Don't talk to aliens - Stephen Hawking

[Sentinel]

^^
(This is just an analogy ... not a proof, pls don't twist it around)

If i am not mistaken, there is no demonstrable proof of love. Yet, we accept it exists, since the majority accept it.

1. Can you put it on the table and show me ?

2. How come behavior of people in love varies so much -- some positive, some negative, some even commit suicide

3. How come people fall in love and then often fall out of it too. Surely that means it is imaginary and false and delusional.

4. Some of you will go ahead and give me some bio-chemical proof of love. What does that prove, that love is some biochemical, that's all ??

Or others will talk of some frontal lobe etc. So basically love is just some activity of some lobe in head, so its not really love??


All arguments used to dismiss God can be used to dismiss love too. Only you know you are in love. You cannot show it to me. It may be described differently by different people, and it may have a different effect. Yet, even scientists and rationalist and commies fall in love. People (inclu Scientists) have even left their countries for the sake of love, changed religions, run away from family etc -- all this for something you can't even prove ????

This is one analogy i can give you for God. Only you know it. You can't show it even to your most loved ones. Others can find pseudo-scientific arguments like lobes, genes, chemicals to dismiss it, but why not first apply all this nonsense logic to love, and what *you* believe in ?

No doubt, there's a lot of crap that's happened in the name of religion, but atheists conveniently club religion and God. Humans created religions. Most often power-hungry humans controlled or took it over. These are conveniently used to deflect the argument by atheists. Anyway, i digress.

The one-eyed man analogy:

Maybe I could say: in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man would be considered insane, and even locked up in an asylum for seeing.

There's no way the poor chap can prove it, since his land has all its systems and sciences tailor made for the blind.
If he invented a camera or a photometer, who would validate it ?
There's no way the one-eyed man knows how his eye is working, and no one else's is. He has no way of showing others how to see. That does not mean he does not see.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

ive always wondered stuff like that.... then made myself stop by posting on a tennis forum...

 

[sureshs]

Who watched the new Stephen Hawking program on the Science channel?

 

[jswinf]

The one-eyed man analogy:
[/U]
Maybe I could say: in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man would be considered insane, and even locked up in an asylum for seeing.

There's no way the poor chap can prove it, since his land has all its systems and sciences tailor made for the blind.
If he invented a camera or a photometer, who would validate it ?
There's no way the one-eyed man knows how his eye is working, and no one else's is. He has no way of showing others how to see. That does not mean he does not see.

Maybe this has shown up in this thread before, I haven't always kept up on all the reading, but it sounds like someone has read The Country of the Blind, short story by H.G. Wells, when a sighted man in a valley of blind people found that his sight really wasn't helpful.

This thread has morphed into an impressively thoughtful discussion of various topics. Personally, as sort of a non-standard Christian, I think the best argument for God is similar to the 4-year-old who keeps asking "why?" over and over, as in "Eat your broccoli." "Why?" "Because it's good for you." "Why?"...for several more repitions until we get to "BECAUSE I SAID SO, YOU LITTLE #@$%!&!"

Except the "scientific skeptic" is repeatedly asked "Where did that come from?" in response to his sound statements about the origin of things. Eventually you've got to get to something like "there was a big bang of infinitely-concentrated energy!" "Where did that come from?" "Well, that's unkown." Then, with a nod and a polite half-smile, I would say "Exactly."

 

[sureshs]

Yes, the mental level of religious people is that of 4 year olds. They have usually not developed more critical thinking faculties and gloat in their ignorance.

 

[mtommer]

We've proven on a lab that organic matter -the previous step to life- can emerge in a simple way: it only takes the presence of certain chemical elements (four or five, very common in the universe) and a source of energy. That's an experiment that anyone can replicate: organic matter appears easily. So it could appear in a large number of extrasolar planets, and there are thousands of billions out there. In fact, we know there is organic matter (although not life) in places as strange as Jupiter. So the raw materials seem to be common in space and we know that, under some conditions, those raw materials will turn into life. We have a prove of that: ourselves and the life on our planet. So we know the process that convert chemical elements in organic matter. And we know organic matter can turn into life. There's no reason to think it didn't happen in other places.

So the program is behaving likes it was programmed to do. You still had to have a programmer. The problem here is that we can't exist beyond or outside of ourselves and our universe so there is no way to know if we are actually living in a computer program or not, so to speak. This means we can't make the assumption that we are not doing so and there's no reason to think we would ever find evidence that we are doing so or that we could ever recognize it if it were in front of us.

We also can't assume we are living in a program. The only way to tell then is if the programmer actually said, "Well, yes, you are." There's a bit of information that has come from accounts of previous people in time that suggests this has happened.

 

[TonLars]

Yes, the mental level of religious people is that of 4 year olds. They have usually not developed more critical thinking faculties and gloat in their ignorance.

This would be an example of an arrogant atheist remark who uses such language as a cop-out for instead dealing with thoughtful discussion.

 

[jswinf]

Yes, the mental level of religious people is that of 4 year olds. They have usually not developed more critical thinking faculties and gloat in their ignorance.

So you're going with the "BECAUSE I SAID SO..." response, I guess.

 

[Sentinel]

A war of words has broken out in the dark-matter community over a report posted on the arXiv preprint server earlier this week. The preprint from the XENON100 collaboration poured cold water on claims that dark matter has been detected by two other experiments – but now the report itself has been attacked by other researchers in the field.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42554

FYI.

 

[Sentinel]

Maybe this has shown up in this thread before, I haven't always kept up on all the reading, but it sounds like someone has read The Country of the Blind, short story by H.G. Wells, when a sighted man in a valley of blind people found that his sight really wasn't helpful.

Actually not. tbh, this analogy has naturally been forming in my mind for several years, its the most natural / obvious analogy. However, my analogy was not so short. Someone recently posted a one liner which summarized the whole analogy. So I've stolen that !

 

[pinky42]

So the program is behaving likes it was programmed to do. You still had to have a programmer. The problem here is that we can't exist beyond or outside of ourselves and our universe so there is no way to know if we are actually living in a computer program or not, so to speak.

Sounds like a variation of the brain in the vat thought experiment. The obvious extension to this is that the hypothetical programmer can't tell if he's a program written by a meta programmer and so on all the way out to infinity.

We also can't assume we are living in a program. The only way to tell then is if the programmer actually said, "Well, yes, you are." There's a bit of information that has come from accounts of previous people in time that suggests this has happened.

No, even if a hypothetical programmer actually said, "Well, yes, you are," that won't allow us to tell if we actually are or not. You've given the reason above. Since our domain of experience is the universe, there is no way to tell if any claim of "Well, yes, you are" came from an external source of if it's just a liar within the universe.

 

[Sentinel]

Hawkins Time Machine

Cosmologist outlines three theoretically realistic ideas for time travel


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37018725/ns/technology_and_science-science/

 

[Synesthetic]

I'll try my best not to

 

[Synesthetic]

(response to thread title)

 

[Sentinel]

(response to thread title)

Maybe he was referring to Mexicans, no ?

 

[jswinf]

We gotta talk to 'em in Arizona, see if they habla the ingles, see it they got their "documents", see if they're after our jobs and/or women...

 

[bee]

Take a look at what goes on in the world of nature. Eat or be eaten, mostly. It's pretty much predatory.

I have always been appalled at the arrongance of people like Carl Sagan and Jimmy Carter with their idea that we should send a rocket out in space with a road map to earth in it. They did that, of course. They decided to do that because they think they've got it figured out. Because they know what's best for the rest of us dummies. They weren't interest in taking a vote on it or anything like that.

When they're here and sucking our brains out, we'll be saying
"Gee, thanks a lot, Carl. Thanks a lot, Jimmy...you moron."

 

[Polaris]

So the program is behaving likes it was programmed to do. You still had to have a programmer.[...]

This assumption is wrong, but extremely common among people who have not understood evolution properly. It has been comprehensively debunked even among religious people, and is kept alive by the agenda-driven creationist lobby. The rest of the post is based on that incorrect assumption, and therefore does not need answering.

 

[Sentinel]

I'll try my best not to

You first gotta meet 'em, before you can not talk to them !

 

[Sherlock]

You first gotta meet 'em, before you can not talk to them !

Hrmmm, not sure I follow that. I have never talked to them, and I have never met them...

 

[Sentinel]

Hrmmm, not sure I follow that. I have never talked to them, and I have never met them...

Aw c'mon, he said he will try his best not to talk to them. If he aint met them, how can he do that ?

Anyway, don't bother, not important, Herlock. Go back to investigating some crop circles or UFO claims - just kidding, ;-)

 

[Sentinel]

Some scientists respond to SH:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hawking-aliens-20100508,0,757774.story

I am quoting just one:

Randy D. Allen, a biologist at Oklahoma State University, argued that a smart-enough species could develop a quantum computer and eventually transfer their consciousnesses into it.

"No more inefficient metabolism requiring huge energy input, no chemically derived bodies to wear out, no reproduction, no death, no taxes. Just supermassively parallel collective consciousness with unlimited capabilities," he wrote. "Perhaps, through super symmetry or entanglement, they can "see" or "feel" the entire universe. Maybe, they've gained the ability to manipulate elementary particles and can control its evolution and its fate. They would have become, by any human definition, Gods."

 

[Sherlock]

Some scientists respond to SH:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hawking-aliens-20100508,0,757774.story

I am quoting just one:

Randy D. Allen, a biologist at Oklahoma State University, argued that a smart-enough species could develop a quantum computer and eventually transfer their consciousnesses into it.

"No more inefficient metabolism requiring huge energy input, no chemically derived bodies to wear out, no reproduction, no death, no taxes. Just supermassively parallel collective consciousness with unlimited capabilities," he wrote. "Perhaps, through super symmetry or entanglement, they can "see" or "feel" the entire universe. Maybe, they've gained the ability to manipulate elementary particles and can control its evolution and its fate. They would have become, by any human definition, Gods."

Interesting. Wouldn't it be interesting wake up and not have a body to sense with. One day you are stuck in a body, and the next day you have no body but you are able to think a million times faster. If you have parallel processors you would be able to think about several things at one time, and keep them all straight.

 

[Sentinel]

Interesting. Wouldn't it be interesting wake up and not have a body to sense with. One day you are stuck in a body, and the next day you have no body but you are able to think a million times faster. If you have parallel processors you would be able to think about several things at one time, and keep them all straight.

Now that you mention it, AC Clarke wrote a short story in which some such thing happens. A man opts to be fitted into a robotic/artificial body. And since he was short all his "life" he asks for a really tall body so he can tower over everyone, lol. Its in this anthology. But iirc, its not as wonderful as you say. His brain is the same one, the only change is the body, which can now be fixed whenever it breaks.

 

[Sherlock]

What would be strange and difficult to imagine is if your mind were put into a computer or "body" which could not move, and you had no sensory functions built into the device. In other words, your body were the casing for a computer motherboard. The only communication you have is through a computer moniter for speaking and a keyboard for "listening".

A psychological study on the balance between losing many desired aspects like mobility and the senses but gaining unprecedented thought abilities would be fun to see. Would I become far more logical with such a rational "brain" or would I still be very emotional since those parts of the brain were transferred as well. Maybe the emotional parts would become even stronger and my sadness at losing other things in the transition would overwhelm me, causing me to crash.

Of course, somebody could always repair the damage by just removing my emotion chip. But does that mean I would lose my sense of self and existence?

 

[sureshs]

Read an article recently with recent research which seems to further indicate that the brain is not the only computing power in the body. In a way, the entire body is involved, and not just in providing input to the brain.

 

[sureshs]

So the program is behaving likes it was programmed to do. You still had to have a programmer.

No, dude, the watchmaker argument was squashed decades ago. Get on with the times.

 

[Sentinel]

What would be strange and difficult to imagine is if your mind were put into a computer or "body" which could not move, and you had no sensory functions built into the device. In other words, your body were the casing for a computer motherboard. The only communication you have is through a computer moniter for speaking and a keyboard for "listening".

A psychological study on the balance between losing many desired aspects like mobility and the senses but gaining unprecedented thought abilities would be fun to see. Would I become far more logical with such a rational "brain" or would I still be very emotional since those parts of the brain were transferred as well. Maybe the emotional parts would become even stronger and my sadness at losing other things in the transition would overwhelm me, causing me to crash.

Of course, somebody could always repair the damage by just removing my emotion chip. But does that mean I would lose my sense of self and existence?

Your first 2 statements seem a little contradictory, but then I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
First u talk of a human mind / brain being put inside a robotic body, and then your body being a clothing for a computer motherboard. Anyway. that apart, i think the ethical issues would just not permit such a thing, although someone somwhere will surely do it, given the technology.

What kind of rights does a person have if his brain is put into some computer and his body is thrown away (when he dies). Is he a person ? Can he be terminated if things go wrong ? How will he feel if he is one of the few of this kind ? Will he feel discriminated or like a freak. Can his wife divorce him on these grounds ?

There are positive sides to it to : doesn't have to worry about old age, illness, taking care of body, eating, crapping, bathing and all that nonsense.

 

[lethalfang]

Some scientists respond to SH:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hawking-aliens-20100508,0,757774.story

I am quoting just one:

Randy D. Allen, a biologist at Oklahoma State University, argued that a smart-enough species could develop a quantum computer and eventually transfer their consciousnesses into it.

"No more inefficient metabolism requiring huge energy input, no chemically derived bodies to wear out, no reproduction, no death, no taxes. Just supermassively parallel collective consciousness with unlimited capabilities," he wrote. "Perhaps, through super symmetry or entanglement, they can "see" or "feel" the entire universe. Maybe, they've gained the ability to manipulate elementary particles and can control its evolution and its fate. They would have become, by any human definition, Gods."

Population growth thru assimilation:

 

[Sentinel]

^^ I'd love to be one of those blocks ! I've always been known to be a square ;-)

 

[Sentinel]

It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.

- Pierre Beaumarchais

 

[Leelord337]

is nadal an alien? check out his record!

 

[Leelord337]

I actually expected some better stuff from SH. Pretty trite.

In any case, its a bit late. SETI has been sending signals on some frequencies for a decade or more.

I suspect there are chaps out there that already know we exist.

Some of them could be in forms that we would not even recognize as life or intelligent.

They could even already be here, and we not know.

very interesting thread...of course they know, its obvious that after the 1947 crash reverse engineering of the craft took place and not too much longer we had NASA along with many other technological advances

 

[Sentinel]

very interesting thread...of course they know, its obvious that after the 1947 crash reverse engineering of the craft took place and not too much longer we had NASA along with many other technological advances

Well, *sigh*, might as well come clean. Yes, we've been watching you all along, from Ground Zero itself. We've surreptitiously added to your technology, although we usually regret it soon after.

Everyone (human) is under oath not to speak since this could alter the human mindset a great deal. And we really care about you, *more* than you care about yourself. You are all (sadly) typically so lost in your small worlds of "me" and "mine" that you are willing to ruin your great planet and endanger your species for some quick gains.

Recently, it is reported that some human TW poster has been revealing that humans have been in touch with us for a long time, and we've given you technology. If its true, that chap is going to have a dressing down from his superiors. We don't take this kind of nonsense lightly. We had the R&R section shut down to prevent him from coming out with evidence.

 

[Sentinel]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...l_present-day_life_arose_from_a_single_origin

 

[mtommer]

No, dude, the watchmaker argument was squashed decades ago. Get on with the times.

Did you even bother to read the rest? If you had you would have restrained yourself from posting this response. It's not applicable.

 

[sureshs]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...l_present-day_life_arose_from_a_single_origin

Knew that all along, good to get additional confirmation.

 

[David123]

on the first day man created god.

 

[Sentinel]

Matter > Antimatter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100518/sc_space/whyweexistmatterwinsbattleoverantimatter

 

[sureshs]

Matter > Antimatter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100518/sc_space/whyweexistmatterwinsbattleoverantimatter

Knew that too. It was this slight assymmetry which allowed stars and galaxies to form. Otherwise, there would only be energy, no matter. Perhaps in another universe, this assymetry is not present and it is very different.

 

[Sentinel]

dude, you are a know-it-all

 

[borg number one]

Sentinel, I see you are getting into some very interesting discussions here. I don't know if you've seen this before, but it's one of my favorite movie scene (final sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey). What would it be like to fly through the "Universe" or "Multiverse"?? See the main character as he is flung into space and starts bending time. Wild stuff. See the whole movie if you haven't. I bet you have seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f88NZ1sxWX0 (full ending set to Pink Floyd)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWnmCu3U09w (opening of film)

 

[borg number one]

A more technical "Journey to the Edge of the Universe"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7wNQw12l8

 

[Sentinel]

Sentinel, I see you are getting into some very interesting discussions here. I don't know if you've seen this before, but it's one of my favorite movie scene (final sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey). What would it be like to fly through the "Universe" or "Multiverse"?? See the main character as he is flung into space and starts bending time. Wild stuff. See the whole movie if you haven't. I bet you have seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f88NZ1sxWX0 (full ending set to Pink Floyd)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWnmCu3U09w (opening of film)

Of course, my friend. Just yesterday I was listening to Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra parts of which are used in 2001. And the name "Sentinel" --- did you not make the link ?

 

[borg number one]

Of course, my friend. Just yesterday I was listening to Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra parts of which are used in 2001. And the name "Sentinel" --- did you not make the link ?

I had heard that term "Sentinel" before. Yet, I did not make that link AT ALL until I looked it up on the web. So, that was a TOTAL coincidence that I wanted to post the video clip. When I was reading through the thread, I thought it fit. Was it a coincidence? Maybe so, but maybe not. Do we really know if that's purely a coincidence or random event?

"The Sentinel" is a short story by Arthur C. Clarke, famous for being expanded and modified into the novel and movie 2001: A Space Odyssey

 

[Sentinel]

First functional synthetic bacterial genome announced



http://arstechnica.com/science/news...onal-synthetic-bacterial-genome-announced.ars

or

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Aliens will do to us what we did to Indians in america. We will be living in small resevations on the Moon once we know we exist...

Just watched the program. This is still the best quote ever.

 

[OTMPut]

First functional synthetic bacterial genome announced



http://arstechnica.com/science/news...onal-synthetic-bacterial-genome-announced.ars

or

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

this is a remarkable milestone. hard to overestimate it.

 

[Sentinel]

Hawking going batty I think ?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Huh? What's wrong with that quote?