Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-11 12:28:43

Oh, okay, I sort of figured that's what you meant. I can agree with that.

Bill White · 2003-02-12 11:15:07

clark - here is someone else who seems to be thinking along similiar lines to what yu have suggested:

Footnote 10: Transcendence and the Singularity
If the human race does not become extinct, it is plausibly predicted that it will eventually become something unrecognizably different from the human race as it exists today. Many future histories end with the human race achieving some kind of transcendence: Arthur C. Clarke has used this idea repeatedly. Such an end also provides a helpful narrative closure to a story about the future of humanity.
Some have predicted that this may be closer than we might think. In some of Vernor Vinge's books, the rapid development of computers and human-computer interaction has humanity achieving a transcendent "singularity" in the near future. Other authors, such as Iain M. Banks, have had this being the ultimate destiny of any intelligent race. The idea that transcendence will happen relatively soon also has the advantage of being an optimistic solution to the Fermi paradox, of why we are apparently alone in the Universe.

This quote is near the end of this article

And, more on Vernor Verge

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 12:09:48

Don't all societies have the inevitable non-conformist, though? It's hard to imagine a society where everyone is immortal not having 1) people who kill themselves, and 2) people who procreate anyway (perhaps mixed with a bit of 1).

Wouldn't these non-conformists, assuming the logic about immortals not populating the universe is valid, populate the universe anyway?

This was one of my primary arguments against primivitism, since people, along the ages, will have new ideas and so on, and will want to change how they live.

Palomar · 2003-02-12 12:14:07

Clark: Life is scarce, in the context of the entire universe.

*But we know so little about the universe. What part of the universe we have observed, can study (via telescope, radio telescope, infrared, etc., etc.) comprises just a minute fraction of the entire universe. Your statement is akin to someone examining the waterline on a beach and making assumptions about the entire ocean based on that waterline.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-02-12 12:21:43

Don't all societies have the inevitable non-conformist, though?

*If mythology reflects an answer, I'd say ::yes::. All mythologies of all cultures/societies contain at least one trickster and/or rebel in their (archetypal) pantheon...which ultimately prove to be beneficial to the culture/society, as they induce change, question authority (break up stasis), etc.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-02-12 13:10:42

Don't all societies have the inevitable non-conformist, though?

Perhaps, a better question though is "why" do socieites have non-comformists? What is the driving force behind their creation or development? If we can accurately identify these forces, we can mitigate, or prevent these forces from coming into play to begin with.

Conformity, and non-conformity are also a means of measurement, of value. "One of these things is not like the others..."

My understanding and speculation lead me to believe that non-comforists are the result of different approaches to similar problems. This is how we refine our ideas and our behaviors- indeed, it is more than likely a part of Evolution. So, back to the point at hand, if evolutionary theory becomes less of a driving force, then wouldn't the issue of non-comformity, or comfority be moot?

We must also think of comfority in the larger context of society- since comfority is measured by the ruler OF society (i.e, do most people wear socks to bed). If a species achieves the ability where the need for "society" is reduced, or rendered obsolete, can we really apply an idea of non-comfority or comfority to the situation?

Wouldn't these non-conformists, assuming the logic about immortals not populating the universe is valid, populate the universe anyway?

Perhaps, but then that leads back to the Fermi Paradox- if so, where are they? That's why I think the logic fails in assuming that "non-comforing" members of the species would go off and populate the universe.

This was one of my primary arguments against primivitism, since people, along the ages, will have new ideas and so on, and will want to change how they live.

Yes, people might- individuals. But at some point you would need a critical mass of individuals all agreeing on the same point. It seems the issue would be moot if each individual had the ability to live as they wanted already- conformity and non-conformity lose relevance if all we are talking about is single individuals. If you can provide for yourself without the need of others, you can live any way you want- but that is a far cry from a group of individuals deciding to live in concert, when they have no need for each other.

But we know so little about the universe. What part of the universe we have observed, can study (via telescope, radio telescope, infrared, etc., etc.) comprises just a minute fraction of the entire universe. Your statement is akin to someone examining the waterline on a beach and making assumptions about the entire ocean based on that waterline.

Fair enough, but I am willing to bet that the universe is more devoid of life than exsists in it. Just a point of view to bring an idea across in the conversation, nothing more.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:16:49

Well, personally, I think the concept that other species would 1) respect one another and 2) try to conceal their identity is just a strong an argument, if not stronger than the concept that species would simply not populate the universe because they've reached immortality, or some other state of existance where populating isn't necessary.

They both are speculation about the psychology of other beings, which in all likelihood are not like us at all. We can't assume anything which we don't have solid facts about; for instance, we can say pretty confidently that, in the candy store that is the universe, we won't have Vogon-style bastards who need to ?pave roads? or ?use up resources? or something silly along those lines.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:25:59

Well, personally, I think the concept that other species would 1) respect one another and 2) try to conceal their identity is just a strong an argument, if not stronger than the concept that species would simply not populate the universe because they've reached immortality, or some other state of existance where populating isn't necessary.

I can understand this point of view, but it leaves some questions.

Why would an alien species care if we knew they exsisted? Distance and physics protects them, what possible threat could we pose?

Perhaps they are protecting us bynot reevaling themselves. Well, why would they care? Let us develop our "own way"- well, now we are applying our own value system to these would be aliens, where do we decide that this value system is even remotely plausible? Star Trek?

Perhaps they don't communicate with us becuase we have nothing worthwhile to tell them, or they have nothing worthwhile to tell us.

I mean, what insight are we going to give an immortal species that can traverse the universe? I think we would be little more than another notch in the "personal experience" belt.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:45:44

Well, like you said, life is probably rare. It would be a rare opportunity for them to study origins (we'd haev to assume that they would be somewhat scientific, what with their ablity to reach immortality and travel into space). All species, even this magical, awesome, race of immortals, will still wish to know where they came from (unless they've managed to contact God or something).

The problem with your rebuttal(s), is that you're using human logic to define how another species will act or whatever.

For all we know, we are the result of these immortal beings! We're speculating in a realm which we don't deserve to speculate in, since it's full of so many unknowns.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:52:07

Nothing wrong with idle speculation.

The problem with my rebuttal is the same problem with your rebuttal the one I replied to).

We can't escape ourselves, eh?

Okay, so the species would have to be scientific of some sort. It would more than likely be shaped by evolutionary process similar to our own... right?

Now, perhaps they may wish to know where they came from, how would we help them in that quest? I don't think we can.

And of course you assume that they have a concept of "God" to begin with (more human world view).

And yes, we could be the result of them, but I had hoped to avoid that entire thread of thought, can't really learn anything there.

If having children was no longer a biological imperitive, and interaction with others was not neccessary becuase your needs and wants were all provided for, what would you do?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 15:09:32

clark, Earth is a haven for life! Of course we could give a scientific society information! Cataloging all of Earth's species until they can determine our origins would be quite a daunting, if not exciting, thing indeed.

If having children was no longer a biological imperitive, and interaction with others was not neccessary becuase your needs and wants were all provided for, what would you do?

Have a child every thousand years. Clone myself a couple of thousand times. Send mes off to the far reaches of the universe. And have them send back another one of me to tell me what he discovered. Terraform a planet on the far edges of the galaxy. Make it off limits to everyone but the various mes out there.

Then I'd have lots of nymphs, who would never age and would be my everlasting sex slaves. Until my sun burnt out and I had to move on...

Seriously clark, what kind of question is this? I don't think your argument is very strong. No one can know motivations! Simply because I have no ?reason? to have children, doesn't mean I won't.

Palomar · 2003-02-12 15:24:38

Then I'd have lots of nymphs, who would never age and would be my everlasting sex slaves. Until my sun burnt out and I had to move on...

*Hey. This sounds like a really good scenario to get adherents to a particular religious faith (name will go unmentioned) interested in space exploration...all those virgins and sex slaves, you know.

Josh Cryer, our resident James Bond?

Sex slaves? Hmmmm. I guess Josh wants to out-do Bond.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-02-12 15:30:48

clark, Earth is a haven for life! Of course we could give a scientific society information! Cataloging all of Earth's species until they can determine our origins would be quite a daunting, if not exciting, thing indeed.

You forget, it is exciting to US, at THIS time.

How exciting is all of this information though once we understand and have mastered the art of life itself?

Have a child every thousand years.

Why? For what purpose? To what end?

. Send mes off to the far reaches of the universe. And have them send back another one of me to tell me what he discovered.

Why? How does that further your own personal experience? You are effectivelty arguing that a species who has no need for others would simply invent a reason to need others. I don't think it is convincing enough.

Terraform a planet on the far edges of the galaxy. Make it off limits to everyone but the various mes out there.

Why? For what purpose? To what end? If you have the ability to be anywhere, go anywhere, why choose anyplace in particular?

Then I'd have lots of nymphs, who would never age and would be my everlasting sex slaves. Until my sun burnt out and I had to move on...

Perhaps, but again, to what end? Wouldn't boredom set in before a sun died?

? I don't think your argument is very strong. No one can know motivations! Simply because I have no ?reason? to have children, doesn't mean I won't.

But we have children solely because there is a reason to have them. We do everything based on reason, otherwise you're just crazy.

soph · 2003-02-12 15:31:05

clark, Earth is a haven for life! Of course we could give a scientific society information! Cataloging all of Earth's species until they can determine our origins would be quite a daunting, if not exciting, thing indeed.

What if our alien friends have been mapping Earth with more advanced equipment than we've mapped Mars with? Our experience shows that, even with Earth technology, you don't need humans to determine such details as soil composition, geology, and so on.

And what if Earth is not so unique, and our planet is just one of, say, a dozen that they've encountered like it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 15:49:56

Cindy,

Sex slaves? Hmmmm. I guess Josh wants to out-do Bond.

Yeah, well, with immortality comes stamina, or at least that's what I'm assuming here!

clark,

How exciting is all of this information though once we understand and have mastered the art of life itself?

True, perhaps so, but then, how would you have mastered the art of life itself, or at least, proven that you have, without having gone out into the cosmos?

I can have a hundred theories, but those theories are invalid until I can have some data to back them up.

You're talking about knowing everything, knowing the universe in all its forms. Even if we did know the basic building blocks of life, how do you know we, or aliens still wouldn't find interest in the various random forms that exist in the universe? For all we know they love art!

Why? For what purpose? To what end?

Because I want to have a family. So that I can share momments with them. So that they can have families and share momments with them.

Why? How does that further your own personal experience? You are effectivelty arguing that a species who has no need for others would simply invent a reason to need others.

Well, that's not true. Intelligence, indeed, life itself, is quite social (just look at intraspecies interaction). If we no longer needed others, we would be these static balls floating about in space. Indeed, this is why the concept of a singularity is boring to me.

What else is there to do, other than start familes, share experiences and so on? Travel about the universe?

I find it hard to grasp that a society which hasn't actually ventured out into the universe has become one with it or something.

I don't think it is convincing enough.

Likewise.

Why? For what purpose? To what end? If you have the ability to be anywhere, go anywhere, why choose anyplace in particular?

Because I like to be alone. Because it serves my desire to be alone.

You assume too much here, though. I don't have the ablity to be anywhere or go anywhere. I'm limited by things like, you know, the speed of light, and energy. I would chose the edge of the galaxy, because that's pretty much the furthest I could go with the energy requirements and the timescales I desire.

I would send off different mes, because I was under the assumption that we didn't know anything and everything, but were just ?merely immortal,? which would imply that we did still have things we would have yet to experience or whatever.

But since you've changed us to be this static ball of allknowing nothingness, then I guess the argument is moot.

Perhaps, but again, to what end? Wouldn't boredom set in before a sun died?

Who knows? If it did, then I could go off and explore some more, huh? But wait, we know everything and all things, so exploring is not in our best interest. We're better off being these static balls floating about being everything and nothing at the same time.

But we have children solely because there is a reason to have them. We do everything based on reason, otherwise you're just crazy.

Actually, in a lot of cases there are reasons to not have children. We have children because we want to have them, in some cases we have them when the reasons to have them are complete crap. Just look at all these young mothers out there who get knocked up intentionally.

Motivations aren't objective.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 15:54:32

soph, I was suggesting that as a scientific species, tehy would want to cataloug the history of the Earth. clark pretends like we could be all knowing, but how? How could a species ?know? the history of Earth? Would the history of Earth not interest them? Why not? Who can say what would interest a scientific race or not? Human scientists are interested in lots of things, others would consider ?uninteresting.?

You can't know everything about the universe without going out there. And if you're out there, then Fermi's paradox stands, and species simply don't contact us beacuse they want to take a more observational stance (they want to give us the same chance they assume other species like themselves gave them!). So clark's assumption that we could know everything is shortsighted.

clark · 2003-02-12 16:06:37

clark pretends like we could be all knowing, but how? How could a species ?know? the history of Earth?

No, I am saying that they wouldn't care. The things we marvel at are the product of our science- what we find marvelous may be thought to be mundane. Do you marvel at a television? A tube of toothpaste? The process of birth?

Would the history of Earth not interest them? Why not?

Why would it? If another intelligent species exsists, then the process that created earth would be duplicated somewhere else- within their experience.

What would be exciting about yet another planet, with yet another primitive species still trapped in the midst of evolutionary biological process? What would understanding of our plaent or eco system add to their exsisting knowledge? They can travel the universe- whihc measn they can more than likely utilize their entire solar system- we can contemplate terraforming now, imagine with their history and experience what they could do- how they would already have mastered the answers to our current questions.

What do we offer in this situation that really interests any other species? Why makes us so special or important?

I can have a hundred theories, but those theories are invalid until I can have some data to back them up.

But what does it matter if your theoris are invalid? Who did you need to prove them to? Why would you need to defend your criteria? Sure, maybe personal prefrence, but it is arbitrary.

You're talking about knowing everything, knowing the universe in all its forms.

No, I am looking at pure action without any perceivable or conceivable motivation.

We in large part are shaped by our environment- by reinforcers; positives and negative stimuli determine how we act in the future. Now, I am looking beyond this. Beyond outward motivation to cause action.

What is pure action like? When we become like God, what would we do?

having children is largely the result of evolution. We create rationaliztions for our behavior that give it the semblance of personal free will, but we are largely slaves to it. What happens when these forces that shape our behavior are removed? That is what i am trying to explore, and what I think will answer Fermi's paradox.

Why would you do something if you had no reason or motivation to do anything?

dicktice · 2003-02-12 17:31:50

All species, even this magical, awesome, race of immortals, will still wish to know where they came from (unless they've managed to contact God or something).

Since there are no detectable "others," how about: This magical, awesome, race of humans, will ... wish to know where they came from ... (We ARE pretty awesome, you know.) Time to pull up our collective socks and get on with it, because for the forseeable future, we're all we've got!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 18:09:30

What's the point? Once we reach this certain point, we'll simply have no ?reason? to and we can become static balls of knowledge!

:;):

clark · 2003-02-13 13:42:50

What's the point? Once we reach this certain point, we'll simply have no ?reason? to and we can become static balls of knowledge!

Which would explain the deafining silence of space...

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 14:15:39

Hmm, this assumes that all intelligence forms a singularity, though.

I thought we were originally discussing people who were just immortal. Sure, the logic behind stopping procreation and all that is sound, but it doesn't consider expansion. Say Earth holds 10 billion immortals. Why can't Mars hold 5 billion, Venus 5 billion, and the various planets around other solar systems hold billions, too?

What you did is inserted a lack of desire to expand, a lack of desire to discover and experience things, into your argument. Sure, it works, but it is realistic?

Having children isn't ?just? a case of propagate your genes. It's experiencing life. You're making it so that life, as we know it, no longer exists.

I find this hard to accept. It would be easier to accept the theory that there is only one or two intelligent species per galaxy, tops. Or that species destroy themselves when they reach certain capablities or something. Perhaps all species figure out (edit) fission, and blow themselves to bit! Perhaps many species don't make it past their world wars with nuclear ablities. No, it's much easier to accept that intelligence is just rare than it is to accept that a highly technological civilization doesn't go out into the cosmos because somehow, magically, before going out in the cosmos in the first place, they know everything and all the people within that society don't have a desire to...

clark · 2003-02-14 10:27:04

I thought we were originally discussing people who were just immortal. Sure, the logic behind stopping procreation and all that is sound, but it doesn't consider expansion.

You are immortal. Time no longer is meaningful to you as an individual. Why would you live on a planet?

This notion of expansion is a product of evolutionary forces favoring reproduction and expansion- yet what we are considering is the end of evolutionary forces guiding our development (or the species in question).

Individuals do not 'expand', societies do...

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-14 12:11:11

I am immortal. Do I stop caring for people? Do I stop imagining, do I stop desiring? You seem to suggest that immortals do. I would live on a planet because I want to. Living in a space ship is quite uncomfortable, especially since I am living almost forever.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-14 19:27:19

Time to make a nuisance of myself again.

You are immortal. Time no longer is meaningful to you as an individual. Why would you live on a planet?

What if humanity doesn't fundamentally change despite immortality and the mastery of space? Space travel is merely a technology, hardly something to alter our basic motivations. Immortality, aside from the potential to feed laziness and cowardice, doesn't seem like something that would necessarily alter our base drives.

In short, we may well live on planets because we like to look up and see sky. We like air that moves and carries the stink of life. We like standing on land rather than floor. Despite our advances, we will remain children of the Earth, attached to its grass and clouds and seas, not for rational reasons but because it is ingrained in the very core of our being.

dicktice · 2003-02-16 09:22:43

Hello, Cobra Commander? Planets will be hard to find, certainly none which can be "tailored" to human ecological needs and desires. Space habitats can do the same, given your motivations.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-02-11 12:28:43

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#52 2003-02-12 11:15:07

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#53 2003-02-12 12:09:48

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#54 2003-02-12 12:14:07

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#55 2003-02-12 12:21:43

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#56 2003-02-12 13:10:42

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#57 2003-02-12 14:16:49

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#58 2003-02-12 14:25:59

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#59 2003-02-12 14:45:44

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#60 2003-02-12 14:52:07

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#61 2003-02-12 15:09:32

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#62 2003-02-12 15:24:38

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#63 2003-02-12 15:30:48

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#64 2003-02-12 15:31:05

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#65 2003-02-12 15:49:56

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#66 2003-02-12 15:54:32

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#67 2003-02-12 16:06:37

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#68 2003-02-12 17:31:50

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#69 2003-02-12 18:09:30

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#70 2003-02-13 13:42:50

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#71 2003-02-13 14:15:39

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#72 2003-02-14 10:27:04

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#73 2003-02-14 12:11:11

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#74 2003-02-14 19:27:19

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

#75 2003-02-16 09:22:43

Re: Solution to Fermi's paradox? - an idea

Board footer