Our hand in the universe

[Gabe Bixler]

This is based on factual observations of other parts of the universe being older than us. Thus having had more time to develop than we. Thus having developed farther. A simple logical deduction from verifyable observations.

this train of thought would also suggest that older animals living on earth could be smarter or more developed than humans. but that has not proven to be the case.

 

there is a possibility of intelligent life on other planets. i do not rule that out. but if you could consider that there is intelligent life on other planets, would you still rule out the possibility that there isn't?

[Gabe Bixler]

hmm? :) example?

 

[qupte]when a bird creates its decoration it does so in an attempt to achieve something. while a human could draw an endless amount of pictures in a note book with the intent of no one else ever seeing them.

that just shows it is not for someone else. it doesn't mean that there is no intention.

but do you see how a bird decorates its nest for a biological purpose (the intent to breed)? that ranks near the top of every specie's hierarchy of needs. while when a human creates art that only he will ever see, he has his own motivations. there is this other thought process going on.

[TINNY]

humans thought that art can generate a lot of money so they learn and hone their skills and sell their art. Or, they get recogniiton for it, and that accounts as a positive reinforcement.

of course they do it for themselves - to make them famous, or rich, etc.

[Gabe Bixler]

humans thought that art can generate a lot of money so they learn and hone their skills and sell their art. Or, they get recogniiton for it, and that accounts as a positive reinforcement.

of course they do it for themselves - to make them famous, or rich, etc.

thats only one reason. it still doesn't answer what it is that drives the person to make art exclusively for themself.

[Tormod]

thats only one reason. it still doesn't answer what it is that drives the person to make art exclusively for themself.

I think creativity is a natural drive in human beings, as it is in many other species. One way to express creativity is art. There need not be a rationale for creating art.

[Freethinker]

yes, beauty was the wrong word to use. what i should have said is that humans are the only species that create art for the sole purpose of the art itself.

I don't know that this can be supported factually. How would we prove that any art was ever made strictly "for the sole purpose of the art itself". That there were not other motivating factors for each? Recognition from others, response to internal drives, financial, mating advantage, ... How would we show that ANY piece of art was created "for the sole purpose of the art itself"?

 

Perhaps the most we could say is that humans have a wider range of motivations?

when a bird creates its decoration it does so in an attempt to achieve something. while a human could draw an endless amount of pictures in a note book with the intent of no one else ever seeing them.

AH but that person was attempting to "achive something". Perhaps to fill in time? Perhaps practice? Perhaps a nervous tick they have no control over?

 

Again, what you are showing is just a wider range of motivations not a complete lack of in the case of other species.

[sanctus]

Welcome to the forum Gabe Bixler. As soon as you get on this forum you start a heated debate, great!

 

 

Well, I do not agree with all your statements about art. The last thing you said "humans do art just for the purpose of art itself"; there I completly agree with Freethinker: humans never do something without any reason. It may just for passing time or because you don't know what to do, but have the need to something.

 

You also stated that art isn't a neccessity for us, well I don't agree.I defy find just one "artist" who has no reason to do it. Everybody has his own history which makes him needing to do what he does, maybe to overcome traumas, maybe to not depress, maybe to have fun,...

 

You stated the only species to have art, they answered you with the bird example, well there is also the neanderthal example, they had their primitive art as well.

 

 

You know, maybe your are right we are the only ones or by far the most intelligent ones, but maybe you're wrong. Just by thinking about the dimensions of our universe (not counting the paraellel universes you can get at, for example trough black holes), even if we are an anomalie, it's very hard to believe that we are the only anomalie. Actually, there you said something I completely agree, the universe being older somewhere doesn't imply that ther is intelligent life there,.... but it incre ases the possibilities.

[pgrmdave]

I think that part of the reason that we assume life elsewhere would be more intelligent is because our culture, when we began thinking about extraterrestrials, began by imagining them visiting us on earth, which would make them more advanced than us.

[pgrmdave]

My view is that we are, cosmically speaking, just starting to become intelligent. Even if another civilization had started around the same time ours did relative to the universe, that civilization could be thousands, maybe millions of years ahead of us, or thousands or millions of years behind us. But since we are most interested in intelligent civilizations, and considering we have only had about 10,000 years of civilization, and only about 80 years where we could contact any extraterrestrials, it makes sense that other civilizations would be ahead of us.

[TINNY]

My view is that we are, cosmically speaking, just starting to become intelligent.

so before, we were not intelligent? what is intelligent here? we are the same species as our ancestors in ancient civilizations. so the limit of our mind is equal. if they were not intelligent, then we are not intelligent too. To get past that limit requires a quantum leap, such as being a new species.

But since we are most interested in intelligent civilizations, and considering we have only had about 10,000 years of civilization, and only about 80 years where we could contact any extraterrestrials, it makes sense that other civilizations would be ahead of us

i don't understand.

[pgrmdave]

But since we are most interested in intelligent civilizations, and considering we have only had about 10,000 years of civilization, and only about 80 years where we could contact any extraterrestrials, it makes sense that other civilizations would be ahead of us.

 

My point is that, assuming that civilizations would develop similarly, there is more time ahead of us to be able to contact alien life than behind us. If an alien life form were to contact us, or be able to be contacted by us, they would either be within the early stages that we are in, or past us. Since there is more time in our future, they would most likely be past us.

[pgrmdave]

My view is that we are, cosmically speaking, just starting to become intelligent.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'intelligent'. I meant that we are just recently able to contact other worlds, and that in terms of the age of the universe, that has barely begun.

[sanctus]

Pgrmdave, how can you know that we have more than 80 years ahead of us? :-)

 

No, seriously I like this point of view. Just something, imagine we would be able to open a wormhole for example and get to another civilization. They may be farther than us in technology, but just didn't find it important to explore the universe or what you din't talk about, they may be at our level of technology; it seems to me you only considered cases where they would be far beyond/behind us.

[pgrmdave]

I simply don't believe that it is probable that they would be at a similar level of technology. Thirty years ago we weren't at a similar level of technology, to find another civilization at our level of technology would be nearly impossible. Not completely impossible, but not likely.

[pgrmdave]

Just something, imagine we would be able to open a wormhole for example and get to another civilization. They may be farther than us in technology, but just didn't find it important to explore the universe

 

I would find it difficult to imagine an intelligent civilization without curiosity. Most animals, that are at least more intelligent that insects, display curiousity occasionally. It may be because of common ancestors, but I think it is a sign of intelligence, that they are actively thinking about their environment and not simply reacting to it.

[TINNY]

curiosity is related to survival. When you catch a rat and put it in a cage, it will immediately explore to analyze the place and possibly find food. When there are levers and switches on the cages, the rat tries them to see what happens, usually hoping for food.

[Freethinker]

I think that part of the reason that we assume life elsewhere would be more intelligent is because our culture, when we began thinking about extraterrestrials, began by imagining them visiting us on earth, which would make them more advanced than us.

Not everyone suckers into the UFO thing. Most Scientists that are involved in cosmology reject out of hand any visitations from intellegent extraterrestials.

 

The assumption of greater intellegence is based primarily on the observation indicating that other parts of the galaxy is older than ours and thus would have had more time to evolve to a higher level.