No Aliens in the Serenity Universe

POSTED BY: Windwalker
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 18:36
VIEWED: 14161
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

KHYRON

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
She said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That means that not having evidence of something's existence does not entail that thing's non-existence (logically speaking), which is absolutely correct (interestingly, this is not just true of aliens; it's also true when someone says "There's no evidence of a god").

Not a direct response to you, Causal, more of a tangent I'm going off on that was inspired by what you wrote:

Lack of evidence for existence doesn't preclude existence, but does lack of evidence against existence entitle belief in existence? If there's no evidence that aliens don't exist, should one assume that they do exist, since, after all, the universe is so big? There's no evidence that God doesn't exist, so should one therefore assume that he does exist, since, after all, the universe is so complex?

While I regard the probability of primitive alien life as almost certain, the question of the existence of intelligent alien life in essence has religious undertones, more up to the individual's willingness to have faith that we're not the only intelligent beings, as opposed to a "rational" pro/contra argument.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CYBERSNARK

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:48 AM

If there's no evidence either way, I like to think that people should be encouraged to support either point of view (as opposed to being proselytized to accept either view ex cathedra). That way, whether right or wrong, the they have made a choice and accept responsibility for their own beliefs. I'm a great advocate of faith.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It took 4.6 Billion years from the first recorded life to give rise to intelligent life (and Humans ) on Earth. Since we've only got the Earth as a model it seems reasonable to accept this figure as a rough average for how much time it takes intelligent life to evolve.

Actually it could be much shorter.

Remember that cognitive evolution (as opposed to physical evolution) kinda plateaued during the age of dinosaurs (according to the Official histories, anyway) and only started advancing again after the KT event, when mammals started advancing and hominids evolved.

After that, civilization developed in a remarkably short time, just an eyeblink. Not even a full eyeblink. More like a flinch.

It's certainly possible that another planet might have reached our current level of development centuries or even millennia ago. Think of the Reptilian Age as a "handicap" or a head start. Another world on which life initially evolved at the exact same time might not have had that multi-billion year delay, and could've progressed rapidly from crawling ashore to tool-using to language to abstract thought to civilization to the Zero Point and finally to spaceflight.

Hell, for all we know, everyone else in this galaxy thinks of us as the retarded cousin that they don't like to talk about.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
For the record, Citz, I was actually just trying to keep Regina honest.

Oh I got it, I've just been researching this topic again recently because it's come up on two other boards I frequent. It's a topic that has interested me anyway, and gave me excuse to refresh myself on old material. There seemed to be a question in a subject I have interest in so I aswered it to the best of my abillity.

Quote:
Better be careful--people will start to think that you and I enjoy intellectual interchange!

I wouldn't think so for a minute

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WHIPLASH4EVER

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Windwalker:
I noticed that there are no "real" Extraterrestrial beings in the Serenity Universe. The closest to "alien" creatures are the "Reavers"
but they too are human in origin changed by PAX
Kind of a more realistic look at the future of space travel and existence on "other" worlds.
Anyone else notice this and have input?
I like it as a different slant to all the SCIFI stuff out there.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

In the Firefly/Serenity world, I can see where there wouldn't be any. The human race has moved on from Mother Earth due to a lack of room (if this isn't right, please correct me). Even though there have been numerous sightings of aliens here, there has never been any proof that they exist, so why would that change? As I understand it, the system they found and terra formed consists of several planets and moons, but all with in the same system, so it's less than likely that an alien life form would stumble across them. If the story had been such that the Earth refuges had dispersed throughout the entirety of space, it would be inevitable that they run into other species, but being for the most part, localized in one system, I can buy into the no alien world.

Whip

____________________________________________
Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong

http://www.myspace.com/whips_world

CAUSAL

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Lack of evidence for existence doesn't preclude existence, but does lack of evidence against existence entitle belief in existence? If there's no evidence that aliens don't exist, should one assume that they do exist, since, after all, the universe is so big? There's no evidence that God doesn't exist, so should one therefore assume that he does exist, since, after all, the universe is so complex?

In a word, no. What we're dealing with is an informal logical fallacy called Argument to Ignorance. It can take one of two forms:

1) There is no evidence against [ fill in the blank ], therefore [ fill in the blank ] must be the case.
2) There is no evidence for [ fill in the blank ], therefore [ fill in the blank ] must not be the case.

Either argument is equally fallacious.

The long answer is that sometimes there are cases in which this type of reasoning is good. For instance, if the bus schedule does not list a stop at location X, it must be the case that there is no stop at X. But this only works because of a implied premise: bus schedules contain an exhaustive list of stop locations. Sometimes we have an obligation to accept #2--as in the American justice system where there is (in theory) the presumption of innocence.

Of course, as with any informal fallacy, this one seems reasonable, on the face of it. Consider the following: "There is absolutely no evidence that Elvis is still alive, so it's unreasonable to believe that he is." This appears reasonable, but when you stop and think about it, it's not unreasonable to believe that Elvis is not alive in virtue of a dearth of evidence, but in virtue of other facts (like the average human lifespan, for instance).

Quote:
While I regard the probability of primitive alien life as almost certain, the question of the existence of intelligent alien life in essence has religious undertones, more up to the individual's willingness to have faith that we're not the only intelligent beings, as opposed to a "rational" pro/contra argument.

Other people regard the probability of God's existence as almost certain, and like your belief in intelligent alien life, they have faith that he's up there. But they, like you, can't be rationally justified in their belief unless they offer more than a lack of evidence against. What they, like you, need to do is offer arguments for their position such that their belief is justified (in the sense that there are rational arguments for it).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

KHYRON

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Other people regard the probability of God's existence as almost certain, and like your belief in intelligent alien life, they have faith that he's up there. But they, like you, can't be rationally justified in their belief unless they offer more than a lack of evidence against. What they, like you, need to do is offer arguments for their position such that their belief is justified (in the sense that there are rational arguments for it).

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I said I view the existence of primitive life as certain. The existence of intelligent alien life I see as only slightly greater than the chance of the existence of god, which is zero imo (i.e. I think the chance of intelligent alien life existing is remote, but it's not impossible). Basically, I'll believe in intelligent aliens only once they abduct me and probe the hell out of my ass.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Actually it could be much shorter.

Remember that cognitive evolution (as opposed to physical evolution) kinda plateaued during the age of dinosaurs (according to the Official histories, anyway) and only started advancing again after the KT event, when mammals started advancing and hominids evolved.

I took that into account, but the time frame isn't as great as you may think. The Dinosaurs evolved during the Triassic, about 228 Million years ago, and became extinct about 68 Million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period. Dinosaurs in their various forms walked the Earth for about 160 Million Years, though a great span of time in comparison to Humans and the time it takes for higher intelligence to give rise to advanced civilisation, but not long in the overall figure of 4.6 Billion years for which we have evidence of the earliest life. Remember the first life would probably not have been cellular, but more complex chemicals that could replicate with nutrients from the environment, like simplified disembodied DNA. It's likely we'll never know how far back life evolved, maybe it began even before the Earth had finished coalescing. But the unknown length of time would probably wipe out any 'gain' from removing the dinosaurs from the equation. The Dinosaurs don't really effect the overall figure greatly.

I think taking 4.6 Billion years as a rough figure is reasonable, remember there is nothing that makes intelligence a goal in evolution, and indeed during its emergence it's not at all a major bonus. In fact I'm fairly certain that intelligence is a by product of some other more immediately useful traits. Not least of these I would put social activity, I can not think of an intelligent animal that isn't social, or evolved from social animals (only example here is Octopi, which are solitary but evolved from squid which tend to live in schools, many species of which show levels of communication). It takes a lot of brain power to deal with cooperative social groupings, the larger the group, the bigger the brain. Though I'll also add that it appears to be in predators, prey often group together, but these aren't really social groupings as there is little, if any, social interaction between individuals. With predators they tend to socialise with other group members because this aids in the hunt.

What you might find is that intelligence acts like other factors in evolution, that of a sort of natural arms race. I'm reminded of Australia, a continent with many of the worlds most deadly poisonous animals. Everything seems to have got in on the toxic act there. I can imagine one or two animals developing toxic glands, and in an evolutionary race the animals with the strongest poison survive, so they end up becoming deadlier and deadlier. Same with intelligence, a few species develop it and it shows itself to be a remarkable advantage, so evolution begins to favour intelligence so it ramps up. I.e. once socialising advanced intelligence (that is having a brain that isn't concerned entirely with running the body) appears in a species it is destined to increase.

Quote:
It's certainly possible that another planet might have reached our current level of development centuries or even millennia ago. Think of the Reptilian Age as a "handicap" or a head start. Another world on which life initially evolved at the exact same time might not have had that multi-billion year delay, and could've progressed rapidly from crawling ashore to tool-using to language to abstract thought to civilization to the Zero Point and finally to spaceflight.

It's also just as possible that every other planet in the galaxy with complex life is currently experiencing their own 'handicap', or they've had two, three, four, or they'll never develop appreciable intelligent life (like France). Maybe somewhere there has never been a 'handicap' period but random chance has simply taken longer than usual. There's lots of possibilities, but to assume that the Human race may be the oldest intell

CAUSAL

Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Other people regard the probability of God's existence as almost certain, and like your belief in intelligent alien life, they have faith that he's up there. But they, like you, can't be rationally justified in their belief unless they offer more than a lack of evidence against. What they, like you, need to do is offer arguments for their position such that their belief is justified (in the sense that there are rational arguments for it).

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I said I view the existence of primitive life as certain. The existence of intelligent alien life I see as only slightly greater than the chance of the existence of god, which is zero imo (i.e. I think the chance of intelligent alien life existing is remote, but it's not impossible).

Just curious, but why do you regard God's non-existence as a zero possibility?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

DECAF

Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:35 AM

I find it more likely that if there were intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe older than mankind, that they would have simply blown themselves up long before they developed the technology to explore other solar systems. Consider what kind of advancements would be necessary to carry a human to another solar system, and the relative advancements to allow any number of 'accidents' to destroy all life on Earth.

But again, its all a flying spaghetti monster ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster) anyway. I just hope I'm not around when [insert biological agent, nuclear weapon or amoral scientific experiment] kills everyone.

Go Firefly!

_________________________________
"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
- Abraham Lincoln

ZZETTA13

Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:50 AM

Hey there was an alien in the eps "The Message",wait a minute. That was a cow fetus.

Z

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE