Re: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Stathis: glad you agree with my wording. Several evolutionists (both Darwin-based and post-Darwinians) disagreed =- some fetish 'natural selection' in fitness maps, some swore to ADAPTATION, a sort of self organizing for a purpose. Besides I think I exceed the conventional 'evolution' in the extent of (as a history pf the process) from the 'occurrence' of a universe till its dissipation (into - as my narrative says) into the invariant plenitude of infinite symmetry where it came from. I am really glad that I could finally word my position into a simple formulation that sounds acceptable to you. (Of course 'offspring' stands for reaction-product and the entire image is not restricted to live features - whatever these may be). John - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:36 AM Subject: RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox John Mikes writes: > "My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless > changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations in offsprings. > Some more compatible than others. > The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so > they are the "successful" ones. Scientists consider most variations still > as "the same" species and in their intermittent snapshots realize > "changes" as mutation - towards a better adapted fitness for survival. The > reverse way to how it happened. But it looks like that. No creature > realizes a 'better way to survive' and has a wing or fin let grow out for > that purpose. > The variants of the species "select" themselves for a better proliferation > in the ever changing circumstances of the environment. The '[unsuccessful > do not even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by the wolf > before copulating age). That's the theory of evolution. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/386 - Release Date: 7/12/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
John Mikes writes: > "My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless > changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations in offsprings. Some > more compatible than others. > The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so > they are the "successful" ones. Scientists consider most variations still as > "the same" species and in their intermittent snapshots realize "changes" as > mutation - towards a better adapted fitness for survival. The reverse way to > how it happened. But it looks like that. No creature realizes a 'better way > to survive' and has a wing or fin let grow out for that purpose. > The variants of the species "select" themselves for a better proliferation in > the ever changing circumstances of the environment. The '[unsuccessful do not > even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by the wolf before > copulating age). That's the theory of evolution. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Stathis asked: (last lines) "What more to it than that is there? Sure, the details are infinitely variable, but basically living things are around because they managed to stay around and propagate themselves" That would call for my 'opinion in my narrative' about mutation and natural selection, as one from a non-evolutionist. To the 'infinitely variable' I asked a friend (teaches special math domain on a name-univ) if he could express mathematically (!) something with unrestricted variables and unidentified functional effects (referring to the wholeness) and hi replied with a smile: "That would be steep". "My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations in offsprings. Some more compatible than others. The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so they are the "successful" ones. Scientists consider most variations still as "the same" species and in their intermittent snapshots realize "changes" as mutation - towards a better adapted fitness for survival. The reverse way to how it happened. But it looks like that. No creature realizes a 'better way to survive' and has a wing or fin let grow out for that purpose. The variants of the species "select" themselves for a better proliferation in the ever changing circumstances of the environment. The '[unsuccessful do not even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by the wolf before copulating age). - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Fermi's Paradox John Mikes writes: > > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.> > Stathis,> 'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not> be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my> narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from> its appearance till its demise (let me skip now the> detailed definitions). Destroying one's own species> may be beneficial to others in the biosphere...Yes, you're right, evolution doesn't about or want anything. > > I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in> > nature is by definition in accordance with> > evolution, but those species that destroy themselves> > will die out, while those species that don't destroy> > themselves will thrive. > > Did the dinosaurs destroy 'themselves'? No way! they> were destroyed by the temporary exclusion of sunlight> after the planetesimal-impact's dustclouding. (At> least according to a widely publicised story). They> were well equipped for the circumstances on the planet> that changed abruptly. No self-destruct, just> extinction.> Nobody is exempt from changes in the wholeness.Yes, but we were talking about self-destruction as a subtype of extinction. > >Therefore, there will be> > selection for the species that don't destroy> > themselves, and eventually those species will come> > to predominate. When you think about it, the theory> > of evolution is essentially a tautology: those> > species which succeed, succeed.> > I like to think that there is more to that.What more to it than that is there? Sure, the details are infinitely variable, but basically living things are around because they managed to stay around and propagate themselves. Stathis Papaioannou Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/384 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
I certainly didn't mean this as a criticism. I remember when I was 8 or 9 years old, reading about how animals developed this or that physical characteristic in order to cope with a particular environment. This was in the context of a discussion about evolutionary theory, but I didn't get it initially: *how* did animals adapt to their environment? If people needed to fly, does that mean they might one day grow wings? It seemed incomprehensible to me, and I assumed there must be some complicated magic going on that only scientists could understand (a lot of the world was like that at that age). Then it struck me. There wasn't any special process of adaption needed: each generation was born a bit different from the previous one just by chance, and those animals which were better suited to their environment survived and had more babies than the ones less well adapted. The fact that offspring were imperfect copies of their parents *had* to result in changes in species over time as their environment changed, and it would look like the animals were adapting to their environment. The point of this story is that I was very young and almost completely ignorant of biology, but despite this was impressed by what was a very simple and self-evident idea. Strictly speaking, I was wrong to call it a tautology or analytic truth like logical or mathematical statements, because it is contingent on an empirical fact: random variation in reproduction. But given this, evolutionary theory follows inevitably - even if God made the world yesterday. Stathis Papaioannou On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species will come to predominate. When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a tautology: those species which succeed, succeed. Stathis Papaioannou As a biologist I can't let this go - this is a common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It contains a lot more than just "those species which succeed, succeed". From EvoWiki: "Grabbing one statement out of the whole evolution argument and calling it a tautology is like looking at a mathematical proof where the statement (a+b)*c = (a*c) + (b*c) is used, then denouncing the whole proof on the basis that (a+b)*c = (a*c) + (b*c) is a tautology. Tautologies are true. Therefore one can draw true conclusions from them. What is wrong with that?" --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
John Mikes writes: > > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.> > Stathis,> 'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not> be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my> narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from> its appearance till its demise (let me skip now the> detailed definitions). Destroying one's own species> may be beneficial to others in the biosphere... Yes, you're right, evolution doesn't about or want anything. > > I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in> > nature is by definition in accordance with> > evolution, but those species that destroy themselves> > will die out, while those species that don't destroy> > themselves will thrive. > > Did the dinosaurs destroy 'themselves'? No way! they> were destroyed by the temporary exclusion of sunlight> after the planetesimal-impact's dustclouding. (At> least according to a widely publicised story). They> were well equipped for the circumstances on the planet> that changed abruptly. No self-destruct, just> extinction.> Nobody is exempt from changes in the wholeness. Yes, but we were talking about self-destruction as a subtype of extinction. > >Therefore, there will be> > selection for the species that don't destroy> > themselves, and eventually those species will come> > to predominate. When you think about it, the theory> > of evolution is essentially a tautology: those> > species which succeed, succeed.> > I like to think that there is more to that. What more to it than that is there? Sure, the details are infinitely variable, but basically living things are around because they managed to stay around and propagate themselves. Stathis PapaioannouBe one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Brent Meeker writes: > >I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in> > nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves> > will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there> > will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species> > will come to predominate. > > First, that doesn't mean the eventually dominant species will be intelligent - by weight bacteria > are the predominant species on Earth. Second, it assumes a kind of static equilibrium. It may be > that there are cycles in which similar species become predominant, kill themselves off, and then > re-evolve. Or it may be that there is a kind of chaotic succession of different species becoming > predominant. In retrospect "predominate" was not a good word word to use. Evolution doesn't care about power or superiority, and it is a mistake to assume that intelligent life is somehow the pinnacle of evolution. That would be like a giraffe assuming that evolution ultimately intends to give rise to creatures with very long necks, and that God's neck is infinitely long. Intelligence, like a long neck, is just another ploy to get your genes passed on. Assuming a static equilibrium is also wrong, as you suggest. We like to think that once we develop civilization it will never die out, but again evolution doesn't care about what we think, and we might be wiped out by a nuclear war or a supernova tomorrow. But if it is physically possible for life to spread through the galaxy, then given enough time, it will do so. The fact that it hasn't yet happened that we can tell means there hasn't been enough time, or that it's very difficult to do, which amount to the same thing. I very much doubt that it's physically impossible. > >When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a> > tautology: those species which succeed, succeed.> > I don't think that's a fair characterization. Darwin said that the species with the highest rate > differential reproduction will succeed - and that's separately analyzable attribute. The species with the highest rate of reproduction occupying the one biological space will succeed at the expense of the other species if their co-existence is incompatible. If their co-existence is compatible multiple species can co-exist in dynamic equilibrium, and multiple species can co-exist independently of their reproduction rates in separate biological spaces. The mechanisms of evolutionary success are infinitely variable, but I still think the basic idea is astoundingly simple: the phrase "reproduction with random variation in a randomly variable environment" *necessitates* evolution, even without knowing any details of the biological processes involved. Stathis PapaioannouBe one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Fermi's Paradox
Bringing this thread back to the original subject, I am currently reading "Lonely Planets" by David Grinspoon which covers all aspects of astrobiology including Fermi's Paradox. I recommend it. Bruno, you mentioned a few days ago that encryption or compression was an interesting thought, but you weren't sure if all aliens would try to avoid having us detect them. I think any advanced society would use a highly efficient encryption and/or compression system in their communications regardless of whether they thought the communication would be detected by someone else. Most data uploaded and downloaded over the internet is compressed, and it only stands to reason more advanced technology would allow far more data transmission through advanced compression techniques. Therefore, I don't suspect we will intercept alien radio signals anytime soon unless the aliens are intentionally trying to signal us. Also, I highly doubt that radio telescopes are the ultimate form of communication in the universe. It seems almost impossible to imagine that we would go from deliver information via a man on a horse to the final ultimate communication method in less than one century. Aliens may use laser pulses, or more likely, something we can not even imagine to communicate. As a final thought on this, I wanted to mention a theory of evolution that I read about a few years ago that invokes QM and the MWI to explain how the first self-replicator came to be against unimaginable odds. The idea was presented in "Quantum Evolution", written by Johnjoe McFadden, and (very generally summarizing here) basically argued that even given all the time that passed and all the opportunities that would have been provided on a global scale, the odds against a self-replicator forming are so staggeringly large that it is still difficult to explain through standard theory. He argues something along the lines that peptides formed in carbon microtubes that would have been sufficient to cut off the peptides from the outside world, prevent decoherence, and allow a superposition of the peptide. Then, when the peptide experienced decoherence, one in 20^32 universes would have a self-replicating peptide. Of course, invoking the anthropic principle, we are in one of those very rare universes. A consequence of this is that alien life would be pretty much nonexistent in OUR universe. Other planets suitable for life would have life in other branches of the multiverse, but the quantum selection effects would make the separate evolution of life in the same brach of the multiverse highly unlikely. Danny Mayes -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 9:59 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fermi's Paradox Brent, > Faith usually refers to some belief independent of evidence. I guess we have a serious problem of terminology. Faith without evidence is bad faith or perhaps better blind faith. I was meaning faith in truth. (Although faith in your 1-self works also in my setting). I cannot define "truth",(nor your 1-self) but I can argue that "faith in truth" leads to modesty, even in "religious" affair. I would say Fundamentalism is even a typical symptom of blind faith. It appears when, sometimes driven by despairing events, some people (collectively or privately) loose faith in truth, or in themselves, and then jumps on any populist herzats concocted by mad, ignorant, or dishonest entity. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species will come to predominate. When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a tautology: those species which succeed, succeed. Stathis PapaioannouAs a biologist I can't let this go - this is a common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It contains a lot more than just "those species which succeed, succeed". From EvoWiki:"Grabbing one statement out of the whole evolution argument and calling it a tautology is like looking at a mathematical proof where the statement (a+b)*c = (a*c) + (b*c) is used, then denouncing the whole proof on the basis that (a+b)*c = (a*c) + (b*c) is a tautology. Tautologies are true. Therefore one can draw true conclusions from them. What is wrong with that?" --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Brent, > Faith usually refers to some belief independent of evidence. I guess we have a serious problem of terminology. Faith without evidence is bad faith or perhaps better blind faith. I was meaning faith in truth. (Although faith in your 1-self works also in my setting). I cannot define "truth",(nor your 1-self) but I can argue that "faith in truth" leads to modesty, even in "religious" affair. I would say Fundamentalism is even a typical symptom of blind faith. It appears when, sometimes driven by despairing events, some people (collectively or privately) loose faith in truth, or in themselves, and then jumps on any populist herzats concocted by mad, ignorant, or dishonest entity. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. Stathis, 'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from its appearance till its demise (let me skip now the detailed definitions). Destroying one's own species may be beneficial to others in the biosphere... > I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in > nature is by definition in accordance with > evolution, but those species that destroy themselves > will die out, while those species that don't destroy > themselves will thrive. Did the dinosaurs destroy 'themselves'? No way! they were destroyed by the temporary exclusion of sunlight after the planetesimal-impact's dustclouding. (At least according to a widely publicised story). They were well equipped for the circumstances on the planet that changed abruptly. No self-destruct, just extinction. Nobody is exempt from changes in the wholeness. >Therefore, there will be > selection for the species that don't destroy > themselves, and eventually those species will come > to predominate. When you think about it, the theory > of evolution is essentially a tautology: those > species which succeed, succeed. I like to think that there is more to that. > > Stathis Papaioannou John M > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > FALSE Believers cause harm, destruction ... Faith is > not a problem,... And who decides what is a 'false' belief? Do the religious leaders of harm-doing 'believers' educate them that their action is 'false'? Do the US protestant leaders condemn the zealots who kill the abo\rtion performing doctor or bomb trhe clinic? Do Muslim leaders instruct the terrorists that bombing and hostage-beheading gets them "to hell"? Do the IRA get negatrive instructions from their priests? Was the Inquisition labelled 'false belief, or the puritan burning of witches? Was the shunning for out-of-faith marriage of a daughter deemed false belief by a rabbi, or an Amish pastor? Fundamentalist zealots are by the millions, enlightened private persons a handful and not the 'leaders'. Faith IS a problem because it lifts the personal human responsibility for destructive deeds and puts them into a transcendental (maybe misinterpreted) authorization. Nobody accepts that his 'faith' is false. (And I extend it into 'political' faith as well, be it nationalistic, proletarian, plutocratic, or else). You are right, you ARE over-optimistic. John M (experienced in fighting against diverse zealotry) > > Le 06-juil.-06, � 07:38, Norman Samish a �crit : > > > Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to > make, which is that > > True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or > heathen, cause harm, > > destruction or misfortune, and are therefore > evil.� > > > I am not so sure. Perhaps I am just over-optimistic > but I would say > FALSE Believers cause harm, destruction ... Faith is > not a problem, and > someone who as genuine faith in some fundamental > value will not try to > impose it or to institutionalize it. I would say > that it is mainly > those who have "bad faith" who will try to impose it > to others if only > to convince themselves. Something like that. > For exemple, I separate more and more christianity > from its "roman" > abuse. > > > > > > > � > > My principal question is this:� Is this evil > inevitable in intelligent > > life?� > > > Yes. More generally it is the "fate" of any > Universal Machine to > discover some form of "evil" (type of lies), or the > possibility of > "evil", when just introspecting herself deeply > enough. But it is > exactly for that reason that there is no reason to > be fatalist with > evil, there is a possibility to learn to handle it, > not with universal > medicine, but with time, work, ... > > > > > I suspect it is.� And when life gets intelligent > enough, and evolved > > enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and > other WMDs.� Then it > > may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use > up the raw materials > > accessible to it�- and this explains Fermi's > Paradox. > > > Hope they are less fatalist speculations about that > ... But, given the > few we know, perhaps you are right. I guess other > explanations are > still possible yet. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 06-juil.-06, à 07:38, Norman Samish a écrit : > > >>Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that >>True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm, >>destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil. > > > > I am not so sure. Perhaps I am just over-optimistic but I would say > FALSE Believers cause harm, destruction ... Faith is not a problem, and > someone who as genuine faith in some fundamental value will not try to > impose it or to institutionalize it. Faith usually refers to some belief independent of evidence. Personal values are evident to whoever holds them. Of course saying that others hold these values might be a matter of faith. But the problem with faith, and I assume that means genuine faith, is that there is no compromise or reasoning with it. Christian fundamentalist have faith that God wants them to behave in certain ways in order to achieve immortality in heaven; this is infinitely more important than what happens on Earth. So, for example, many believe that the return of the Jews to their homeland and a great "time of tribulation" are necessary harbingers of the second coming of Jesus. Thus they act to bring about Israeli expansion and war in the mideast. That this is contrary to the interests of the rest of us who think it is nonsense and would like peace in the mideast is irrelevant to them - because they have faith. >I would say that it is mainly > those who have "bad faith" who will try to impose it to others if only > to convince themselves. But if you really have faith that whether your children will go to heaven instead of hell depends on believing in a certain God, praying to him, etc., then you are perfectly, rationally justified in preventing atheists or other religionists from speaking. It might cause you child to go to hell through disbelief. >Something like that. > For exemple, I separate more and more christianity from its "roman" > abuse. Faith is not only the source of the Roman Catholic abuses, but also of Protestant Christian abuses, and Muslim abuses - to say nothing of the cults (i.e. small religions) like Heavens Gate, The Peoples Temple, AUM Shinryko, etc. >> >>My principal question is this: Is this evil inevitable in intelligent >>life? > > > > Yes. More generally it is the "fate" of any Universal Machine to > discover some form of "evil" (type of lies), or the possibility of > "evil", when just introspecting herself deeply enough. Is that the only evil possible in computationlism - lies? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Le 06-juil.-06, à 07:38, Norman Samish a écrit : Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm, destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil. I am not so sure. Perhaps I am just over-optimistic but I would say FALSE Believers cause harm, destruction ... Faith is not a problem, and someone who as genuine faith in some fundamental value will not try to impose it or to institutionalize it. I would say that it is mainly those who have "bad faith" who will try to impose it to others if only to convince themselves. Something like that. For exemple, I separate more and more christianity from its "roman" abuse. My principal question is this: Is this evil inevitable in intelligent life? Yes. More generally it is the "fate" of any Universal Machine to discover some form of "evil" (type of lies), or the possibility of "evil", when just introspecting herself deeply enough. But it is exactly for that reason that there is no reason to be fatalist with evil, there is a possibility to learn to handle it, not with universal medicine, but with time, work, ... I suspect it is. And when life gets intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it - and this explains Fermi's Paradox. Hope they are less fatalist speculations about that ... But, given the few we know, perhaps you are right. I guess other explanations are still possible yet. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. That doesn't mean it can't happen - it only means you weren't the dominant species. >I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in > nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that > destroy themselves > will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. > Therefore, there > will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and > eventually those species > will come to predominate. First, that doesn't mean the eventually dominant species will be intelligent - by weight bacteria are the predominant species on Earth. Second, it assumes a kind of static equilibrium. It may be that there are cycles in which similar species become predominant, kill themselves off, and then re-evolve. Or it may be that there is a kind of chaotic succession of different species becoming predominant. >When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a > tautology: those species which succeed, succeed. I don't think that's a fair chracterization. Darwin said that the species with the highest rate differential reproduction will succeed - and that's separately analyzable attribute. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species will come to predominate. When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a tautology: those species which succeed, succeed. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: everything-list@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: Fermi's ParadoxDate: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:38:37 -0700 Hi Brent, You say, "They (the Spanish) subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for king and gold. European disease may have killed a lot of them, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors - though they were certainly revolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the Aztecs."I am revolted too. And I am also revolted by the bloody treachery of Cortes. One web site said, "Cholula, with a population of 100,000, was the second city of the Aztec empire. It had thrived for more than a millennium. In 1519, Cortés chose Cholula to demonstrate his Christian credentials. He massacred several thousand unarmed members of the Aztec nobility in the central plaza and then burned down much of the city." If you Google "Spanish atrocities Inca Aztec" (without the quotes) you'll find many references. The Spanish Conquest not only subjugated the Aztecs and Inca but destroyed them - along with the cultures of the Caribbean islands. Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm, destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil. My principal question is this: Is this evil inevitable in intelligent life? I suspect it is. And when life gets intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it - and this explains Fermi's Paradox. Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Hi Brent, You say, "They (the Spanish) subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for king and gold. European disease may have killed a lot of them, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors - though they were certainly revolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the Aztecs."I am revolted too. And I am also revolted by the bloody treachery of Cortes. One web site said, "Cholula, with a population of 100,000, was the second city of the Aztec empire. It had thrived for more than a millennium. In 1519, Cortés chose Cholula to demonstrate his Christian credentials. He massacred several thousand unarmed members of the Aztec nobility in the central plaza and then burned down much of the city." If you Google "Spanish atrocities Inca Aztec" (without the quotes) you'll find many references. The Spanish Conquest not only subjugated the Aztecs and Inca but destroyed them - along with the cultures of the Caribbean islands. Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm, destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil. My principal question is this: Is this evil inevitable in intelligent life? I suspect it is. And when life gets intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it - and this explains Fermi's Paradox. Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Norman Samish wrote:
> We can all agree, I think, that many among us humans are irrational. What's
> more, many are obsessed with killing others who don't agree with them. The
> Conquistadors who killed the Aztecs and Incas "because God wished it so"
They subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for king and gold. European disease may
have killed a lot of
them, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors - though they
were certainly
revolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the Aztecs.
>and
> the radical Muslims who kill the infidels "because God wishes it so" are of
> the same stripe.
>
> It's occurred to me that senseless killings argue for one particular
> solution of the Fermi Paradox ("If aliens exist, where are they?"). This
> solution is that it is the nature of intelligent organisms to destroy
> themselves as soon as they attain the capability..
>
> The diverse life forms on Earth suggest that the universe is probably
> teeming with low-order life forms. The lack of evidence to the contrary
> suggests that there are only a few intelligent life forms. Is this because,
> as soon as the intelligent life form evolves, it starts warring with itself
> and self-destructs?
>
> This may happen rapidly - there may be only a short time interval (100 or
> 200 earth-years) where radio transmissions that would be detectable on Earth
> are made.
>
> We haven't detected any transmissions from now-expired societies because the
> evolution of high-order life forms occurs only rarely, so alien radio
> transmissions are very rare.
>
> If this hypothesis is correct, mankind may be approaching its last days. I
> hope it's not correct. What do you think?
>
> Norman
I think it's implausible that people would kill off their species in war. On
the other hand it may
well be that shortly after developing technology, they may well exhaust their
planets resources or
pollute it to the point that a technological civilization is no longer possible.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
