common instead? Assuming of course, that life is quite common in the universe (which I believe to be true).

jeric_synergy
04-02-2011, 05:37 PM
If there are potentially billions of earths with potentially (insert # here) civilizations how can that be considered accidental? If something happens by accident enough times, doesn't it become common instead?
Uhhhh, no. Accidental and common are two entirely different concepts, not two opposed concepts.

EG, automobile collisions are both accidental AND common. What they aren't is purposeful and common.

glebe digital
04-03-2011, 05:07 AM
What with head-freezing nuts & nanobots, any alien races out there looking down will be enjoying a good belly-laugh.

FZ: Message to the Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DczLuyOvrOg

SBowie
04-03-2011, 05:24 AM
Yowsa! That's badas*, and could be considered risque?!'Honi soit qui mal y pense', as they say..

safetyman
04-03-2011, 06:30 AM
Uhhhh, no. Accidental and common are two entirely different concepts, not two opposed concepts.

EG, automobile collisions are both accidental AND common. What they aren't is purposeful and common.

oooo -- I like that analogy. In the universe there are a bunch of things (automobiles) mingling about. Due to the abundance of these things, pretty soon they are bound to get into an accident (collide or develop or whatever). This happens a lot, these accidents, making the forming of life a common occurrence.

jeric_synergy
04-03-2011, 09:44 AM
oooo -- I like that analogy. In the universe there are a bunch of things (automobiles) mingling about. Due to the abundance of these things, pretty soon they are bound to get into an accident (collide or develop or whatever). This happens a lot, these accidents, making the forming of life a common occurrence.
That's very apropos, considering the context.

I once asked a molecular biologist how, uhhhhhh, proteins FIND the stuff in the cell that they need to bring back to assemble into various materials (hell, I shoulda asked how they know where to go back TO!), and she said they just float around pretty much randomly inside they cell until they bump up against what they need, it doesn't take long if it's there at all.

I was disappointed, thought it would be more systematic, but hey, let's hear it for Brownian motion!

glebe digital
04-03-2011, 03:59 PM
Megalodon - That's an odd position to take.

The premise is that said aliens are laughing at cryo-freaks & nano-nuts, and for some reason you add endemic conspiracy theorists to their laughter list.

That's all well and good, but you were defending cryo & nano earlier.....now you willingly infer how ridiculous they are by aligning them with said ECTs?

Not sure your retorical device works, but appologies if I've miss-understood somewhere.

glebe digital
04-03-2011, 05:08 PM
WHY would aliens be laughing at "cryo-freaks & nano-nuts" in the first place?

Because one is silly & the other insane?
If not that, and freezing heads turns out to be all good science, then they're merely laughing at how backward we are, which is just plain cruel.


Since if these aliens do exist they have probably already figured out this technology?

Bit of a stretch on the probable nature of alien tech, I fail to see why any possible alien cultures would develop technologies which owe their origin to a humanoid cultural perspective.


The point is.... *IF* they are laughing at that, then they are probably also laughing JUST as hard at people who believe that there is a conspiracy in everything.

Hence they're either laughing because the three ideas are stupid, or laughing because all three are true & possible and we're too stupid to have realised this yet.

Either way, your irrational distaste of the C word -and desire to denigrate it- has left you somewhat bereft of reason.

Mr Rid
04-03-2011, 07:00 PM
New Estimate for Alien Earths: 2 Billion in Our Galaxy Alone...

http://www.space.com/11188-alien-earths-planets-sun-stars.html

Kinda throws that whole "life is scarce" theory out with the trash.

Not at all. The recipe for life is far, far, far more rare than this vague and optimistic conjecture suggests. The Drake formula leaves out a great deal of factors. Its like one morning you notice you have a piece of toasted bread with the spitting image of Elvis. You could toast bread 1000 times a day, every day for the rest of your life and never get another Elvis, even though you are using the exact same conditions. Its not like finding a four-leaf clover, but rather a 56-leaf clover (rarest on record). The limited lifespan of planets and stars makes it extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely that aliens somewhere evolved well ahead of us and are scouring the vast universe looking for us. Yes, it is possible, about as much as it is possible it could rain monkeys tomorrow.

We evolved relatively late in Earth's age and dont have much time left (cosmicly speaking) before the sun increases to an unbearable temperature. If Earth were just a little closer to or further away from the sun we wouldnt be here. Or if one more asteroid hit us (have been struck several times by big ones), or maybe if it were one less (some microorganisms demonstrate ability to survive space, entry and impact) Earth would just be rocks, ferns and slithery things. No pizza.

Even Earth ain't all that hospitable. Most of it is covered in oceans, deserts and ice that we cant survive in. Even a mere tilt on axis causes extreme ecology-altering weather changes that can suddenly wipe out a species. Predators, disease, poisonous plants, bugs & critters, floods, hurricanes, quakes, volcanoes, droughts, ice ages, cosmic and solar radiation, meteors, slippery bathtubs, and each other, are all constantly trying to kill us (Creationists ignore the majority of ways our home is 'designed' to destroy life, not to mention all of space and the rest of the amazing universe that is wholly lethal to us).

Oh there's life out there somewhere, but its more likely 'spores, molds and fungus.' Even if smart sponges or whatever manage to evolve technology, they still have to avoid killing themselves off. Then even if there is an identical snowflake out there, locating it is effectively impossible. Just remember, you are unique... just like everyone else! ;D

Thorough info on the topic- http://www.ufoskeptic.org/

jeric_synergy
04-04-2011, 01:00 AM
The recipe for life is far, far, far more rare than this vague and optimistic conjecture suggests.
BZZZZTTT!! Conjecture.

Once we've actually examined closeup a couple hundred earth-like planets, you could say this. Meanwhile, you got squat.

safetyman
04-04-2011, 05:32 AM
The real point is, everything we believe up to this point is mere conjecture. Heck, it seems like we can't even predict the weather with any credible accuracy. Logic dictates that if there are many many many earth-like planets out there, the probablility of even a minute few of them having intelligent life is greater than we first thought even a few years ago. I like to think of the glass being half full in this case. The reality of it is, in our lifetime we will probably never find any evidence of life elsewhere, microbial or otherwise. But I'd like to believe that future generations will discover that we are just one of many civilizations sharing the universe.

erikals
04-04-2011, 12:36 PM
Oh there's life out there somewhere, but its more likely 'spores, molds and fungus.'

not so sure, if the universe is infinite then it must be close to infinite possibilities.
it doesn't take much for something to kick off once it has started, just look at earth, it started with slime, spores, molds and fungus, and now probably has about a trillion unique life forms...

but that E.T. landed here?
nah, doubt it, no need to...

"the proof that there is intelligence out there,.. no one has visited us..."
(ok, i stole that one)

:]

 

erikals
04-04-2011, 12:42 PM
...if these don't "mature" at the same rate as technology advances, perhaps ALL civilizations (or nearly all) are fated to die before they escape the cradle. It's a sad scenario, but looking at the world around us I find it not too difficult to believe.

well, there is very little evidence to support that (none) :]
though i certainly see the risk, nothing lasts forever, but things always evolve, where something ends, something new starts, maybe not there and then, but later on... much later on...

jeric_synergy
04-04-2011, 02:29 PM
IIRC, 3/4 of the Earth's existence was lifeless. (Some paleo-biologist can correct me.)

But once life arose, it advanced quickly, geologically speaking. Evolution can work very quickly, when the ecosystem is A) large enough, and B) stressed enough.

PURE CONJECTURE, but I suspect once a self-replicating molecule occurs, and some have speculated that certain clays could act as templates for them, the race is on and moves quickly. That first ocean of slime may take 3 billion years, but the next billion is a fountain of life. Remember they've found amino acids in space (!!!) , so some of the tinker-toy bits are already out there.

(I am still persuaded that tides are a major factor in accelerating biogenesis. They just make so much more of a planet's surface likely.)

erikals
04-04-2011, 03:01 PM
the number one challenge we will have meeting aliens though (unless they are hostile)
will be to overcome their philosophy/ moral /ethical differences.

(think star trek scenarios, just much "worse")
(everything is relative)

then again, there would probably be species that would behave more like role-models for some of us as well.

jeric_synergy
04-04-2011, 03:29 PM
the number one challenge we will have meeting aliens though (unless they are hostile)
will be to overcome their philosophy/ moral /ethical differences.

I think just understanding them even on a very basic, pidgin, factual level will be the biggest challenge.

Considering we do a crap job of even understanding other cultures on this planet. And we're using the same hardware.

Mr Rid
04-05-2011, 03:06 AM
BZZZZTTT!! Conjecture.

Once we've actually examined closeup a couple hundred earth-like planets, you could say this. Meanwhile, you got squat.

Whoa... shades of Jin. What I've got is objective logic and research, as opposed to 'half-full' wishful thinking. Understandably, the article doesnt bother going into the rare conditions necessary for life (let alone complex heterotrophs) that are widely agreed upon among eminent minds in related sciences. Off and on, for a few years, myself and a friend have been researching bio-socio-cosmicry for a script collaboration.

For anyone interested-
Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe
Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and its Place in the Cosmos
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (updates Drake and answers Fermi)
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

Humans are intrinsically insecure about being alone, and consequently concoct all manner of hope of connection with deities, spirits, & 'little green men' that permeate pop culture. Its certainly more comforting than to imagine we are accidents in an indifferent void of random collisions. But there is what you can imagine, then there is what is known.

I noticed that out of millions of Earth species, only one had developed advanced civilization, and only within about the last 2-millionth of the planet's age (most of the time spent as boring microbes). But curiously, 'progress' has less to do with intelligence as is commonly assumed. Even if witty metazoans manage to evolve on a requisite rocky planet somewhere in a sweet zone of habitability, away from giants & dwarfs, in spite of prevailing hazardous conditions of radiation, meteors, toxic gases, cataclysms, elliptical orbits, instability, sparse nutrients, etc, they wont necessarily develop noticeable technology, or have intercepted our wacky transmissions in the blink of the last century (avoiding design by ETs - gods included).

I read of ants with agriculture. Dolphins learn and speak, yet remain content frolicking and blowing bubble rings for millions of years. But what's particularly intriguing to me is how many sapien cultures around the globe continue to live close to the same way they did thousands of years ago, (some examples- http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ&vq=large) and are much resistant to progress (for better or worse), even though they possess the same intellectual capacity as more progressive tribes. If Europeans had never stumbled into North America, the natives would probably still be hunting buffalo with bows today, yet they were essentially as smart as their conquering neighbors. I saw a doc, The Man Who Could Be King, about a unique Sudanese leader with a western education who brought revolutionary advances to his simple tribe, like an ox to pull a plow... this is in 2004! Obsessed with tradition, the wise tribe elders were resistant to such newfangled ideas, and insisted that passing airplanes were thingys of the gods, yet they really are no less capable of acquiring knowledge and developing economies than residents of so called first world countries. I havent found good explanation for this. But technological inclinations stem from something more sociologic than brain size, and opposable thumbs.

And when I read the wisdom of ancient philosophers, we only seem to have gotten dumber in the last few thousand years. Each technological accomplishment we're proud of, like Shamwow, only spawns new problems exponentially, like Kardashians and Jersey Shore.

glebe digital
04-05-2011, 04:42 AM
Mr Rid - Very interesting, got any more?

“There are three guides for the life of man. First is principle, which has been long and carefully tested; the second is experience, strengthened by long practice; and third, the authority of those ancients who could not have been easily deceived by anyone, and who appear not to have wished to deceive others.”

Marcilio Ficino [1433 – 1499]

safetyman
04-05-2011, 05:17 AM
Doesn't evolution function independantly of intelligence? In other words, just because tribes might not adopt technology due to a lack of knowledge/materials doesn't mean they don't evolve. There may be tons of civilizations out there that have homo sapien-type beings who still live in caves and hunt for food with sticks and rocks. They may be primitive, but they are still intelligent compared to the microbes that they share a planet with. Just because they don't have the means to hear our radio transmissions doesn't mean they don't exist. We would like to believe that there are other groups of people out there as advanced as we are, but since we haven't gotten any replies we then assume that we are alone. Not good logic.

jeric_synergy
04-05-2011, 10:22 AM
Whoa... shades of Jin. What I've got is objective logic and research,
::eyeroll:: Until we ACTUALLY can examine some extraterrestrial life, it's all speculation.

Mr Rid
04-06-2011, 06:41 PM
::eyeroll:: Until we ACTUALLY can examine some extraterrestrial life, it's all speculation.

Ok, everything is speculation if you want to get down to it (everyone typing here may all be figments of your imagination). It's really about degrees of probability. "It wont rain monkeys tomorrow" is pure conjecture, but a highly probable outcome grounded in the most evident constants at hand.

But astrobiology isnt all speculation, as in opinions extracted from derrieres. Avoiding fancy terms and formulas that no one relates to, we know a few things (as much as anyone can know anything) about universal constants, and particular galactic, solar, and planetary conditions (about 200 parameters, but namely water is crucial to the 'Goldilocks principle') for biochemical molecules (carbon based or other) to flourish on planets fitting an "Earthlike" definition. From what I've read, none of the undeveloped real estate we've peeked at thus far fits the bill, but we just got started.

The open ended article leaves out many interesting factors to consider for anyone objectively interested in astrobiology & abiogenesis. But to me (and others much better informed), smarty planets are far more likely to be only a few per galaxy and effectively impossible to ever hook up with. But then I also find gaping plot holes in Big Bang and Darwinism that are the biggest factors. And to partly answer safetyman, most assume technological advance would naturally follow intelligence/self-awareness but I observe that is not the case even on Earth. So if the few clever ETs out there are not even broadcasting (and havent screwed themselves with greed and other 'thou shalt nots'), like the tree that falls in the desert, we are alone.

erikals
04-06-2011, 06:52 PM
... But to me (and others much better informed), smarty planets are far more likely to be only a few per galaxy and effectively impossible to ever hook up with.

"currently...!"

Mr Rid
04-06-2011, 06:56 PM
As erikals embodies the spirited, half-full optimism I was primarily addressing. :)

erikals
04-06-2011, 07:01 PM
...or could be someone here lives in the 20th century... \;]

safetyman
04-07-2011, 05:28 AM
And to partly answer safetyman, most assume technological advance would naturally follow intelligence/self-awareness but I observe that is not the case even on Earth. So if the few clever ETs out there are not even broadcasting (and havent screwed themselves with greed and other 'thou shalt nots'), like the tree that falls in the desert, we are alone.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree, but i was talking about evolution as it relates to the changing of a species to an intelligent form, rather than developing technology. Those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I believe you can have one without the other. For instance, in my example, cavemen (for lack of a better term) are/were more intellectually advanced than, say, chimps, but not necessarily more advanced technologically. They both still play with their own poo, but the caveman would probably find other uses for it, like drawing on cave walls.

That being said, I don't know if Darwinism is gospel or not, but just about everyone agrees that even stars and galaxies evolve. Since we all come from "star matter", I'd like to believe that we are forced to evolve with them.

Mr Rid
04-08-2011, 10:17 PM
Yes, I see that intelligence and tech dev are two different things. So far, technology has created as many or more problems than it solves, so I cant say its definitively beneficial (yet?). And I notice that not all races are even into progress, but prefer to adhere to tradition, and remain close to the Earth. Even in the U.S. there is an ongoing hippie/new age/green movement, ever distrustful of technological advance. But the comfort and security of western life gits ya.

You could pluck young children out of a primitive culture and place them a western environment where they can learn at more or less the same rate as most children born in the west, so they are not particularly lacking intellectual capacity. Knowledge and progress appear to develop from sociologic evolution more than physiologic traits of a species. Then you have to ask why other species are not evolving in a similar sociologic way (Koko is cracking jokes with sign language, but when are his relatives gonna get around to making clothes and huts already?). Why is it only humans, and is all this tree knowledge really making us wiser, happier, or better off? Maybe we should have stayed in the garden.

Asians came up with nifty firecrackers and rockets, but there was something in the water of early Europeans that particularly drove them to accelerate culture and markets demanding expansion into other territories to exploit new resources. Imperialism hasnt slowed down and continues to assimilate like the Borg, causing all the squabbles.

safetyman
04-11-2011, 05:46 AM
This sorta explains in simple terms what most people don't get about our place in the universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tHx802sGAc&feature=related

prometheus
04-11-2011, 06:46 AM
This sorta explains in simple terms what most people don't get about our place in the universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tHx802sGAc&feature=related

Well I totally agree with that guy, up till the point where he talks about chimps and the differences and continues talking about we might be to stupid to understand the universe and that aliens are most likely to highly advanced.
Why on earth would it be that way?..thereīs miles and miles between talking about life forms evolving from universal chemical components and making a statement that therefore there must be highly advanced creatures.

Heīs a little wrong about us not stopping to have a conversation with chimps or worms too, I myself talks to catīs or even birds sometime, not in human conversation skills but with Animal signals I would like to call it.
And as far as I know of, scientist are doing researches of how animals communicate and how we can communicate back.

I donīt understand what he talks about when talking about the few percent that seperate us from chimps and going from there to how aliens must be so much smarter than us because of similar differences?
The same goes to the conclusion that the space is so vast and bla bla and therefore there must be so many more advanced civilisations.

I think I kind of relayed on that theory too.. a couple of years ago, but recent years just got my gut feeling to think otherwise, I really canīt explain it and nor can anyone for certain give a true statement of how it
actually is, we simply know to little and speculating and calculating with numbers and factīs we donīt have, that is purely estimations.

Michael

safetyman
04-11-2011, 11:09 AM
I really canīt explain it and nor can anyone for certain give a true statement of how it
actually is, we simply know to little and speculating and calculating with numbers and factīs we donīt have, that is purely estimations.

That was the point that DR. Tyson was making -- we really only think we know everything about the universe. We aren't knowledgeable enough yet to determine if what we do know is true or not. If someone believes that we are "it", then that is a very ego-centric and narrow view in my opinion. No offense to anyone.

prometheus
04-11-2011, 11:46 AM
That was the point that DR. Tyson was making -- we really only think we know everything about the universe. We aren't knowledgeable enough yet to determine if what we do know is true or not. If someone believes that we are "it", then that is a very ego-centric and narrow view in my opinion. No offense to anyone.

I donīt think heīs trying to make a point that is somewhere near what I stated.

when these discussions rise about we are not alone, thereīs almost instantly a seperation that leads to discussion about we are it or we are so special or the other way around, that there must be lotīs of highly advanced civilizations.
why seperate it down to saying that people are egocentric and believeīs we are it?

Many people are perhaps not thinking we are it, but they also might believe that there might not be That many civilizations out there as many are claiming that there must be.

Personally I believe that there might only be a very very few civilizations reached our level or beyond.

the pure vast universe and the components required for life are out there in large scales, but then again I believe the settings wich grants such life such as golden lock zone, big planets attracting destroying meteors and comets to be there, a planet of right size and rotation and all other circumstances to match a similar genesis planet must be equally vast and has to be out there in masses in order for setting up a statistic probability that it has to be.
The shear vast universe and all the stars and planets alone canīt be enough.

Michael

erikals
04-11-2011, 01:52 PM
i'm with prometheus on the 'communication' part,.. great speech though.
take a dog for example, though not a 100%, you are be able to communicate with it.

also missing was that aliens might evolve faster than we do,.. just like some bugs.
(no, these bugs do not have the smartiness we do, but they do evolve at a faster speed...)

like i said before though, i believe there is tons of intelligent life out there...

"...the shear vast universe and all the stars and planets alone canīt be enough"
...but how can you say this when you're not capable of imagining the size of the universe?...
(none of us are...)
 

prometheus
04-12-2011, 04:48 AM
"...the shear vast universe and all the stars and planets alone canīt be enough"[/COLOR]
...but how can you say this when you're not capable of imagining the size of the universe?...
(none of us are...)
 

Of course Im capable of imagining the size of universe, most of us with imagination are:) being the truth is another thing thou:)

And I and most people can agree that what we know of today, the universe is vast, but we donīt know if Itīs even vaster, so we know Itīs quite big, and I was mentioning that in relation to peoples conclusion that because of that large universe It must contain highly advanced species.
That resoning is in my mind an Isolated argument leaving many other facts and elements out from the discussion.

So thatīs how I can say this without "knowing" how big the universe actually is.

Or do I missunderstand you here??

Michael

safetyman
04-12-2011, 05:34 AM
I agree that just because the universe is big doesn't equate to the existence of highly advanced species. But my whole thing is, nature has a habit of repeating itself, and if you give it a large "pool" to play around with, it's going to repeat itself more easily. In other words, don't count nature out; it will find a way. :)

safetyman
04-12-2011, 05:54 AM
Just saw this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/fbi-releases-roswell-memo-about-three-bodies-of-human-shape/2011/04/11/AF58CTKD_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews

prometheus
04-12-2011, 06:12 AM
I agree that just because the universe is big doesn't equate to the existence of highly advanced species. But my whole thing is, nature has a habit of repeating itself, and if you give it a large "pool" to play around with, it's going to repeat itself more easily. In other words, don't count nature out; it will find a way. :)

Absolutly I agree with that too.
One thing to take in consideration is the Time span for life to show up within a close time frame, wich many people doesnīt seem to take in to account.

thereīs been some interesting species in our planets age, some died out or evolved to something else.

now the time span and syncronization for life growth must be a factor wich reduces the possibilities for civilizations to occour at the same time, and even more reducing factors for higher communicating life forms.

Environmental factors and reference frames seem to constrain species depending on where on continents you are, there are continents or even small islands where there lives unique species wich doesnīt exist anywhere else.

To me It seems that we as evolved humans is a result of cake upon cake upon cake of complex physical evolution together with complex environmental circumstances and even more social evolutionary factors.

If these conditions where to be as vast as stars and galaxys or chemical main components wich seems to be The very Basic stuff in the universal cooking pottery, then you might start to calculate and estimate a good aproximation of "How much" intelligent life perhaps.

To me Itīs not as interesting to discuss if we are alone, or if there are any intelligent life out there, I am more eager to know, how much there are and where in the universe it might be located.

Michael

rwhunt99
04-12-2011, 07:35 PM
I noticed that hottel memo too. they tried to debunk it, but I think there is something to it myself. I've read many books about UFO's and while many are obvious fakes, it's the unexplained ones that keep me a believer. The best disguise is to hide in plain sight. I can't honestly believe the FBI never misses anything, most reports are subconsciously edited/censored because they are afraid of their careers.

safetyman
04-13-2011, 05:37 AM
I read another article that the memo was from an agent who was recounting what someone told him, and that person was told the info by someone else. I doubt 3rd or 4th hand info like that is very credible, especially since the source was supposedly a known hoaxer, if that's a word.

Just thought about this:

SETI received a signal back in the 70's, that they called the "Wow!" signal, and "bore expected hallmarks of potential non-terrestrial and non-solar system origin". More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

So even if we do receive a signal from, say 200 light years away (a relatively short distance), that signal took roughly 200 years to get here. We send a response, which takes another 200 years to reach it's destination, so we have to wait 200 more years for a response. We'll be 400 years old (or 600 or 800 -- my head hurts), before this method of communication bears any fruit. We've only been actively signalling since the early 60's (via radio signals), so that's not enough time to get any response from places farther than 20-30 light years, and that's if beings within that range can even interpret our signal.

tischbein3
04-13-2011, 01:32 PM
Ok, I can't resist, sorry in advance:


I noticed that out of millions of Earth species, only one had developed advanced civilization, and only within about the last 2-millionth of the planet's age (most of the time spent as boring microbes).
Sure, thats evolution. doing things randomly does need quite some time, But, we already had several potential subspecies with at least _one_ surviving long enough to left some artefacts as a proof they did had a culture. And in fact, its not a surprise: What do you think the chances are, another intelligent species would succesfull compete with humans ?



But curiously, 'progress' has less to do with intelligence as is commonly assumed.
THis is actual the essential part of the reply:

Thats correct, or even better said: Evolution makes no statement on progress.
But intelligence and the abillity to actually use it for adapting to the enviroment might be a significant advantage in the evolutionary game, especialy if organisms have reached a certain complexity.
Reaching a certain complexity on the other hand might have an advantage when competing with others on ressources / using them as ressources....and this goes on: Its not the current state wich gives you a good picture of the likeliness, but by looking at some of the key results events, and look how often they actually happened in paralell / several times.



I read of ants with agriculture. Dolphins learn and speak, yet remain content frolicking and blowing bubble rings for millions of years.

Brainpower is nothing without having the abillities to make something out of it. Especially Dolphins are quite in an evolutionary trap (Neglecting the overall question if they actually have the potential to become intelligent):
If they do not aquire some kind of hands, no way something will change -> Having hands: no way to compete with the still-fin-having dolphins for food etc. So as long as having fins is such an important factor, making bubbles might be the best alternative.



Obsessed with tradition, the wise tribe elders were resistant to such newfangled ideas, and insisted that passing airplanes were thingys of the gods, yet they really are no less capable of acquiring knowledge and developing economies than residents of so called first world countries. I havent found good explanation for this.
Two thoughts on this:
Nomadic cultures usually develop less fast, because their mobility restricts development. (You certainly doesn't keep much written recordings on such trips, for example).
Humans living in areas wich aren't very ressourcefull, are usually less willing to make "experiments". Not to mention, several developments aren't even possible... (just look at the industrial revolution, and on what natural ressources it was based on)

So yeah, a certain agreement on the observation, and yes, good points.
But in thend, especially from the evolutionary perspective I do think the amount of intelligent live out there is actually one of the lesser problems we face in finding it.

shrox
04-13-2011, 03:43 PM
I look at it like drilling for oil or digging for gold, all the right signs and indicators might be there, but until you actually have gold or oil on your hands, it might as well not be there.

Then there is the question of timing. What are the chances of aliens arriving here right now, in this narrow time of the 100,000 years or so that we could really be called human? In the novel 2001:A Space Odyssey, aliens pass through our solar systems millions of years before that. Some might even arrive long after we would be gone. I think the chances of those two events are more likely than now.

Mr Rid
04-28-2011, 10:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJoXfTxOEuw

erikals
04-28-2011, 11:49 PM
could be good :]

safetyman
04-29-2011, 05:09 AM
Looks kinda slow, but I'll probably watch it.

serge
04-29-2011, 06:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJoXfTxOEuw
From what I've read, this 'other earth' next to ours doesn't seem to have any gravitational effect. For me enough reason I think not to watch this movie. My girlfriend might like it though. :)