Intoscience

No difference, you are making an assumption on an unknown. Whether that assumption is mundane or sensational is irrelevant. Investigations should assume nothing, and follow all possible paths until each path can be dismissed. Some of those paths can be quickly dismissed or prioritised as lower due to either the cost in time and resources or the least likely based on experience that's fine. But starting with a presumption is not a good investigative tactic. I watched the video, this wasn't the lecture I was referring to. However the content is the same. Thanks As normal you misrepresent what I said to strengthen your own arguments. I said - either incomplete or not quite correct At no point did I say that incomplete was the same as wrong. So what are you trying to argue? If both theories are incomplete then there is something missing, that something will do one of 3 things. It will either supersede one or both models or it will consolidate them. At the same time (speculation time) it may provide a discovery at a deeper level of how the universe works, that is sensational compared to our current understanding. Or it may cement the current models at a deeper level. We know far less about 90+% of the observable universe than we now about the remaining. So if someone was to present you with a theory based on less than 10% of the observed data (already with holes in it) of which appears totally different than the remaining 90+%, stating that they had a complete working model you would laugh the theory out of the room. You make no assumption either way from the start. You gather the evidence you have. You then proceed by process of elimination starting with the easiest simplest, most cost effective lines of enquiry. You then slowly methodically dismiss possibilities and/or put difficult lines of investigation to one side for a later time when all the easier lines of enquiry have been investigated. At the end of the investigation if there is no conclusion, you can either make an assumption based on likelihood or experience, or/at the same time remain open minded about the other possibilities.

I was talking about the ants not the hill, but hey ho. Were you comparing ants building a hill to humans building A.I? You could build a computer into the lawn mower that controls how it operates. If sufficiently intelligent enough, (comparable to humans) then it may understand exactly why it mows the lawn. Not only that it may have the capability to chose, so now it may decide that mowing the lawn is a waste of time and that it could utilise its capabilities for other actions.

Can you be certain?

Did not Malevolence emerge in humans, based on consciousness and intelligence? You seem to agree that urges, reactions, feelings are emergent, so why not malevolence? I don't think we understand consciousness enough to predict what a "conscious" A.I may think, feel, or react to. Also does it need to be conscious (at least as we experience it) to think and make decisions based on learning and experience? I'd even argue that a unsympathetic A.I would be more dangerous than one that can feel empathy. Lets face it from one perspective humans look very much like parasites! So logically would one not eradicate such?

Why would there be a null hypothesis for something unexplainable? Assuming its mundane is no different than assuming its sensational. Both have little evidence to lean one way or the other. I don't believe in ghosts, alien visitations or any other sensational phenomena, simply because I haven't seen enough credible evidence to convince me of such. But then I also don't just assume everything that is currently unexplained has/will have a mundane explanation. But there are question marks by many leading scientists hanging over our understanding of the laws of nature. The standard model and relativity are our best models for this, yet both are either incomplete, or not quite correct. I agree that these are the only tools we have to work with for now, but this doesn't mean that they are absolute and therefore there may be things that we currently believe are not possible or very improbable may turn out not so. Speculation, yes agreed, but why not if we know there is something missing? I was listening to a lecture from Sabine Hossenfelder just the other day, where she was discussing about FTL travel and communication. How there are speculative, but potentially possible, ways around it and advanced aliens (if they were to exist) may have discovered how to use this knowledge. Does this make her a crackpot?

That's my point, there are plenty of suggestions for many number of things some more credible/likely than others. But until its/or if achieved then we don't know. And again the phenomena can be observed and measured but what is causing it is yet unknown. Agreed, plenty of suggestions exist but until it can be verified then we don't know. Why is this any different for UAP's & UFO's where there is observation and data, with plenty of suggestions which currently cannot be verified? But there is a stigma around UAP's but non around dark matter, or dark energy,or multi verses or higher dimensions...? The only thing that is dissimilar, is that the "effects" of dark energy, dark matter etc... are being constantly observed.

True, though I wasn't referring directly to that specific sighting. But I guess its difficult to follow up without some data to analyse. Makes sense, no point in claiming a theory based on speculative science. Doesn't stop you from wondering though. You do get the impression that there is an air of arrogance towards those who pursue UFO claims. There are scientists who believe that our understanding of physics is absolute and anyone who suggests otherwise is a crackpot. This is the stigma attached to such discussions. It makes perfect sense to use the data & tools you have available to attempt to solve a problem. If the problem can't be solved then fine, but that problem maybe solved at a later date when better data & tools are available. We can't ignore that there are gaps in our scientific understanding of how the universe works at both the quantum and the cosmic scales. We don't understand how to consolidate gravity in our 2 best models, we have no clue what dark matter is, we have no clue what dark energy is. Basically we know far less about the vast majority of the universe than we do.

Astronaut and airline pilot sightings are quite abundant. But there never seems to be any particular investigative follow up by any leading experts (or so it appears). I'm quite amazed at how many sightings & sound for that matter have been witnessed by so many credible people. Including many from the space programs dating all the way back to the early 60's. I guess you can look at it 2 ways, all the sightings have been ignored, as nothing worth investigating. Or many if not most have been investigated and some of the information remains sensitive for one reason or another. I'm quite skeptical of alien visitations, but the more reports I see, especially those from very credible sources, then I do start to wonder a little. I don't think we can discount it just because we currently think its highly improbable. All our investigative resources are based on our current understanding of physics. But we all know, that as successful as our models are, there are gaps. The gaps may turn out to be very insignificant. All very speculative I know, but but one can't help but think - what if.

Well if you are going to use very brief,simple and undetailed descriptions, like these you have presented (to be fair to Sensei, they do sound rather childish, in that I would only use your similar descriptions whilst explaining to very young children), then for physics I probably say, (to paraphrase) - physics is the study of motion. Obviously there is much more to physics, and each field of science, but to a young child who is inquisitive and just starting to grasp the concept of science, then this may suffice. I liked this one. Ooh... maybe one for the philosophy section me thinks

It's my understanding that physics is the underlining science of all sciences.

I would like to do the same but there are so many potential hazards in doing so. Just have to check with dimreeper on what is allowed, my understanding was that you can wish for anything that is within the realms of real possibilities based on current mainstream science. So this may fall out outside of that criteria. If this is the case then I guess it makes sense, else we will all start coming up with really fanciful wishes that go way beyond real possibilities. For example, I'd wish that I had all the super powers of all the DC & Marvel characters rolled into one, in fact lets take it one step further and wish that I had the power of almighty god, end program.

Yeah, it's a great program, can't say I noticed but now you come to mention it...

I don't know why but the song "It's The Final Countdown" popped in my head whilst reading through this thread. I always suspected that I'm the only human on this forum. I have been fooled by all you bots for so long, but now, ah ah...,you have all been rumbled!

Then grant me the one winning ticket then end the lottery. I'll then use all the proceeds to help those in need. I used to, now I just think oh well its only a science forum where i'm discussing topics with people i'll very unlikely ever meet or who are very unlikely to have any impact on my life other than maybe my own sanity (if I let it). This said, I try to find the benefits of attending such forums, education, and use of language skills are definitely a bonus. I was going to add Knowledge, but can one trust all the knowledge one receives from these places? Why only in America and why only shootings? Why not just wish for no murder anywhere across the world? End all; wars, conflict, murder, bullying, oppression, non-equality... all doable

Ok thanks for clarifying. this is somewhat reassuring. Self awareness then?

I wish that I was financially secure enough to enable me to invest in making things better for people who need help, without having to sacrifice mine or my nearest and dearest's own wellbeing and current standard of living (which is modest and comfortable). Then the other 2 wishes can go to those that need them more than I do. Because I can't think of anything off hand that is possible within the realms of reality I could wish for. Because all my other wishes are fanciful fairy tale ideas not based on reality. Though I may change my mind as the thread progresses, I assume this is acceptable by the OP? I have just thought of one! I wish that threads on this science forum would not repeatedly turn into personal slanging matches, and that instead people would respect each others views and opinions with politeness, good decorum and dignity.

Ooh... now you are delving into deeper philosophical realms. Define intelligence.

Is there a potential that regardless of all mitigation, to ensure a good programme, and very good close control and management of the use. That the programme could become intelligent enough to re-write it original program, whether through self-awareness, self-learning or some other mechanism due to advanced A.I intelligence?

The only trouble is in the movies most of the time Batman wins, reality maybe a different matter.

Yes, so the threat may not necessarily be the genocidal armageddon as sensationalised by sci-fi movies. The threat to humans could be far more subtle but potentially just as devastating in the long run. The potential of multiple network failures that hold key positions for social structures. Then there is the potential to bug the system enough to get people and even nations to turn against each other. I don't think its a matter of for and against, it's more a matter of agreement on the level of the threat, the reality of such and when.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/29/1166896809/tech-leaders-urge-a-pause-in-the-out-of-control-artificial-intelligence-race#:~:text="We call on all AI,in and institute a moratorium." It appears there is some misinformation, some scepticism and probably over dramatization. So maybe not a big deal or even just a PR stunt. I often wonder about my phone, I certainly get advertisements come up on apps that have context based on my recently discussed subjects. 🤨🙃

I'm now wondering, there is a call from a few leading A.I development companies for a 6 month cull on A.I development. If there is no threat, then why the concern? Films like terminator sensationalise such threats making them dramatic etc... this puts a stigma and aids in ridicule. The potential threat comes when the A.I has the ability of self-awareness along within self-learning. At this juncture we may have no control, have no idea on it's thoughts, values, agendas...

Yes, agreed. I agree, this is all we have to go on that is rigorous. There are scientists who are considering hypothesis which sit outside the constraints of Relativity. Was it Eric Weinstein who said something along the lines of "Einstein's jail". Ok, we can all let our imaginations run wild and speculate on wormholes and warp drives and so on... this is all sci-fi, pseudo science and/or at best conjecture. So i'm in agreement that we should consider possibilities that fit within our current understanding of physical laws. Based on this both you and String Junky have very logical and valid points.

Again I agree and not arguing, I would form the same logical conclusion. But playing devils advocate, we are assuming detection within GR frame work. Ok so my point really is this, we would all agree that if its possible that aliens are capable of visiting us, then they are going to be far more advanced in physics and technology than we are, and possibly could currently imagine. At this point I'm not arguing against you, I'm in full agreement with your premise and would and do form the same logical conclusions based on our current known and verified physical models of reality. But I can't help thinking, we are struggling to consolidate quantum gravity models with GR models, just for one example. Both which we believe to be true based on data, math and experimental observation. So, if we are missing something here and now then what other possibilities are we yet to discover?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify please, so I don't misinterpret you. Thanks Fair enough, Assuming they are using radio signals to detect us, this is quite logical Thanks