Uh oh...Is Drake's Equation really reliable?

As for us having EBE's here visiting us... I think that's highly unlikely.

Given our level of technology, I'd agree.

Given a society that has been around 5000 years longer than we have, I'd have to say the chance has vastly improved.

Remember, bare maximum, you're looking at around a 6 billion year window for other such civilizations to have evolved, so it could be a society 5000, 10,000, maybe even millions of years older than we are.... We went from riding horses to landing on the moon in less than a century. It'd be pretty illogical to assume that given a few thousand more years, interplanetary travel would be unfathomable.....

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Gazrok]

The variables in Drake's Equation were meant to be defined as more information came out. We've barely scratched the surface. And not all the information we have gathered has been released to the public. That said, until all the information we need to make the equation really work is here, we will never be able to properly utilize it.

There is an ESTIMATED 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. We have no way of knowing even how many planets revolve around just one on average. We cannot yet directly detect planets of certain sizes either, or even detect some stars due to obstacles in the foreground.

I would agree that a potentially much older species would necessarily be advanced in the areas of physiology as well as technologically advanced.

However I'm not sure I understand why some feel the two need necessarily be mutually exclusive options.

Palasheea, I'm perfectly willing to admit the possibility that some advanced species from another world (possibly several) are 'projecting' materializations of themselves (and/or craft) here on Earth, as a means of 'visiting' our world.

I'm also willing to admit the possibility that some advanced species from another world (possibly several) are physically visiting our world in physical spacecraft.

I think there is substantial evidence for both arguments, however I don't feel that the existence of either option precludes the possibility of the other option.

And frankly ( I know this holds no weight as far as 'proof of anything' I've seen some things in the sky that look not only physical, but extra-terrestrial. These objects exhibit characteristics that in my view define them as spaceships (whether they are from here or beyond).

At any rate, I just want to itterate that both might be possible, or neither. I'm in favor of the theory that physical beings are visiting us, mostly due to the experiences I've had and the evidence I've been able to acquire through research into the phenomenon. But I also consider the science involved (which does not prohibit the 'EME' theory, but argues strongly for the EBE theory).

In fact, EME's visiting here through 'materialization' could well fit the category of EBE, but with a different method of exploration.

I just don't think that the two theories in any way cancel each other out.
My 2 cents

-WFA

Unless they've managed to invent technology (or a level of spiritual development) that enables their "consciousness" to travel across light years in space to other universes, this would be the only way for them to do this... But being a "consciousness" only, and being an extraterrestrial BIOLOGICAL entity are 2 different things... there are no EBE's visiting our planet IMHO.





[edit on 14-4-2008 by Palasheea]

However I'm not sure I understand why some feel the two need necessarily be mutually exclusive options.

Not mutually exclusive, but the factors certainly are likely connected very strongly...i.e. older civilization = more likelihood for developing interstellar travel. That doesn't mean an ET caveman couldn't have stumbled upon a way to do it, or that a 5000 year old ET civilization just finally stumbled onto television.....just that one is more likely than the other.

I've seen the 400 billion estimate (stars in the galaxy) before...but 100 billion always seemed more commonly accepted. Of course, they likely really have no good idea...hehe....as that's a pretty big margin of error...
Lets just say its "billions and billions" and be done with it...

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Gazrok]

Sure they may be live in civilizations that are thousands, millions and billions of years older than humanity here on earth but I think it's fair to say that at some point in their evolution, they no longer were evolving for survival and from that point on, they remained at a certain level of intelligence not unlike where humanity is now. Some may be technologically more advanced than us by thousands or millions of years but...

and here's some more food for thought:

Nor can we be sure of the general direction that other intelligent species might take in their development. We tend to measure progress and advancement on a scientific and technological scale – by the sophistication of our inventions and our knowledge of the physical universe. Yet there are and have been societies on Earth which have not given such high priority to the pursuit of rational understanding or the development of technology. In cultures that place more value on intuition, the direct experience of nature, spiritual fulfillment, and transcendental modes of awareness, a remarkably different view of the world seems to prevail. It may be that we shall encounter in the future alien races whose technological accomplishments are relatively modest but who have explored to depths beyond our comprehension the nature and potentialties of consciousness. It is difficult to come to terms with the possibility that despite all of our achievements we may still, comparatively speaking, be close to the bottom of the ladder of development.

www.daviddarling.info...

reply to post by Palasheea


Palasheea, I mean no offense here, but I think it's important to clarify.
We have no evidence that a species will ever stop evolving, either spiritually or technologically. In fact I'm not sure that Humans have stopped evolving either. For example, when Humans eventually colonize other worlds, the gravity of those worlds is highly likely to 'evolve' the humans living there in order for them to be able to deal with that environment.

At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that I don't see spiritual evolution (the ability to project oneself in thought form specifically) as either a hindrance or precludence to the development of technology that accomplishes the same end.

In fact, I believe it's highly likely that the tech will come first.
But of course you and I are free to disagree on the methods involved

I just don't think that the emergence of one precludes the emergence of the other. There are most likely (IMHO) MANY species out there, likely utilizing different methods of exploration.

-WFA

WFA, I think you must be misunderstanding me -- I never said or even implied that we humans will not evolve scientifically and technologically.

I never said that.


But according to many scientists, mankind's physiological evolution has reached a standstill -- and this includes our brains too. And the natural assumption is that ET's also have come to a standstill in this regard too where they very well may be just like we are in terms of their "intelligence". They may be millions of years ahead of us technologically though... this goes without saying. But in terms of overall brain capacity, we may be just like they are.

But as far as we humans advancing spiritually, I think we are at the bottom of that ladder now where we've only just begun on that journey ... needless to say, we've only just barely tapped into those potentials in this area and who's to say that as we explore "consciousness" more, this may in turn have an effect on our physiological brains to become more evolved in a forward darwinistic direction. Perhaps even changing our DNA in some way too!




[edit on 14-4-2008 by Palasheea]

Let's not forget artificial intelligence and possibly even artificial life. Robots, androids, probes, and/or cyborgs could potentially survive for thousands of years if they learn or are programmed to maintain themselves and their ship. They could travel at sub-light speed, so breaking the speed of light wouldn't be necessary (though it would help).

Here's an interesting related article I found recently. It discusses the possibility of us doing the same thing or similar someday.
www.space.com...

Originally posted by Palasheea
But according to many scientists, mankind's physiological evolution has reached a standstill -- and this includes our brains too.

We've only been around in our current form for about 50,000 years. I don't see how anybody can determine that our evolution is over. And even if that were the case, we evolved smart enough so that we can start controlling our own DNA, so even if we've stopped evolving through natural processes, we are soon going to start evolving artificially. Who knows where that is going to take us?

I also consider artificial intelligence and machines to be an aspect of our evolution, also. They will be our offspring. A kind of shift away from organic life to machine life. That's only a few thousand years away, if that.

Would a technologically advanced alien culture go down those roads, also? Maybe. Although the Fermi Paradox allows for the spread of self-replicating machine probes, and noted that given the age of the galaxy, we should have seen those, too. Which we apparently haven't.

Originally posted by Palasheea
WFA, I think you must be misunderstanding me -- I never said or even implied that we humans will not evolve scientifically and technologically.

I suppose I was misunderstanding you. My apologies

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Palasheea
WFA, I think you must be misunderstanding me -- I never said or even implied that we humans will not evolve scientifically and technologically.

I suppose I was misunderstanding you. My apologies

-WFA

Ho, ho, ho -- glad we got that one cleared up!

Originally posted by Nohup
Although the Fermi Paradox allows for the spread of self-replicating machine probes, and noted that given the age of the galaxy, we should have seen those, too. Which we apparently haven't.

Hello Nohup. I'm sorry but I must point out that your last statement is in fact, unqualified.

What is true is that we don't have proof of visitation using such a method.
Lack of proof cannot be used to argue the existence or non existence of such a visitation.

I'll note that you did use the word 'apparently' , so in as far as the apparently is applied, I would agree that our lack of proof of such an encounter argues that one has not happened since the time Humans evolved the ability to understand such a visitation for what it is/was.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't happened. As has been stated, we've only been at our current level of 'understanding' of the universe for a remarkably short time.

-WFA

Originally posted by Nohup
Would a technologically advanced alien culture go down those roads, also? Maybe. Although the Fermi Paradox allows for the spread of self-replicating machine probes, and noted that given the age of the galaxy, we should have seen those, too. Which we apparently haven't.

My guess is cloaking, AKA invisibility, possibly combined with advanced stealth materials/technologies. We're developing such things, so I think it's highly likely that a starfaring race would have done so long ago. And of course, there's always the possibility that alien ships/probes have been seen many times, but are kept secret by the governments of the world. Mix government secrecy and the mindset of society in general with the covert activity of aliens... and then it's no wonder we can't prove for sure whether they're here or not.

Unfortunately scientists can only give an explanation on data they've tested.

Problem we have here is that there is no proof.
And lack of proof doesn't necessarily mean that something does not exist.

Hell we are still discovering creatures on our planet that we didn't think existed.
How much harder do you think it's going to be discovering something that's on an entirely different planet, in a different solar system and in a different galaxy.

Just because we can't see it or think it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Chew on that Mr. Scientist.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Hello Nohup. I'm sorry but I must point out that your last statement is in fact, unqualified.

What is true is that we don't have proof of visitation using such a method.
Lack of proof cannot be used to argue the existence or non existence of such a visitation.

I'll note that you did use the word 'apparently'

, so in as far as the apparently is applied, I would agree that our lack of proof of such an encounter argues that one has not happened since the time Humans evolved the ability to understand such a visitation for what it is/was.

So there you go. Rather than being unqualified, my statement was in fact quite qualified. However, to elaborate a little more on it, if the development of technology, to include self-replicating, spacefaring Von Neumann machines was common for civilizations to do, then we would be talking about an almost viral spread of the things, coming from huge variety of aliens. After a while, you wouldn't be able to throw a Frisbee without hitting one, there would be so many. They would likely be much more obvious, and a decent percentage of them would not care about stealth.

And that leads to the quarantine idea again. Which is not a bad idea, although given the large number of sightings, one would have to admit that as quarantines go, this one is pretty leaky.

And that leads to wondering just why, out of so many sightings, we haven't had a good definitive case. You would think by now we'd have something. So the very absence of good hard proof becomes evidence in itself.

Which leads us to time travel and other kinds of reality manipulation. Me, anyway. And that's an area where the conjecture runs wild and fun, but too wild for reasonable discussion.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Nohup]

Intestingly, if replicating Von Newmann probes were really sent out, in a relatively short time they would over-run the Galaxy.

They'd continue propagating and would eventually use up all resources in their own construction, some theorize.

Thus, an actual program like this would have to have self-limiting controls in place.

Originally posted by Nohup
And that leads to wondering just why, out of so many sightings, we haven't had a good definitive case. You would think by now we'd have something. So the very absence of good hard proof becomes evidence in itself.

I'm sorry, I take issue with this. We have many good solid definitive cases. And Nohup, you know this, you just commented on one in the BOLA thread.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. I'm sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water, not even with noted skeptics like Jim Oberg.

Take the giant squid for example. Ever seen a living specimen? Me either. Want to make bets that they don't exist? I wouldn't.

Badge01 has a great point that such a factor would necessarily be pre-determined, and we both know that intelligent species can excersice foresight and plan around potential problems.

You ask us all the time how we 'make the jump' to finding evidence pertaining to ET/EME/EBE whatever you want to call it.

I must ask you now, how do you skip over the theory and on to arguments you yourself admit are too outlandish for serious conversation?

Usually I find you one of the most logical people here Nohup. I'm having trouble understanding your rationale today, on this topic.

-WFA

LOL but you're right, that statement WAS qualified, by the word 'apparently'

-WFA

One thing that's always kept me intrigued as to how these equations work.. is that we apply our definition of life to them... I can assume there are many different ways for things to 'live' that we don't even know about yet... or have considered... hehehe.