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

Will science survive human nature.

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots. I'm pretty sure humans knew how to observe, test, and measure when Greek civilizations rose. Evidence is abundant from Egyptian engineering that measurement accompanied observation very early on at the dawn of written language. So why did Greeks concentrate on logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment?

My take is reflected in political movements now. Itis objectively true that humans are a singles pecies and that there are no races extant in this early period of our existence. It is really easy to objectively debunk claims of race based on primarily one attribute, skin color, cultural norms are transitory rather than permanent as any reading of recent history will reveal. For instance, German culture went from authoritarian separatist, nazism, to democratic social inclusiveness, open borders, in less than fifty years.

Now I've not researched the topic yet. I'm just going on worldwide political trends to tribe in this era of social inclusiveness and one worldism such as we see in EU, America, Middle East, and far East and the continuing turmoil in Africa and S.America as nations try to climb out of corrupt authoritarian habits.

Yes there needs to be a lot of precision for this to be a social science discussion But, here, it seems to me, the best place to get such a discussion going since it is my belief there is an extential risk to objective processes bubbling up in human cultures right now.

I'm going to construct a rational frame and a scientific frame over the next few posts. The work of Stephen W. Porges serves both straw man and intellectual anchor to evolution of brain function in which I have been trained,.

Here is the article I've chosen as introduction to these tasks.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108032/

Abstract:
The polyvagal theory describes an autonomic nervous system that is influenced by the central nervous system, sensitive to afferent influences, characterized by an adaptive reactivity dependent on the phylogeny of the neural circuits, and interactive with source nuclei in the brainstem regulating the striated muscles of the face and head. The theory is dependent on accumulated knowledge describing the phylogenetic transitions in the vertebrate autonomic nervous system. Its specific focus is on the phylogenetic shift between reptiles and mammals that resulted in specific changes to the vagal pathways regulating the heart. As the source nuclei of the primary vagal efferent pathways regulating the heart shifted from the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus in reptiles to the nucleus ambiguus in mammals, a face–heart connection evolved with emergent properties of a social engagement system that would enable social interactions to regulate visceral state.


nihms-299331-f0001.jpg

First the boat that is floated is anchored in reptile to mammal nervous transitions. One might expect a more appropriate junction would be where hand and vocal evolution coincided with the evolution of
monotremes since it is here where manipulation and interpretation become featured in behavior. So although there are general changes between reptile and mammalian behavior linkage between visceral and sensory function in the brain there needs be the additional linkage between manipulation and communication as well.

The Combinatorial Creature: Cortical Phenotypes within and across Lifetimes https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223618302091

There are multiple time-scales that are relevant for understanding how a given phenotype emerges. Brains change across large, evolutionary time-scales, shorter time-scales such as generations, and within the life of an individual.Any given phenotype is a combination of genes involved in brain and body development, behavior, and the environment in which an individual develops. A similar phenotype in different species may be due to homology, but can also be the result of a different combination of factors.
There are several constraints that restrict the avenues along which evolution of the brain and body can proceed. One of these constraints is the contingent nature in which genes are deployed during development. Another constraint is genetic pleiotropy; a single gene can be expressed in different portions of the nervous system at different times in development and can be involved in different aspects of brain and body organization. Finally, the laws of physics constrain brain evolution.
The human neocortex has an extraordinary capacity to adapt based on context, allowing for rapid phenotypic change even within a single generation. Our species has also evolved a remarkably fluid brain/body interface with the environment, such that tools and machines can be incorporated into our body schema, which extends our embodiment and peripersonal space.


1-s2.0-S0166223618302091-gr3.jpg

I stop here for now since it's time for lunch and a movie.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I agree. It is a state with a more or less continuous language and ethnicity for several hundred years. So I took the national state identity to demonstrate policy change in a culture reflecting changing culture as radically different from ethnicity variation or biological change. After all three have, at one time or another, been used to show how tribal change is determinative of race and evolution. Other german speaking nations went different ways.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Probably not.

Observation: We see no signs of ETs.

Observation: We exist and soon will be capable of being those ETs.

Observation: Colonizing the galaxy would happen in an eyeblink of cosmic time. A fusion version of Orion is enough to power a slowboat. Even if potentially life-bearing worlds are skipped over we would still see signs of them around other stars.

Observation: Once a species is interstellar it would be very hard to wipe out.

Conclusion: No species has gone to the stars within the Milky Way.

Conclusion: We have ballpark estimates on some of the terms in the Drake Equation, in combination they add up to at least vyer simple life being common. Thus somewhere in the unknowns there's a billions-to-one chance against making it to the stars. Have we already survived these incredible odds, or are we going to face them in the near future? Obviously, the latter scenario is more likely (but not billions of times more likely because of survivorship bias)--and if it comes to be it will be our own actions that stop us. Thus it is likely that humanity will not survive human nature.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Ah, but Loren Pechtel, you didn't even look at what's in our stars.

That sir, 'tis what this thread is to be about.

Can we will we - because we must - overcome our limitations with respect to being objective.

That's why all the feathers in the first post about different presumptions about consequences of us having evolved as we are believed to have done. The thread is to examine what is in our spiritual history and natures, outside of objective capabilities, our striving and falling away from strong appearing civilizations, our winning evolutionary contests because we are greater groupers.

We nearly went away at least once as have all other species that have existed across earth's evolutionary time. And the odds are strong that we may do that ourselves soon. It hasn't been eighty years since war got the bomb. We haven't found away to contain it yet andthose threads that have existed to contain nuclear holocaust are being destroyed as we write.

As for your argument it fails because it does not take in to account the effects of time and evolutionary process. You demonstrate great willingness to believe in a universe that has been amply demonstrated to deny our ability to make use of such speculations.

If you examine such as the Drake equation you will find they are falsified over time.  Moores Law has fallen. It turns out that even his projections of growth fall short over time as dimensions for opportunities multiply expansion rates.  Drake's equation suffers the problems of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Those factors produce such uncertainty in the 'equation' that is becomes useless.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If you examine such as the Drake equation you will find they are falsified over time.  Moores Law has fallen. It turns out that even his projections of growth fall short over time as dimensions for opportunities multiply expansion rates.  Drake's equation suffers the problems of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Those factors produce such uncertainty in the 'equation' that is becomes useless.

Where has the Drake equation been falsified? All that has happened is that it has been refined--rather than simply considering the probability of various steps on the road to intelligence we need to consider the probability of them happening before some calamity happens to the planet. (The planet moves out of the habitable zone or is subject to a sufficiently catastrophic impact event.)
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It all started with learning to make and control fire.

I'd turn the question around . Can humans survive the blind obsession with finding new scince to exploit?

A recent report says kids watching a lot of video is actually affecting physical brain development. There have been reports China is working on bedding generically superior humans. There was a paper by a scientist and has since disappeared from view.

Or atomic weapons.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
If you examine such as the Drake equation you will find they are falsified over time.  Moores Law has fallen. It turns out that even his projections of growth fall short over time as dimensions for opportunities multiply expansion rates.  Drake's equation suffers the problems of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Those factors produce such uncertainty in the 'equation' that is becomes useless.

Where has the Drake equation been falsified? All that has happened is that it has been refined--rather than simply considering the probability of various steps on the road to intelligence we need to consider the probability of them happening before some calamity happens to the planet. (The planet moves out of the habitable zone or is subject to a sufficiently catastrophic impact event.)

I didn't say it had been falsified since it isn't really anything more than a probabilistic wish list for civilizations based on possibilities which keep becoming more abstract and meaningless.

C hasn't been disproved distances haven't become less, etc. Wormholes have not been detected etc.

I presume there have been and will be life forms, perhaps even life forms that are long lived enough to tolerate a couple thousand years travel. There may be physics for creating stuff out of vacuum which would be necessary if travel is to be possible.

The likelihoods are so tiny that all of those factors including those others have considered coming together at any time between life forms near enough to be visited that the number of that possibility is vanishingly small and it continues to get smaller.

This discussion is more like science fantasy rather than science fiction. My expectation of seeing God - that is zero by the way - is higher than being alive when man meets mork.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,206
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
... snip ...

This discussion is more like science fantasy rather than science fiction. My expectation of seeing God - that is zero by the way - is higher than being alive when man meets mork.
If that Mork is a Martian version of a virus or a Martian version of a bacteria then we may meet that sucker within the next few years. But, if we do, that Mork may only be found as a fossil. If that supposed Mork is piloting a starship then I would think the chance of a meeting is vanishingly small.

I have for quite a while considered the Drake equation to be only a list of some of the things that we don't know about our universe. However, watching people assign values to the variables, I have found the equation to be useful in determining the biases of the one assigning the values.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,274
I thought there was going to be a follow-up post. Can you repeat the question in thirty words or less?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If you examine such as the Drake equation you will find they are falsified over time.  Moores Law has fallen. It turns out that even his projections of growth fall short over time as dimensions for opportunities multiply expansion rates.  Drake's equation suffers the problems of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Those factors produce such uncertainty in the 'equation' that is becomes useless.

Where has the Drake equation been falsified? All that has happened is that it has been refined--rather than simply considering the probability of various steps on the road to intelligence we need to consider the probability of them happening before some calamity happens to the planet. (The planet moves out of the habitable zone or is subject to a sufficiently catastrophic impact event.)

I didn't say it had been falsified since it isn't really anything more than a probabilistic wish list for civilizations based on possibilities which keep becoming more abstract and meaningless.

C hasn't been disproved distances haven't become less, etc. Wormholes have not been detected etc.

I presume there have been and will be life forms, perhaps even life forms that are long lived enough to tolerate a couple thousand years travel. There may be physics for creating stuff out of vacuum which would be necessary if travel is to be possible.

The likelihoods are so tiny that all of those factors including those others have considered coming together at any time between life forms near enough to be visited that the number of that possibility is vanishingly small and it continues to get smaller.

This discussion is more like science fantasy rather than science fiction. My expectation of seeing God - that is zero by the way - is higher than being alive when man meets mork.

Note that I specified travel by slowboat. It does require extended lifetimes or generation ships but there's every reason to think fusion nuclear pulse propulsion would work. The only objection I have seen to Orion involves overheating of the pusher but that is a function of the acceleration. It might not work to launch from Earth but once you're in space you can take it slowly enough not to melt your ship. I'm not asking for anything beyond reasonably foreseeable technology.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
As far as I know there isn't any greater likelihood of life near Orion's nearest stars than any where else. And its about 250 to 450 light years to the constellation's nearest stars. So your starship would need to be capable of supporting generations of humans in space or it would have to ways to get candidates to hibernate and have that supported for maybe 2000 years. We're already talking out of ours arses.

Before we talk about sensible solutions for nudity we need to know how to grow fig trees. We've tried. It's too cool here.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,313
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
As far as I know there isn't any greater likelihood of life near Orion's nearest stars than any where else. And its about 250 to 450 light years to the constellation's nearest stars. So your starship would need to be capable of supporting generations of humans in space or it would have to ways to get candidates to hibernate and have that supported for maybe 2000 years. We're already talking out of ours arses.

Before we talk about sensible solutions for nudity we need to know how to grow fig trees. We've tried. It's too cool here.

Loren is talking about Orion the hypothetical propulsion system, not Orion the constellation as a potential destination. The stars in the constellation are very widely separated, and only appear close together from our perspective, so Orion couldn't be a single destination. However eight of the stars in the constellation are within 10 parsecs (~33 light years) of Earth.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I dismissed any rocket system because it would take many people and much equipment - that would be well beyond anyone except maybe Andre Norton might speculate - to get to any stars that might be in something Orion (Nebula, star patter as seen from earth) Which range from, by my reference,

http://sdssorgdev.pha.jhu.edu/dr1/en/proj/kids/constellation/orionstars.asp

anywhere from about 200 to 1350 light years away

and the  Orion nebula even further 1344 light years +/- 12 light years.

So neither of your comments are really cogent re my post prior to them

Could you tell me the ones that are thirty three ly away given they aren't among the ones listed in the article. I know that constellations can have members great distances apart. It's just that the article was pretty clear on seven elements of Orion because I'm interested in being as accurate is anyone can guide me.

so thanks in advance.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
... snip ...

This discussion is more like science fantasy rather than science fiction. My expectation of seeing God - that is zero by the way - is higher than being alive when man meets mork.
If that Mork is a Martian version of a virus or a Martian version of a bacteria then we may meet that sucker within the next few years. But, if we do, that Mork may only be found as a fossil. If that supposed Mork is piloting a starship then I would think the chance of a meeting is vanishingly small.

I have for quite a while considered the Drake equation to be only a list of some of the things that we don't know about our universe. However, watching people assign values to the variables, I have found the equation to be useful in determining the biases of the one assigning the values.

Finally got around to reading this. I'm liking they way you think.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I thought there was going to be a follow-up post. Can you repeat the question in thirty words or less?

Yeah.

It's that the gut theory is a bit like theories from the early 20th century like Actualization and mid century like those of Tolman. I posited a more likely breaking point where association between what hand can do and what rain can conceive began during the time of Monotremes. I think What has taken place to the diversity of brain function and the magnitude of brain capability since that time is pretty amazing and it might signal another division in how we look at brain function from one that just evolves from gut up beyond the autonomic/cognitive model. So even though I've always been a fan of JCR Liklider we must admit Crick was on to something when he pointed out the importance of the tegmentum.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Now I know I'm getting old.

I have four psycho-biology heros.

One is JCR Liklider, at MIT/Harvard and then head ARPA in the sixties, psychoacoustics and computer science were his specialties. He did little with the autonomic nervous system.

The second is FHC Crick who won nobel for DNA and pursued evolution of intelligence by way of his interest in evolving brain structures to his deathbed in 2004.

Another is TC Schneirla who championed integrated levels of organization which he say arising out of his work on evolution of the autonomic nervous system. That study is now shown to be attached to entropic organization as a form of natural energy conservation as seen in such as self organizing molecular phenomena.

I meant to cite TC Schneirla not JCR Liklider.

The fourth is Donald Lindsley who first record EEG of his child in fetus in 1938. I invited, as a Psycho-biology predoctoral fellow at FSU, Lindsley to conduct a week of seminars for psycho-biology predoctoral candidates on EEG recording and development from the thirties forward.

I attended classes or symposia from all of these guys either at UCLA or Florida State U in the sixties and seventies.

I'm getting this all out there so I don't mess up again on my beloved scientific heros. It'll be there for me to refresh recollection in the future.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
As far as I know there isn't any greater likelihood of life near Orion's nearest stars than any where else. And its about 250 to 450 light years to the constellation's nearest stars. So your starship would need to be capable of supporting generations of humans in space or it would have to ways to get candidates to hibernate and have that supported for maybe 2000 years. We're already talking out of ours arses.

Before we talk about sensible solutions for nudity we need to know how to grow fig trees. We've tried. It's too cool here.

I was talking about an Orion drive, not any particular star. It's also called nuclear pulse propulsion.

Think of the cartoon characters who put a lit stick of dynamite under something and then sit on it and go flying when the dynamite explodes. Orion is this supersized--the something is a pusher plate on a great big shock absorber, the stick of dynamite is replaced with a nuclear bomb. In the cartoons there is always only one boom, in the real version you'll have to throw another bomb down there after a few seconds, repeat until the desired velocity is reached.

Bilby is calling it "hypothetical" but I think that's too weak a word for it. There has been a limited flight test using multiple chemical explosives--which worked as expected--and test packages piggybacked on nuclear tests, again which worked as expected. For deep space use at least this is basically certain to work. There is some question about whether it can lift off from a planet, though--the pusher plate isn't that far from repeated nuclear detonations. It has been demonstrated that it can survive a nuclear detonation--but it is not resolved if it can withstand a rapid series of detonations without melting.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Still. Will it support lifting or transporting 100 to 5000 individuals and necessary supplies hither and fro. Not damn likely. BTW bilby did the bos 'splaing it was a booster system. It's still SF stuff as far as an getting from here to another place where intelligent life exists which is still in woo woo neighborhood.

Park it next to the spot for Dean drive.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Still. Will it support lifting or transporting 100 to 5000 individuals and necessary supplies hither and fro. Not damn likely. BTW bilby did the bos 'splaing it was a booster system. It's still SF stuff as far as an getting from here to another place where intelligent life exists which is still in woo woo neighborhood.

Park it next to the spot for Dean drive.

No, it's not a woo drive. The physics is sound and holds up in the real world. It's slow but it can take us to the stars.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,313
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Still. Will it support lifting or transporting 100 to 5000 individuals and necessary supplies hither and fro. Not damn likely. BTW bilby did the bos 'splaing it was a booster system. It's still SF stuff as far as an getting from here to another place where intelligent life exists which is still in woo woo neighborhood.

Park it next to the spot for Dean drive.

No, it's not a woo drive. The physics is sound and holds up in the real world. It's slow but it can take us to the stars.

And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Still. Will it support lifting or transporting 100 to 5000 individuals and necessary supplies hither and fro. Not damn likely. BTW bilby did the bos 'splaing it was a booster system. It's still SF stuff as far as an getting from here to another place where intelligent life exists which is still in woo woo neighborhood.

Park it next to the spot for Dean drive.

No, it's not a woo drive. The physics is sound and holds up in the real world. It's slow but it can take us to the stars.

And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

I suspect at least most species would avoid colonizing potentially life-bearing systems. We would still detect them around nearby stars, though.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,313
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

I suspect at least most species would avoid colonizing potentially life-bearing systems. We would still detect them around nearby stars, though.

I suspect the reverse. Surely humans would specifically target systems likely to be at least suitable for life, if not known to actually host it. Why would most aliens not be expected to do the same?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Still. Will it support lifting or transporting 100 to 5000 individuals and necessary supplies hither and fro. Not damn likely. BTW bilby did the bos 'splaing it was a booster system. It's still SF stuff as far as an getting from here to another place where intelligent life exists which is still in woo woo neighborhood.

Park it next to the spot for Dean drive.

No, it's not a woo drive. The physics is sound and holds up in the real world. It's slow but it can take us to the stars.

And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

Yeah. :floofsmile: The problem with 69 civilizations is not that they are similar but that they exist in proximite time. It's amazing how many evolutions can be squeezed into 13.8 billion years across a universe of ten to the whatever stars that is over 90 billion light years in extent and still never have two that meet time nor distance constraints.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

I suspect at least most species would avoid colonizing potentially life-bearing systems. We would still detect them around nearby stars, though.

I suspect the reverse. Surely humans would specifically target systems likely to be at least suitable for life, if not known to actually host it. Why would most aliens not be expected to do the same?

Unless there's some major loophole in interstellar travel anyone who can do it is quite capable of colonizing a system lacking in habitable worlds. The systems that might harbor life would likely be treated as we treat nature reserves.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

Yeah. :floofsmile: The problem with 69 civilizations is not that they are similar but that they exist in proximite time. It's amazing how many evolutions can be squeezed into 13.8 billion years across a universe of ten to the whatever stars that is over 90 billion light years in extent and still never have two that meet time nor distance constraints.

You're missing the point.

Time? Once a civilization spreads to the stars it will be incredibly hard to destroy other than through some cataclysmic war. A 99% kill wouldn't change the outcome much.

Distance? That's the point of our discussion of colonization. Slowboats can colonize the entire galaxy in tens of megayears. (Figure a slowboat goes 1% of lightspeed and will only be launched from a colony at least 1,000 years old and you get something in the 20-30 million year timeframe. Note that the spiral "arms" are not a limiting factor--the stars are nearly as dense between the arms as in them. The "arms" are regions of recent star formation with big, bright stars. Those have died in the areas between the arms.)

Thus if any civilization within our galaxy reached the point of interstellar colonization we almost certainly should have already detected them. Something makes the odds of a planet producing an interstellar civilization at least in the tens of billions to one range--but all the factors we can assign approximate values to are hopelessly inadequate to explain this. Thus it must be one of the factors we can't put numbers to.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I'm not talking about colonization. I'm talking about making contact with another lifeform as the equation is designed to answer.

But, since you are talking about colonization my point against that is too many people need be transported for slow systems to be workable. I'm pretty sure that over the course of about 100*10 years to get to a system only 10 light years away that the population of the ship will suffer what happened to those who migrated from Australia to Tasmania. That population was too small to sustain culture and they lost the capability to control fire among may other losses.

So the ships will have to have redundant life sustaining production capacities which don't exist. They will have to hibernate which isn't really going to do much good since acquiring such a capability probably changes us in other ways making travelers other than human. My estimate that to sustain significant culture perhaps 10 thousand persons will have to travel most reproducing and wakeful with perhaps a few geared to hibernate. There4 are all sorts of problem with size and texture of colonists beyond just losing culture and tribal history. Our friends the frogs seem to be in the process of dying out because the atmosphere is permitting more radiation to reach down to sea level for instance.

Likelihood of catastrophe isn't just from meteors and such. There lurk stars nearby that are ready to go supernova of sufficient size to produce energy jets of several dozen light years which may spew in many directions if the thing is set into some sort of gyration. In fact my guess the likelihood of extinction events will exceed what we face on earth as a probability. Hell there's already one hole in the milky way. who's to say another might be formed in human existence span.

And as you note without even considering things we don''t really understand we can conclude there are no cultures even taking into acount only what we do understand.

Put out that cigar and park your idea next to the Deandrive. You're likely to hurt someone.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm not talking about colonization. I'm talking about making contact with another lifeform as the equation is designed to answer.

You miss the point. I am talking about colonization because once that happens we aren't dealing with one inhabited system but a vast number of them.

But, since you are talking about colonization my point against that is too many people need be transported for slow systems to be workable. I'm pretty sure that over the course of about 100*10 years to get to a system only 10 light years away that the population of the ship will suffer what happened to those who migrated from Australia to Tasmania. That population was too small to sustain culture and they lost the capability to control fire among may other losses.

Assuming they handle it correctly they would bring a viable population along.

So the ships will have to have redundant life sustaining production capacities which don't exist. They will have to hibernate which isn't really going to do much good since acquiring such a capability probably changes us in other ways making travelers other than human. My estimate that to sustain significant culture perhaps 10 thousand persons will have to travel most reproducing and wakeful with perhaps a few geared to hibernate. There4 are all sorts of problem with size and texture of colonists beyond just losing culture and tribal history. Our friends the frogs seem to be in the process of dying out because the atmosphere is permitting more radiation to reach down to sea level for instance.

We have no indication that hibernation is possible and the slowboat model doesn't assume it.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
OK. This is going nowhere. The reason I mentioned Tasmania was to suggest humans don't know what they need to colonize. Look at what the Europeans did to American natives when they came if you need to understand Rumsfeld basics and this isn't even unknown unknowns.

The right place for your pet rock is next to Dean Drive.

We won't even send people. More likely, robots. That's what we'll do when we mine meteors. Nothing like the cute science-fiction I read in the late forties and the fifties.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
here is an old saying 'No matter where you go, there YOU are'.

If we somehow manged to leave the solar system en mass we would still be the same human beings.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,206
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
OK. This is going nowhere. The reason I mentioned Tasmania was to suggest humans don't know what they need to colonize. Look at what the Europeans did to American natives when they came if you need to understand Rumsfeld basics and this isn't even unknown unknowns.

The right place for your pet rock is next to Dean Drive.

We won't even send people. More likely, robots. That's what we'll do when we mine meteors. Nothing like the cute science-fiction I read in the late forties and the fifties.
There has been a fair amount of talk about colonizing Mars. I have suggested that, before there is such an attempt, they should first send a sustainable size population of maybe a hundred people to colonize Antarctica... it should be much easier than Mars since the climate is milder, there is free oxygen available, there is plenty available water, and there is even native food sources. Only if this trial colonization was able to flourish without outside aid for ten or twenty years should the Mars colonization be considered. At least, the attempt would inform us of some of the problems we are currently overlooking.

The first Biosphere experiment that was tried something like 25 years ago didn't go that well and it was in a temperate climate.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I agree with your sentiment. We have no idea what will be needed in a foreign environment. With no available gene donors there with whom to mate knowing what humans can do becomes dramatically more important. Hell. We even have Jamestown as a red flag for our limitations and Jonestown as an example for what we might do in a hostile environment. I can hear NOMAD screaming ever more faintly Kill kill, kill as it was antigraved out into space with a bomb taped on.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
On a multi generational ship the culture eventually would be nothing like what we call human civilization. Mythologies would emerge. Earth itself would become a myth.

Read Heinlein's Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

I do not see a Mars colony psychologically surviving. We need some freedom of action. No where to go, a drab visual environment, and video. No release for social tensions.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I agree with your first paragraph up to where you generalize your thought to it would be nothing like human civilization.

Freedom is in how one arranges options. So what is human civilization?

Eskimos demonstrate humans survive in monochromatic harsh environments as humans. They preserve humor, respect, duty, family, social order. Mongols who survive as humans on treeless high elevation plateaus, do likewise. Bedouins survive in rainless desert mountains putting only minor stress on religious mores.

Psychology as we define it in the latter half of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st century is abnormal by human pre-industrial age norms. And those societies were unrecognizable to first farmers and before that first farmers were foreign to hunter gatherers .... und so weiter.

My thoughts on challenges to future immigrants to planet Ohfuck are there will be no life as we know it, maybe no life whatever. That would mean tools for adapting life to environment that set up trends for future humans there is paramount. We don't have such science right now. Much of what we need to live are dependent on having access to living stuff outside us even for digestion. I'm pretty sure we have no idea what we need in a new place to make us viable without being on earth.

I'm pretty sure blue sky and tinker capabilities will be of little use. We have no idea what blue sky means there and we have no means to tinker with what is there to produce something.
 
Last edited:

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Eskimos are not confined. They are based on families and small clans in a simple environment. They have a seaonal chnaging environment.No comparison.

Humans may adapt on Mars, but their culture will be unlike anything on Earth. On Earth if you do not like the est coast you can go west. Pro sports and backyard sports are pressure release valves. On Mars survival would depend on a strict regimentation. Water, food, and energy conscription along with social rules.

Large human populations allow for the 'starving artist' and eccentrics to survive. Anti social speech and music.

NASA has studied the wintering crew at Macmurdo base in the Antiparticle. They are isolated for the winter. No planes can land.

The Mars Society set up small habitats in the arctic and rode around on ATVs in space suits.

The problem is in all those kinds of Earth scenarios including the ISS you know it is only short term. There has been one case of a meltdown on the ISS.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Space craft are easily fit for environment changes. In several concept versions for interstellar craft there are living podes separated by some distance with some rotating and others fixed and early concepts. A 1950s space station, envisioned by Disney shown on Disneyland with the help of Wernher Von Braun of was even equipped with a rotating enclosed cylinder for moving about and exercise. You focus on easily resolved problems already conceived and and implemented in models at least.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

I suspect at least most species would avoid colonizing potentially life-bearing systems. We would still detect them around nearby stars, though.


How would we detect them? Do we have radio telescopes sensitive enough to pick up communications from an intelligent radio source say even 20 light years away? To transmit recognizable signals across such distances would involve large amounts of energy, similar in scale to to the energy radiated by small stars, I would imagine. I am not well read on the subject, but based on what I know about the propagation of waves and losses through geometric spread and damping, I can't imagine this would be a straightforward task. Now if the alien species had the ability to cover up entire stars, or cause a significant change in their brightness, and they did this to enough stars, that would probably get noticed by astronomers eventually.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

I suspect at least most species would avoid colonizing potentially life-bearing systems. We would still detect them around nearby stars, though.


How would we detect them? Do we have radio telescopes sensitive enough to pick up communications from an intelligent radio source say even 20 light years away? To transmit recognizable signals across such distances would involve large amounts of energy, similar in scale to to the energy radiated by small stars, I would imagine. I am not well read on the subject, but based on what I know about the propagation of waves and losses through geometric spread and damping, I can't imagine this would be a straightforward task. Now if the alien species had the ability to cover up entire stars, or cause a significant change in their brightness, and they did this to enough stars, that would probably get noticed by astronomers eventually.

Our radio telescopes can pick out our TV broadcasts farther away than that.

Not to mention all those military radars around. Not much signal but power that can be detected far away.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,206
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
And of course it only needs a fairly small probability of being implemented. If there's a 1% chance we will ever bother to do it, then you only need 69 similar civilisations in the entire galaxy for it to be more likely than not that one will eventually come and visit us.

I suspect at least most species would avoid colonizing potentially life-bearing systems.
That seems to me to be a baseless assumption. While it is true that many humans don't want to 'contaminate' other planets, I see no reason to assume other species would have the same concern. After all, even many humans don't have that concern. Plus, there are plans to colonize Mars because it is potentially life-bearing.
We would still detect them around nearby stars, though.
We could detect them if they were a Type II or Type III civilization. Detecting a civilization like ours or even a bit more advanced would be almost impossible unless they put a lot of effort into advertising their presence. There could possibly be enough leakage for us to detect a Type I with little intentional effort on their part. Detecting a Type II would be easier or would require a lot of detailed astronomical observation unless they were intentionally attempting to let their presence be known. We would likely already be aware of a Type III civilization if there were one.

The SETI program is searching for a civilization that is intentionally attempting to advertise themselves. They are looking for a powerful, highly directional signal aimed at our solar system.
 
Last edited:

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Any 'civilisation' sufficiently advanced to create the technology needed for interstellar travel will have (destructively) used that technology on itself long before it ever got the chance to pay us a visit.

To the Op.

"I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots."
"...logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment."


I don't think these can be separated. Philosophy. Science. Philosophy of Science. Zeno's Paradox. Fermi Paradox. How many times can we split the atom before we get to non-matter? How many universes does it take to get one with a life form that can invent a time machine?

We are further away from a unified, scientifically testable theory of everything than we've ever been. We used to look into the microscope and the telescope and think we were entering the secular, godless Age of Enlightenment. Now we are spinning our wheels, bogged in the Age of Uncertainty. Baconian principles. LOL.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-14.htm
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,313
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Any 'civilisation' sufficiently advanced to create the technology needed for interstellar travel will have (destructively) used that technology on itself long before it ever got the chance to pay us a visit.

To the Op.

"I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots."
"...logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment."


I don't think these can be separated. Philosophy. Science. Philosophy of Science. Zeno's Paradox. Fermi Paradox. How many times can we split the atom before we get to non-matter? How many universes does it take to get one with a life form that can invent a time machine?

We are further away from a unified, scientifically testable theory of everything than we've ever been. We used to look into the microscope and the telescope and think we were entering the secular, godless Age of Enlightenment. Now we are spinning our wheels, bogged in the Age of Uncertainty. Baconian principles. LOL.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-14.htm

Horseshit. We are closer to a unified, scientifically testable "Theory of everything" than we have ever been before; And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

The only parts of reality we don't understand to a ludicrous number of decimal places are galaxies and quarks.

Essentially, we are certainly wrong about the nature of reality; But we are absolutely right about the bits that matter to anyone other than astrophysicists or string theorists and their ilk.

Just as Einstein's proof that Newton's theories were wrong didn't result in rocks that fall upwards (because Relativity boils down to Newton's laws for approximate solutions to gravitational problems in non-extreme circumstances), so any new theory of everything must, perforce (due to our repeatable experimental results), boil down to Quantum Field Theory and/or Relativity, on scales relevant to ordinary humans.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I was listening to a former astronaut talking on radio show. He said with certainty ET civilizations exist and any that get to the point of space travel and advanced science would undoubtedly be wise. Then he corrected himself citing the obvious, us humans.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a near miss for nuclear war.

The Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man comes to mind. An ET has a book To Serve Man. They think it means service to humans, turns out it was a cook book.

If evolution is a constant it means selection for survival, predator and prey.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Any 'civilisation' sufficiently advanced to create the technology needed for interstellar travel will have (destructively) used that technology on itself long before it ever got the chance to pay us a visit.

To the Op.

"I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots."
"...logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment."


I don't think these can be separated. Philosophy. Science. Philosophy of Science. Zeno's Paradox. Fermi Paradox. How many times can we split the atom before we get to non-matter? How many universes does it take to get one with a life form that can invent a time machine?

We are further away from a unified, scientifically testable theory of everything than we've ever been. We used to look into the microscope and the telescope and think we were entering the secular, godless Age of Enlightenment. Now we are spinning our wheels, bogged in the Age of Uncertainty. Baconian principles. LOL.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-14.htm

Horseshit. We are closer to a unified, scientifically testable "Theory of everything" than we have ever been before;

Nope.
Our discoveries are disconfirming the notion that a unified theory of everything is even possible - let alone getting us closer to finding one.

And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

When the acquisition of knowledge does little more than expose how many more, and how much bigger the GAPS are in your knowledge, that's NOT getting you closer. The knowledge we are acquiring is akin to having a much more accurate compass on rudderless yacht that's drifting further and further away from shore.

Every time we reach some new height in scientific knowledge, we see a horizon that's getting further and further away.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

Oh well, pardon me for citing atheist Professors of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Nope.
Our discoveries are disconfirming the notion that a unified theory of everything is even possible - let alone getting us closer to finding one.

And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

When the acquisition of knowledge does little more than expose how many more, and how much bigger the GAPS are in your knowledge, that's NOT getting you closer. The knowledge we are acquiring is akin to having a much more accurate compass on rudderless yacht that's drifting further and further away from shore.

Every time we reach some new height in scientific knowledge, we see a horizon that's getting further and further away.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

Oh well, pardon me for citing atheist Professors of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth.

Why add the atheist qualifier? If you know anything about science then you would know there is disagreement on theories and multiple theories on cosmology. Quoting one scientist in isolation without grasping the whole is ignorance.

Although based in math and generally linked to science we know, cosmology is largely speculative, there is no possible proof.. Hawking made some far out claims that were more philosophy. You can fill a book with outliers from scientists.

There is no pope or central authority in science. On major theories it works on peer review globally. It took AE a long time to get relativity looked at, it was initially rejected. It became mainstream as over time it was demonstrated to be accurate.

When you say science keep in mind it is not a unified whole. There are always competing interests.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,313
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Nope.
Our discoveries are disconfirming the notion that a unified theory of everything is even possible - let alone getting us closer to finding one.

And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

When the acquisition of knowledge does little more than expose how many more, and how much bigger the GAPS are in your knowledge, that's NOT getting you closer.
This is not a rebuttal of my statement.

We literally know EVERYTHING that is important at human scales. Everything.

There are huge gaps - at galactic and infra subatomic levels. These are important ONLY if you are an astrophysicist or subatomic physicist. They are not important if your interest is "Is it possible that there is a God or Gods?" - the answer to that question is an unequivocal and resounding "NO".
The knowledge we are acquiring is akin to having a much more accurate compass on rudderless yacht that's drifting further and further away from shore.
In what respect? This seems like a totally baseless emotional appeal.
Every time we reach some new height in scientific knowledge, we see a horizon that's getting further and further away.
As does this.
Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

Oh well, pardon me for citing atheist Professors of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth.

They are probably right. You don't understand what they are saying, and YOU are deeply, deeply wrong.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
The above adds to my confidence man will survive for sometime to come. There is enough realism here to suggest we're still climbing toward some empirical basis for understanding. It matters little whether we are at a state where seeing a way forward is unlikely or whether we remain optimistic we will find helpful answers. Questions are being addressed through experiments being carried out regardless of whether we are innately equipped to appreciate underlying natures.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is not a rebuttal of my statement.

We literally know EVERYTHING that is important at human scales. Everything.

We are not aware of any gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't say we know everything. All you can say is that we probably know everything.

There are huge gaps - at galactic and infra subatomic levels. These are important ONLY if you are an astrophysicist or subatomic physicist. They are not important if your interest is "Is it possible that there is a God or Gods?" - the answer to that question is an unequivocal and resounding "NO".

Once again, you're going too far. Consider my Populous theory of the gods. (Not that I actually think it's true but it does fit the facts.) Science as we know it describes the normal operation of our universe. However, our universe is actually a toy to some superbeing who is capable of interacting with it in various methods outside the normal rules governing it's operation. The long-ago legends of divine acts were true--they were that superbeing (or perhaps one of his opponents) interacting with our universe. However, said being has been AFK for some time now, in the era in which we can actually study what happens only natural laws have been in operation. This is consistent with all observations, explains a bit more but is not falsifiable.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Science throughput history has advanced regardless of conditions. The problem is all the basic low hanging fruit has been taken.

Current science requires a lot of money. Given a global financial breakdown particle physics will diminish.

Cheep paper texts are all over the world along with electronic media. Science will survive. Newtonian mechanics covers the bulk of everyday applied science. Fluid mechanics, civil engineering. Calculus and differential equations.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Given Science throughout history has advanced regardless of conditions I wonder why we lost the formula for cement for about 1500 years and why those who migrated to Tasmania lost the capability for making fire.

I'm thinking there must be more than history involved here. Perhaps communication, number of groups and group size have something to do with advancing learned things. I'm pretty sure the printing press had a lot to do with spreading empiricism during enlightenment.
 
Top Bottom