Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Ants and Aliens

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
 [ 71 posts ] 
Ants and Aliens
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

For me, any talk about alien civilizations needs to start with an understanding of the assumptions we're employing prior to any sweeping statements, so that we see how one follows from holding the other.

As always, the first place to start therefore is the Drake Equation:

http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L

N = The number of broadcasting civilizations.
R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy
fp = Fraction of stars that form planets
ne = Average number of habitable planets per star
fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges
fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves
fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
L = Years a civilization remains detectable


A lot of people misunderstand the point of the Drake Equation - it's role is really to teach us non-experts about the factors in play which would influence the number of technological civilizations. Truthfully, you could add a lot more categories. Similarly, if we find numerous intelligent technological civilizations in the future, we might find that some of these categories hold much less weight than we've placed on them.

But still a good place to start.

I like this interactive version: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012082 ... rlds-exist

Because it doesn't force each user to rely on their own ignorance, but also offers a suggestion based on direct observation and expertise.

I personally tend to get anywhere between 1 and 5 currently active technological civilizations when I input my numbers, and I don't think I am being overly conservative.

To me, this answers where they are - over there. They wouldn't need to be all that far away for us to have no idea of their existence. Even if there's a hegemonizing hyper-technological swarm on the other side of the Galaxy which is taking possession of a new system every year, we wouldn't know a damn thing about it for centuries.

Finally, there's the issue of using radiowaves. Initially, very useful to us, already just a century or so later, we are developing technologies that would cut our emissions of radio waves dramatically. Perhaps most technological civilizations simply skip that part.

Bonus notion: we might be the 'first'. There may be some previous epoch progenitor styley civs which died out, but in this phase of galactic bioevolution, we humans might be the currently most advanced civilization in the Galaxy. Now there's a terrifying thought.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:10 am
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Sparhafoc wrote:For me, any talk about alien civilizations needs to start with an understanding of the assumptions we're employing prior to any sweeping statements, so that we see how one follows from holding the other.

As always, the first place to start therefore is the Drake Equation:

http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L

N = The number of broadcasting civilizations.
R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy
fp = Fraction of stars that form planets
ne = Average number of habitable planets per star
fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges
fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves
fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
fc' = fraction of planets with intelligent life interested in having interstellar comunicación
L = Years a civilization remains detectable


.



the point that I made in my first post is that there is a missing variable (in red added by me above)


maybe a big portion of intelligent civilizations are not interested in communicating, maybe they don't even wonder if there are other intelligent beings.

to have the knowledge and the technology to communicate with other civilizations, does not necessary imply that they would also be curios creatures and interested in communicating with other civilizations.


after all these type of curiosity seems to be a human thing, animals don't seem to wonder about these kind of stuff,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:57 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:the point that I made in my first post is that there is a missing variable (in red added by me above)


Did you not read my post?


Sparhafoc wrote:Truthfully, you could add a lot more categories. Similarly, if we find numerous intelligent technological civilizations in the future, we might find that some of these categories hold much less weight than we've placed on them.


I am sure I could list another 2 dozen off the top of my head, some with very little import, and others with much more significance.

Of course, as I said in that paragraph, Drake's Equation is not meant to be exhaustive, it's meant to teach non-specialists about the kind of factors which are in play here.



leroy wrote:maybe a big portion of intelligent civilizations are not interested in communicating, maybe they don't even wonder if there are other intelligent beings.


I expect that's a contradiction in terms. Intelligence supposes they have curiosity. Space based civilizations suppose they have knowledge of the size of the universe and the potential for life in it. Intelligence then supposes that they would recognize the potential for either threat or profit from the existence of other intelligent life.

So I don't think your notion stands up to scrutiny. But if there are enough intelligent civilizations, maybe some few are insular and disinterested as you said, but I don't think it's a category with much weight.


leroy wrote:to have the knowledge and the technology to communicate with other civilizations, does not necessary imply that they would also be curios creatures and interested in communicating with other civilizations.


It does, actually. How do they become technologically advanced if they are not curious? Remember, our own species doesn't all need to be curious in order for us to search for intelligent life. 99% of our species could be completely disinterested, and still we'd have people like Nikola Tesla, Kelvin, Marconi, David Peck Todd, and Frank Drake who could search, find and contact alien civilizations regardless of any supposed disinterest in the rest of the species.

One doesn't need to suppose any homogeneity in these hypothetical alien hi-tech civilizations, but if one does suppose it, I think one needs to explain why.



leroy wrote:after all these type of curiosity seems to be a human thing, animals don't seem to wonder about these kind of stuff,


How would you know?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:14 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Incidentally, LEROY, there's a bizarre contradiction in your argument (fancy that, eh?)

my own personal view is that we are alone, there is no life in other planets.


So if you believe that, why aren't you arguing that? Why are you speculating about the nature of intelligent life on other planets if you don't believe it exists?

I think it would be a worthwhile position to argue, and at least you'd be able to hold an internally consistent argument rather than an internally contradictory one.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:10 am
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Sparhafoc wrote:Incidentally, LEROY, there's a bizarre contradiction in your argument (fancy that, eh?)

my own personal view is that we are alone, there is no life in other planets.


So if you believe that, why aren't you arguing that? Why are you speculating about the nature of intelligent life on other planets if you don't believe it exists?

I think it would be a worthwhile position to argue, and at least you'd be able to hold an internally consistent argument rather than an internally contradictory one.



it is called Counterfactual thinking, just because I don't believe in aliens, that doesn't mean that I cant imagine a scenario where they exist and comment on it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:23 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Sparhafoc wrote:[

leroy wrote:to have the knowledge and the technology to communicate with other civilizations, does not necessary imply that they would also be curios creatures and interested in communicating with other civilizations.


It does, actually. How do they become technologically advanced if they are not curious?


I would say that there are at least 2 types of curiosity, please allow me to invent my own words


scientific curiosity> this is the type of curiosity that makes us wonder things like, how to create a faster computer?, how to build more efficient cars?, how to cure cancer? how to produce food for everybody? etc.

metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are we a lone in the universe? where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?


I would say that a civilization with scientific curiosity but without metaphysical curiosity is conceivable, and I would even argue that metaphysical curiosity has no selective benefit, therefore metaphysical curiosity is not expected to be common in the universe.


only beings with metaphysical curiosity would be interested in communicating with us, given that most intelligent creatures wouldn't have metaphysical curiosity this variable that I am suggesting reduces significantly the result of drakes equation.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:39 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:I would say that there are at least 2 types of curiosity, please allow me to invent my own words

scientific curiosity> this is the type of curiosity that makes us wonder things like, how to create a faster computer?, how to build more efficient cars?, how to cure cancer? how to produce food for everybody? etc.

metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are wea lone in the universe? where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?

I would say that a civilization with scientific curiosity but without metaphysical curiosity is conceivable, and I would even argue that metaphysical curiosity has no selective benefit, therefore metaphysical curiosity is not expected to be common in the universe.

only beings with metaphysical curiosity would be interested in communicating with us, given that most intelligent creatures wouldn't have metaphysical curiosity this variable that I am suggesting reduces significantly the result of drakes equation.

:facepalm:
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:54 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:It does, actually. How do they become technologically advanced if they are not curious?

I would say that there are at least 2 types of curiosity, please allow me to invent my own words

scientific curiosity> this is the type of curiosity that makes us wonder things like, how to create a faster computer?, how to build more efficient cars?, how to cure cancer? how to produce food for everybody? etc.

metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are we a lone in the universe? where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?

I would say that a civilization with scientific curiosity but without metaphysical curiosity is conceivable, and I would even argue that metaphysical curiosity has no selective benefit, therefore metaphysical curiosity is not expected to be common in the universe.

only beings with metaphysical curiosity would be interested in communicating with us, given that most intelligent creatures wouldn't have metaphysical curiosity this variable that I am suggesting reduces significantly the result of drakes equation.

Leroy, curiosity is curiosity - there's no diffference between, what you call, "scientific" versus "metaphysical" curiosity.

Not to mention the fact that the questions you assign to the latter are scientific questions.

They are questions about knowledge.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:it is called Counterfactual thinking,....


No, this is 'counterfactual thinking'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_thinking

Counterfactual thinking is a concept in psychology that involves the human tendency to create possible alternatives to life events that have already occurred; something that is contrary to what actually happened. Counterfactual thinking is, as it states: "counter to the facts."[1] These thoughts consist of the "What if?" and the "If I had only..." that occur when thinking of how things could have turned out differently. Counterfactual thoughts include things that could never happen in reality because they solely pertain to events that have occurred in the past


What you're doing is internally contradictory thinking, which tends not to produce anything valuable.


leroy wrote: just because I don't believe in aliens, that doesn't mean that I cant imagine a scenario where they exist and comment on it.


I don't believe in 'aliens' either.

However, I don't deny the potential for life elsewhere.

If I did, then I probably wouldn't have anything useful to say in defining what's plausible, given I do not grant plausibility.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:11 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:I would say that there are at least 2 types of curiosity, ...


And I would say - oh look, here comes a Russian Doll.


leroy wrote:please allow me to invent my own words


I can't stop you from inventing your own words, but if the objective is to communicate, then words need to be agreed on.

Otherwise, glubble bliiptum facso' et adriantu sobgolopole.



leroy wrote:scientific curiosity> this is the type of curiosity that makes us wonder things like, how to create a faster computer?, how to build more efficient cars?, how to cure cancer? how to produce food for everybody? etc.

metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are we a lone in the universe? where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?


They're both just curiosity - curiosity isn't a methodology, which is what you're talking about.



leroy wrote:I would say that a civilization with scientific curiosity but without metaphysical curiosity is conceivable, and I would even argue that metaphysical curiosity has no selective benefit, therefore metaphysical curiosity is not expected to be common in the universe.


Contradiction in terms, and it's curiosity which has a potential selection benefit, not the content of that curiosity. I walked you through this one before.



leroy wrote:only beings with metaphysical curiosity would be interested in communicating with us, given that most intelligent creatures wouldn't have metaphysical curiosity this variable that I am suggesting reduces significantly the result of drakes equation.


Just curiosity - the same curiosity that wonders if we can do X produces the questions about whether we are X.

Reasoning is deductive, inductive, or abductive. Each is used in science, each is used in philosophy. Science is a philosophical practice: methodological naturalism. Metaphysics is mostly just misapplied philosophy with an unhealthy helping of onanism.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:16 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:I would say that there are at least 2 types of curiosity, please allow me to invent my own words


scientific curiosity> this is the type of curiosity that makes us wonder things like, how to create a faster computer?, how to build more efficient cars?, how to cure cancer? how to produce food for everybody? etc.

metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are we a lone in the universe? where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?


Thus, according to dandan/leroy, fields of science, such as archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, would be considered metaphysical curiosities and not scientific curiosities. I wonder if just pointing this out will allow dandan/leroy to see the mistake he is making.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:57 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thus, according to dandan/leroy, fields of science, such as archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, would be considered metaphysical curiosities and not scientific curiosities. I wonder if just pointing this out will allow dandan/leroy to see the mistake he is making.



It's ignorance cubed, really.

Ignorance about the modern world is not sufficient for LEROY - he needs to be ignorant about everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:14 am
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:I would say that there are at least 2 types of curiosity, please allow me to invent my own words


scientific curiosity> this is the type of curiosity that makes us wonder things like, how to create a faster computer?, how to build more efficient cars?, how to cure cancer? how to produce food for everybody? etc.

metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are we a lone in the universe? where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?


Thus, according to dandan/leroy, fields of science, such as archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, would be considered metaphysical curiosities and not scientific curiosities. I wonder if just pointing this out will allow dandan/leroy to see the mistake he is making.


why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?

my point is that it is possible to have a society that is very good in inventing computers, cars, drugs and things with a direct and clear
purpose, but that is largely uninterested in archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, they would simply don't care who was the king that lived 4,000 years ago.

I have no problem in granting that metaphysical curiosity was not the best term to use, but then please tell me what term should I use?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:18 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thus, according to dandan/leroy, fields of science, such as archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, would be considered metaphysical curiosities and not scientific curiosities. I wonder if just pointing this out will allow dandan/leroy to see the mistake he is making.


why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?

my point is that it is possible to have an society that is very good in inventing computers, cars, drugs and things with a direct and clear
purpose, but that is largely uninterested in archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, they would simply don't care who what was the name of an ancient king that lived 4,000 years ago.

I have no problem in granting that metaphysical curiosity was not the best term to use, but then please tell me what term should I use?


That is because your whole argument is based on semantics. You want us to believe that a population's curiosity exist for technology/engineering, yet stops for some arbitrary reason at a point you picked. Why should anyone accept this asinine assertion from you? Want me to stop pointing out that all you are doing is playing word games? Stop playing word games and I will. Tis truly that easy.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:46 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?


Because meaning is not something one can simply ignore when communicating over the internet in written format. If points are to be made, if ideas are going to be communicated, inspected, and addressed, then meaning is not just a pleasantry, a social nicety one can elect to participate in.

For example, your quibble here is purely semantics - you want someone to address your point while not acknowledging that they are unable to acknowledge your point in the way you've written it because what is signifies is unacceptable for the reasons given.

More importantly - why do you always complain about semantics in your non-native language? Wouldn't you consider it obnoxious if I started telling you what the meaning of words are in your native tongue? How about you employ a little humility and improve your English while you're here?


leroy wrote:my point is that it is possible to have a society that is very good in inventing computers, cars, drugs and things with a direct and clear
purpose, but that is largely uninterested in archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, they would simply don't care who was the king that lived 4,000 years ago.


Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?

Don't you mean that because you can write a sentence which contains that idea, that the idea itself has some validity due to being written in a syntactically correct format?

If so, then why is your sentence to be taken more seriously than a sentence which rejects it?


leroy wrote:I have no problem in granting that metaphysical curiosity was not the best term to use, but then please tell me what term should I use?


There's no word for an unwarranted distinction. Curiosity is the trait which would lead to scientific inquiry just as it would to philosophical inquiry, because scientific inquiry is a subset of philosophical inquiry, and the most fundamental quotient of philosophy (and of methodological naturalistic inquiries into the universe) is curiosity.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:50 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?


Because meaning is not something one can simply ignore when communicating over the internet in written format. If points are to be made, if ideas are going to be communicated, inspected, and addressed, then meaning is not just a pleasantry, a social nicety one can elect to participate in.

For example, your quibble here is purely semantics - you want someone to address your point while not acknowledging that they are unable to acknowledge your point in the way you've written it because what is signifies is unacceptable for the reasons given.

More importantly - why do you always complain about semantics in your non-native language? Wouldn't you consider it obnoxious if I started telling you what the meaning of words are in your native tongue? How about you employ a little humility and improve your English while you're here?


leroy wrote:my point is that it is possible to have a society that is very good in inventing computers, cars, drugs and things with a direct and clear
purpose, but that is largely uninterested in archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, they would simply don't care who was the king that lived 4,000 years ago.


Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?

Don't you mean that because you can write a sentence which contains that idea, that the idea itself has some validity due to being written in a syntactically correct format?

If so, then why is your sentence to be taken more seriously than a sentence which rejects it?


leroy wrote:I have no problem in granting that metaphysical curiosity was not the best term to use, but then please tell me what term should I use?


There's no word for an unwarranted distinction. Curiosity is the trait which would lead to scientific inquiry just as it would to philosophical inquiry, because scientific inquiry is a subset of philosophical inquiry, and the most fundamental quotient of philosophy (and of methodological naturalistic inquiries into the universe) is curiosity.



atheist in this forum did it again.....you are focusing on correct semantics instead of focusing in the point that I am making.



the only point that I am making is that it is possible to have an intelligent civilization that is not interested in searching for intelligent life in other planets. ..........



Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?


that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possible
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:05 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?


that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possible

:facepalm: This is a perfect exemple of the "dialogue" we can expect with Leroy.

Focus only on the part of the question you can convientely answer, ignore the part you can't. Who does Leroy expects to fool, doesn't he realize that we can see how he left out most of the question?
Sparhafoc wrote:Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?

Don't you mean that because you can write a sentence which contains that idea, that the idea itself has some validity due to being written in a syntactically correct format?

If so, then why is your sentence to be taken more seriously than a sentence which rejects it?


leroy wrote:atheist in this forum did it again.....you are focusing on correct semantics instead of focusing in the point that I am making.

And Leroy did it again, pretending that the "point" he was making was not addressed when it was pointed out that what he was doing was semantical bullshitting.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:10 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

MarsCydonia wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?


leroy wrote:that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possible

:facepalm: This is a perfect exemple of the "dialogue" we can expect with Leroy.

Focus only on the part of the question you can convientely answer, ignore the part you can't. Who does Leroy expects to fool, doesn't he realize that we can see how he left out most of the question?
Sparhafoc wrote:Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?

Don't you mean that because you can write a sentence which contains that idea, that the idea itself has some validity due to being written in a syntactically correct format?

If so, then why is your sentence to be taken more seriously than a sentence which rejects it?


leroy wrote:atheist in this forum did it again.....you are focusing on correct semantics instead of focusing in the point that I am making.

And Leroy did it again, pretending that the "point" he was making was not addressed when it was pointed out that what he was doing was semantical bullshitting.


I do not understand why one would so obviously act so dishonestly on a written forum. Dandan/Leroy did this right below Sparhafoc's post. Does dandan/leroy not realize that people can just scroll up to see how he is misrepresenting Sparhafoc?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:35 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

MarsCydonia wrote:[ :facepalm: This is a perfect exemple of the "dialogue" we can expect with Leroy.

Focus only on the part of the question you can convientely answer, .




what else could I have answered? if Sparhafoc doesn't know what "possible" means, and "possible" is an important word in my point. then no serios comment can be made until he understand the meaning of the word "possible"


I don't what to wait 27 pages just to realice that he meant something different than I when using the word possible.


so unless you believe that it is impossible to have an intelligent being that doesn't care about life in other planets, you are granting my point. My point is not meant to be controversial.


the controversy relies on whether If a significant portion of intelligent beings would also be interested in discovering life in other planets or not. ............My guess is that it is theoretically possible to have a meaningful discussion on this.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:atheist in this forum did it again.....you are focusing on correct semantics instead of focusing in the point that I am making.


Pedophile did it again - telling me I am an atheist when I am not an atheist.

That's because pedophile here isn't interested in honest discourse - pedophile is just here to resist his sexual fantasies for children.




leroy wrote:the only point that I am making is that it is possible to have an intelligent civilization that is not interested in searching for intelligent life in other planets. ..........


It's not a point no matter how many elipses you add to it. It's an assertion you manufactured while holding a contrary position that genetically undermines your own statement. You're a joke.



leroy wrote:
Define 'possible'. In what way exactly is it possible?


that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.: [/quote

Ergo, your statement is not 'possible' - them's those semantics for you again.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:08 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
 [ 71 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests
cron