Are we alone in the Universe?

gleaner63
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Are we alone in the Universe?

Hi,

 

    Most Christians that I know dismiss the idea of extraterrestrial life.  I was wondering if non-theists have any objection to the idea of ETs and if so, why?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:I

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I need consult with noone. An abacus is by definition a computer, though it has almost nothing in common with the device of the same name that I am currently typing upon. The term "computer" is more varied than your arguments accept, nullifying your arguments.

No, vastet.  Forget the word computer.  It doesn't exist.  I never used the word computer.  This isn't the computer you're looking for.

Humans are completely tied to their genes and their environment.  That is, everything about our "mind" -- our memories, our logic, our thought processes -- are the near instantaneous result of a continual process of interaction with our own bodies and our environments.   We have trillions of neurons.  Each is regulated by a continuing and constantly changing interaction with millions of other neurons.  These neurons are in place exactly as they are because of precise expression of an entirely unique set of genes.  Any one without ALL of the others is not the same person.  The changing relationships between neurons are the result of the cumulative effect of everything that has happened to us, down to every last detail, since the moment of our conception.

If you do not replicate everything, exactly the same, it is NOT the same person.  Do you have any idea how much change a single gene can make?  The difference between a G and a A in one tiny section of one gene can make the difference between a Type A neurotic person and a laid back easy going person.

Memory is not a static set of data files that is retrieved.  It is a constantly updated and fully integrated part of our awareness that is entirely contingent upon our exact physical state at any moment.  Our awareness is not our brain.  Our awareness is an emergent state caused by our entire body functioning as a complete unit, largely driven by the brain.  Take any aspect away, and the term "my memory" becomes meaningless.

 

 

Agreed, but I never suggested that downloading yourself would keep you perfectly intact. I think I should have expanded on my comments in light of your rebuttal. I agree that you would no longer be "you". You would be someone new.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:False again. Personal

Quote:
False again. Personal profit is not the only reason to do something. Despite the seeming inability of Libertarians to accept this reality. On top of that, you can not prove conclusively that extra-solar travel would be incapable of creating a profit. Again, you are simply putting forward strawman arguments.

I'm sorry.  I'm not going to indulge this anymore.  If you don't understand the difference between naysaying an amusement park and naysaying interstellar travel, well... I just don't know what to say about that.  Furthermore, I've spent a lot of time on this website trying to explain the evolution of human nature and how Game Theory is an accurate predictor of our instincts.  If you don't understand it, that's cool, but don't just brush me off when I say that Group Selection is bullshit.  Have you read The Selfish Gene?  If you have not, please do yourself a favor and leave this conversation until you are better equipped to deal with it.  When you're finished with that, I highly recommend The Origins of Virtue and NonZero.  All three are very good explanations of exactly what drives individuals, groups, and nations to do things of great selfishness and altruism.

Basically, it's like this, Vastet.  Everything is selfish.  Everything in life.  Altruism is selfish.  This is because of the benefits of nonzero sum systems.  There are limits to it, though, and deep space travel in any of the forms presented so far pass the mathematical limits of reciprocal altruism.  I'm not just guessing any of this.  It's fact.

As for the rest of your post, I accept that you don't like my contentions, but I see nothing except naked denials.  That being the case, I don't suppose there's anything else to talk about.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There's no personal

Quote:

There's no personal profit.

Please, Kevin... remember that Game Theory proves group selection completely and utterly wrong.  We don't do things for the good of the species.  The entire race will not ever do anything to continue humanity on another planet because there's NO PAYOFF FOR ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.

Sure there is personal profit. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be contemplating this argument in the first place, would we?

Personal profit in becoming mechanically psuedo-immortalized? Well, you get to live much longer, for starters. Personal profit from being able to manipulate reproductive systems? You get to reproduce more successfully (Personally, I think this area is where we'll see natural selection hit another exponent curve. When somebody takes advantage of technological advances in reproductive manipulation or life longevity - or both - guess what? They will, via natural selection, become the more dominant species.

 

I should also qualify what I mean when I, personally, state that the human race may in the future be converted to a digital format. It isn't a matter of 'downloading the brain' - this is an oversimplification (though you could achieve a psuedo-effect as such by keeping the body in suspended animation and plugging the person into a virtual reality. Suspended animation, by the way, does not involve 'freezing' of any sort - it involves suspending the aging process through a variety of postulated methods; cybernetics, gene tampering, nano-robotic technology, etc. Granted, such technology is far and away, but arguing that it is irrational to even speculate about it is nonsense): it would be a matter of creating a complex digital avatar of myself that would then exist in a digital environment.

Me, and my physical body, would perish - but my persona and 'who I was' would remain 'living' in the speculated digital world as my avatar.

Game Theory is actually what makes such a scenario plausible to me. We know that limited forms of such games are already highly popular, and that companies and participants alike can make an absolute killing from playing with them / making them. As generations of such games get more complex and realistic, I don't think it's at all far-fetched to suggest that down the road developers will start seeing the demand for player objects that are persistent in this way - the player logs-off, but their character remains in the world acting on the player's behalf based on how the player typically uses the character.

Players could leave the game entirely, or even be dead for decades, but their online persona would persist onward - essentially immortalizing them in the digital world. Then there's the complexities involving players creating multiple characters, and playing each one differently (each even having a new persona attached to it, as is the case in modern tmes), and so essentially leaving 'fragments' of themselves all over the place.

 

So, effectively, all we have to imagine is that the most successful of these games are eventually left running on a large server (perhaps not that large, depending on how well we miniaturize technology in future years) and left adrift in space. There's a number of ways this might come about too - though I await the arrival of the space elevator to see how lucrative orbital industry winds-up being.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The creatures in

Quote:
The creatures in question might (in fact, probably will) have totally different sensory equipment.

I would actually dispute this.

Consider how huge an advantage that touch, taste and eyesight in particular are to any complex organism, regardless of it's environment (given any environment that is actually habitable, anyway). Advantageous traits are always selected; just because it's on another planet doesn't mean that natural selection isn't taking place.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I need consult

Vastet wrote:
I need consult with noone. An abacus is by definition a computer, though it has almost nothing in common with the device of the same name that I am currently typing upon. The term "computer" is more varied than your arguments accept, nullifying your arguments.
What was that about someone resorting to semantics?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Personal profit in

Quote:
Personal profit in becoming mechanically psuedo-immortalized? Well, you get to live much longer, for starters.

No, you don't.  Did you ignore all that stuff I wrote about how it wouldn't be the same person?  Furthermore, leaving all of humanity forever doesn't fit into the Game Theory model.  Furthermore, the point I was making was not that it's possible to download memories but that it would turn into another person.  It's that even taking it to the farthest most incomprehensible extreme, it's STILL not downloading a person onto a hard drive.  A person is completely and irrevocably tied to this one body at this one time.  There is no separating them.   This is because we are not computers.  We are fully and completely integrated biological machines.  Anything except a machine built and conditioned exactly like me will not be me.

Quote:
Personal profit from being able to manipulate reproductive systems? You get to reproduce more successfully (Personally, I think this area is where we'll see natural selection hit another exponent curve. When somebody takes advantage of technological advances in reproductive manipulation or life longevity - or both - guess what? They will, via natural selection, become the more dominant species.

Jake help us if we figure out how to live any longer or reproduce any better.  How much more dominant do you think humans can get, out of curiosity?  We're about to overrun the whole planet.  We've driven more species extinct than any other terrestrial event.  (The meteor did a bit more damage... that's why I say terrestrial event.)

Quote:
I should also qualify what I mean when I, personally, state that the human race may in the future be converted to a digital format. It isn't a matter of 'downloading the brain' - this is an oversimplification (though you could achieve a psuedo-effect as such by keeping the body in suspended animation and plugging the person into a virtual reality. Suspended animation, by the way, does not involve 'freezing' of any sort - it involves suspending the aging process through a variety of postulated methods; cybernetics, gene tampering, nano-robotic technology, etc. Granted, such technology is far and away, but arguing that it is irrational to even speculate about it is nonsense): it would be a matter of creating a complex digital avatar of myself that would then exist in a digital environment.

Right.  But, before that happens, we're going to become noncorporeal beings floating through quantum space, exerting our will through the manifestation of fluctuations in superstrings.  All of this will happen through technology that is postulated to maybe one day exist, since we know that there certainly is a theory about superstrings, and damnit, we've read Stephen Hawking, and that show with Mitchiu Kaku is so damn entertaining on Sunday nights.

Kevin, converting biology to digital information is nonsense.  I'm not going to say it's completely impossible because you'll invoke the whole "you don't know what we're going to invent" argument.  Nevermind that I could very well invoke the "We don't know that we won't discover god next year" argument, too, and by the same logic, you'd need to start getting really excited about learning all about god.

The point is, the human mind does not operate anything like a computer, except by way of analogy.  Yes, you can program a computer to use logic, and you can train a mind to use logic, but that's about it.  I'm beginning to agree with deludedgod that using the computer as an analog for the brain is always a bad idea.  People read way too much into it.

Quote:
Game Theory is actually what makes such a scenario plausible to me. We know that limited forms of such games are already highly popular, and that companies and participants alike can make an absolute killing from playing with them / making them. As generations of such games get more complex and realistic, I don't think it's at all far-fetched to suggest that down the road developers will start seeing the demand for player objects that are persistent in this way - the player logs-off, but their character remains in the world acting on the player's behalf based on how the player typically uses the character.

Kevin, please don't mistake game theory for marketing theory, ok?  PacMan was one of the most popular games ever, but not because it employs game theory.  There is no correlation that I'm aware of between a video game's success and the degree to which it mirrors the functional workings of natural selection.

Quote:
Players could leave the game entirely, or even be dead for decades, but their online persona would persist onward - essentially immortalizing them in the digital world. Then there's the complexities involving players creating multiple characters, and playing each one differently (each even having a new persona attached to it, as is the case in modern tmes), and so essentially leaving 'fragments' of themselves all over the place.

Ok, Kevin.  You're right.  It sounds wonderful.  I'm sure it's going to be a beautiful world.  Technology will save us all, and won't that be grand.  I'm sorry to have disturbed you.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It doesn't

Vastet wrote:
It doesn't matter what context it is placed within, you are still wrong. You assume that your values apply to the entire human species, and they do not. You are acting as irrationally as a theist.
Why should this bother me?  Please, Vastet, you're above comparing me to a theist.  This is what I wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
And if we're not moving the spaceship all that fast, the time involved becomes immense.  So immense as to make such a trip worthless.  If it takes thousands of years to reach another star, what exactly is the point of having gone there if in the interim humans are extinct?  What would the point be in such a journey be if other technology could give us as much experience of that other world around that other star?  I mean, if we've built a spaceship to journey thousands of years through interstellar space and can download people onto hard drives, we must have some other fucking awesome technology.
And you preceded to take it piecemeal. I'm responding there to Kevin's supposed scenario: computers (not humans) going to another star, their journey taking thousands of years and humans, perhaps, extinct in the interim.  That would make such a trip pointless.  But why bother speculating about it at all?  Sure, it's nice to envision travelling to another star, but it's not bloody likely!

Vastet wrote:
Again you are wrong. Ignoring all of the irrelevant and biased(as well as mistaken) comments, humans cannot be extinct if they are travelling between the stars, now can they? Beyond that, do not assume that travel to another star has no point. It merely erodes your argument further, as if it were necessary.
You did miscontrew what I wrote!  Care to revise your statements?

Vastet wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
There are millions of reasons to leave our solar system. The most spectacular one of all is the fact that if we don't, we will die. Period. No argument possible. Travel to another star will happen as long as humanity survives long enough to require it. It will happen before that as irrational people come up with irrational reasons to leave Earth, as well as perfectly rational people come up with rational reasons to leave it.
WHAT?  No matter where we go we die as a species.  Your argument is prolonging the inevitable.  Something I'm more than partial to, though I simply see no reason to believe that it's feasible that humans will live on another world orbiting another star.
When someone resorts to semantics, I declare victory. Just because the offspring of humanity may not be classifyable or definable as homo sapeins does not mean that my points become invalid. Try again.
Where was it that I mentioned humans becoming anything other than humans and believing that makes your points invalid?  Perhaps I should have used a word other than species.  Here: It's an actual fact of life in this universe, eventually it will end.  Very really, going to another star won't 'save' humanity in any meaningful way, it won't save whatever humanity becomes.  You're argument actually does just prolong the inevitable.  It's far more probable to forsee humans being able to study extrasolar planets very accurately from here on Earth than traversing interstellar space for a new home.

Vastet wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Except that the human brain is not similar to a computer system, not any computer system ever created or operational today.  We can't even create a computer system remotely similar to the human brain.
Again you are wrong. The human brain is remarkably similar to a computer system. Just because we do not yet have the technology to recreate it does not mean we will never have. You are effectively copying everyone who said flight was impossible, only to be proven completely wrong when it was acheived.
But, Vastet, you're wrong.  It's not like a computer.

Vastet wrote:
I need consult with noone. An abacus is by definition a computer, though it has almost nothing in common with the device of the same name that I am currently typing upon. The term "computer" is more varied than your arguments accept, nullifying your arguments.
Ah, I remember now!  This is what you wrote about when someone resorts to semantics:

Vastet wrote:
When someone resorts to semantics, I declare victory.
Hmm... there's a word for this.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No, you don't.  Did

Quote:
No, you don't.  Did you ignore all that stuff I wrote about how it wouldn't be the same person?

Hamby, realistically, are you the same person you were 10 years ago? 20? Human beings don't existin static states, biological or not. The fact that I wouldn't be exactly the same person when translated into a different physical being is largely irrelevant; I wasn't going to stay the same person in my biological body anyway.

Quote:

Jake help us if we figure out how to live any longer or reproduce any better.  How much more dominant do you think humans can get, out of curiosity?  We're about to overrun the whole planet.  We've driven more species extinct than any other terrestrial event.  (The meteor did a bit more damage... that's why I say terrestrial event.)

We're the kings of the Earth (well, aside from perhaps the bugs), no doubt about that. So, now we look at who te kings are / will be within our own system. Those who live longest and reproduce best, of course. And here is where taking advantage of such technologies will prove profitable to inclined individuals.

Quote:

Right.  But, before that happens, we're going to become noncorporeal beings floating through quantum space, exerting our will through the manifestation of fluctuations in superstrings.  All of this will happen through technology that is postulated to maybe one day exist, since we know that there certainly is a theory about superstrings, and damnit, we've read Stephen Hawking, and that show with Mitchiu Kaku is so damn entertaining on Sunday nights.

Kevin, converting biology to digital information is nonsense.  I'm not going to say it's completely impossible because you'll invoke the whole "you don't know what we're going to invent" argument.  Nevermind that I could very well invoke the "We don't know that we won't discover god next year" argument, too, and by the same logic, you'd need to start getting really excited about learning all about god.

This is a strawman, Hamby. I didn't say we'd be converting biological information to digital information. I said we would create a digital persona for ourselves, much like people are doing right now in MMORPGs - but the process will simply become more elaborate over time, and people will demand that developers add more and more persistence to their environments.

I'll also note that this demand is quite obvious to anyone who studies the field, in the form of the number of Bots that players illegally use right now to pump-up their character while they're away from their screen. This is not far-flung technology that I'm speculating about (as I would be with nano-robotics or much more elaborate cybernetics) - this is current-day, just a few small tweaks away from reality technology. People are playing MMORPGs right now (obviously) and making a living off of developing, running and participating in them.

None of this involves mapping someone's DNA or scanning their brain at all. If I might expand more:

Imagine a game, like an MMORPG, that allowed you to program your personal opinions, dissertations, quotes, etc into your online avatar, sort-of like a You-i-pedia. As you play the game, the program 'learns' (presuming using a stat-based point allocation system) what your general behavior patterns are like, and when you're not directly in control of your character, your character plays itself based on what it's 'learned' (I know this isn't the same thing as actual, biological 'learning' - though it's a relatively close analogy of it).

That is, essentially, it. Very simple, very realistic, IMHO.

Quote:

Kevin, please don't mistake game theory for marketing theory, ok?  PacMan was one of the most popular games ever, but not because it employs game theory.  There is no correlation that I'm aware of between a video game's success and the degree to which it mirrors the functional workings of natural selection.

I'm not.

The gaming industry as a whole does employ Game Theory, and MMORPGs do as well to some extent Iwould argue (See: 'Class Envy', Flavor of the Month', etc).

Quote:
Ok, Kevin.  You're right.  It sounds wonderful.  I'm sure it's going to be a beautiful world.  Technology will save us all, and won't that be grand.  I'm sorry to have disturbed you.

I did not say 'technology will save us all'. I argued that it would preserve us.

You might go back and read where I admitted that, yes, in such a world where my proposed virtual environment existed, our physical bodies would come and go even as our personas persisted.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Science as faith?  Fun late

Science as faith?  Fun late Timothy Leary talked a lot about believing we will get off the planet before the sun burns out in 4 billion yrs. But even a slight change in the sun will mean doom, and how soon will that be? Oh, and that cosmic rain of rock coming our way .... So, I'm a pessimist on this one. Transforming our selves into a non carbon based alter dimension form is entertaining .... umm religion,  ahh, to fly at last, eternally .....

          


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
My favorite:How Hamby is

My favorite:

How Hamby is happy to use science when it comes to ridiculing others and painting pessimistic portraits over everything, but when science suggests we might be able to improve our future, he looks the other way and pouts about how 'irrational' theoretical physicists and planetary scientists are.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:My

Kevin R Brown wrote:

My favorite:

How Hamby is happy to use science when it comes to ridiculing others and painting pessimistic portraits over everything, but when science suggests we might be able to improve our future, he looks the other way and pouts about how 'irrational' theoretical physicists and planetary scientists are.

Really, Kevin?  I don't see Hamby doing any such thing.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Hamby, realistically,

Quote:
Hamby, realistically, are you the same person you were 10 years ago? 20? Human beings don't existin static states, biological or not. The fact that I wouldn't be exactly the same person when translated into a different physical being is largely irrelevant; I wasn't going to stay the same person in my biological body anyway.

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying this philosophically.  I'm saying it mechanically.  Furthermore, there's a huge difference between a continuous awareness of existence through which to filter the change and what you're talking about.  Please at least acknowledge the fact that you understand what I'm about to say:

The human mind is completely intertwined with the exact DNA of the person interacting with the exact physical body having experienced the exact same life.  If any one of those three is not exactly the same, we're not talking about waking up and having slightly fuzzy memories, or preferring chocolate more than you used to.  The brain is trillions of neurons functioning through constantly changing pathways, all of which are dependent on the exact instructions provided by 25,000 genes, each of which is potentially capable of producing tens of thousands of alternate spellings, producing tens of thousands of wildly different results.  A difference of one ten thousandth of one percent in ANY of the above factors could conceivably produce someone so drastically different from the original that it would be unrecognizable...

IF, by some amazing miracle of science, there is a technology invented which could instantaneously capture and convert trillions and trillions of bits of data from a human body into data that could then be instantaneously put back into a body that had been built to EXACT genetic specifications on a bloody spaceship in the middle of nowhere.

Quote:
This is a strawman, Hamby. I didn't say we'd be converting biological information to digital information. I said we would create a digital persona for ourselves, much like people are doing right now in MMORPGs - but the process will simply become more elaborate over time, and people will demand that developers add more and more persistence to their environments.

Sounds like a fun game.  Hardly seems relevant.

Quote:

Imagine a game, like an MMORPG, that allowed you to program your personal opinions, dissertations, quotes, etc into your online avatar, sort-of like a You-i-pedia. As you play the game, the program 'learns' (presuming using a stat-based point allocation system) what your general behavior patterns are like, and when you're not directly in control of your character, your character plays itself based on what it's 'learned' (I know this isn't the same thing as actual, biological 'learning' - though it's a relatively close analogy of it).

That is, essentially, it. Very simple, very realistic, IMHO.

Sounds like it would be great for sociology.  Can't see how this relates to space travel if you're not converting people from biological units to digital information and back again.

Quote:

I did not say 'technology will save us all'. I argued that it would preserve us.

You might go back and read where I admitted that, yes, in such a world where my proposed virtual environment existed, our physical bodies would come and go even as our personas persisted.

And, like I said, I'm sorry to have disturbed you.  Your faith in science is commendable.  I'm sure you're right.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Sounds like it would

Quote:
Sounds like it would be great for sociology.  Can't see how this relates to space travel if you're not converting people from biological units to digital information and back again.

Simple, really: We use this virtual environment as the basis for space exploration. Foremostly, as I described, we could set the server(s) with the environments on them adrift into space, powered by solar energy. Tertiarily, we could create any number of worlds, environments, universes, etc. within the environment to be explored (...this is perhaps getting a bit off-topic, though. I'm not so sure that imaginary universe exploration really would qualify as exploration to anyone but me).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Really, Thom? And what would

Really, Thom? And what would this be, then?

Quote:
All of this will happen through technology that is postulated to maybe one day exist, since we know that there certainly is a theory about superstrings, and damnit, we've read Stephen Hawking, and that show with Mitchiu Kaku is so damn entertaining on Sunday nights.

 

Stephen Hawking would be a professor of theoretical physics, Mitchiu Kaku would be a planetary scientist.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You're missing the

Quote:
You're missing the point.  I'm not saying this philosophically.  I'm saying it mechanically.

Sure, I can run with that one too. Biologically, are you the same person you were one to two decades ago?

 

Yes, Hamby, I understand what you're saying. That it would be impossible to 'capture' a human being and transfer them to a mechanical/digital format, because our biology is a big part of who we are. What I'm saying is that this doesn't matter.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I believe Hamby's point is

I believe Hamby's point is that just because something is speculated doesn't mean that it can be a reality simply because it 'fits' within a model of reality.

The part you didn't quote kind of helps to make that point.

Hambydammit wrote:
Right.  But, before that happens, we're going to become noncorporeal beings floating through quantum space, exerting our will through the manifestation of fluctuations in superstrings.

That's not possible.  It's not possible even though it has something to do with the work of Stephen Hawking or that Mitchiu Kaku show.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's not possible. 

Quote:

That's not possible.  It's not possible even though it has something to do with the work of Stephen Hawking or that Mitchiu Kaku show.

I agree. But I wasn't making that argument, and Hamby was using these examples (I thought) to compare my apparently irrational idea with the apparently irrational musings of Hawking and Kaku.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I, at least, didn't read it

I, at least, didn't read it like that.  This is getting exhausting though.  I hate to say it, but does it really matter in the end if any of us is right or wrong about manned interstellar travel?  We can at least agree that in the event that it is possible, it's a very long way off?  I mean, I'm only witholding belief that it is possible because I'm not convinced that it actually is possible.  That, and that what arguments there are to convince me dwell deep within the realms of speculation.  I don't think that's irrational of me.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Oh, yes. I can absolutely

Oh, yes. I can absolutely agree that none of the speculated technologies here would ever be available in my lifetime.

I'm not saying you're irrational, Thom. I'm saying it's bullshit to tell me I'm irrational simply because your opinion is that the future is bleak (that comment directed more towards hamby than yourself).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I should hope.  I don't

I should hope.  I don't think the future is bleak at all.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I have to

Vastet wrote:

I have to disagree with both Hamby and Deludedgod on this circumstance. I think it is actually inevitable that human life will one day encounter alien life. Human history is riddled with proof of the pioneering spirit of humanity. If it were ever concluded that life existed on another world, however far away it was, you can be damned sure that someone will be rich and stubborn enough to make the journey.

I know that story. People balked at the thought of mechenized flight. People balked at the idea of a hand held communication. But we are not talking about uneducated people skoffing at educated people. We are talking about the reality of the vastness of the universe.

Unless there is a CNN held press confrence by "little green men", I am going to default that there is life out there, but is in the same boat we are with the  same problem of distance and speed.

What we have now are nutters who want little green men to exist, but have as much evidence for it as theists do for gods.

We have had claims of this kind of crap since WW2. If there is intellegent life that can get to us, it could have done that prior to 50 years and could do it today.

What is keeping them?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
False again. Personal profit is not the only reason to do something. Despite the seeming inability of Libertarians to accept this reality. On top of that, you can not prove conclusively that extra-solar travel would be incapable of creating a profit. Again, you are simply putting forward strawman arguments.

I'm sorry.  I'm not going to indulge this anymore.  If you don't understand the difference between naysaying an amusement park and naysaying interstellar travel, well... I just don't know what to say about that. 

There's nothing to say, because there is no difference. Both ideas were or are irrational, both ideas were or will be acted upon. In order to prove me wrong, you will have to prove that a trip CANNOT be profitable, and that the human race is inherrantly rational. I wish you the best of luck.

Hambydammit wrote:
  Furthermore, I've spent a lot of time on this website trying to explain the evolution of human nature and how Game Theory is an accurate predictor of our instincts.  If you don't understand it, that's cool, but don't just brush me off when I say that Group Selection is bullshit.  Have you read The Selfish Gene?  If you have not, please do yourself a favor and leave this conversation until you are better equipped to deal with it.  When you're finished with that, I highly recommend The Origins of Virtue and NonZero.  All three are very good explanations of exactly what drives individuals, groups, and nations to do things of great selfishness and altruism.

I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong here, just partially wrong. You make the assumption that all humans need rational reasons or profitable reasons to do something(flying in the face of history), which erodes the basis of your argument into oblivion.

Hambydammit wrote:

Basically, it's like this, Vastet.  Everything is selfish.  Everything in life.  Altruism is selfish.  This is because of the benefits of nonzero sum systems.  There are limits to it, though, and deep space travel in any of the forms presented so far pass the mathematical limits of reciprocal altruism.  I'm not just guessing any of this.  It's fact.

Prove then, that a selfish reason cannot lead to a trip through the stars.

Hambydammit wrote:
As for the rest of your post, I accept that you don't like my contentions, but I see nothing except naked denials.  That being the case, I don't suppose there's anything else to talk about.

I think we share this weakness. 

Thomathy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I need consult with noone. An abacus is by definition a computer, though it has almost nothing in common with the device of the same name that I am currently typing upon. The term "computer" is more varied than your arguments accept, nullifying your arguments.
What was that about someone resorting to semantics?

You really need to do better than that. At this point I'm just going to ignore your further posts in this topic as sad and useless attempts to degrade this conversation further.

Hambydammit wrote:

 

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying this philosophically.  I'm saying it mechanically.

Which proves that you have missed the point. You are no more the same person mechanically that you were ten years ago than you are the same person in any other aspect.

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I have to disagree with both Hamby and Deludedgod on this circumstance. I think it is actually inevitable that human life will one day encounter alien life. Human history is riddled with proof of the pioneering spirit of humanity. If it were ever concluded that life existed on another world, however far away it was, you can be damned sure that someone will be rich and stubborn enough to make the journey.

I know that story. People balked at the thought of mechenized flight. People balked at the idea of a hand held communication. But we are not talking about uneducated people skoffing at educated people. We are talking about the reality of the vastness of the universe.

Unless there is a CNN held press confrence by "little green men", I am going to default that there is life out there, but is in the same boat we are with the  same problem of distance and speed.

What we have now are nutters who want little green men to exist, but have as much evidence for it as theists do for gods.

We have had claims of this kind of crap since WW2. If there is intellegent life that can get to us, it could have done that prior to 50 years and could do it today.

What is keeping them?

So I am clear, I am not suggesting that we will find and make a civilization with "little green men" such as Star Trek and Star Wars and Babylon 5 and numerous other sci-fi programs and tales suppose. These concepts are all far above and beyond the simple concept of travel to another star, around which may be a planet which has some form of life upon it. Which NOONE in this topic or the history of humanity has presented any evidence to suggest or prove that it is impossible and will not and can not happen.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Whatever

Edit: Oh, nevermind.  Vastet, read the rest of my responses before you sucker punch.  I'm out for this one.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The difference

Quote:

The difference between a G and a A in one tiny section of one gene can make the difference between a Type A neurotic person and a laid back easy going person.

I believe this is the only time I have said this to you and I hope this is the only time I say this to you but: That is absurd.

Our immediate consideration should be precisely what might occur in single nucleotide substitutions in nucleic acid sequences. Since you say “can” I will grant you the ideal scenario where this mutation is non-silent. There are two primary sequence types where this might have a major effect

1.      Exons

2.      Regulatory sequences that flank the gene (usually upstream of the TATA box) but bound within the insulator elements that prevent cross-talk between eukaryotic transcription promoters and general transcription factors

In some cases, single nucleotide substitutions can have tremendous effects (but not in the manner you describe). The most clear example I can think of is ADARS in the Adenine to inosine substation effect in gated ion channels during neurogenesis in embryonic development. The effect was first noticed in mice. The substitution is a normal part of embryonic development. If blocked, the mouse dies. The inosine is part of the protein “leash” that admits the passage of ions through the membrane. Without it, electrical signals don’t conduct properly .

This is a very dramatic effect of a nucleotide substation in a protein. For a regulatory element, assuming the substitution occurs in the regulatory protein-binding region of the sequence, in principle a change could alter the Kb (which I will explain shortly) which will directly affect the “tightness” of regulation, which in turn directly affects the ability of a gene control system to respond to signals which increase or decrease the concentration of a regulatory protein.

Gene regulatory proteins bind to regulatory sequences to block or enhance transcription. The tightness of binding dictates the “tightness” of regulation. For tighter binding, changes in concentration of GRP are more likely to have a greater effect. For a population of DNA sequences and binding proteins, the Kb is therefore the equivalent of a binding equilibrium constant. Consider the binding reaction:

P+S=>PS complex

Kb=[PS]/[P][S]

There is a direct relationship between the binding equilibria and free energy. If there is a larger excess of complexes in equilibrium, then the binding is stronger. The stronger the binding, the greater the free energy change:

Then: ∆G=∆GΘ-RT(pKb)

Bearing in mind this understanding, it is hard to see how a single nucleotide could have much of effect on Kb. It would have little effect on the number of bonds being formed between the GRP and the DNA. The most important changes occur when regulatory sequences (or, alternatively, the regulatory protein domain responsible for contacting the helix) is duplicated by homologous duplication. This would double the number of contacts between the regulatory element and the GRP, and hence square the association constant.

Insofar as something like personality is no doubt influenced heavily by both the experience and environment of the subject, and a vast conglomerate of genes, especially gene regulatory proteins (which make up a significant portion of the genome), it is hard to argue how a single nucleotide substitution could have a remotely significant effect. Such an alteration in a single exon could in principle alter a single amino acid, which could affect such things as ion channel permeability or DNA-protein contacts (if the exon codes for a segment of a GRP). If it was a transmembrane protein it might alter the contacts it could make with other docking proteins which could in principle affect intracellular vesicular traffic or cell-signalling (as cell signaling depends entirely on relay chains that transduce juxtacrine, endocrine and synaptic signals from the outside). If it was a pumping protein it might affect the ability of the binding domains to hold the transport contents.. But all of these things are fundamental adjustments to physiology and are unlikely to be responsible for personality switches. You’d be hard-pressed to argue that base substitutions can drastically alter personality.  

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Mitchiu Kaku would be

Quote:

Mitchiu Kaku would be a planetary scientist.

I believe Kaku is also a theoretical physicist.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Since you say

Quote:
Since you say “can” I will grant you the ideal scenario where this mutation is non-silent.

I chose that word very carefully, as I only intended to convey the possibility, not the certainty, or even the preponderance, of this outcome.

Quote:
Insofar as something like personality is no doubt influenced heavily by both the experience and environment of the subject, and a vast conglomerate of genes, especially gene regulatory proteins (which make up a significant portion of the genome), it is hard to argue how a single nucleotide substitution could have a remotely significant effect. Such an alteration in a single exon could in principle alter a single amino acid, which could affect such things as ion channel permeability or DNA-protein contacts (if the exon codes for a segment of a GRP). If it was a transmembrane protein it might alter the contacts it could make with other docking proteins which could in principle affect intracellular vesicular traffic or cell-signalling (as cell signaling depends entirely on relay chains that transduce juxtacrine, endocrine and synaptic signals from the outside). If it was a pumping protein it might affect the ability of the binding domains to hold the transport contents.. But all of these things are fundamental adjustments to physiology and are unlikely to be responsible for personality switches. You’d be hard-pressed to argue that base substitutions can drastically alter personality. 

What I was specifically referring to was the gene for BDNF on chromosome 11.  The 192nd letter in 75% of humans is G, and the rest have A.  The two different versions lead to the production of valine and methionine, respectively.  This leads to three kinds of people:  val/vals, val/meths, and meth/meths.  In personality tests, meth/meths are noticeably less neurotic than val/meths, who are noticeably less neurotic than val/vals.  Specifically, val/vals were the most depressed, self-conscious, anxious, and vulnerable, which amounts to four of the six facets of the psychological definition of neuroticism.

Srijan, S., Nesse, R.M., Stoltenberg, S.F., Li, S., et al., A BDNF coding variant is associated with the NEO personality inventory domain neuroticism, a risk factor for depression.  Neuropsychopharmacology, August 2002.

If this finding has been refuted, I'll certainly stop using it, or if I stated it improperly, I'd love to know how to word it properly to reflect the accurate effect of this substitution.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Actually, let me say a

Actually, let me say a little more about it... IIRC, the study was done on about 240 or so people in one city.  This certainly doesn't account for the totality of the human population, nor does it imply that this gene will have precisely this effect in other populations.  All I intended to show in my example was that within any given individual, a single letter of a single gene can potentially have a striking effect.

In the context of this discussion, the point is that even this tiny little gene, something like 1700 letters long, produces a very important chemical, and getting one thing slightly wrong can have serious results.  Supposing that in our future tech universe, we are downloading some kind of information into a new body, and we screwed up that one letter.  The totality of experience that made up the person beforehand would now be filtered through an awareness that is potentially either more or less neurotic than it used to be.

As you have read, I pretty much dismiss the idea of downloading memories, personalities, etc, out of hand, so this whole example is somewhat absurd.  My point is to show just how absurd it is by giving one example of a slight variation that could potentially have a huge effect, not to argue that there is a neuroticism gene.  As I said in another thread, complex behaviors, and therefore complex mental states, are the culmination of the expression of many genes working as a unique combination.  I did not intend to imply that this is "the neurotic gene," only to demonstrate that slight errors can have significant effects.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Srijan, S., Nesse,

Quote:

Srijan, S., Nesse, R.M., Stoltenberg, S.F., Li, S., et al., A BDNF coding variant is associated with the NEO personality inventory domain neuroticism, a risk factor for depression.  Neuropsychopharmacology, August 2002.

Do you have a link? I can't find it. I could certainly believe that BDNF (which is a trophic factor, with a familial relationship with the famous NGF) could have a major effect on disposition to depression or neurosis. (that may where the confusion arose. I tend to think of depression and neurosis as disorders, not aspects of personality.) It is primarily responsible for rate of neural growth in the areas of the brain asssociated with higher thought (cortex and forebrain), and it is certainly true that depression and neurosis are both correlated with that. (Depression is correlated by low rate of growth, neurosis, the other way around).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Actually, I got this info

Actually, I got this info from a website which now appears to be defunct.  I had to reassemble this from my own notes, as I never had a physical copy of it.

FWIW, the website was http:/www.acnp.org/citations.Npp08s902374 at least as far as I can decipher my own chicken scratch.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Words can be difficult for

 Words can be difficult for me, as I found this, from other wise, easy to understand Carl Sagan .... was it just his time ???

http://www.hillmans.soupbo.com/bu/sagan1.html

Sagan on, BIOLOGY AND HISTORY:

      "Biology is much more like language and history than it is like physics and chemistry. ...Now you might say that where the subject is simple, as in physics, we can figure out the underlying laws and apply them everywhere in the Universe; but where the subject is difficult, as in language, history, and biology, governing laws of Nature may well exist, but our intelligence may be too feeble to recognize their presence - especially if what is being studied is complex and chaotic, exquisitely
sensitive to remote and inaccessible initial conditions. And so we invent formulations about "contingent reality" to disguise our ignorance. There may well be some truth to this point of view, but it is nothing like the whole truth, because history and biology remember in a way that physics does not. Humans share a culture, recall and act on what they've been taught. Life reproduced the adaptations of previous generations, and retains functioning DNA sequences that reach billions of years back into the past. We understand enough about biology and history to recognize a powerful stochastic component, the accidents preserved by high-fidelity reproduction."
          -"Life is Just a Three-Letter Word," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, p. 92.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+Stochastic&btnG=Search