• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Going into space even LEO is not easy or cheap.

Regardless of culture or economics large scale space travel for an ET as well as us as in Star Trek would consume enormous resources.

And then energy sources. It is easy in scifi, not so easy in reality.
 

senor boogie woogie

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 18, 2022
Messages
60
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I do but the chances of meeting aliens is very slim.

Distance and Speed of Light. The Speed of Light is ver fast except when it comes to space travel. The Galaxy is huge and so large and vast, light speed is a crawl. We look at other Planets outside the Solar System in Light Years, as innit would take so many Light Years to get to a Planet that might support life. If it is impossible for us to get there, how is it more possible for an alien race to come here.

Second, we might destroy ourselves. Humanity has nuclear weapons. In the future, we may use them on ourselves. Hopefully not but a probability. Who says and alien race does not have the same issues? Before a race (ours or there’s) we are not thrown back because of nuclear war to nearly caveman times if we survive and have to spend thousands of years building ourselves up again?

Aliens have passed by Earth or even quietly came here. Maybe we are already being studied by alien life. Their conclusion, the Earth people are dangerous. We are. If aliens came, our first instinct is to kill them. To an alien race, Earth is a dangerous ghetto and it is best to steer clear, unless the goal is to annihilate the human race and steal the resources. This would be the best course of action. Humans are violent and will irradiate our Planet if need be. Aliens might go “Those beings are nuts, let us not go there.”

I like to think in 10,000 years humans have left this rock we call Earth and went into space. But again we have the limitations of the Light Year. Can we go beyond light speed or is light speed lie Absolute Zero where one cannot be colder than that? Beats me. I think at best, humans might go to Mars if that, and then we will destroy ourselves. Can’t escape Earth, not really and who is to say if humans find another Planet, humans won’t slowly destroy it like Earth?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,100
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
There's also the time factor. Advanced civilizations on other worlds could have come and gone thousands of times before we've gotten to this point in our civilization.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,571
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There's also the time factor. Advanced civilizations on other worlds could have come and gone thousands of times before we've gotten to this point in our civilization.

That's only a solution if nobody does interstellar colonization for some reason.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
There's also the time factor. Advanced civilizations on other worlds could have come and gone thousands of times before we've gotten to this point in our civilization.

That's only a solution if nobody does interstellar colonization for some reason.
I can c about 299,792,458 reasons.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I think the probability of detecting our forms of communication from distant planets is very small. Everything s in motion.

EMR diminishes 1/r^2. At some point ET's transmissions fall below our detection threshold.

We can look at the difference in technology between American civilizations and European at the time Europeans arrivd.

A humanoid species can evolve, develop language and writing, elements of practical engineering, but never make the leap to what came to be western science and technology.

An ancient Greek developed steam powered machines, but did not make the leap to pistons.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I think the probability of detecting our forms of communication from distant planets is very small. Everything s in motion.
Yeah I don't think SETI will achieve anything but apparently there could be billions of potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way...
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,571
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There's also the time factor. Advanced civilizations on other worlds could have come and gone thousands of times before we've gotten to this point in our civilization.

That's only a solution if nobody does interstellar colonization for some reason.
I can c about 299,792,458 reasons.
Lightsail can do .01c simply off sunlight.

I find the notion that we will never be able to upload ourselves ludicrous (assuming we don't do ourselves in, that is.)

Combine them and it's possible to go to the stars. You send your human-receiver by lightsail, the humans go by laser.

All it takes is one race with a desire to colonize and the galaxy is teeming with life.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
There's also the time factor. Advanced civilizations on other worlds could have come and gone thousands of times before we've gotten to this point in our civilization.

That's only a solution if nobody does interstellar colonization for some reason.
I can c about 299,792,458 reasons.
Lightsail can do .01c simply off sunlight.

I find the notion that we will never be able to upload ourselves ludicrous (assuming we don't do ourselves in, that is.)
But will it be you or just a copy of you with all your memories?

I would never use a star trek transporter for that reason.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be. So-called artificial intelligence today is totally void of consciousness. Computers and brains function totally differently. We do not know how minds arise from brains. We do not know whence qualia arise. This is the hard problem of conscisousness.

If a physical spaceship with humans aboard could be propelled to a significant fraction of light speed, outbound travelers will be time-dilated and length contracted and could arrive at very distant stars in arbitrarily short times as measured by the ship’s proper time. Unfortunately it would be a one-way trip. If they returned to earth they would find that eons had passed and all their loved ones are long dead. In any case the energy requirements for propelling a physical ship to relativistic velocities are immense and will likely always remain beyond reach.

What else? Perhaps space warps, which are being studied. I won’t hold my breath.

Most likely we will destroy ourselves, as we are already doing with global warming, resource depletion and population overshoot. I suspect that in another century or so population will be greatly reduced, industrial civilization will have collapsed and our descendents will be struggling to feed themselves.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
I’d also note that the idea that aliens or we ourselves would try to colonize habitable worlds overlooks the inconvenient detail that if a world is habitable, it likely is already inhabited. What would be the moral justification for displacing extant life so that we could seize their world for our own use? Zero justification.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....

Maybe, but there is some growing evidence — I read an interstring article on this recently — that minds need more than brains. They need entire bodies. If that is so, you can forget about brains in vats, too. I think Loren’s idea was to upload minds to computers that could be propelled by light sails. I was referring specfically to that.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
But, again, wouldn’t that just be someone else, with your memories? Not you yourself.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
Maybe, but there is some growing evidence — I read an interstring article on this recently — that minds need more than brains. They need entire bodies. If that is so, you can forget about brains in vats, too.
This talks about learning using a simulated body in order to competently interact with the real world:

The body of a brain in a vat could be robotic or involve simulated inputs/outputs.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
But, again, wouldn’t that just be someone else, with your memories? Not you yourself.
I think the original you and the copy could be completely indistinguishable from each other in every way (including how they experience qualia). Except for the outside environment they experience.... but if you put them in identical environments before they diverged they'd initially respond in identical ways.
BTW what if there were two people and you completely swapped their memories.... are "you" the body you originally had or are you the person with your original memories?
 
Last edited:

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,597
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
But, again, wouldn’t that just be someone else, with your memories? Not you yourself.
I think the original you and the copy could be completely indistinguishable from each other in every way (including how they experience qualia). Except for the outside environment they experience.... but if you put them in identical environments before they diverged they'd initially respond in identical ways.
BTW what if there were two people and you completely swapped their memories.... are "you" the body you originally had or are you the person with your original memories?
A simpler question is if someone got amnesia do they stop experiencing who they are? I think there’s more to me than my memories. Whatever the “I” is that is experiencing, feeling snd Thinking seems to continue even when i forget things. We are products of our past experience for sure but I wouldn’t say simply because we remember those experiences.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
BTW what if there were two people and you completely swapped their memories.... are "you" the body you originally had or are you the person with your original memories?
A simpler question is if someone got amnesia do they stop experiencing who they are? I think there’s more to me than my memories. Whatever the “I” is that is experiencing, feeling snd Thinking seems to continue even when i forget things. We are products of our past experience for sure but I wouldn’t say simply because we remember those experiences.
People with amnesia still have many of their memories including being able to recognize objects or have emotions associated with things - so I think they still experience who they are to some degree. In my question I'm talking about a complete swap of memories including muscle memory....
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Lightsail can do .01c simply off sunlight.
Sweet. Then it will only take a few thousand years to get anywhere.

Give me a call when you've found some humans who are prepared to embark on a thousand year project. If they also expect their aims and desires to match those of the descendants who finalise the project, then I definitely want to know, so I can laugh at them.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I find the notion that we will never be able to upload ourselves ludicrous
I find the notion that we will ever be able to upload ourselves ludicrous.

Our selves are explicitly characterised by our bodies. You could likely upload something sentient, but it wouldn't be you - you would still be driving around that meat sack you were born in.

You could take the Star Trek transporter solution, and murder (then disintegrate) the original; But otherwise you're going to be uploading someone else. The upload would no more be "you" than your identical twin brother is "you" - and given his radically different body, would likely be dramatically less "you" than your twin, who at least shares a similar endocrine system with you.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I’d also note that the idea that aliens or we ourselves would try to colonize habitable worlds overlooks the inconvenient detail that if a world is habitable, it likely is already inhabited. What would be the moral justification for displacing extant life so that we could seize their world for our own use? Zero justification.
It's essentially impossible for a lifeless world to be anywhere close to inhabitable for humans. A sufficiently oxidising atmosphere cannot exist without a biosphere.

It's also vanishingly unlikely that any inhabited planets other than Earth would be able to support humans. Shit, even the Earth we have couldn't have supported humans for most of its history.

The temperature, atmospheric composition, predation environment, food sources, and radiation levels all need to be in a fairly small range. Go a few hundred million years into the past, and establishing a colony would be very difficult. Travel to another (life-bearing) planet, and the challenges would inevitably be far greater.

Humans weren't even very good at surviving intercontinental travel on their own planet until we spent a few centuries learning what we could and couldn't eat, and then dying in droves anyway, to establish immunity to local diseases.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
But, again, wouldn’t that just be someone else, with your memories? Not you yourself.
I think the original you and the copy could be completely indistinguishable from each other in every way (including how they experience qualia). Except for the outside environment they experience.... but if you put them in identical environments before they diverged they'd initially respond in identical ways.
BTW what if there were two people and you completely swapped their memories.... are "you" the body you originally had or are you the person with your original memories?
I think this mode of thought is a century behind physics.

It made some sense in the nineteenth century, but it's completely counterfactual today.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
But, again, wouldn’t that just be someone else, with your memories? Not you yourself.
I think the original you and the copy could be completely indistinguishable from each other in every way (including how they experience qualia). Except for the outside environment they experience.... but if you put them in identical environments before they diverged they'd initially respond in identical ways.
BTW what if there were two people and you completely swapped their memories.... are "you" the body you originally had or are you the person with your original memories?
I think this mode of thought is a century behind physics.

It made some sense in the nineteenth century, but it's completely counterfactual today.
Are you saying that quantum physics makes a difference? If so then couldn't a brain in a vat have similar quantum entanglement, etc, to an original brain? Are you saying that the "observer" and quantum phenomena makes a difference in the copy?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It is unproven that we will ever upload consciousness. I am skeptical. Uploading assumes consciousness is substrate independent. It may well not be.
Our consciousness involves the "observer" (that experiences qualia) and our personality (involving our memories). If our biological brains are required for the observer part then maybe you could grow a brain in a vat then give it the appropriate memories....
But, again, wouldn’t that just be someone else, with your memories? Not you yourself.
I think the original you and the copy could be completely indistinguishable from each other in every way (including how they experience qualia). Except for the outside environment they experience.... but if you put them in identical environments before they diverged they'd initially respond in identical ways.
BTW what if there were two people and you completely swapped their memories.... are "you" the body you originally had or are you the person with your original memories?
I think this mode of thought is a century behind physics.

It made some sense in the nineteenth century, but it's completely counterfactual today.
Are you saying that quantum physics makes a difference? If so then couldn't a brain in a vat have similar quantum entanglement, etc, to an original brain? Are you saying that the "observer" and quantum phenomena makes a difference in the copy?
Are you confident that it doesn't?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I find the notion that we will never be able to upload ourselves ludicrous
I find the notion that we will ever be able to upload ourselves ludicrous.

Our selves are explicitly characterised by our bodies. You could likely upload something sentient, but it wouldn't be you - you would still be driving around that meat sack you were born in.

You could take the Star Trek transporter solution, and murder (then disintegrate) the original; But otherwise you're going to be uploading someone else. The upload would no more be "you" than your identical twin brother is "you" - and given his radically different body, would likely be dramatically less "you" than your twin, who at least shares a similar endocrine system with you.
So a clone with an identical mind including all forms of memories is "no more" you than an identical twin that doesn't necessarily share any of the same memories (if they were raised separately)? I completely disagree. Clones of your memories, etc, would think that they're you - it's just that the original you is the first one to think they're you.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I find the notion that we will never be able to upload ourselves ludicrous
I find the notion that we will ever be able to upload ourselves ludicrous.

Our selves are explicitly characterised by our bodies. You could likely upload something sentient, but it wouldn't be you - you would still be driving around that meat sack you were born in.

You could take the Star Trek transporter solution, and murder (then disintegrate) the original; But otherwise you're going to be uploading someone else. The upload would no more be "you" than your identical twin brother is "you" - and given his radically different body, would likely be dramatically less "you" than your twin, who at least shares a similar endocrine system with you.
So a clone with an identical mind including all forms of memories is "no more" you than an identical twin that doesn't necessarily share any of the same memories (if they were raised separately)? I completely disagree. Clones of your memories, etc, would think that they're you - it's just that the original you is the first one to think they're you.
Mind is nothing. The endocrine system is boss.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Are you saying that quantum physics makes a difference? If so then couldn't a brain in a vat have similar quantum entanglement, etc, to an original brain? Are you saying that the "observer" and quantum phenomena makes a difference in the copy?
Are you confident that it doesn't?
Well Penrose thinks microtubules that involve quantum phenomena are required for consciousness to exist but even then I thought a clone of their brain could allow consciousness. I think it depends on whether there is an observer substance or whether regular physics is involved with the elementary particles, etc. If the clone has qualia and has every single memory of yours and thinks they're you then I think that practically they are you. Though legally I guess the original you could have more rights than any copies of yourself that you might make. (based on the "White Christmas" Black Mirror episode).
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
So a clone with an identical mind including all forms of memories is "no more" you than an identical twin that doesn't necessarily share any of the same memories (if they were raised separately)? I completely disagree. Clones of your memories, etc, would think that they're you - it's just that the original you is the first one to think they're you.
Mind is nothing. The endocrine system is boss.
So if you and another person switched minds then the being with your original body is you and not the body your mind is in? That goes against everything I've learnt in body swap movies...
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So a clone with an identical mind including all forms of memories is "no more" you than an identical twin that doesn't necessarily share any of the same memories (if they were raised separately)? I completely disagree. Clones of your memories, etc, would think that they're you - it's just that the original you is the first one to think they're you.
Mind is nothing. The endocrine system is boss.
So if you and another person switched minds then the being with your original body is you and not the body your mind is in? That goes against everything I've learnt in body swap movies...
You cannot learn anything useful from movies.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,188
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Mind is nothing. The endocrine system is boss.
So if you and another person switched minds then the being with your original body is you and not the body your mind is in? That goes against everything I've learnt in body swap movies...
You cannot learn anything useful from movies.
In "The Hot Chick", Clive (Rob Schneider) and Jessica switch bodies. So the guy has the mind of the girl. So you're saying that if Jessica's boyfriend, Billy, wants the "real" Jessica then he should go after the girl even though she has the mind of Clive?
robschneider_hotchick.jpg
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,887
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Mind is nothing. The endocrine system is boss.
So if you and another person switched minds then the being with your original body is you and not the body your mind is in? That goes against everything I've learnt in body swap movies...
You cannot learn anything useful from movies.
In "The Hot Chick", Clive (Rob Schneider) and Jessica switch bodies. So the guy has the mind of the girl. So you're saying that if Jessica's boyfriend, Billy, wants the "real" Jessica then he should go after the girl even though she has the mind of Clive?
robschneider_hotchick.jpg
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
If evolution as we see it is a universal constant, then out there are predators and prey.
 
Top Bottom