Intoscience

There is a stigma around aliens being a consideration for UAP sightings, some may say rightly so since there is no evidence to support the claims. Many hoax's and poor quality imaginary adds to this. I think its almost a shame, that "mud sticks" per say. My honest opinion I don't think any of the "other" is likely to be ET. But i'm open to the possibility. So i don't think it should ever be ignored. Show me the evidence!

My point is focus should be towards those which contribute the most. A blanket initiative is not only unfair but also not productive. If the UK reduces its contribution to zero then the total emissions will be 4% less, very difficult to achieve. A country that produces significantly more towards total global emissions may only need to reduce their total by say a 50% factor to make a much larger difference, something that maybe much easier to achieve. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, I'm a fan of energy saving initiatives. I promote and drive this in my company. But I'm against scaremongering propaganda tactics which may have a massive impact on the small person in the group. Sharks? Is that what you call people who's opinion you don't agree with? There are always 2 sides to every story the trick is to find a common ground.

Solar cell efficiency may have increased and cost per watt dropped. But its not a practical application that can be implemented for many sectors, and in many cases only reduces power consumption by a very small margin for a high investment. For our company to reduce our overall electrical power assumption from the national grid by 10% requires over 600 solar cell panels. These at full capacity will offer 10% of the total power requirements for our manufacturing process. The site cannot accommodate this system. we even enquired about renting an adjacent unused field to accommodate the panels but planning permission was refused. There are lots of initiatives that in principle maybe options but many in practical terms just aren't viable and/or you run in to road blocks which hinder opportunities such as planning or environmental protection legislation... I'm in agreement with you on this one. I find it very disturbing when the company owners propagate and seemingly support carbon reduction but don't advocate changing themselves. Our company owner is an avid activist who chairs many of the working groups for climate change. Yet she continues to jet set around the world, have numerous homes, takes a large salary and I'm sure her dividends. But In my position I get to see our finances and honestly regardless of her salary (which to be fair is quite modest compared to other company directors of similar size/turn overs) would make little difference to the investment required enable our company to reach net zero. the financial impact is already happening and is not going away. Talking to the financial director, she has high concerns and the current models suggest the company will fold within the next 3 years unless something radical happens. Just to be clear the total financial crisis is not solely down to investment in carbon net zero. there are many factors, some which I won't go into because it will just spark more adverse reaction. But it is a major factor that isn't going away and as yet there is no solution.

There seems to be differing reports out there on the exact figure. Most offering somewhere between 1%- 4%.

Interestingly the company I work for is desperately struggling to meet carbon reduction targets due to lack of finances. The government is making it very difficult to get funding for initiatives. I sit on many discussion boards within my industry and the trend is the same, even though we are all collaborating to try and road map a solution. Every single company will fail to meet the targets for 2050 or collapse trying to do so, so the 2040 is out of the question unless there is some radical improvement in cheap and accessible clean energy. So I'd say its more than just industry propaganda. I'm actually experiencing the consequences of this unrealistic ideology, people are and will lose jobs, companies are failing. That's just not true, I have spent the last 5 years investigating renewable energy for the company I work for. The investment is high, the payback is low and takes a long period of time. That's assuming its practical to implement, regulate and maintain. The truth?? are you kidding me. There has been back and forth on this issue for 50 years. The UK carbon emissions represent around 1% of the total global emissions. It's estimated that the current carbon emission reduction in total since 1990 is around 30%+ which is good. But what affect has this had on total global emissions? Nope, R&D investment in manufacturing is desperately under funded. Higher efficiencies experienced by manufacturers is being negated and the savings far out weighed by the investment in trying to achieve net zero.

A recent news alert from the UN is now pushing for carbon net zero to be brought forward from 2050 to 2040. Is this achievable, and is it going to solve the climate change issue if successful? There seems to be a lot of debate among scientists around this. I'm not sure the authorities approach of scare tactics (seemingly supported and dramatized by the media) is fair. The vast majority of people and certainly many poorer nations are being scared into taking action towards a goal which they cannot achieve, stating that if its not reached we are all doomed. People like Greta Thunberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg in my humble opinion don't help matters. She recently deleted a twitter message she posted back in 2018 where she stated that in 5 years time we will be all wiped out if we don't act now. No one (who has any reasonable sense) can argue that the climate is not changing. The evidence is there across the globe. If human generated carbon is a major factor in the acceleration of this, then sure it needs addressing. How, well I have no clue cause it seems that to achieve this with any real success, we would either have to heavily invest in cleaner energy technology very quickly, to a point where it is effect, cheap and easy to roll out. Or we radically reduce emissions such that it slows down the climate change. The problem with the second option is that no one can afford it and industry across the globe would collapse. So for me there are a few points that require focus. More in depth investigation to find irrefutable evidence that human carbon emissions is the key factor in climate change. Heavy investment in clean cheap accessible energy generation. Investment towards third world countries who emit high carbon emissions to help reduce this. Sensible achievable carbon reduction initiatives that are achievable by most without any major impact. Less scare mongering, tactics and more focus on educating people.

They should take them seriously. Whether they are of alien origin remains to be seen, but regardless. Anything that is unidentified and especially so if it appears to be of some technology, then it needs investigating at the highest level, with the most qualified persons working on it.

Why are you citing that I ever stated "thinking like us" You are misunderstanding me. Why would they/it have to have motivation in any way that resembles ours? the only one I can think of is the same for all "life" - Survival Survival It's not even about liking or disliking ants, you missed the point of the analogy. It doesn't have to be about whether we pissed them off or not. Its whether they value or notice us enough to care whether we exist or not.

This is where self awareness may play a role. It doesn't have to, to still pose a threat. We don't think like ants, but we may pose a threat to them wittingly or unwittingly so.

Self-awareness is important, also is the ability to consider values. If G.A.I becomes self learning then what ever we initially program into will be futile. A self-aware self learning entity, that is potentially smarter and more powerful than we are is a very concerning threat to humanity. This is what I meant by post humanity. If a smarter more advanced entity doesn't value human life then it will either do 1 of 3 things. 1. It will unwittingly eradicate human existence. 2. It will wittingly eradicate human existence. 3. It will just ignore human existence. If it does value human life then it may do 1 of 2 things. 1. It will ignore human existence. 2. It will aid in the survival of human existence.

It's not about, awareness. It's about the possibility of human extinction and what if any remnants of our existence survives and maybe even continues to prosper. Lets say for example we are successful in producing some form of G.A.I that is aware, or at least has the capability of consideration and replication/reproduction.. If we are never successful in leaving our planet and colonising others then we are inevitably going to become extinct. Unless we find a way of saving our planet, from the sun's inflation or preventing large meteorite strikes, then I see no alternative other than to move from Earth. All this assuming in the meantime we don't destruct ourselves or outgrow our resources or die from infection...

Yes, I'm rather fond of this idea, for a couple of reasons. It appears though not conclusive that we - a technological life form are a rare possibly anomaly amongst life in general. certainly looking at evolution on the Earth we are the latecomers and the odd ones out. The age of the universe though old from our perspective is still very young compared to its own life span. The universe could still be very much in its infancy in which case we could be very early to the party. So its most plausible that there is only one and we are it. Going with the A.I theme I feel this is a topic to be a more serious and mostly likely near future scenario to consider. Aliens, well if they are out there, how advanced are they, how far away are they, and what period of time do they/have existed in.

I have no problem dismissing ideas that are shown to be impossible. I have no problem filtering through ideas that maybe plausible but unlikely. For example FTL, our current understanding of physics shows FTL to be impossible. So based on this I would most likely dismiss anything that directly implies FTL. However there are ideas to find loop holes around this that maybe plausible given some high energy circumstances such as wormholes, space time curving, parallel timelines etc... all fanciful yes, granted, but not impossible. Ok, so why is the discussion of A.I advanced intelligence dismissible as being sci-fi? Why is the discussion of Alien intelligence dismissible as being sci-fi? Just to be clear when I state sci-fi in this context I mean - impossible fantasy - not what is currently unproven but plausible.

The problem is that anyone who puts their neck on the line to discuss these topics are ridiculed as nut jobs, fantasists or judged similarly. Another trend which i find rather odd, since Aliens are more than plausible given the vastness and age of the universe. A.I is developing at a rate which is alarming to some leaders in the field. If you are a scientist who believes in aliens or A.I sentience (or intelligence that is equal to humans at least) your are sneered at. Yet if you believe in god that's fine. I find is sad and ironic. I think Eric Weinstein talks about this attitude - Remain skeptical, but please remain openminded to possibilities that are plausible. Do you dismiss the idea of life beyond our planet and/or intelligent life beyond our planet?

Nope, I can't be sure but somehow I doubt human interaction hasn't changed so much in the past few hundred maybe thousands of years. Flat Earth, Earth at the centre of the solar system, etc... A.I becoming intelligent, life beyond our planet... No? This doesn't make any sense to me. The odds whether or not it may or may not happen doesn't dis include the subject from being a possibility and speculating on the what the consequences might or might not be. I never understood this dismissive skeptical attitude. Being skeptical is a good thing, being totally dismissive of plausible possibilities, seems rather an odd stance to me. Filtering through ideas to stack up the odds so focus remains on the most likely possibility makes perfect sense. But as we have often found even the rare and sometimes unpredictable happens also. I always refer back to a couple of adages - Never say never. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best and usually its somewhere in between. Ok, fair enough you are in a much better position than me to argue this. But by your own admission A.I "now". So do you think that it is quite possible and/or given current advancements AI in the near future may have the capability?

Depends on your definition of science fiction. If you want to choose every idea that is currently not doable but at some point in the future is plausible or maybe even possible then sure its all science fiction. I'm sure many scholars back in the day dismissed the ides of people in flying machines, devices that could communicate over thousands of miles, the ability to cook food in small devices in just a few minutes... any speculation about the future is going to based somewhat on your definition of science fiction. You seem very confident that A.I is never going to become so intelligent that it has the potential to dominate the human race. You are a computer programmer, so I respect your opinion on this matter. Honestly I hope you are right. And as you say its just for fun, I'm not advocating anything I'm merely speculating on what I believe are plausible, granted somewhat fantastical, possibilities for our future. i chose the speculation forum since this whole thread is based on speculation, personal opinion and plausible though possibly fanciful ideas. I respect your speculation, I shared the same and may possible flit back (I tend to on many of these subjects). Though I will point out. All our ideas are based on our experiences and our current understanding of science and available technology. Your speculation is based on (rightly so) this. We assume, A.I and/or Aliens would share our motives, abilities, intelligence... when we speculate skeptically.

Which is why I posted it in speculations and why i'm not trying to advocate anything specific. I was just writing down my current thoughts and open for discussion. If its a problem then feel free to close the thread. But in my mind, yes, its not current mainstream science but some may one day become so and there is good evidence to suggest this based on current technology development. Additionally during the discussion there's no reason why all the above and anything else can't be debunked, it may help clear up a few things for other readers. Yes, this is a very big sticking point especially so for human colonisation of distant places, even close by star systems with are current technology and understanding are thousands of years away. i often ponder this problem and I agree the current understanding of physics limits human ability to travel outside our solar system. So, I ponder solutions which maybe not ideal but may offer some hope. people consider generation star-ships, cryogenic incubation... I think in reality visitation will not come about by biological humans. i imagine probes, A.I or similar which can endure the harsh environments and operate for long periods of time. Time is a problem for humans because it is currently very limited. So to find a solution to galactic travel, there might be 4 possible options. We find the capability to extend human lives or consciousness. We find a way to travel FTL. We find a way to warp space-time. We discover new physics where there are extra dimension that can be utilised. All 4 seem ridiculously impossible, I agree. But there are people working on at least 2 of those solutions. I'm skeptical but remain open minded and interested.

Ok, 50 years was a bit conservative, agreed. I'm not talking about the capability to kill us, I'm talking about an intelligence of some form with the ability to do so with us having no means of controlling their/its decision or the outcome. The year I specified is irrelevant to my point. Ok lets go with 200 years ago if it makes everyone feel better. Why do I feel like I'm spending all my time defending a position rather than discuss the speculation/assumptions and possibilities, gees... What is so fantastical about considering A.I to evolving beyond expectations and beyond human intelligence? Genady has gave reasons why Genady thinks/believes that this is far away if at all possible. What is so fantastical to imagine life beyond Earth that is further advanced in science and technology than we currently are? Both are plausible based on the information we have to hand and the history that precedes us?

Yes, to us now it seems that way. 50 years ago the internet would seem much the same to them. This is my point entirely, and one which I'm keen to explore. I don't want to fall into an emotional trap of assuming that all we conceive is fantastical or fiction. Although many of which will turn out to be granted, history shows us this but some will go beyond any expectations and be totally unprecedented. Ok, I see this is a topic all of its own and many hours of debate among many disciplines of science and philosophy. Your reply is a very broad statement and not specific to the context I'm considering. To be fair to you, I cannot really describe in terms of any real definition of what I personally consider as human intelligence. But if I'm being specific in one aspect, then this would be the ability to reason, predict and react in such away that any engagement would be futile. As above, specific intelligence which could result in the demise of humanity?

Ok, I know you have an expert view on this due to your Masters in computer programming. So I appreciate your take. When you talk about human intelligence within this context what are you comparing to? also are you predicting that "human like" or greater intelligence is either not possible by a machine or so far in the future its not suitable to make predictions around?

Hi and welcome, Yes, it can be all very confusing and also wonderous! Someone will be along shortly who can give you a very detailed and accurate description of what light is and how it interacts with the environment and objects. But in brief light is a form of energy that comes in discreet packages called photons which in themselves have no mass. The colours and in fact all light both visible and nonvisible (to the naked eye) such as things like radio waves, microwaves, infra red etc.. have specific wave lengths across a wide spectrum. The individual colors that you see are the individual wave lengths of light across a narrow spectrum, and how light interacts with the medium it comes into contact with determines the wave length of the reflected photons. So in general when photons come into contact with an object they get scattered in different directions and at different (wave lengths) the frequencies of photons your eyes are able collect sit within certain band width that your brain can then build a picture from this. (quite amazing really!) Just to add since photons have no physical size in terms of how you imagine particles, they are not like the particles of gas and other matter which you imagine them to be.

Yes, true, maybe so... Though as history has shown us, predictions about the future are often over or under egged and many times unprecedented. Would you agree or not that A.I is developing at a rate such that the timeline predicts imminent intelligence versatility performance beyond human capability? If no why not and if so how long before such?

Very clever, I'm amazed by the talents of people. Art can be a representation of their talent and an expression of their imagination. I'm always in awe of such.

Fine, you are making an assumption based on your own ideas/beliefs/understanding. I'm doing the same to a degree, though on first appearance it may seem rather fanciful. One could easily imagine going back 100 years with an example of current technology, it would seem like magic or beyond understanding to that generation.

Does it have to be 1000 years from now to consider implications of imminently pending technological advancement that has the potential for so much change? Do you think that such is beyond your life or your children's life? In addition what happened 10,000 years ago did have an impact on your life today. knowing the evolution that went before to result in your life today is and can be useful. You don't require personal relation to understand or feel/observe the effects. Why does it beg this question? The question it might beg is - who or what will be/is the supreme leader, collectively or singularly speaking?