Originally Posted by IM3CPO
Well, no. Your example doesn't really work. A person doesn't automatically forget how to apply context or a "totality of circumstances" when formulating an opinion or analyzing their situation and drawing conclusions.
If you wanted to have the best shot at your example working like you intended, you would need to give more context. For example, if a person traveled by himself/herself to Mars and stood in the middle of a desert there and said "I don't see anyone else, therefore I must be the only one in existence [within the context of Mars]", then I suppose they would be correct and your example would work. But assuming there is no city is not accurate as they have nothing to do with each other. Technically that one person on Mars could have built the city they happen to not be able to see at the time, so again, you are falling into the same non sequitur traps as before. Here is another way to convey this. Someone could say "This horse has four legs. Therefore horses have four legs.", even if they have not seen every horse that exists, is still reasonable and based on facts. But saying "Horses have four legs. I saw an animal with four legs. It must be a horse." is not necessarily true, and is a fallacy.
I am not jumping to conclusions; My only point is there is no reason to assume there is other life. All evidence we have to this point supports this statement (no life outside Earth). Again, assuming the outcome of what future evidence will or will not support is dangerous as you will most likely miss or ignore important actual, empirical, evidence.
OK
I do see what you are saying here and while its the next logical step in the conversation of Aliens and life forms on other planets, its technically not something that needs to be addressed as long as the topic is limited to purely whether the life outside our planets exists. Where life came from or where we came from is out of scope.
I think its safe to say your opinion is rather short sighted. For example, modern day humans dont come close to utilizing 100% of their brain potential. Pick whatever person you think is the smartest that ever existed they they statistically didnt use more of their brain than anyone else either. To say people can't break this barrier at some point tends to oppose many of your other statements about the rapid rate of progress. Why cant the "machines" at some point enable us to unlock our true potential? Again, your statements are somewhat contradictory..
I would not agree.. AI is clearly not superior to us in every way. AI has LOTS of issues. One easy example is up sampling a picture. NVidia GPU's have Tensor cores that are designed for AI applications. They have a feature where their video card can render an image at a lower resolution, then use the AI core to up sample the image to a higher resolution as a way to display the higher resolution image at a faster rate than what could be done natively. The problem is the AI cant get the images to look correct. NVidia even admitted it used hundreds of thousands of AI analyzing literally trillions of game footage images and the AI cant do what any average intelligence human being can do within seconds. Can they be used to solve certain problems? Yes.. And can they be used in some situations where they have advantages over humans? Yes. But they are far from perfect and there are countless situations where they will never be able to work. They are a tool, just like the other tools I mentioned last time.
True...
This is a big assumption. There is no way to prejudge whether someone is or would be good at something based on non-related skills. Just like it would not be not accurate to prejudge someone's ability based on race, gender, etc.
But your statement overlooks the fact that we also went technologically backwards several times during human history. Like the Pyramids in Egypt or more generally, the seven wonders of the Ancient World. Or more recently, the devolution impact the black plague had on human development. Technology has regressed several times and some technologies have been lost entirely.
Logic would dictate other life forms would be affected the same way we are. Going through periods of advancement, and devolution. Its possible we could be on a brink of exponential technological gains, but its also possible we stagnate or go backwards over the next generations. Again, there is no reason to put limits on future facts or outcomes.
This gets to the crux of the initial question. There is no evidence of other life outside this planet. Period. And there is no information that supports this will change at any time in the future. I am not putting limits on what potential new evidence the future holds; only that nothing currently supports the notion any evidence in the future will be different than the evidence of the past.
As stated earlier, technological changes are definitely occurring and will continue to occur. It doesnt have any bearing on life outside this planet though. Its simply not related.
Well, I also happen to have some experience on this side of things too. And yes, sightings boil down to three groups: One is genuine atmospheric anomalies. Another is human technology. Lastly, people make stuff up or are simply wrong about what they perceived/witnessed/experienced. I suppose a forth category or maybe a subcategory of #3 is being in an altered state of mind (dreaming, hypnosis, drugs). But its not aliens...
|