Logic can also be too much to ask when you know so little. We know that life came shortly after earth was here if thats all you got to go on well... All we have to go on.
Finally, I have waited for so long for this video...Anyways, even if I don't like you that much, I like some of your videos like this one for example, or....you should re-upload the "extraterestrial dellusion" video. That video was a masterpiece....
I find it interesting that you lean toward Earth possibly being the only planet with intelligent life while also holding the position that you would permanently exterminate that same life if given the chance. Taken to this extreme I find my disagreement with you all the more apparent. I can't say I'd care if life was just 24/7 maximum suffering for every living being, I'd still take that over an empty, black universe. Black universes ain't worth much..
The "Drake Equation" was never meant as a scientific argument. It was merely a proposal to get other scientists thinking about the plausible exisistence of life on other planets. So far we can't answer the questions that this equation raises. In short we can not possibly know the outcome due to our own ignorance. It's a nice conversation piece but a piss poor debating tool.
Oxygen rich atmospheres burn up organic molecules. The reducing atmosphere of the early earth (capable of abiogenesis) was changed a billion or so years after life by bacteria Even if abiogenesis happened again it'd be eaten by bacteria, or oxidised, you can't say it hasn't happened numerous times. You can say that in simulated reducing atmospheres something very similar happens. A world is massive, so improbable events can happen over billions of years; a universe even more so.
Hey Gary, the audio for the past few videos you've made have been kind of poor in comparison to your previous videos. I turn my computer volume all the way up but the audio is still kind of low in my opinion. Keep up the good work.
The Drake Equation is preposterous and that it should have been posited by an academic is disturbing. He says for example calculate the number of extra-terrestrial civilizations that will go on to develop radio technology. Firstly the statement infers extra-terrestrial life is a fact and secondly by calculate he means guess! Its a disgusting publicity stunt and about as logical as a pyrrho postulation.
It's assumed for the sake of argument - even if species existed, they'd need radio to be detected. It's not like he says aliens exist - the first 8 or so variables are to predict the probability of that. Even if it didn't happen anywhere in the universe (possible even if probability was 99.9%) you can have a probability. Plus its a tongue in cheek equation like Pascall's wager.
@unassumption He makes statements like 'predict the number of planets on which life has evolved'. Now assuming you did make a prediction (guess) it has to be based on the assumption life has evolved elsewhere, correct. He has sold this hypothetical thought experiment as somehow having legitimacy by describing at as equation when it is not technically any such thing.
@neons99 Well lets be intellectually honest bio has a point. The value of an equation in which all seven variables are totally unknown is precisely zero. You might as well use an equation to tell us how many Gods there are....
Some entirely new life may have formed in the past. It's just that any (spontaneously formed) cell that could reproduce itself would be immediately consumed by other bacteria, and plankton, and other shit. The ATCG life that is already here has filled every niche. A stupid little membrane vesicle simply couldn't survive in a world dominated by the monstrous ancestors of the very first little membrane vesicle.
Its seems probable from the data gathered so far that simple life forms such as Extremophile that live deep underground, around deep sea fissures could be very likely if the optimal chemical recipe is there. The shear magnitude of the vast scope of time seems to be left out of the equation?. Geologic record from first dividing cells to cambrian fauna? Problem is when, not where?
So, some around here might say that consciousness is not possible in the early stages of evolution, and I would say that it's not necessary in the more advanced stages. So, if consciousness never seems to be a requirement in the development process and systems can react well to their environments without it, it must have always existed just as energy always existed. It just changes "shape."
RE: "if consciousness never seems to be a requirement" (part 1/2)
The problem with this statement is that nothing at all in evolution comes about because it is a "requirement".
A mutation occurs, if the mutation gives an advantage to an organism the mutation will be propagated.
The systems you talk about, if they are to react to their environment they must have sensory inputs, a nervous system and a brain to process those sensory inputs.
the continents split apart with the same mamal ancestors but almost all got the same range of things that look alike (lots of mole lookalikes, etc) because the niches are the same. Eyes evolved numerous times independantly because they're always useful. They may not be nesicary or required but they are likely to happen again and again because they have, and since the pressures on one planet (or even in one universe, to some limited extent) are similar.
RE: "if consciousness never seems to be a requirement" (part 2/2)
For consciousness to arise in evolution - the sensors would need to gradually become more complex and when it reaches some level of complexity, a mutation occurs which creates the experience of emotion.
Once you have emotion, you have at least a very basic consciousness / self awareness as in the feeling "I don't want to get hurt".
@PardoDub It's possible that there's no conscious awareness of pain, just automatic motor movements, in things like flies - maybe qualia are something only possible in higher consciousnesses, if the brain is simulating itself, rather than automatically sending motor and gland signals?
RE: "systems can react well to their environments without consciousness, it must have always existed just as energy always existed"
(Part 2/2)
Also, the only consciousness we have ever come across has been dependent on a brain. There is nothing at all, anywhere to suggest even the possibility of a consciousness experience occurring without a brain to produce that experience.
I wouldn't go that far or say DNA is needed for life - some replicating unit for life, some complex network of parts for consciousness. A computer's network could possibly be made to run a consciousness simulator, but when people say something like the universe or wavefunctions or energy are conscious (single things not interacting networks) it defies all our evidence (and mechanistic logic)
Am I trying to say that we're anything like the computers? No. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that very high-functioning systems can exist that respond to their environments appropriately and consciousness is never a requirement.
Unless they're using some weird quantum input, even the random numbers that they use are not random at all. It's more like pseudorandom number generators that uses the Monte Carlo method or similar. So, I would say they are wasting their time trying to create consciousness. It was either there before they started or they're not ever going to create it.
I know there are people that have worked with computers and claim that they're playing with consciousness. I don't know anything about the details of their work but since I do know enough about the machines to write down to the wires, I think it's nonsense.
There is nothing that I've ever written that would require any form of consciousness. Nothing including the a** kicking robots. Consciousness just isn't required for the machines to respond to their environments in very precise ways. The whole concept of consciousness is just unnecessary.
I'm a computer programmer. I've coded everything down to the wire and up to modern OO scripting languanges. I've written single line Perl scripts and I've participated in writing software with tens of thousands of lines of code. I've built and programmed robots. Think about the larger projects.
I don't believe in dusty old books. That's not where I'm going.
Let me make a few assumptions about the beliefs of others. First, once we reached a point where the chemistry of life was possible there were three major steps in our development:
(cont) That said you make some solid arguements Gary and I have to agree with you on a few points, that life has seemingly only arisen here once in the billions of years the Earth has been here and this world is the only one with conditions suitable for its emergence (based upon its emergence) that we know of.
I can't say life exists in abundance elsewhere, I can say I lean towards the mathematical arguements for it existing elsewhere.
But until we have solid evidence, I'm open minded.
I don't think life is improbable, if it turns out there was life on Mars in the past and there is life on Europa and it arose independant of Earth then that will pretty much be proof (not proof positive but near enough).
What I do think is improbably is intelligence of the level of ours, if we look back at history, how long has life been around? how many billions and billions of species evolved and only ONCE has intelligence of the ability to do what we do on the scale we do arose.
? to just dismiss that equation and replace it with pessimism show how you and others have no joy in your minds wonder... things for you must be cruel and usual...
The first reproducing system existed pretty fast after the earth formed. I think its improbable that a new kind of life will arise, because this new life form will have to compete with the existing life forms, which are (way) better adapted to the environment.
I may get crits but I think that consciousness always existed and that it's the impetus behind it all. I believe that consciousness just changes "shape."
I'm a computer programmer. If I build a robot that can beat the crap out of other robots in tournaments, is my robot conscious? For sure there is nothing in the software that would require it be conscious. Data is being fed in and the system reacts. That's all there is to it. There's no logical reason for my a** kicking robot to be conscious.
@BestVideoResponse But if someone took your a** kicking design and managed to give it consciousness then it would beat the crap out of your otherwise identical robot.
@DynaCatlovesme Adaptive systems use feedback loops and can "learn" and improve performance but there's really nothing fancy in the hardware. I don't see the need for consciousness but it's central to our existence.
@BestVideoResponse "Need" is not relevant, what's relevant is "desire." Desire arises from what we call consciousness, not learning. Designing a system to learn and improve will not instill in that system any concept of "why." A why is the key thing. Now we know that philosophy ultimately demolishes all whys, but that's a separate process. The conscious robot can contemplate philosophy AFTER it wins it's bout.
Is it fair to assume that you think that all of the chemical interactions are just random until certain structures or patterns are created? Is it at the point where those self-sustaining structures are in place that consciousness arises? Or is consciousness a third and distant step in the process?
@BestVideoResponse I know that I'm responding to my own post and making assumptions. Anyway, if you believe in a 3 step process, why is the third step of consciousness necessary? In other words, if life is sustainable without our being aware of it, what's the point in our being aware of it?
I think you may have straw-maned your opposition with your puerile dismissal of them in the beginning. Though I understand how you were alluding to their actual argument I still think it was a bit of a mischaracterization.
@thanatos454 The drake equation is known as a scientific formula based on an empty model. Not all the parts of the formula are known. Science bases a lot of their scientific facts on empty models.
You don't need an equation to settle it. I'll just toss a coin.
About the lights and cameras, why don't you build a rig to rotate the cameras around you? With all the spinning, viewers won't even think about the lighting.
Probably the closest things to non-DNA life forms are called prions. These organisms exist as protein, and replicate using proteins (protein synthesis). They convert other normal' proteins found naturally in the body into infectious prion proteins.
the trouble i have with this is, we don't actually know the necessary conditions. it may have been a time on earth when it occurred many times all over the place and then the conditions changed and we won out over the others. what we can say is that there was a 100% chance of it happening on earth. we may end up spreading to other solar systems intentionally, or from some rogue bacteria on our space robots. we could be where it all starts
Please don't get me started on the Drake Equation, the bloody thing does not even meet the reqirements to be touted as an equation. With all seven variables unknown it is not technically an equation and cannot be 'calculated' ergo its wistful imaginings at best. Gratex described it as a 'useful tool' so that gives us an idea of its value.
thats a good point to say it happened only 1 time in earth history should look into that more.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
Logic can also be too much to ask when you know so little. We know that life came shortly after earth was here if thats all you got to go on well... All we have to go on.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
but not other humans just things less likely than us and more complex. statistical science
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
given size of universe it could happen almost never and that would still be thousands of times.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
there is probably less likely things than us in the universe. Based only on the size of it is enough.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
Finally, I have waited for so long for this video...Anyways, even if I don't like you that much, I like some of your videos like this one for example, or....you should re-upload the "extraterestrial dellusion" video. That video was a masterpiece....
Tulthor 1 year ago
I find it interesting that you lean toward Earth possibly being the only planet with intelligent life while also holding the position that you would permanently exterminate that same life if given the chance. Taken to this extreme I find my disagreement with you all the more apparent. I can't say I'd care if life was just 24/7 maximum suffering for every living being, I'd still take that over an empty, black universe. Black universes ain't worth much..
neons99 1 year ago
The 'universe' is EXTREMELY LARGE. I don't care if the chance for DNA is one in a trillion trillion, we've got that covered easy.
neons99 1 year ago
@neons99 However, the distance is not covered easy my friend.
Tulthor 1 year ago
The "Drake Equation" was never meant as a scientific argument. It was merely a proposal to get other scientists thinking about the plausible exisistence of life on other planets. So far we can't answer the questions that this equation raises. In short we can not possibly know the outcome due to our own ignorance. It's a nice conversation piece but a piss poor debating tool.
deicidalistic 1 year ago
Oxygen rich atmospheres burn up organic molecules. The reducing atmosphere of the early earth (capable of abiogenesis) was changed a billion or so years after life by bacteria Even if abiogenesis happened again it'd be eaten by bacteria, or oxidised, you can't say it hasn't happened numerous times. You can say that in simulated reducing atmospheres something very similar happens. A world is massive, so improbable events can happen over billions of years; a universe even more so.
unassumption 1 year ago
Hey Gary, the audio for the past few videos you've made have been kind of poor in comparison to your previous videos. I turn my computer volume all the way up but the audio is still kind of low in my opinion. Keep up the good work.
MrRedeye00 1 year ago
The Drake Equation is preposterous and that it should have been posited by an academic is disturbing. He says for example calculate the number of extra-terrestrial civilizations that will go on to develop radio technology. Firstly the statement infers extra-terrestrial life is a fact and secondly by calculate he means guess! Its a disgusting publicity stunt and about as logical as a pyrrho postulation.
BiodegradeableMan 1 year ago
@BiodegradeableMan
It's assumed for the sake of argument - even if species existed, they'd need radio to be detected. It's not like he says aliens exist - the first 8 or so variables are to predict the probability of that. Even if it didn't happen anywhere in the universe (possible even if probability was 99.9%) you can have a probability. Plus its a tongue in cheek equation like Pascall's wager.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption He makes statements like 'predict the number of planets on which life has evolved'. Now assuming you did make a prediction (guess) it has to be based on the assumption life has evolved elsewhere, correct. He has sold this hypothetical thought experiment as somehow having legitimacy by describing at as equation when it is not technically any such thing.
BiodegradeableMan 1 year ago
@BiodegradeableMan you're being a bit silly.
neons99 1 year ago
@neons99 Well lets be intellectually honest bio has a point. The value of an equation in which all seven variables are totally unknown is precisely zero. You might as well use an equation to tell us how many Gods there are....
TheSuicidalOptimist 1 year ago
Some entirely new life may have formed in the past. It's just that any (spontaneously formed) cell that could reproduce itself would be immediately consumed by other bacteria, and plankton, and other shit. The ATCG life that is already here has filled every niche. A stupid little membrane vesicle simply couldn't survive in a world dominated by the monstrous ancestors of the very first little membrane vesicle.
Ipoonthecasbah 1 year ago
Its seems probable from the data gathered so far that simple life forms such as Extremophile that live deep underground, around deep sea fissures could be very likely if the optimal chemical recipe is there. The shear magnitude of the vast scope of time seems to be left out of the equation?. Geologic record from first dividing cells to cambrian fauna? Problem is when, not where?
1umbnonearth 1 year ago
no its not the simple truth.
thats like saying another planet could have never formed...or another star(sun) is impossible.
what a stupid ideology.
sorry, but there seem to be multiple endless stars and planets.
RomulanMastermind 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 8)
So, some around here might say that consciousness is not possible in the early stages of evolution, and I would say that it's not necessary in the more advanced stages. So, if consciousness never seems to be a requirement in the development process and systems can react well to their environments without it, it must have always existed just as energy always existed. It just changes "shape."
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
@BestVideoResponse
RE: "if consciousness never seems to be a requirement" (part 1/2)
The problem with this statement is that nothing at all in evolution comes about because it is a "requirement".
A mutation occurs, if the mutation gives an advantage to an organism the mutation will be propagated.
The systems you talk about, if they are to react to their environment they must have sensory inputs, a nervous system and a brain to process those sensory inputs.
PardoDub 1 year ago
@PardoDub
the continents split apart with the same mamal ancestors but almost all got the same range of things that look alike (lots of mole lookalikes, etc) because the niches are the same. Eyes evolved numerous times independantly because they're always useful. They may not be nesicary or required but they are likely to happen again and again because they have, and since the pressures on one planet (or even in one universe, to some limited extent) are similar.
unassumption 1 year ago
@BestVideoResponse
RE: "if consciousness never seems to be a requirement" (part 2/2)
For consciousness to arise in evolution - the sensors would need to gradually become more complex and when it reaches some level of complexity, a mutation occurs which creates the experience of emotion.
Once you have emotion, you have at least a very basic consciousness / self awareness as in the feeling "I don't want to get hurt".
PardoDub 1 year ago
@PardoDub It's possible that there's no conscious awareness of pain, just automatic motor movements, in things like flies - maybe qualia are something only possible in higher consciousnesses, if the brain is simulating itself, rather than automatically sending motor and gland signals?
unassumption 1 year ago
RE: "systems can react well to their environments without consciousness, it must have always existed just as energy always existed"
(Part 1/2)
I can't see any sort of logical link between the 2 parts of that statement. Because consciousness is not needed...... it must have always existed???
PardoDub 1 year ago
@BestVideoResponse
RE: "systems can react well to their environments without consciousness, it must have always existed just as energy always existed"
(Part 2/2)
Also, the only consciousness we have ever come across has been dependent on a brain. There is nothing at all, anywhere to suggest even the possibility of a consciousness experience occurring without a brain to produce that experience.
PardoDub 1 year ago
@PardoDub
I wouldn't go that far or say DNA is needed for life - some replicating unit for life, some complex network of parts for consciousness. A computer's network could possibly be made to run a consciousness simulator, but when people say something like the universe or wavefunctions or energy are conscious (single things not interacting networks) it defies all our evidence (and mechanistic logic)
unassumption 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 7)
Am I trying to say that we're anything like the computers? No. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that very high-functioning systems can exist that respond to their environments appropriately and consciousness is never a requirement.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 6)
Unless they're using some weird quantum input, even the random numbers that they use are not random at all. It's more like pseudorandom number generators that uses the Monte Carlo method or similar. So, I would say they are wasting their time trying to create consciousness. It was either there before they started or they're not ever going to create it.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 5)
I know there are people that have worked with computers and claim that they're playing with consciousness. I don't know anything about the details of their work but since I do know enough about the machines to write down to the wires, I think it's nonsense.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 4)
There is nothing that I've ever written that would require any form of consciousness. Nothing including the a** kicking robots. Consciousness just isn't required for the machines to respond to their environments in very precise ways. The whole concept of consciousness is just unnecessary.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 3)
I'm a computer programmer. I've coded everything down to the wire and up to modern OO scripting languanges. I've written single line Perl scripts and I've participated in writing software with tens of thousands of lines of code. I've built and programmed robots. Think about the larger projects.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 2)
1) Random chemical reactions occured and life hadn't yet developed.
2) Through just the right conditions, the chemistry of life began and was self-sustaining.
3) After life was self-sustaining, consciousness came into being in order to function at a higher level.
I hope that I've got the basics of the belief system right. If not, tell me where I'm wrong.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Rational Belief in God (part 1)
I don't believe in dusty old books. That's not where I'm going.
Let me make a few assumptions about the beliefs of others. First, once we reached a point where the chemistry of life was possible there were three major steps in our development:
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
My understanding is that the Drake equation just gives relationships between the probabilities, not their actual values.
CrapsWithBears 1 year ago
(cont) That said you make some solid arguements Gary and I have to agree with you on a few points, that life has seemingly only arisen here once in the billions of years the Earth has been here and this world is the only one with conditions suitable for its emergence (based upon its emergence) that we know of.
I can't say life exists in abundance elsewhere, I can say I lean towards the mathematical arguements for it existing elsewhere.
But until we have solid evidence, I'm open minded.
BeardedBill86 1 year ago
I don't think life is improbable, if it turns out there was life on Mars in the past and there is life on Europa and it arose independant of Earth then that will pretty much be proof (not proof positive but near enough).
What I do think is improbably is intelligence of the level of ours, if we look back at history, how long has life been around? how many billions and billions of species evolved and only ONCE has intelligence of the ability to do what we do on the scale we do arose.
BeardedBill86 1 year ago
? to just dismiss that equation and replace it with pessimism show how you and others have no joy in your minds wonder... things for you must be cruel and usual...
yikeswood 1 year ago
The first reproducing system existed pretty fast after the earth formed. I think its improbable that a new kind of life will arise, because this new life form will have to compete with the existing life forms, which are (way) better adapted to the environment.
KoningStoma 1 year ago
I may get crits but I think that consciousness always existed and that it's the impetus behind it all. I believe that consciousness just changes "shape."
I'm a computer programmer. If I build a robot that can beat the crap out of other robots in tournaments, is my robot conscious? For sure there is nothing in the software that would require it be conscious. Data is being fed in and the system reacts. That's all there is to it. There's no logical reason for my a** kicking robot to be conscious.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
@BestVideoResponse But if someone took your a** kicking design and managed to give it consciousness then it would beat the crap out of your otherwise identical robot.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme Adaptive systems use feedback loops and can "learn" and improve performance but there's really nothing fancy in the hardware. I don't see the need for consciousness but it's central to our existence.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
@BestVideoResponse "Need" is not relevant, what's relevant is "desire." Desire arises from what we call consciousness, not learning. Designing a system to learn and improve will not instill in that system any concept of "why." A why is the key thing. Now we know that philosophy ultimately demolishes all whys, but that's a separate process. The conscious robot can contemplate philosophy AFTER it wins it's bout.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
Is it fair to assume that you think that all of the chemical interactions are just random until certain structures or patterns are created? Is it at the point where those self-sustaining structures are in place that consciousness arises? Or is consciousness a third and distant step in the process?
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Comment removed
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Comment removed
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BestVideoResponse I know that I'm responding to my own post and making assumptions. Anyway, if you believe in a 3 step process, why is the third step of consciousness necessary? In other words, if life is sustainable without our being aware of it, what's the point in our being aware of it?
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
I think you may have straw-maned your opposition with your puerile dismissal of them in the beginning. Though I understand how you were alluding to their actual argument I still think it was a bit of a mischaracterization.
/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ
watch from 29:42 to 35:04
Maybe hit on some of Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tysons points next time?
I don't think you've logically proven that the Drake Equation is junk science at all. Maybe it is just an "Articulation fail" as zapo147 said.
thanatos454 1 year ago
@thanatos454 The drake equation is known as a scientific formula based on an empty model. Not all the parts of the formula are known. Science bases a lot of their scientific facts on empty models.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes
I just watched the video a few more times. 6:00 to 6:11 was the most direct argument against the Drake Equation. I somehow missed it before.
So strike,
"I don't think you've logically proven that the Drake Equation is junk science at all. Maybe it is just an "Articulation fail" as zapo147 said."
from my last comment.
thanatos454 1 year ago
You don't need an equation to settle it. I'll just toss a coin.
About the lights and cameras, why don't you build a rig to rotate the cameras around you? With all the spinning, viewers won't even think about the lighting.
BestVideoResponse 1 year ago
Excellent title filing format changes.
f417h 1 year ago
Probably the closest things to non-DNA life forms are called prions. These organisms exist as protein, and replicate using proteins (protein synthesis). They convert other normal' proteins found naturally in the body into infectious prion proteins.
captncosmos 1 year ago
the trouble i have with this is, we don't actually know the necessary conditions. it may have been a time on earth when it occurred many times all over the place and then the conditions changed and we won out over the others. what we can say is that there was a 100% chance of it happening on earth. we may end up spreading to other solar systems intentionally, or from some rogue bacteria on our space robots. we could be where it all starts
captncosmos 1 year ago
Please don't get me started on the Drake Equation, the bloody thing does not even meet the reqirements to be touted as an equation. With all seven variables unknown it is not technically an equation and cannot be 'calculated' ergo its wistful imaginings at best. Gratex described it as a 'useful tool' so that gives us an idea of its value.
TheSuicidalOptimist 1 year ago
hey gary is stickam debate on tonight?
styzor 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMusicShogun 1 year ago
Articulation fail.
zapo147 1 year ago
first! \o/ hhehe
styzor 1 year ago