studiot

Yes but this thread is not about space travel alone. Communication alone may be possible over some of the distances involved. I wouldn't care if some useful new maths theorem or a proper cure for Covid, was bequeathed to me by some little green andromodean or my next door neighbour in Somerset. Incidentally did you see that BBC program about Pluto ? It has some amazing implications for Chemistry.

Why do old farts like you and I try to communicate and pass on 3/4 of a lifetimes learning with other, younger people ? There is much more to it than you seem to be making out, especially when you break it down. Why for instance did the proto polynesians set out into the wide blue yonder of the Pacific ? Columbus was looking for a civilisation when he stumbled over your own land. Why have we been we searching Antarctica for more than a century, with no expectation of any civilisation ? And why did you consider my other comments less worthy of comment, since they are totally scientific?

Well I don't recall joining in with this thread before but having read the discussion so far I have a few observations. 1) The title is interesting "Nobody out there cares about us" Yet there has been quite a bit of discussion along the lines of noting that our species has undertaken a great deal of exploration, not just at one point in time but for a long period of time. Clearly we care, so why wouldn't at least some other species care as well ? 2) The timescales discussed are interesting. Interesting because there is a tacit assumption that the timescales are similar to our own. After watching the BBC programme on the latest developments concerning Pluto it has occurred to me that because sunlight is so much weaker at plutonic distances life in general and intelligent life in particular will take longer to develop there so that development has yet to happen. The reason that Pluto has the most astounding red colour is even more astounding than the colour.

Does your opinion run to responding to the comments of other members ?

Doesn't that view simply introduce another poorly defined term/concept ? IMHO there are already have too many such concepts in this thread, particularly consciousness itself. There is already a current thread about 'artificial' consciousness which would seem to imply that some at least think that life is not necessary, whatever definition of life is chosen.

Thank you for wasting my time. I tried to have a civilised non vindictive conversation, but now I'm done here.

I would agree with this point of view. However I disagree with the following statement. I think the pecking order is quite the reverse. The exact nature of consciousness is very difficult to pin down and I am not sure I can do that. But what I understand about awareness is that it is definitely a graduated quality on a measurable scale and appropriate technicians do this all the time, day in day out. Further this graduation is partly at least under the control of the subject who must be 'conscious', whatever that means. Equally if that subject is not conscious she will be unable to be aware of many things, again in a scientifically measurable manner.

Thank you for this short post, it encapsulates beautifully what I am saying is wrong with your discussion style. I don't know why other members seem to have given up trying to hold a discussion with you, but this may be part of their reason. Firstly a classic attempt to wriggle out of another member's point by trying to change the subject and not answer directly. Secondly further demonstration of your continued use of too general (all embracing or absolute) statements. Science/Maths has found over the years that, even if there are a limited number counterexamples, such situations are best handled by 'weak and strong' laws or 'nearly all' laws. You will be unable to make progress with your ideas (which may have some value) if you flatly refuse to modify them in the light of comments by other thinking souls. In respect of artificial consciousness, personally I am unable to show that it can't arise by accident, rather than design. Of the comparable situations I know about, I have 3 particular cases in mind. Firstly what Science knows about chemical reaction kinetics. Secondly the recent revelations about Pluto and why it is bright red. Thirdly an SF short story about the 'Corps of Unorthodox Engineers' and the accidental generation of intelligable radio signals. In all these cases design is not needed, so the artificial in your 'artificial' consciousness is not needed. For if consciousness can arise from random natural causes, then some entity (including us) could choose to use these same processes to intentionally reproduces these effects.

Then you simply haven't studied any science whatsoever. This is a Science website. Simple simple class machines, including the wedge, are studied by 12 ans 13 year olds in school. Here is a pdf of a class experiment. https://cdn.images.fecom-media.com/FE00015525/documents/Simple+Machine+wedge.pdf If you want to lay down the law on technical matters, please come properly equipped.

Perhaps you should recast your speculation ? I can't see the remotest correspondence between number theory and all this physics, speculatory or otherwise.

Why is anyone suprised that in an Edmonton, Alberta, winter they use more heating than in Edmond, Oklahoma or that they drive further to meet other folks or just go shopping, considering the difference in population density ?

I'm not clear what your point, question or stance is here. Energy is a property. There are several kinds of energy. What kind of energy does an electron possess, orbital or otherwise ? Or are you denying the existence of an electron ?

You have persistently responded to points put to you by repeating stuff about matters not put to you, instead of addressing the points themselves. As I have not commented on this part of your thesis I find it counterproductive to be addressed in this way. Most machines are constructed for a purpose and therefore may be said to be designed or programmed. This has never been in dispute. But this is not the case for all machines and it is these machine that arise by accident not by design that I am taking as counterexamples to your claim that all machines are designed. Constructs are a wider class of object, and again most are 'constructed' by design. But again some arise by accident. And some of these accidental constructs can become machines by a further accident. For example say I cut off a designed length of plank from a random length. The offcut is an accidental construct and not, in general a machine. If, however the end of the wood is damaged so the offcut comes in pieces, then one or more of those pieces could be wedge shaped. A wedge is a primitive machine. So I have a randomly generated machine that I did not intend or design.

I see you have given up trying to defend your misapplication of the first order logic law of the excluded middle. Instead you are using the old trick of replying to several questions with the same answer. I did not introduce machines. Quite the reverse. Machines are constructed for a purpose, not question and there never has been. Call that a program if you wish. But not all constructs are machines and I am referring to those that are not machines. So programs are totally irrelevent to my questions. Since you so rudely demand that I look up what a machine is here is the definition I was taught in school and still holds sway today. A machine is a device for doing work. This is pure Physics. I will allow you a wider definition however, since you have posted in Philosophy. Please insert you preferred wider definition at this point.

Small niggle, but I like the general line of thinking. +1 How is the monitor conscious of not being powered ?

It has to do with this claim Since I note you have just joined, be aware that our anti spam measures include limiting the number of posts to 5 in the first 24 hours for new members. I see that you have one of these left so please don't wast it replying to me quickly, but take time to think about it. If the force N was not the same strength as the force S would that not violate conservation of energy ?

Which do you think is stronger N or S ?

I said nothing whatsoever about programming. Quite the reverse my thesis has always been that you have not demonstrated and discounted a random occurrence as impossible. I regard a random occurrence as an unprogrammed/programmable or not programmed/programmable occurrence. By introducing a program, you have assumed (in part) what you set out to proove. As to your attempt to avoid the issue of your own actual words which I quote, yet again. I said, first quite subtly, and then not so subtly that you should go away and look up the conditions of applicability of your 'law'. I even offered a suggstion as to the part of General Philosophy to look in, since this is where you have started this thread.

I did. See the entire rest of the article. That's rhetoric until you show me exactly what's wrong with my argumentation. I already told you exactly what was wrong with your argument, although I am not bound to. The onus of proof lies with the proposer, not the listener. However I will repeat my statement that you tried to misapply first order logic. This law ( also called the law of the excluded middle) is derived from more fundamental axioms which are what you have actually tried to misapply, notably The axiom schema of specification. In set terminology this axioms prevents Russell and other similar paradoxes by defining a 'restriction'. The law you refer to is not and never can be absolute.

I'm glad you didn't waste our time with a video that only looks at one aspect. Sport has added dimensions to the usual nature/nurture discussion. You also need a longer memory and a wider appreciation of sport than your list. Who does well seems to go in cycles and is also influenced by who sets the rules / makes the measurements and the environment of all the competing would be sports men and women. For example you mentioned swimming. I would expect that warm water pearl divers would win that sport (if it were a sport) not europeans. But who has the most swimming pools to race in and the best technology low friction swimsuits ?

With carbon frameworks, we have only just begun to scratch the surface of possibilities of chemical combination for making large molecules. There is nothing wrong with boron, except we are less familiar with it. https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i30/Boron-chemistry-branches.html Which brings in a secon possibility. Mostly we have concentrated on carbon frameworks, but more recently (last 50 years or so ) we have begun understanding and using mixed element frameworks. There is nothing sacred about having all the elements in a framework the same. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijch.201800085

Just to note that demonstrating some task to be impossible can be done without contorted logical reasoning. Thank you Chad Orzel - always worth reading his stuff.

You need far more than first order logic to support your point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61723806

The AI has landed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61710706