Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2016, 02:30 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(30-03-2016 11:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'd want to know what the comparison in your analogy would be. Imagine a similar scenario you painted, that the man could arrive in endless variety of places, but he ends up at home, as opposed to just some general place.

Clearly we would recognize the event as an improbable outcome correct? A bit more astonishing than him arriving just at any other irrelevant place.

And wouldn't we say that existence of creatures like ourself, the cosmos giving rise to a means of knowing itself. That this is also an improbable outcome?

Now I would see our existence more so as the man ending up at home, even if we imagine he just beat some astronomical odds to do so, out of blind luck. Would you agree with this, or would you see it more or less like the idea of arriving at some generic place?
At this point, I'm more convinced it would be like the man arriving at his home rather than some generic place.

[edit]
I just realized you weren't responding to me with this question, so disregard this if you wish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2016 06:26 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(30-03-2016 03:40 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  In order for your analogy to work you need to demonstrate that none of the other possible destinations are home to sentient life. You can't do that because we don't know the odds so it's just hand waving.

We know some odds here, that in the entire history of our planet, with over several billion species, only one has ever developed to take that history all in, to discuss where it ultimately came from, to seek out truth. Where as features like eyes etc... have appeared over dozen of times in a variety of species independently.

So whatever ecological niche, and environmental pressures that partook in this development, is exceedingly rare in and of itself, even on a planet accommodating to life.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:19 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-03-2016 03:40 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  In order for your analogy to work you need to demonstrate that none of the other possible destinations are home to sentient life. You can't do that because we don't know the odds so it's just hand waving.

We know some odds here, that in the entire history of our planets, with over several billion species, only one has ever developed to take that history all in, to discuss where it ultimately came from, to seek out truth. Where as features like eyes etc... have appeared over dozen of times in a variety of species independently.

So whatever ecological niche, and environmental pressures that partook in this development, is exceedingly rare in and of itself, even on a planet accommodating to life.

Wrong again.
1. Our PLANET (not planets) is singular. You can't generalize from a sample of one.
2. Think about it. If life exists on billions of planets, (as it probably does), on each one, there is likely one species that has evolved to be dominant.
3. Light detection (eyes) has evolved in thousands, if not millions/billions of species.
4. You have no evidence to make your (false) conclusion).
5. Saying one specie that has achieved "dominance" is rare is a (stupid/meaningless/obvious) tautology. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:32 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 06:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  We know some odds here, that in the entire history of our planets, with over several billion species, only one has ever developed to take that history all in, to discuss where it ultimately came from, to seek out truth. Where as features like eyes etc... have appeared over dozen of times in a variety of species independently.

So whatever ecological niche, and environmental pressures that partook in this development, is exceedingly rare in and of itself, even on a planet accommodating to life.

Wrong again.
1. Our PLANET (not planets) is singular. You can't generalize from a sample of one.
2. Think about it. If life exists on billions of planets, (as it probably does), on each one, there is likely one species that has evolved to be dominant.
3. Light detection (eyes) has evolved in thousands, if not millions/billions of species.
4. You have no evidence to make your (false) conclusion).
5. Saying one specie that has achieved "dominance" is rare is a (stupid/meaningless/obvious) tautology. Facepalm

I don't recall saying anything about dominance. Perhaps we'd find another planet inhabited in nearly every corner by various strains of bacteria, that have adapted over time to a variety of conditions. And perhaps we might be able to refer to one strain as more dominant than the rest.

Or perhaps you believe that whatever strands of life, that might be found on another planet, that these strands would inevitably have the same capacities as ours, that arraignments of them would produce sentient beings? Let alone have the variety of ecological niches, etc.. to eventually have these features come about.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:37 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 06:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong again.
1. Our PLANET (not planets) is singular. You can't generalize from a sample of one.
2. Think about it. If life exists on billions of planets, (as it probably does), on each one, there is likely one species that has evolved to be dominant.
3. Light detection (eyes) has evolved in thousands, if not millions/billions of species.
4. You have no evidence to make your (false) conclusion).
5. Saying one specie that has achieved "dominance" is rare is a (stupid/meaningless/obvious) tautology. Facepalm

I don't recall saying anything about dominance. Perhaps we'd find another planet inhabited in nearly every corner by various strains of bacteria, that have adapted over time to a variety of conditions. And perhaps we might be able to refer to one strain as more dominant than the rest.

Or perhaps you believe that whatever strands of life, that might be found on another planet, that these strands would inevitably have the same capacities as ours, that arraignments of them would produce sentient beings? Let alone have the variety of ecological niches, etc.. to eventually have these features come about.

Quote:only one has ever developed to take that history all in

You implied it.
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:42 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:only one has ever developed to take that history all in

You implied it.
Facepalm

No, you assumed it. Incorrectly I might add.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:44 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2016 07:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 06:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You implied it.
Facepalm

No, you assumed it. Incorrectly I might add.

Then explain the difference. Here. Now. You implied humans were "special".
You do not have sufficient evidence to claim they are special.
You also can't claim humans can "take it all in".
95 % of this universe remains "dark" (energy and matter).
There are also countless other species that can detect portions (light, sound,) that humans can't detect.
Our senses detect a very small range of what we know is real, and that knowledge has existed for an infinitesimally short period of time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-03-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(30-03-2016 02:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-03-2016 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not special. Humans aren't special. Humans are one species among billions that have existed over the course of the last 4 billion years, and we are far from the most successful or important.

Yet here we are.

I doubt other animals are secretly having discussions among themselves as to how they got here.

So? What is your point?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 07:04 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 06:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you assumed it. Incorrectly I might add.

Then explain the difference. Here. Now. You implied humans were "special".
You do not have sufficient evidence to claim they are special.
You also can't claim humans can "take it all in".
95 % of this universe remains "dark" (energy and matter).
There are also countless other species that can detect portions (light, sound,) that humans can't detect.
Our senses detect a very small range of what we know is real, and that knowledge has existed for an infinitesimally short period of time.

Is our ability to pursue truth, to contemplate where we came from, to try and trace our history, to have these sort of discussions, unique to us? Are we the only creature out of the billions of creatures we know have existed, that are capable of this?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 07:07 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(31-03-2016 06:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-03-2016 03:40 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  In order for your analogy to work you need to demonstrate that none of the other possible destinations are home to sentient life. You can't do that because we don't know the odds so it's just hand waving.

We know some odds here, that in the entire history of our planet, with over several billion species, only one has ever developed to take that history all in, to discuss where it ultimately came from, to seek out truth. Where as features like eyes etc... have appeared over dozen of times in a variety of species independently.

So whatever ecological niche, and environmental pressures that partook in this development, is exceedingly rare in and of itself, even on a planet accommodating to life.

Not true. Other human species have existed, e.g. Neanderthals.

Neanderthals had burial ceremonies, clothing, tools, and art.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: