Humans vs other species

Originally posted by Sambo69
One of the things that strongly differentiates humans from other species is science.

For example, no other species has conceived the number pi, which is used to calculate the motions of planets, design motors, process signals, develop medical equipment, etc.

Religion barely differentiates humans from other species.

For example, dogs wait for someone to come back home and can fight each other as the time comes.

The singly most important difference between humans and other animals is of course language. Our complex language has led to the ability to conceptualise and create the physical and mental world we today inhabit. Without language there would be no religion and no science. Init.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]...the fact that we haven't heard from any other civilisations doesn't mean that they don't exist.

It’s such a pity that your keen, open mind slams shut like a bear-trap whenever the transcendental is invoked.

Perhaps you could use your above line of reasoning next time somebody challenges your religious prejudices.[/b]

The difference is that extra terrestrial life would still have a physical basis - your imaginary friend has none.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]The full argument is fairly complex, for an introductory discussion read 'probability one' by Amir Aczel; ISBN: 0349112479. Blah, blah, blah.

Uhm... okay... Hardly the rigorous "proof" I was expecting from one who seems to demand the same for the supernatural. I rest my case.

…the point about science is that you can develop theories which to fall within a certain range and then seem somehow pleasantly surprised when they do.

Scotty / Googlefudge; "Oh look, some goal posts".

Halitose; "Excellent. Now, let's move them."



Hal, you are most definately moving the goalposts on this one. Go look up "scientific theory". You'll see that one of the things about a scientific theory is that it should be universal in it's application. The conditions for life are the same everywhere, so provided that those conditions are met somewhere in the universe, there is a good chance of life developing. The conditions for God are met nowhere in the universe. So the chances of God existing are practically zero. You are trying to argue that natural occurances should be put on the same level as supernatural ones - absolute crap.

[edit; btw, reality is not up for you to arbitrate. You want to believe in your imaginary friend, fine, don't let it hinder the grown ups from having a reasoned conversation.]

Originally posted by Number 6
The singly most important difference between humans and other animals is of course language. Our complex language has led to the ability to conceptualise and create the physical and mental world we today inhabit. Without language there would be no religion and no science. Init.

Nope. Many other organisms have "language". Honey bees have their waggle dance, dolphins and whales communicate complex information between each other all the time. Even many domestic animals communicate to a large degree. What else is language other than a series of standardised grunts for communicating information?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The probability of extra terrestrial life in an infinite universe is 1 (i.e. 100% ). the probability of ET in the visible universe, 1 (or so close to one as to be almost indistinguishable from it), probability of life in the galaxy, 1 (or so close to one as to be indistinguishable from it). you can have all sorts of arguments about whether there is intel ...[text shortened]... 9999999999..... or in other words 1. thus the existence of ET is not very likely, it is certain.

Rubbish.
What are you basing your probability calculations on?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The full argument is fairly complex, for an introductory discussion read 'probability one' by Amir Aczel; ISBN: 0349112479.
But the basic argument is that there are extra solar planets, (moons, asteroids.... potential habitats) predicted theoretically and now being detected. Life emerged here on Earth witch proves that there is a possibility of life eme ...[text shortened]... d. ET is however a different matter, as ET is not what we might term here, the supernatural.

There's one big gaping flaw in this argument.
We don't know how easy or difficult life is to form on a planet, since we don't know how it formed here.
Until we have a working model of life's origins your probabilities will never be anything more than hope.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The difference is that extra terrestrial life would still have a physical basis - your imaginary friend has none.

Aliens and imaginary friends are exactly the same. The only difference is one gets more publicity.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Scotty / Googlefudge; "Oh look, some goal posts".

Halitose; "Excellent. Now, let's move them."



Hal, you are most definately moving the goalposts on this one. Go look up "scientific theory". You'll see that one of the things about a scientific theory is that it should be universal in it's application. The conditions for life are the same e ...[text shortened]... friend, fine, don't let it hinder the grown ups from having a reasoned conversation.]

Bald Little Buddhist Kid: “Don’t try to bend the goalpost; that’s impossible. Just try to realize the truth.”

Neo: “What truth?”

BLBK: “There is no goal-post...”

1: If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

2:Yes

1: How do you know?

2:Because upon arriving at the fallen tree you realize that it must have made a sound when it came crashing to the Earth, only the sound is lost in our subconcious mind.

1:If a soul in Hell burning screams do the humans on Earth hear it?

2: No

1: Why?

2:Because the sound is lost in their spiritual mind. Upon arriving at the soul, they will realize that the scream was there the whole time and the only reason that they didn't hear it was because they weren't there.

1😕o, basically, our presence somewhere makes the difference weither we are watching a tree fall or in Hell?

2: Yes

1: But what if you don't go where the tree fell and thus have no proof that it really did fall? What if you don't go to Hell and thus have no proof that souls there scream?

2: Then your ignorance will be your bliss.

1: I don't understand.

2:It's simple, if you aren't around a tree when it falls and you don't see a fallen tree, then no sound was made, not to your mind anywayy, so you are free from the sound or the sight of a dead tree, in bliss.
If you don't go to Hell and you never see a burning soul screaming, that sight and sound are not in your mind and you are blissful in the ignorance thereof.

1: So in a way, seeing is believing?

2: Yes, but believing is also seeing.

1: Isn't that contridictory?

2: Yes, but wasn't it contridictory to say that a falling tree with no one around to hear it does or doesn't make a sound?

1: I suppose.

Originally posted by royaltystatement
1: But what if you don't go where the tree fell and thus have no proof that it really did fall? What if you don't go to Hell and thus have no proof that souls there scream?

2: Then your ignorance will be your bliss.

1: I don't understand.

2:It's simple, if you aren't around a tree when it falls and you don't see a fallen tree, then no sound ling tree with no one around to hear it does or doesn't make a sound?

1: I suppose.

Put this in the "Argumentum Spiritualensis" thread, and I'll rec it. 🙂

EDIT: Oh, ya gotta give it a name, though...

Tell me about it, I was a little puzzled at myself at how well that came together.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]The full argument is fairly complex, for an introductory discussion read 'probability one' by Amir Aczel; ISBN: 0349112479. Blah, blah, blah.

Uhm... okay... Hardly the rigorous "proof" I was expecting from one who seems to demand the same for the supernatural. I rest my case.

…the point about science is that you can develop theories which ...[text shortened]... o fall within a certain range and then seem somehow pleasantly surprised when they do .

" Uhm... okay... Hardly the rigorous "proof" I was expecting from one who seems to demand the same for the supernatural. I rest my case. "

You rest too early.
The argument I was putting forward is as I say, if nothing else, LONG. I have neither the time, space nor inclination to write it out in full in this forum. I did however give you details of where you might find it covered in more detail. I also had a basic summery of the central reasoning, if you have any questions about it feel free to ask them, but don't expect me to type up what an expert in the subject summarised in an, over 200 page, book in a word limited forum.

" Irrespective of which fashionable "theory" may hold sway over public opinion, there is still an objective reality (assumed by science) to which these theories have to conform to. My point: it is not the theory, but the objective reality that holds the ultimate Truth. "

As I stated all Current Theories match all available evidence otherwise they would be discarded, Also most of the general public has never heard about most of sciences theories, and don't want to hear about them. They do however use the results every day. In this case however we are operating almost entirely in the world of facts, the only thing that isn’t a known fact (i.e. actually been observed) is the existence of extra terrestrials. The existences of other planets, stars, and organic molecules in space have all been detected. Given that we exist then there must be a chance for life evolving (forming) in places with the right conditions, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and biologists are steadily increasing this chance as life is found in more and more inhospitable places, and the abundance of organic molecules in space. So it comes down to the maths, which is pretty much indisputable. So what is your problem?

" " There is no, and can be no, scientific theory which predicts the existence of god. "

You have an excellent grasp of the obvious. Scientific theories (I assume you mean "natural" scientific theories) by definition deal with natural phenomenon. How could they possibly predict or explain the Supernatural?

" ET is however a different matter, as ET is not what we might term here, the supernatural. "

Sooooo.... as the one falls within your arbitrarily assigned constraints of reality - it exists, while the other falls outside your arbitrary reality - it doesn't exist. I detect a painful circularity in reasoning: you constrain your possible solutions to fall within a certain range and then seem somehow pleasantly surprised when they do "

Ah here you misunderstand me by separating two connected sentences and taking them out of context. I did not mean that because I define ET to be natural and god to supernatural then the former must exist and later must not. My point (which I admit might have been clearer if I had included a full treatment of why the philosophies which form the bedrock for science and the supernatural are totally incompatible with each other, however have already presented this argument several times and at the very least I am getting tired of writing it if no one else is getting tired of reading it) is that science can't say anything about god because its underlying philosophy A Priory rejects god, you either; accept the rational world view of science and are an atheist, Accept the irrational world view of spirituality and one way or another become a theist, or you can't choose and become an agnostic. You may consider this to be stating the obvious but I for one have come across many who either don't understand, or don't agree with this. My reasoning is not circular, The central tenets of science are neither for, nor against, ET, the evidence we currently have however suggests, in the manner previously stated, that ET must exist, New evidence might change this, but evidence which might do that is, in my view at least, extremely unlikely to ever materialise/exist. (Please note, this does not mean I would ignore or bury such evidence if I were ever to come across such evidence). The only constraint science has is that it must match with reality, (or with our best measurements of it) which is of course the fundamental problem with the supernatural, if it exists it would make a nonsense of trying to take measurements.

Originally posted by Number 6
The singly most important difference between humans and other animals is of course language. Our complex language has led to the ability to conceptualise and create the physical and mental world we today inhabit. Without language there would be no religion and no science. Init.

Close, the single most important difference is not language per say (dolphins for one look like having a language of reasonable sophistication and individual names) but something you can only have after you have developed a language and preferably also writing, Extelligence, the ability to amass, store and pass on knowledge, this allows the sum total of available knowledge to exceed the amount any one individual can know at any one time, it allows a person to work out how to do a task and write it down, and then anyone who wants to do this task need never again have to work it out for themselves so they can concentrate on solving new problems, each generation starting from where the last left off, not from the beginning again.

Originally posted by amannion
There's one big gaping flaw in this argument.
We don't know how easy or difficult life is to form on a planet, since we don't know how it formed here.
Until we have a working model of life's origins your probabilities will never be anything more than hope.

The point is the probability can be vastly small, but given the number of stars the probability of it having NEVER happened ANYWHERE else in the galaxy is basically zero (in other words the probability of ET is 1).

EDIT: and again if you want the full argument read the book, it is in my veiw well written.