Do you beleive in life on other planets?

[talloulou]

I'm alluding to the fact that there may be more than just the milky way.

The milky way is our galaxy but there are tons of galaxies, only 1 universe though as universe is all inclusive, right?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Agreed. Any intelligent life that we discover will almost certainly be millions or billions of years more advanced than us.

Why do you say that? It's just as likely that we discover some proto-sentient that's only a few short millenia away from their own Agricultural Revolution.

The milky way is our galaxy but there are tons of galaxies, only 1 universe though as universe is all inclusive, right?

Really depends on how you're defining "universe". Most people only think of the universe as all of three-dimensional space, but there are theories which suggest that space may be nine-dimensional or seventeen-dimensional.

Objects which are removed from our rough area of nth-dimensional space could reasonably be referred to as occupying a different universe.

I prefer not to think about things like that, because the math hurts my primitive caveman brain.

 

[talloulou]

I think if there was complex life in our universe, we would know that by now. I could be totally wrong. I will look into this.

I think many scientists might agree that alien sophisticated life is unlikely in our galaxy but I haven't heard any rule out the universe.

 

[cherokee]

I think many scientists might agree that alien sophisticated life is unlikely in our galaxy but I haven't heard any rule out the universe.

Not really...

so far we have discovered over 230 planets. That’s still only a very small percentage of what’s out there in the Milky Way.

When we develop better systems for detecting planets we will discovery 100’s if not 1000’s more in our own back yard.

 

[Thinker]

Oh, yeah?

What's your definition of "person"? Does it include developmentally disabled
humans? Does it include great apes? Would it include an intelligent animal
that walked off of its spaceship and greeted you by name?

Dare you to find a definition of person that includes children and the mentally
retarded-- as most do-- but also excludes all of the non-human great apes,
without referencing homo sapiens sapiens specifically.

It all depends on why you are trying to redefine "person". What's wrong with
the standard meaning as a member of our species (which would, of course,
include a disabled one)?

If you are thinking about issues to do with how we treat visitors from other
worlds that would not require a shift in morals, simply a recognition of their
intelligence and right to life.

 

[cherokee]

If you could travel close to (99%) the speed of light which is about 186,000 miles per second you could reach.....


The planet Mars
4.36 minutes

The planet Pluto
5.35 hours


Closest star to the Sun
(Proxima Centauri)
4.3 years

Center of our Milky Way Galaxy
30000 years


Closest large spiral galaxy
(Andromeda)
2.5 million years

Coma Cluster of galaxies
340 million years

Edge of the observable Universe
15 billion years


Think abot this

(Center of our Milky Way Galaxy in 30000 years) Right now we have signals from sats to TV that have been streaming thru space at the speed of light. NONE of them have reached the center of the Milky Way galaxy yet...When was the first powerful broadcast? 60-70 years ago?
So say life on a planet had the same technology as we did or were advanced as us it would still take 29940 years for the signal to reach them..


.
.
.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What's wrong with the standard meaning as a member of our species (which would, of course, include a disabled one)?

Well, for one thing, it would not include any extraterrestrial intelligence-- unless the ID crowd got it right-- and for another, there's a very good chance that within our lifetimes there will be animals which are descended from human beings but are not technically of the same species.

I wouldn't want my grandkids falling outside of society's standards for what constitutes "personhood"; that's an issue our grandparents had to face and I'm glad that it's mostly behind us.

If you are thinking about issues to do with how we treat visitors from other worlds that would not require a shift in morals, simply a recognition of their intelligence and right to life.

That would be treating them as persons.

How do we decide which extraterrestrial beings to treat as persons, and which to treat as wild animals-- or livestock?

Or do we make that judgement solely on the grounds of which aliens are capable of returning fire?

 

[talloulou]

Not really...

so far we have discovered over 230 planets. That’s still only a very small percentage of what’s out there in the Milky Way.

When we develop better systems for detecting planets we will discovery 100’s if not 1000’s more in our own back yard.

There you go perhaps strom thurmond was right to write the foreward for a Roswell book! Maybe they're here already.....I did read a post about Dick Cheney looking a little reptily! :rofl

 

[talloulou]

It all depends on why you are trying to redefine "person". What's wrong with
the standard meaning as a member of our species (which would, of course,
include a disabled one)?

I

"Member of our species" might include those cute little fetus thingys!

 

[talloulou]

there's a very good chance that within our lifetimes there will be animals which are descended from human beings but are not technically of the same species.

I wouldn't want my grandkids falling outside of society's standards for what constitutes "personhood"; that's an issue our grandparents had to face and I'm glad that it's mostly behind us.

Korimyr just what exactly are you doing with animals that you fear your grandkids will be hybrids falling outside the scope of parenthood:rofl :rofl

I'm kidding....though I am confused about your grandkids? Oh unless you mated with an alien.

I see like if sophisticated aliens bred with humans then the new hybrid creatures may or may not be a person? Like on my fav show INVASION?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm kidding....though I am confused about your grandkids? Oh unless you mated with an alien.

Actually, I'm referring to genetic modification. We may or may not ban it here, but do you really think that there won't be a single country that tries to take advantage of the technology?

Most of the nightmare scenarios are based on super-soldiers, but imagine what China would be willing to pay for an Olympic sweep in 2034.

Then there's all the people who've experimented with human/chimp hybrids. There have been a couple of close calls, in the Soviet Union and China (and once in Italy), before the peasants showed up with pitchforks and torches. It's still very possible that we are inter-fertile with chimpanzees, the way that lions and tigers are with each other.

All of that is leaving aside the issue of extraterrestrial life-- because there's no way of predicting when or if this species will ever make contact with another advanced species.

I see like if sophisticated aliens bred with humans then the new hybrid creatures may or may not be a person? Like on my fav show INVASION?

Yeah. If our definition of "person" is "member of the species homo sapiens", it wouldn't cover them. Thankfully, any life that developed on another planet would be entirely genetically incompatible with us-- again, unless the ID crowd is on to something-- and wouldn't create an issue.

Unless, of course, they're as fascinated with tinkering with the building blocks of life as much as some of us are.

Personhood is a very important issue for transhumanists (like myself) because not only do they recognize that these technologies will eventually create a moral crisis, they see the potential for these technologies to improve human and near-human life, and they want these ethical issues to be resolved in an acceptable fashion-- for our own sake and for the sake of our potential grandchildren.

And, then, of course, there's GRASP who argue that logically, the other great apes deserve limited "human rights" on the basis of their emotional and cognitive similarity to us.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think if there was complex life in our universe, we would know that by now. I could be totally wrong. I will look into this.

You are totally wrong. The universe is a really big place, and we can't even get images of nearby extra-solar planets, let alone get enough detail about them to see if they're bearing life. And that's only planets a few dozen light years away. The Andromeda galaxy is slightly larger than this one we're in, and it's three million light years distant. And that's our nearest spiral shaped neighbor.

 

[alphieb]

I don't know. Considering the size of the universe, really the only way we'll discover extraterrestrial sentience is if either of our species figures out how to break the light barrier.

And when you compare the age of the universe to the span of human history-- or even the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens-- it'd be a hell of a coincidence to encounter a species even remotely close to our own developmental level.

After thinking about it and researching, this universe is so large, perhaps there is other life beyond our knowledge. If there is H2O on Saturn and we just now discovered it.......Who knows, interesting.

 

[alphieb]

You are totally wrong. The universe is a really big place, and we can't even get images of nearby extra-solar planets, let alone get enough detail about them to see if they're bearing life. And that's only planets a few dozen light years away. The Andromeda galaxy is slightly larger than this one we're in, and it's three million light years distant. And that's our nearest spiral shaped neighbor.

You are totally correct refer to next post.....

 

[talloulou]

It's still very possible that we are inter-fertile with chimpanzees, the way that lions and tigers are with each other.

I would have thought someone would have figured that out for sure one way or the other by now. Haven't any wacko scientists tried to inseminate a chimp with human sperm?

And, then, of course, there's GRASP who argue that logically, the other great apes deserve limited "human rights" on the basis of their emotional and cognitive similarity to us.

I can understand that as I have read amazing books like ALMOST HUMAN about Baboons and other books all about chimps that are raised from birth like a human child.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Oh, yeah?

What's your definition of "person"? Does it include developmentally disabled humans? Does it include great apes? Would it include an intelligent animal that walked off of its spaceship and greeted you by name?

Dare you to find a definition of person that includes children and the mentally retarded-- as most do-- but also excludes all of the non-human great apes, without referencing homo sapiens sapiens specifically.

Person: Any member of a species whose healthy mature individuals are aware of their environment and their relationship to it. This species has a detailed awareness of the passage of time which includes a recognition of their own mortality and the ability to not only plan for the future of their young after they die but to plan for the future of any unborn young they expect to produce.

Mortality is a concept outside the abilities of the other apes. Long term planning is not part of their scheme of things, either. I encompass the retard, the mental defective, and the child by defining that a person is a specimen of a species whose healthy norm is as described.

This definition would fit any alien intelligence capable of traversing space. Unless, of course, they're immortal. That would get tricky.

The above definition would exclude, however, non-biological persons such as advanced artificial intelligences, since they are neither mortal nor would they necessarily produce "young".

 

[Kandahar]

Why do you say that? It's just as likely that we discover some proto-sentient that's only a few short millenia away from their own Agricultural Revolution.

Not at all. You said it yourself quite well: "And when you compare the age of the universe to the span of human history-- or even the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens-- it'd be a hell of a coincidence to encounter a species even remotely close to our own developmental level."

It would be extremely unlikely to find a form of intelligent life just a few millennia away from an Agricultural Revolution for this very reason. Any life we find will almost certainly be millions of years more advanced than us or millions of years behind us. And if it's millions of years behind us, it probably doesn't fall into the category of "intelligent life."

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Haven't any wacko scientists tried to inseminate a chimp with human sperm?

Been doing it for a couple centuries. There have even been a few rumored successes-- but unfortunately they died and their corpses were unrecoverable long before genetic testing could have confirmed them.

There've been several clinical attempts, in countries whose governments were less concerned with human rights, but the distasteful nature of the experiments keeps them from gaining much political support and the locals usually destroy the evidence whenever they get the chance.

Can't really blame them myself, because as curious as I am about the possibility of hybridization, I'd have serious problems with the ethical issues presented by success.

Not to mention, any real clinical trial would also have to include chimp sperm and human women to compare the differences between the two hybrids. Ligers and tigons are almost wholly separate animals because of which traits are contributed by the male and female of the lion and tiger species.

Mortality is a concept outside the abilities of the other apes. Long term planning is not part of their scheme of things, either.

It's a really good try, but I have seen evidence that other apes are capable of grasping mortality-- in particular, an ape showing compassion to a female handler after discovering she'd had a miscarriage.

Long-term planning, I will concede.

Not at all. You said it yourself quite well:

I stand corrected, and you're absolutely right. Don't know how I missed that.

 

[cherokee]

Been doing it for a couple centuries. There have even been a few rumored successes-- but unfortunately they died and their corpses were unrecoverable long before genetic testing could have confirmed them.

There've been several clinical attempts, in countries whose governments were less concerned with human rights, but the distasteful nature of the experiments keeps them from gaining much political support and the locals usually destroy the evidence whenever they get the chance.

Can't really blame them myself, because as curious as I am about the possibility of hybridization, I'd have serious problems with the ethical issues presented by success.

Not to mention, any real clinical trial would also have to include chimp sperm and human women to compare the differences between the two hybrids. Ligers and tigons are almost wholly separate animals because of which traits are contributed by the male and female of the lion and tiger species.



.

Bud it was only rumors and hearsay. I wrote a paper on this in College I will post in the AM why it cant be done.

its 2am est and I'm off to bed...

 

[Thinker]

It's a really good try, but I have seen evidence that other apes are capable of grasping mortality-- in particular, an ape showing compassion to a female handler after discovering she'd had a miscarriage.

That sounds like an urban myth to me. Ignoring the question of how the ape was
told about the miscarriage (I assume it didn't find it out for itself), how would
you distinguish it having feelings of sympathy towards someone it knew well,
probably showing subtle signs of distress, from having thoughts of mortality?

 

[FallingPianos]

That sounds like an urban myth to me. Ignoring the question of how the ape was
told about the miscarriage (I assume it didn't find it out for itself), how would
you distinguish it having feelings of sympathy towards someone it knew well,
probably showing subtle signs of distress, from having thoughts of mortality?

I actually saw a film about that in biology class in highschool. it was an ape that had been taught sign language. the handler that had taught it sign language was discribing what happened in the film. she had been gone for several days due to the miscarrage, and when she came back, the ape was upset at her at first and "gave her the cold shoulder", for having been gone so long. in sign language she said "baby lost", and then the ape replied "I sad, I cry" and hugged her.

 

[Thinker]

I actually saw a film about that in biology class in highschool. it was an ape that had been taught sign language. the handler that had taught it sign language was discribing what happened in the film. she had been gone for several days due to the miscarrage, and when she came back, the ape was upset at her at first and "gave her the cold shoulder", for having been gone so long. in sign language she said "baby lost", and then the ape replied "I sad, I cry" and hugged her.

That still doesn't convince me the behaviour was anything to do with a sense of
mortality. It is extremely difficult to know what is going on in animals' brains. I
wonder what the response would have been if the message had been "food
lost"; I suspect it may have been similar.

I am reminded about "Clever Hans", a horse whose reaction to non-verbal clues
made it appear to have mathematical ability.

 

[Tashah]

"Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Either way it's mind-boggling." ~ Pogo

 

[Tashah]

By the way, some of you may enjoy this webpage of mine...

The Sphere

:2wave: Tashah

 

[alphieb]

"Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Either way it's mind-boggling." ~ Pogo

Extremely mind-boggling, Tashah, but more so for me than you. Afterall, isn't this your field of study? I don't even understand gravity. I also don't understand time, but only time as we know it. Don't get me started.