Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence.

Page 20 of 25 [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 25  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

SuperApsie
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 482
Location: Athens, Greece

22 Nov 2010, 8:30 am

Life is a deadly disease


_________________
I came, I saw, I conquered, now I want to leave
Forgetting to visit the chat is a capital Aspie sin: http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.html?name=ChatRoom


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Nov 2010, 4:24 pm

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Sand wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Sand wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
...so that the universe to experience itself subjectively. See, I did it in a half a sentence.


The universe doesn't have a self anymore than a rock has a self.
Aren't you a self, and aren't you a part of the universe?


A spare tire is not an automobile, a tooth is not a crocodile, I am not the universe.


That's overly reductionist, and a car wouldn't function without a tire, and the crocodile wouldn't be whole and functional without the tooth. Were less like a peripheral organ and more like a collection of neurons. We give the universe more self reflection than it would otherwise have if we weren't here.


Unfortunately you suffer from the Roquefort syndrome. Humans and life itself are about as significant to the universe as the bacteria on a slice of Roquefort cheese in some refrigerator in Manchuria is significant to the eruption of a volcano on a planet that revolves on a star five million light years on the other side of the galaxy.


Then account for the failure of the Drake equation?

what do you mean, "failure"?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Nov 2010, 6:10 pm

LKL wrote:
91 wrote:

Then account for the failure of the Drake equation?

what do you mean, "failure"?


The Drake Equation in nonsense. Several of its terms cannot be measured.

ruveyn



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Nov 2010, 11:37 pm

b9 wrote:
"life" is a sentence


and when we have completed our sentence we are free to go.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Nov 2010, 12:59 am

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
91 wrote:

Then account for the failure of the Drake equation?

what do you mean, "failure"?


The Drake Equation in nonsense. Several of its terms cannot be measured.

ruveyn


The equation's utility is as a tool for speculation. In that sense, it is quite successful.
In additon, as technology progresses, the factors of the equation are and will become more measurable; for example, the Kepler telescope is rapidly showing that the number of planets in the universe is much higher than most previous estimates have allowed for.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Nov 2010, 1:16 am

Sand wrote:
The Drake equation is speculative BS. You cannot pull actuality out of a theoretical magic hat.


Ahh, Sand you can always be relied on to make comments like these.

LKL wrote:
The equation's utility is as a tool for speculation. In that sense, it is quite successful.
In additon, as technology progresses, the factors of the equation are and will become more measurable; for example, the Kepler telescope is rapidly showing that the number of planets in the universe is much higher than most previous estimates have allowed for.


Well a planet alone is not the only thing needed in order to sustain complex life. If our place in the universe is to be mundane, then the Earth must exist in a way that does not escape a reasonable probability of its existence. That measure is subjective, but so is the value of importance.

The reason for the failure of the Drake equation is Fermi’s Paradox. That complex life should be more common based on our estimates. For example Alan Boss of the Carnagie Institute for Science estimates that there should be around 100 billion terrestrial planets in our galaxy. Based on those sort of numbers it seems we should have seen evidence of complex life beyond ourselves.

Now even using a pretty conservative technological trajectory some sort of species should have reached advanced technology by now (unless we are the first, in which case we are far from mundane).

Also if one uses the Rare Earth Equation, which is still quite conservative (using a one in ten probability), the probability of intelligent life outside of us is quite small. Based on those projections it would take billions of terrestrial worlds in order to get only a few technological species.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Nov 2010, 1:52 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
The Drake equation is speculative BS. You cannot pull actuality out of a theoretical magic hat.


Ahh, Sand you can always be relied on to make comments like these.

LKL wrote:
The equation's utility is as a tool for speculation. In that sense, it is quite successful.
In additon, as technology progresses, the factors of the equation are and will become more measurable; for example, the Kepler telescope is rapidly showing that the number of planets in the universe is much higher than most previous estimates have allowed for.


Well a planet alone is not the only thing needed in order to sustain complex life. If our place in the universe is to be mundane, then the Earth must exist in a way that does not escape a reasonable probability of its existence. That measure is subjective, but so is the value of importance.

The reason for the failure of the Drake equation is Fermi’s Paradox. That complex life should be more common based on our estimates. For example Alan Boss of the Carnagie Institute for Science estimates that there should be around 100 billion terrestrial planets in our galaxy. Based on those sort of numbers it seems we should have seen evidence of complex life beyond ourselves.

Now even using a pretty conservative technological trajectory some sort of species should have reached advanced technology by now (unless we are the first, in which case we are far from mundane).

Also if one uses the Rare Earth Equation, which is still quite conservative (using a one in ten probability), the probability of intelligent life outside of us is quite small. Based on those projections it would take billions of terrestrial worlds in order to get only a few technological species.


And I will continue to make that type of comment until you begin to post an evidence of contemplative intellect. Humanity has, only in the past couple of hundred years, started to apply its intellectual capacity freed somewhat from the oppressive yoke of religious idiocies. That period is such a negligible time span that it's occurrence coincidentally even in the tiny sector of the universe we occupy in another life bearing planet is almost non-existent. Any astral messages of worth would most likely be unanswerable considering the immensity of distances between the stars and the limited speed of light. Vague speculations of dismal quality such as the Drake equation may seem reasonable to a gullible mind that can be so easily captured by religious fantasy but to someone who has at least two capable neurons active in his central nervous system it is obvious nonsense.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Nov 2010, 2:08 am

Sand wrote:
And I will continue to make that type of comment until you begin to post an evidence of contemplative intellect. Humanity has, only in the past couple of hundred years, started to apply its intellectual capacity freed somewhat from the oppressive yoke of religious idiocies. That period is such a negligible time span that it's occurrence coincidentally even in the tiny sector of the universe we occupy in another life bearing planet is almost non-existent. Any astral messages of worth would most likely be unanswerable considering the immensity of distances between the stars and the limited speed of light. Vague speculations of dismal quality such as the Drake equation may seem reasonable to a gullible mind that can be so easily captured by religious fantasy but to someone who has at least two capable neurons active in his central nervous system it is obvious nonsense.


If a religious person made a statement similar to the on you just made, you and half the people on this forum would blow a gasket. You are living proof of the double standard you set.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Nov 2010, 2:22 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
And I will continue to make that type of comment until you begin to post an evidence of contemplative intellect. Humanity has, only in the past couple of hundred years, started to apply its intellectual capacity freed somewhat from the oppressive yoke of religious idiocies. That period is such a negligible time span that it's occurrence coincidentally even in the tiny sector of the universe we occupy in another life bearing planet is almost non-existent. Any astral messages of worth would most likely be unanswerable considering the immensity of distances between the stars and the limited speed of light. Vague speculations of dismal quality such as the Drake equation may seem reasonable to a gullible mind that can be so easily captured by religious fantasy but to someone who has at least two capable neurons active in his central nervous system it is obvious nonsense.


If a religious person made a statement similar to the on you just made, you and half the people on this forum would blow a gasket. You are living proof of the double standard you set.


Not at all. That you can look with immense approval and delight at the current state of the world is a fine indication of how accurate your judgment is.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Nov 2010, 2:25 am

Sand wrote:
Not at all. That you can look with immense approval and delight at the current state of the world is a fine indication of how accurate your judgment is.


Now your putting words in my mouth.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Nov 2010, 2:32 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all. That you can look with immense approval and delight at the current state of the world is a fine indication of how accurate your judgment is.


Now your putting words in my mouth.


Since your gasket seems unblown I can only conclude you are not a religious person by your statement. So much for trusting your integrity.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Nov 2010, 2:34 am

Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all. That you can look with immense approval and delight at the current state of the world is a fine indication of how accurate your judgment is.


Now your putting words in my mouth.


Since your gasket seems unblown I can only conclude you are not a religious person by your statement. So much for trusting your integrity.


Please explain your logic to me.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Nov 2010, 2:38 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all. That you can look with immense approval and delight at the current state of the world is a fine indication of how accurate your judgment is.


Now your putting words in my mouth.


Since your gasket seems unblown I can only conclude you are not a religious person by your statement. So much for trusting your integrity.


Please explain your logic to me.


Judging from your posts I have to say, sadly, it is obviously beyond you.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Nov 2010, 2:45 am

Yes sand, your justified in disliking religious people for believing what they do. Because you are an atheist you are so much more intelligent then all of us silly people who believe in God. :roll:

Now what I said still stands. If a religious person used the kind of logic you just did, you would react very badly.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Nov 2010, 3:06 am

91 wrote:
Yes sand, your justified in disliking religious people for believing what they do. Because you are an atheist you are so much more intelligent then all of us silly people who believe in God. :roll:

Now what I said still stands. If a religious person used the kind of logic you just did, you would react very badly.


You seem to be crediting me with intellect. I said nothing in that quarter. Since your mind and mine find no common ground and your responses to my posts are neither on point nor productive this interaction fails to make sense.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Nov 2010, 3:49 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
The Drake equation is speculative BS. You cannot pull actuality out of a theoretical magic hat.


Ahh, Sand you can always be relied on to make comments like these.

LKL wrote:
The equation's utility is as a tool for speculation. In that sense, it is quite successful.
In additon, as technology progresses, the factors of the equation are and will become more measurable; for example, the Kepler telescope is rapidly showing that the number of planets in the universe is much higher than most previous estimates have allowed for.


Well a planet alone is not the only thing needed in order to sustain complex life.

Well, duh. That's why the equation has factors other than planetary existence in it.

Quote:
The reason for the failure of the Drake equation is Fermi’s Paradox.

Fermi's paradox does not invalidate the utility of the Drake equation. All the equation says is that the values of the various qualities necessary must be such that the number of sapient species in the universe comes out to at least one - because we know that we, ourselves, exist. Fermi's paradox only suggests that the values are not so large that the number of sapient species is so large that we have dozens within just a few light-years (or, at least, not ones that are capable of producing signals that we could pick up).

Quote:
That complex life should be more common based on our estimates. For example Alan Boss of the Carnagie Institute for Science estimates that there should be around 100 billion terrestrial planets in our galaxy. Based on those sort of numbers it seems we should have seen evidence of complex life beyond ourselves.

Honey, those estimates are made using the Drake equation. The fact that some researchers plug numbers into the equation and get an unlikely result means that their numbers are wrong, not that there's a problem with the equation.

Quote:
Also if one uses the Rare Earth Equation, which is still quite conservative (using a one in ten probability), the probability of intelligent life outside of us is quite small. Based on those projections it would take billions of terrestrial worlds in order to get only a few technological species.


Take a look at the Hubble deep field photographs sometime. :)