Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[Cadence]

I know right? It's essentially the same argument ("I can't explain it, therefore CrYpTiDs!") but I wager it would have very different poll results.

Not because of stronger evidence--or any evidence, really--but simply because space-traveling aliens + government conspiracy is the newer idea. It sounds more science-y.

I wonder if there would be a lot of "space.is.big, so out there somewhere, but probably not FTL wackiness, and none have visited here in recorded history or left anything behind" trying to define things carefully.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wonder if there would be a lot of "space.is.big, so out there somewhere, but probably not FTL wackiness, and none have visited here in recorded history or left anything behind" trying to define things carefully.

Student: "Space is so big and vast that it's practically infinite. It's very arrogant to assume that our planet is the only one to form that would support life."

Professor: "I agree. What if our planet is the first?"

Student: "....what?"

Professor: "Because even if that is true, one of those planets had to be the first to support life. What if it's this one?"

Another student: "Or the last. What if we're the last one to survive?"

Student: "Y'all are a real buzzkill, you know that?"

 

[CleverNickName]

(Also, which is more arrogant: assuming that humanity is the only intelligent life in a near-infinite universe? or assuming that in a near-infinite universe, humanity is interesting enough to visit?)

 

[Ryujin]

I wonder if there would be a lot of "space.is.big, so out there somewhere, but probably not FTL wackiness, and none have visited here in recorded history or left anything behind" trying to define things carefully.

Yup. They're two very different questions: "Does alien life exist?" and, "Have we been visited by aliens?" If we assume that intelligent life is a fairly rare thing then we live in a detection bubble that is roughly 249 light years across (first radio signal sent in Dec. 1901). The odds of anyone hearing us are vanishingly small. The odds of that signal being interesting enough to follow up on even smaller, I would say.

My assumption is that intelligent life isn't a viable survival strategy, anyway, if it tends to result in a species like us.

 

[The Firebird]

1) Note: I am not insisting on anything. I am explaining a position.

2) Whether or not we change behavior, we should understand what we are actually doing in that behavior. In this case, we are presenting the results of our cognitive processes as objective reality - it is not our (human, fallible) inference, it is the universe implying! English conventions do not prevent bad things from happening when we do that.

Ime that fallibility is dealt with using statements like "it seems to me the facts imply X". I.e., facts can imply things, but our understanding of this objective relationship is fallible.

That's strongest in the mathematics or logic case. "All men must die" and "Socrates is a man" implies "Socrates must die" objectively. This is not a potentially fallible inference; it is true, objectively.

 

[Deset Gled]

Yup. They're two very different questions: "Does alien life exist?" and, "Have we been visited by aliens?"

Whereas the current debate is: "What happens after death?" and "Have we been visited by someone after death?"

The difference is in the alien question we discuss both, and in the ghost question we only discuss the latter due to site rules on religion.

Personally, I'm on the side that "there's probably more examples of intelligent life, but we just don't see them due to distance or time issues".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The odds of that signal being interesting enough to follow up on even smaller, I would say.

I suspect that if there are aliens looking for intelligent life, they wouldn't be visiting places on the basis of "current situation" because they'd be likely visiting every planet that could potentially have intelligent life in the future (with probes at least), assuming they had FTL.

If FTL or similar doesn't exist, then that is pretty much a complete explanation by itself.

My assumption is that intelligent life isn't a viable survival strategy, anyway, if it tends to result in a species like us.

That's a possibility, though I suspect the main issue we're having is that civilization needs to rise and fall quite a few times before you get a long-term viable intelligent civilizational species. Our society is increasingly ruled by the worst - the greediest, the most dark triad, and whilst it seems like terrible things that happened in the 19th and 20th centuries vectored us away from that temporarily, we're back on the path to destruction, in part because we're generally too nice to eliminate those people. Neither nuclear war nor chemical or biological warfare would wipe out humanity, it would destroy civilization, which is different. I suspect like, three destroyed planetary civilizations down the road we may find the balance of empathy, decency and dealing with bad people before they're problem (including preventing them from gaining power) to have something sustainable. Whether the beings of that era will regard themselves as "human", who knows, but I'd be surprised if they weren't basically homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's strongest in the mathematics or logic case. "All men must die" and "Socrates is a man" implies "Socrates must die" objectively. This is not a potentially fallible inference; it is true, objectively

That’s not true. Socrates is already dead, he can’t do it again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If FTL or similar doesn't exist, then that is pretty much a complete explanation by itself

Lifespans measured in millennia.

 

[trappedslider]

Achilles was a mighty warrior, but his Achilles' heel was his heel.