Watch this and tell me life outside of Earth doesnt exist.

[nathanjizzle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU


really, too me, its impossible that their isnt life outside of earth. i think there could be hundreds of thousands of planets with life on them if not millions. weve only yet to examine mars and yet even then their could have been life on that planet at some point.

anyway, i hope im alive when we scope the first planet with other beings on it. I think the beings will look like clingons

[oarabbus]

Well, it's still possible there's no life out there. Improbable, yes, with the number of planets out there, but not impossible.

[~primetime~]

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that technologically advanced life must be exceedingly rare or nearly nonexistant.
Simple life probably pops up everywhere it can though.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/8c/4e/af8c4e5e719f27164230bb559bb8e522.jpg

[Nanners]

anybody who is interested in whether we are alone should read this

fermi paradox (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

[Patrick Chewing]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/8c/4e/af8c4e5e719f27164230bb559bb8e522.jpg

I hate his irrational and simplistic explanation of things. I look at the worm and instead marvel at all the different species this world has had to offer past and present and come to the conclusion that as humanity gets smarter, humanity also realizes how alone they really are.


I hate "scientists" who consistently tell us how dumb we are and that nothing is potentially interested in us.

[SugarHill]

I hate his irrational and simplistic explanation of things. I look at the worm and instead marvel at all the different species this world has had to offer past and present and come to the conclusion that as humanity gets smarter, humanity also realizes how alone they really are.


I hate "scientists" who consistently tell us how dumb we are and that nothing is potentially interested in us.
You believe in a literal adam and eve.

[Swaggin916]

There's no way an alien civilization could overlook earth... just like we don't overlook worms. People study worms and all sorts of simple life. The variety of life on this planet would interest somebody somewhere (maybe not all, but some) if they knew we existed and could connect with us. Have to disagree with NGT thinking there funny as it is.

[sweggeh]

You believe in a literal adam and eve.

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aZbGBpQ_700b.jpg

[TheReal Kendall]

Maybe there is life out there but they just can't reach us like we can't reach them.

Are they could have observed us and be scared to approach us because of the way we react to things we don't understand.

[Dresta]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/8c/4e/af8c4e5e719f27164230bb559bb8e522.jpg
:facepalm

And they call this guy a scientist? That isn't science, it's unsubstantiated bullshit, AND an incredibly idiotic comparison, as human beings are capable of ratiocination (however crude and impulse-driven it may be), whereas worms are not.

[Jasi]

anybody who is interested in whether we are alone should read this

fermi paradox (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

Nice read, and nice site. Thanks.

[nathanjizzle]

:facepalm

And they call this guy a scientist? That isn't science, it's unsubstantiated bullshit, AND an incredibly idiotic comparison, as human beings are capable of ratiocination (however crude and impulse-driven it may be), whereas worms are not.

stop being critical. hes just trying to explain to the lamens what it would be like if there were a supreme intelligence species outside of humans, we could be like monkeys compared to them, or even worms. The thought that we are even intelligent is relative to other creatures on earth, not outside of earth.

also, ive noticed that all you offer is criticism, no valuable input at all.

[~primetime~]

:facepalm

And they call this guy a scientist? That isn't science, it's unsubstantiated bullshit, AND an incredibly idiotic comparison, as human beings are capable of ratiocination (however crude and impulse-driven it may be), whereas worms are not.
It's just a thought he had and the gist of it is that we are stupid animals in comparison to them so they don't bother with us.

Not everything he says has to be scientific, he's allowed to have unscientific thoughts and ideas.

[ace23]

:facepalm

And they call this guy a scientist? That isn't science, it's unsubstantiated bullshit, AND an incredibly idiotic comparison, as human beings are capable of ratiocination (however crude and impulse-driven it may be), whereas worms are not.
That was more philosophical than scientific.

[nathanjizzle]

That was more philosophical than scientific.

he doesnt recognize philosophy outside of his own.

[rufuspaul]

Maybe there is life out there but they just can't reach us like we can't reach them.



This. It's hard to break the laws of physics. If some super species were somehow able to exceed the speed of light through a warp or wrinkle or whatever it would be hard to ignore Earth in this solar system.

[Dresta]

stop being critical. hes just trying to explain to the lamens what it would be like if there were a supreme intelligence species outside of humans, we could be like monkeys compared to them, or even worms. The thought that we are even intelligent is relative to other creatures on earth, not outside of earth.

also, ive noticed that all you offer is criticism, no valuable input at all.
Criticism is valuable. Any critique which exposes that nonsense i quoted as pure sophistry and quackery is valuable input as it may deter the less informed from believing it (though evidently not in your case).

And again, what you're saying is incorrect: 'intelligence' is a human construct that makes no sense without context. Our 'intelligence' cannot objectively be said to be greater than that of many animals, merely different (unless, of course, we anthropomorphise the concept of intelligence). It is a means of comparison within a species, not between species (generalisations for a start). Why are the instantaneous calculations of an autistic child regarded as intelligence, while the remarkable sense of smell of dogs, is not?

Other advanced life-forms, like Dolphins for example, don't necessarily have inferior intelligence or mental capacity, it is simply directed in a different place (as in, their brains are structured differently, so in some aspects they are vastly superior to human beings). But obviously, in our typical anthropomorphic fashion, we construct a notion of "intelligence" that just so happens to relate to all the skills where humans are dominant. Looks like humans divined the word "intelligence" to satisfy their own vanity if you ask me. It is a word that esteems and values the things that, as a species, humans already excel at, and so it is foolish to think some external space-creatures would even fit into this narrow and anthropomorphic definition.

Comparing intelligence within a species is hard enough, so lets not wade into the molasses and start comparing human with animal and with imaginary space-creatures. There is enough that we fail to understand as it is, so there's really no need to create imaginary hypotheses relating to extra-intelligent extra-terrestrial life-forms.

If animals could speak they would say 'humanity is a prejudice from which we do not suffer'


It's just a thought he had and the gist of it is that we are stupid animals in comparison to them so they don't bother with us.

Not everything he says has to be scientific, he's allowed to have unscientific thoughts and ideas.
It shows he doesn't understand intelligence and the brain, like, at all. See above. As a thinker he seems pretty superficial and rhetorical, at least to me. The comparison between humans and worms is nonsensical as worms are oblivious to most of what's around them (very weak, dull senses), whereas humans are not, and have even used science to massively enhance their senses and ability to observe things.

[Dresta]

That was more philosophical than scientific.
Even if it was, then it is bad philosophy as a consequence of scientific ignorance, as a philosopher shouldn't ignore the findings of the natural sciences. In this case the fact that worms are incapable of seeing or hearing, whereas humans have created devices that have taken these senses to unprecedented levels, makes any comparison rather fatuous. I'm hardly the biggest fan of the human race, but comparing them to worms in their ability to perceive what is around them is just silly, and a really crude form of humility.

[imdaman99]

We live billions of miles away, we can't get to space exploration in our own lifetimes. SO yes of course there has to be other life out there. There is no interstellar type traveling going on unfortunately :( We have to depend on aliens, especially if they can live for hundreds of years. Just like the worm has a tiny lifespan compared to us, maybe our lifespan is worm-like compared to the aliens. We won't experience it in our lifetimes.

[~primetime~]

http://www.trcpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SETI-radio-array.jpg

It is puzzling IMO that space isn't loaded with radio waves from other life...SETI has found nothing

If it is true that there are 100x more "Earth-like" planets out there than there are grains of sand on Earth, and many that have been in existence billions of years before Earth, then why no noise out there?..they have had enough time to reach us.

I don't know much about radio waves though, do they dissipate into nothing in empty space or something?

[Jailblazers7]

http://www.trcpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SETI-radio-array.jpg

It is puzzling IMO that space isn't loaded with radio waves from other life...SETI has found nothing

If it is true that there are 100x more "Earth-like" planets out there than there are grains of sand on Earth, and many that have been in existence billions of years before Earth, then why no noise out there?..they have had enough time to reach us.

I don't know much about radio waves though, do they dissipate into nothing in empty space or something?

I don't think it's that crazy. It could just be that the radio waves haven't reach us yet since developed planets could be so far away.

[Jasi]

That's the Fermi paradox.
Read the link that Nanners posted some posts ago.
There are a bunch of possible explanations to that.

[Take Your Lumps]

Criticism is valuable. Any critique which exposes that nonsense i quoted as pure sophistry and quackery is valuable input as it may deter the less informed from believing it (though evidently not in your case).

And again, what you're saying is incorrect: 'intelligence' is a human construct that makes no sense without context. Our 'intelligence' cannot objectively be said to be greater than that of many animals, merely different (unless, of course, we anthropomorphise the concept of intelligence). It is a means of comparison within a species, not between species (generalisations for a start). Why are the instantaneous calculations of an autistic child regarded as intelligence, while the remarkable sense of smell of dogs, is not?

Other advanced life-forms, like Dolphins for example, don't necessarily have inferior intelligence or mental capacity, it is simply directed in a different place (as in, their brains are structured differently, so in some aspects they are vastly superior to human beings). But obviously, in our typical anthropomorphic fashion, we construct a notion of "intelligence" that just so happens to relate to all the skills where humans are dominant. Looks like humans divined the word "intelligence" to satisfy their own vanity if you ask me. It is a word that esteems and values the things that, as a species, humans already excel at, and so it is foolish to think some external space-creatures would even fit into this narrow and anthropomorphic definition.

Comparing intelligence within a species is hard enough, so lets not wade into the molasses and start comparing human with animal and with imaginary space-creatures. There is enough that we fail to understand as it is, so there's really no need to create imaginary hypotheses relating to extra-intelligent extra-terrestrial life-forms.

If animals could speak they would say 'humanity is a prejudice from which we do not suffer'


It shows he doesn't understand intelligence and the brain, like, at all. See above. As a thinker he seems pretty superficial and rhetorical, at least to me. The comparison between humans and worms is nonsensical as worms are oblivious to most of what's around them (very weak, dull senses), whereas humans are not, and have even used science to massively enhance their senses and ability to observe things.

This guy sounds fun to hang out with.

[~primetime~]

I don't think it's that crazy. It could just be that the radio waves haven't reach us yet since developed planets could be so far away.
billions of other "Earth-like" planets have been around billions of years BEFORE Earth though...:confusedshrug:

they have had a lot of time...



I don't know how fast radio waves travel though...so maybe there is a simple explanation

[~primetime~]

That's the Fermi paradox.
Read the link that Nanners posted some posts ago.
There are a bunch of possible explanations to that.
I read the entire thing...it touched on SETI/radio waves once I think

One theory stated that all the advanced civilizations out there use something more advanced than radio waves and we are still too primitive to see it, but wouldn't all advanced life still have started with radio waves as they evolved? Radio waves would still be out there...

[Myth]

I hate his irrational and simplistic explanation of things. I look at the worm and instead marvel at all the different species this world has had to offer past and present and come to the conclusion that as humanity gets smarter, humanity also realizes how alone they really are.


I hate "scientists" who consistently tell us how dumb we are and that nothing is potentially interested in us.

The problem is, you are still operating on our style of thinking. Some super being that is beyond us to the point that we are beyond worms potentially wouldn't need to study us the same way we study worms. Maybe they have already studied us, but it didn't take them long and it didn't require them making us aware of their existence to do it. They could already have a much stronger understanding of us than we do, and have moved on because they have nothing further to learn about us.

And yes, you are right that he wasn't using science. He was simply using an analogy to form a hypothesis that at this time can not directly studied. Not sure why you are so angry at him for thinking and sharing his thoughts.

[tpols]

:facepalm

And they call this guy a scientist? That isn't science, it's unsubstantiated bullshit, AND an incredibly idiotic comparison, as human beings are capable of ratiocination (however crude and impulse-driven it may be), whereas worms are not.

our ratiocination may seem just as primitive to something else as a worms lack of racionation is to us.. they might have super racionation or think in a way that makes us look like we have logic of a blade of grass.

[~primetime~]

NDT wasn't trying to make a scientific comparison between humans and worms, you can't view that in a literal sense.

He was just trying to make the point that perhaps 'they' don't care to contact us because we are inferior creatures to them...if you're sitting there going "But worms are like this - and humans are like this..." then you are looking too far into that comment.

[Jailblazers7]

Just read that Fermi Paradox link. Very cool stuff and it's easy to understand why science fiction is so popular when you read theories like that. The super-intelligent predator species stuff made me chuckle in a nervous way while I hoped it wasn't true. :lol

[KyrieTheFuture]

Oh Dresta and Chewing trying to be smarter than everyone else? What a ****ing surprise.

[Verticality]

http://media.giphy.com/media/7GySaKuIzts9q/giphy.gif

Dresta is the Architect of ish. He uses big words to make him sound smart but goes on and on about nonsense and sucks the life out of a this computer world.

[TheMarkMadsen]

billions of other "Earth-like" planets have been around billions of years BEFORE Earth though...:confusedshrug:

they have had a lot of time...



I don't know how fast radio waves travel though...so maybe there is a simple explanation

Why do you assume that an entirely different species that evolved in other galaxies would be using radio waves or ever would have used them?

[JohnnySic]

That was a cool vid.

[~primetime~]

Why do you assume that an entirely different species that evolved in other galaxies would be using radio waves or ever would have used them?
Because WE did.

If there are billions of other planets with advanced life like Earth, you think that we are the only ones to have discovered radio waves?

I would also assume all the others discovered electricity as well...just like us

[Out_In_Utah]

I don't know much about radio waves though, do they dissipate into nothing in empty space or something?

I believe they do.

[Jasi]

Because WE did.

If there are billions of other planets with advanced life like Earth, you think that we are the only ones to have discovered radio waves?

I would also assume all the others discovered electricity as well...just like us

Good point.
One should estimate a % probability that, in an Earth-like planet, an advanced civilization developed in a similar way as ours (so that they use radio waves and they are culturally inclined to exploration), and did it far back in time enough so that their radio waves (which travel at the speed of light) can reach us now.
I am not sure but I think that probability is still quite high.

[Akrazotile]

http://www.trcpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SETI-radio-array.jpg

It is puzzling IMO that space isn't loaded with radio waves from other life...SETI has found nothing

If it is true that there are 100x more "Earth-like" planets out there than there are grains of sand on Earth, and many that have been in existence billions of years before Earth, then why no noise out there?..they have had enough time to reach us.

I don't know much about radio waves though, do they dissipate into nothing in empty space or something?


Lol. Youre acting like if theres life out it just naturally follows they have radio waves.

The number of isolated, chance butterfly effects it would take to get from primordial soup, to the invention of radiowaves is incredible.

Just think about the fact that if it werent for the spread of eurasian technology, tribes in australia, africa, and north america would STILL be living on some primitive shit, in fact many still are. If aboriginies on our own planet never invented anything CLOSE to radiowaves, why are you assuming things on other planets must have??

It is absolutely not a given that life somewhere else is evolving the way it does on earth. Sound might not even be an evolved sense for life on other planets. If you think say humans come from chimps, then think about how chimps evolved based on the specifics of their surroundings. The specific kind of trees, the specific kind of bugs, the specific kind of foxes, goats, birds, fruits, nuts. These things themselves mutate and evolve randomly, sometimes due to completely random weather patterns, and then our species would have been carved out in very specific response to all of THOSE chance evolutions. If you believe in evolution then you understand mutation is RANDOM and that means we are the product of a ginormous, multimillion year pyramid of chance actions and subsequent chance reactions. Its not like some formula where oh, you have a cell in an ocean, one day its gonna be humans with a radio! I would argue that we can ONLY be completely unique, BY DEFINITION.

I think people get too carried away with the idea that "well, theres lots of planets out there, theres gotta be people like us!" The number of specific things, one after another, LITERALLY including things like the flap of a single butterfly's wings, the precise speed of earths roation, precise moon distance, timing of solar flares, earths exact size, timing of volcanic eruptions, etc, is mind boggling to get from a point of nothingness, to humans with radios four billion years later. Its not just a given that it happens any ol place theres some earthlike conditions.

[Bandito]

LIfe outside of Earth doesnt exist.

[Dresta]

Oh Dresta and Chewing trying to be smarter than everyone else? What a ****ing surprise.


Dresta is the Architect of ish. He uses big words to make him sound smart but goes on and on about nonsense and sucks the life out of a this computer world.

Jesus, can't have a discussion on here without ISHs resident philistine brigade popping along with a bit of aimless cynicism, here to say nothing aside from accusing others of using 'big words' or 'trying to be smart' as if these things have any meaning outside of the playground and childhood. What a ****ing surprise.

FYI, i write with clarity; whining about it only shows that you have no understanding of what obscure writing is, or the latest trends in academia, with its increased focus on post-modernism and obscurity, which i stand opposed to, and have criticised for 5 years or so now. Sad that when you stand on the opposite side of this intellectual persuasion (like me), others are so ill-educated and illiterate that they actually take me for being someone who aims for obscurity and 'big words' (still don't really know what this means).

The real question is why would the both of you go out of your ways just to make irreverent posts about the points i made, without bothering to think about or tackle them in any way? Are you that insecure?


our ratiocination may seem just as primitive to something else as a worms lack of racionation is to us.. they might have super racionation or think in a way that makes us look like we have logic of a blade of grass.
How exactly?


There is no reason for that argument: it is pure superstition, worthless speculative metaphysics. I mean, i can just as easily postulate that alien life has gained the intelligence to compress itself down into atoms, and so floats around observing and experimenting on us without our knowledge, but that would have no meaning, and could be the basis on which to found an alien-worshipping religion (isn't scientology something like that?). Perhaps these new aliens have a new sense that allows them to scan and understand everything about a human being in an instant. But again, why would i bother even to hazard such an argument?

It's just a strange thing for a scientist to say imo, especially when people look to science these days as if it were gospel. The kind of thing the credulous and superstitious might find impressive, but otherwise flaky as ****.

NDT wasn't trying to make a scientific comparison between humans and worms, you can't view that in a literal sense.

He was just trying to make the point that perhaps 'they' don't care to contact us because we are inferior creatures to them...if you're sitting there going "But worms are like this - and humans are like this..." then you are looking too far into that comment.
Look, it was just a weak analogy. Admit it and stop this hero worship.

He says 'does the worm know you're smart' and then uses that to say the same may be true with us and some species that is observing us. Except this doesn't make sense, because even though the worm doesn't know how smart we are, even with its incredibly limited senses, it knows we are there. Thus as humans, with our senses drastically enhanced by science, would also be AWARE of the observing species, even if we have no understanding of its intelligence. His analogy is then used to conclude that alien life has observed us without our knowing - but this does not even fit his analogy, as we would at least be aware of a presence, which we are not.


Just read that Fermi Paradox link. Very cool stuff and it's easy to understand why science fiction is so popular when you read theories like that. The super-intelligent predator species stuff made me chuckle in a nervous way while I hoped it wasn't true. :lol
Problem with it is:

1. It is based on assumptions that are by no means necessarily true.

2. It ignores what i think is the most likely explanation: that life itself carries the seeds of its own destruction. Once life develops past a certain point, it becomes capable of producing things that take on a life and development of their own (i.e. technology and culture). These outstrip biological evolution and instinct, so our instincts are not yet developed to properly control or understand the things we create. We still have primitive brains, yet we have a culture and civilisation that is far superior to this, and well beyond individual comprehension & understanding. But our brains are too primitive for most to even acknowledge this most simple fact.

It does fit with the cyclical & paradoxical nature of things.

[Jailblazers7]

Yeah, they address that point in the "Great Filter" theory that there is a natural barrier that prevents life from reaching some sort of hyper-intelligent form. Most of the theories are that it is rare for life to develop at all or it's rare to develop to our current stage. That is why one scientist is quoted as saying that finding any type of life on Mars would be a really bad sign because it would signal that the development of life isn't that rare, which would cross that off as a potential "Great Filter."

I think the article says under that theory either we are rare, the first, or ****ed. So it's entirely possible that intelligent life killing itself off is the Great Filter.

The other theories are more fun and easy to imagine a sci-fi plot for them.

[KyrieTheFuture]

On many occasions I have called you an excellent writer who presents well thought out debates that I tend to disagree with. Apparently you only want to address the times I criticize you and that makes ME insecure. Okay. I've never once complained about your usage of big words because I read at above a 9th grade level unlike 98% of this website. You just try to present yourself as an expert on space, history, politics, economics, biology, etc and it's tiresome. You aren't omnipotent despite how much you try to present yourself as such. In the same manner that we are capable of ratiocination and worms are not, it is entirely possible that other beings operate on a level that we cannot compare to the same as a worm can not compare to us.

You make it seem like this was a quote directed at some sort of convention for brilliant minds, this was directed at dipshits on twitter who need this kind of simplification.

[Jasi]

Problem with it is:

1. It is based on assumptions that are by no means necessarily true.

2. It ignores what i think is the most likely explanation: that life itself carries the seeds of its own destruction. Once life develops past a certain point, it becomes capable of producing things that take on a life and development of their own (i.e. technology and culture). These outstrip biological evolution and instinct, so our instincts are not yet developed to properly control or understand the things we create. We still have primitive brains, yet we have a culture and civilisation that is far superior to this, and well beyond individual comprehension & understanding. But our brains are too primitive for most to even acknowledge this most simple fact.

It does fit with the cyclical & paradoxical nature of things.

Your point 1 can be said of any possible explanation presented in that article, including your point 2.

[sweggeh]

On many occasions I have called you an excellent writer who presents well thought out debates that I tend to disagree with. Apparently you only want to address the times I criticize you and that makes ME insecure. Okay. I've never once complained about your usage of big words because I read at above a 9th grade level unlike 98% of this website. You just try to present yourself as an expert on space, history, politics, economics, biology, etc and it's tiresome. You aren't omnipotent despite how much you try to present yourself as such. In the same manner that we are capable of ratiocination and worms are not, it is entirely possible that other beings operate on a level that we cannot compare to the same as a worm can not compare to us.

You make it seem like this was a quote directed at some sort of convention for brilliant minds, this was directed at dipshits on twitter who need this kind of simplification.

So true :roll: :applause:

[~primetime~]

Lol. Youre acting like if theres life out it just naturally follows they have radio waves.

The number of isolated, chance butterfly effects it would take to get from primordial soup, to the invention of radiowaves is incredible.

Just think about the fact that if it werent for the spread of eurasian technology, tribes in australia, africa, and north america would STILL be living on some primitive shit, in fact many still are. If aboriginies on our own planet never invented anything CLOSE to radiowaves, why are you assuming things on other planets must have??

It is absolutely not a given that life somewhere else is evolving the way it does on earth. Sound might not even be an evolved sense for life on other planets. If you think say humans come from chimps, then think about how chimps evolved based on the specifics of their surroundings. The specific kind of trees, the specific kind of bugs, the specific kind of foxes, goats, birds, fruits, nuts. These things themselves mutate and evolve randomly, sometimes due to completely random weather patterns, and then our species would have been carved out in very specific response to all of THOSE chance evolutions. If you believe in evolution then you understand mutation is RANDOM and that means we are the product of a ginormous, multimillion year pyramid of chance actions and subsequent chance reactions. Its not like some formula where oh, you have a cell in an ocean, one day its gonna be humans with a radio! I would argue that we can ONLY be completely unique, BY DEFINITION.

I think people get too carried away with the idea that "well, theres lots of planets out there, theres gotta be people like us!" The number of specific things, one after another, LITERALLY including things like the flap of a single butterfly's wings, the precise speed of earths roation, precise moon distance, timing of solar flares, earths exact size, timing of volcanic eruptions, etc, is mind boggling to get from a point of nothingness, to humans with radios four billion years later. Its not just a given that it happens any ol place theres some earthlike conditions.
You should read the link Nanners posted...

With an almost infinite number of "Earth like" planets (100 for every grain of sand on Earth) the math suggests that there are billions of other intelligent forms of life out there that would go on top discover simple things like electricity and radio waves.

And you're right, it's not given that just happens anywhere, but for it to ONLY happen here on Earth is extremely improbable. That would suggest Christians are correct, Jesus is real, dinosaur bones were planted, and all the stars in the sky are just there to fool us.

[Dresta]

On many occasions I have called you an excellent writer who presents well thought out debates that I tend to disagree with. Apparently you only want to address the times I criticize you and that makes ME insecure. Okay. I've never once complained about your usage of big words because I read at above a 9th grade level unlike 98% of this website. You just try to present yourself as an expert on space, history, politics, economics, biology, etc and it's tiresome. You aren't omnipotent despite how much you try to present yourself as such. In the same manner that we are capable of ratiocination and worms are not, it is entirely possible that other beings operate on a level that we cannot compare to the same as a worm can not compare to us.

You make it seem like this was a quote directed at some sort of convention for brilliant minds, this was directed at dipshits on twitter who need this kind of simplification.Ok, well i apologise for lumping you two together, but i do find non-engaging sarcasm tiresome myself, especially as i find the topic of our anthropomorphic use of language skewing our ability to understand things an interesting one (one that i am most certainly not an expert on - i haven't even read Wittgenstein). I'll be honest, i know very little about space, but i'm pretty good at the other four, because i've studied them all, history, politics and economics in particular (and both my parents and my girlfriend of 4 years are biological scientists - so i do have constant 'expert' referral in that regard). A lot of neuroscience, on the other hand, is much less advanced than the philosophy of Nietzsche in many respects, and neuroscientists would do well to read him, as it may restrain some of their hubris. We are still in the Dark Ages when it comes to the brain, but many refuse to admit this, as it is a limitation of their own power and responsibility. I mean, they have some structural and mechanistic understanding, but when it comes to things like consciousness, the fallback remains abstract philosophising, and little else. And this is really the only area of biology i speak much about (because it is so heavily related to the other 3 disciplines), and i don't consider anyone much of an 'expert' when it comes to something that still remains so foggy as a discipline.

I know i'm not omnipotent brah, nor omniscient, and never pretended to be. I wouldn't post my thoughts on here if i didn't want them to be challenged, refined, et cetera. Most of my longer posts are my just thinking out loud, something compulsive, experimentation. Which is why they can be tangental at times. I simply get annoyed when criticised in what i consider an unperceptive and unintelligent manner. Probably because it makes me feel like i'm wasting my time more than i actually am, and i hate to waste time.

I generally try not to forward my opinion on topics i am ignorant of though. I just found that analogy rather dishonest (which it is). It isn't even consistent within itself. I also have an instinctive dislike of popular scientists as they don't break new ground and yet are generally viewed by the masses to be the infallible representatives of science.

[Dresta]

Your point 1 can be said of any possible explanation presented in that article, including your point 2.
Yeah, i didn't read the article, and assumed it was just a description of what it is, rather than looking at solutions.

I just don't think it's much of a paradox considering there are plenty of logical solutions to it. A paradox is something without a logical solution like the necessity of the concept of infinity in mathematics, or the starting point of the universe (what came before?), etc.


Yeah, they address that point in the "Great Filter" theory that there is a natural barrier that prevents life from reaching some sort of hyper-intelligent form. Most of the theories are that it is rare for life to develop at all or it's rare to develop to our current stage. That is why one scientist is quoted as saying that finding any type of life on Mars would be a really bad sign because it would signal that the development of life isn't that rare, which would cross that off as a potential "Great Filter."

I think the article says under that theory either we are rare, the first, or ****ed. So it's entirely possible that intelligent life killing itself off is the Great Filter.

The other theories are more fun and easy to imagine a sci-fi plot for them.
I would surmise ****ed, especially considering the preponderance of evidence in its favour (we already have the capability to destroy life). Plus my instinctive mistrust of anything that declares us as special (e.g. rare or first).

To be honest, we just have no means of knowing or understanding these things - perhaps the universe wasn't due to create life until Earth, we just do not and never will know, even though there are many possible logical explanations for it. The one i would say we have the most actual evidence of its future possibility is this one though, sadly.