I was a believer, now skeptic. Believers are wrong.

JadeStar
"
Not quite... I do not automatically presume intelligent space faring life. I presume "life" in a generic sense. Depending on several factors I decide whether they ay have life. One of those factors is the star's role in mythology."

Because that seems really science based... :rolleyes:

Sorry, it is another source of data. There is a mythos around Zeta Reticuli. It says there are people living there...we both understand those are "just stories"...myth. However we have all seen that there is a very high probability that there actually IS people living around Zeta Reticuli.

Don't strain your eyes too much...

There are the same kinds of "stores", myth about Tau Ceti.

Are they wholly unfounded? What of the probabilities?

Predicting planets is easy. It's rarer for stars NOT to have any planets at all than for them to have planets.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but; I've been saying THAT all along; planets are ubiquitous

As for life, we'll see on that. You have a 50% chance of that being right. Either there is life on a planet around one of the Zeta Reticuli stars or there isn't.

It's like flipping a coin. Head's you win. Tails you loose.

Not quite. The probability that I'm correct about life around Zeta 2 Reticuli is far greater than 50%...more on the order of 90%.

Mixing science and myth is never a good idea. It does both of them a disservice.

Wholly untrue...but then, I guess the science will damage the Myth's status as a "myth". The trade off there is knowledge.

" life is one of the most tenacious "things" in existence. "

Sure it is. But that does not automatically mean every habitable planet will produce life. Would life on Earth have risen without a magnetic field? Or without plate tectonics? These are big questions. Do not pretend to know the answers to them when some of the greatest minds in the relevant fields do not know.

Actually, statistically you will find that every single planet that is capable of producing and supporting life, has life.

Magnetic fields are not required, plate tectonics are not required. These may help to shape the eventual nature of the life a planet sports, but there is no requirement other than the capability of supporting a life form; period.

In science, it's is ok to say, "I don't know." But you have all the answers, without much to back them up than "hunches".

No, I don't have all the answers, but what I do have is actually supported by mathematics. And, I utter those words all the time because there are lots of things "I don't know".

So you're a published post doctoral astrobiologist right? Joking of course. There is no way you can know that. Like I said, do not pretend to know.

Call your speculation what it is: speculation.

Actually; why don't we call my speculation what it really is: probability based prediction.

Because you're an evolutionary biologist now who figured out how intelligence evolves and how often civilizations produce spaceflight right?

No...but I can find the opinions of others who are Evolutionary Biologists, and use their opinions and data in my computations.

I predict you have watched too many episodes of Star Trek (not that there is anything wrong with that, it's a great show but it is limited in its types of aliens because it depends on human actors) to get into costumes.

I also predict you have studied very little about the history of life on Earth. There is no reason why any of the extinct species, had things been a little different, evolved intelligence.

You and I could very well have been based on a trilobite ancestor rather than a primate one and having this conversation typing with four of our six limbs.

I guess here is one of the places where I'm going to ask that you re-evaluate the "gist" of the above paragraph. Please think about what it takes, in terms of physical performance, to actually build the required technology to leave Ones home world.

Hint: A multi armed / legged creature with no grasp is wholly incapable of building very much, and certainly nothing complex, regardless of its intelligence (take a look at Dolphins)

"I would predict that it is the Human form that is the "end point" of Monadic evolution and thus the end point of biological evolution. But that is perhaps another discussion. The reason for this is the ability to manufacture and manipulate tools, and objects, both physically and mentally."

And none of that is based on anything other than your own speculation. There is no science behind it so don't pretend that there is.

Well, actually there is science behind it, and very little speculation. How well versed are you in Quantum mechanics? How about string theory? or "M" theory? You will be going through all of these n the understanding of "Enochian Physics"

"By the way; I think it may be possible for a species to evolve into a space faring one, with the use of high intelligence, or technology. There may even be such a creature here on Earth."

I'm sorry; that didn't come out right. That was supposed to read "..., without the use of high ..." There seems to be an extremophile that likes Earth's upper atmosphere...it seems reasonable that a life form could reach inter-stellar space via evolution.

We do not know how common life is in the universe much less intelligent space faring life. I don't know, you don't know.

Yes, actually I do know, it's not all that hard to know. One can extend their consciousness and learn these things first hand; once they learn how.

However the difference between us is I'm studying this subject scientifically as part of my university studies.

Not all opinions are created equal.

Yes, and 've finished my university years...decades ago. When I was in school I learned things like advanced mathematics; analytical geometry, probability and statistics, calculus, data structures, physics. What are you learning?

And, no not all opinions are created equal; some have 60 years of education and experience, others have more, many have less.

When I speculate (which I kinda hate to do), I flat out say, "this is speculation".

I never say: "I believe" or "I predict".

Such is the stuff of New Age hucksters.

Without speculation progress becomes quite difficult, as no new direction is easily forthcoming; this can lead to the demise of innovation.

And of course; All hypotheses are speculation (just with some purpose and logic).

ZetaRediculian
Simplified:
You said poker does not demonstrate what You are talking about.
You said What you are talking about is Bayesian inference.
I then provided 3 links I randomly plucked from the web on poker and Bayesian inference.

You are obviously just avoiding that discussion. Not interested in playing games.

No I'm not avoiding your irrelevant discussion; just trying to keep on topic. The method employed to determine the relevant probabilities is quite different when One is talking about Cards, as opposed to stars. I understand how difficult it is to grasp this, I struggled with it at first, fortunately with time I cam to understand. And, all I'm going to tell you is: it's probability thing.

I am actually interested in discussing this with the people that know about the topic.9

And I'm not sure why you are sending me private messages. I just delete them and don't read them anyway. But if it makes you feel better...

I seriously doubt that you have any such interest...the statement is a ploy. You have been on a "mission" to disgrace and discredit me since you discovered that I was here. The PM are an attempt to get you to behave in a civilized manner, to stop with the personal crap.

Please insert your denial here >

Please tell me; "Why is everything I say incorrect?" Why do you take issue at my every statement?

reply to post by tanka418

No I'm not avoiding your irrelevant discussion; just trying to keep on topic.

You are the one that brought it up. I am pointing out the error. So you avoid and sling insults.

You have been on a "mission" to disgrace and discredit me since you discovered that I was here

I have been on a mission? And who are you exactly?

You made a erroneous statement and I pointed that out. You sling insults and I'm trying to disgrace you??

I'm staying on topic. I have asked you to clarify your statements. You have not.

Please tell me; "Why is everything I say incorrect?" Why do you take issue at my every statement?

So far I have taken issue with one and only one statement of yours in this thread. Same as with anyone else making false statements. Get over it.

ZetaRediculian
You are the one that brought it up. I am pointing out the error. So you avoid and sling insults.

Firstly; I'm not slinging insults, at least not intentionally. If anything I have said insulted you I apologize.

Next; You posted the stuff about poker. As I have tried to point out, the methods employed are different when One is talking about a deck 52 cards, as differentiated from the Cosmos.

The equations, techniques for finding probabilities has to cover a far wider range of "method" than when ne is considering just 52 cards.

It seems probable that you have little knowledge of probability and its various method, and I'll admit, it can be far more confusing than differential calculus.

While I don't mind discussing any topic; it is difficult to hold an intelligent discussion when the One I am discussing with already assumes I'm wrong.

As JadeStar has pointed out; there is nothing wrong with not knowing. If you, as it would seem, don't know about probability, Bayesian inference, etc. please don't presume that I don't either. If you are knowledgeable in these areas, then please enlighten us.

So far I have taken issue with one and only one statement of yours in this thread. Same as with anyone else making false statements.

I've made no false statements.

reply to post by tanka418

The method employed to determine the relevant probabilities is quite different when One is talking about Cards, as opposed to stars

So it's a different Bayesian Inference we are talking about? Can you elaborate?

to OP, Its good you have had your closure. But i fail to see the point why we had to know about it

ZetaRediculian
So it's a different Bayesian Inference we are talking about? Can you elaborate?

No, the fundamental method of computing the Bayesian result remains the same. However the methods used to compute other probabilities; i.e. the starting "prior probability". Also the probabilities that are used to "update" the Bayesian model are different.

When working with the cards, there are a total of 52 objects to select from and the number of random selections is also "fixed" to a large degree. Thus the methods of calculating the probabilities are somewhat different, just as they are when considering a coin, or dice.

And, as hope ya know; the Bayesian model allow us to "construct" a kind of "proof" for our hypothesis (nt its not the kind of proof you are think of) that allows us to "input" new data (in the form of probabilities) as it becomes available.

But, to answer the original question; no, I would use the very same algorithm in every appropriate case of inference.

reply to post by tanka418


Not sure why all the huffing and puffing. I never said it was the same. You implied that I did.

However, poker is largely a game of probability. A part of the game I am very familiar with. That's why the top players are also mathematicians. Just google Chris "jesus" Furguson.

Your statement that poker has little to do with mathematical probability is wrong.

Your insistence on applying statistical methods on large scale problems such as the cosmos without first recognizing poker as a statistical game is problematic.

I just can't trust what you are saying.

ZetaRediculian

Your statement that poker has little to do with mathematical probability is wrong.

No, poker is a game, invented to entertain Ones mind when there is little else to do. Mathematics, and especially probability, had little, if anything, to do in the invention of the game, or its design.

The fact that it can be described by probability should be of no surprise or significant consequence; it should be a "given".

Your insistence on applying statistical methods on large scale problems such as the cosmos without first recognizing poker as a statistical game is problematic.

You are misunderstanding my meaning. Perhaps you are too literal, and/or I not enough.

I am not a UFO seeker.I am of the belief that if they can come this far, they can disguise themselves. But that being said...


I have also seen the Phoenix lights. Which most people don't know is that they are a regular occurrence.

And they are freaky. The second we laid eyes on them, my husband and I both froze and all the hair stood up on our bodies.

See there is a big difference between what you see in rl and what is on video. If I showed you a video, they could be passed off as flares.

I don't pretend to know what they are, but I can assure you that the media and the people don't buy the bunk that comes out of Lukes AFB, and they were pretty freaky.

reply to post by Keylogger


hello i have to agree i think it is all a hoaux
i think govermeants are behind this
they want to create the illiuison that the aliens are real
they to this to hide the things they are building
.I have great interst in history of every kind ./
The cia and govermeants backed the making of
ufo films of all kind they wanted to create the illiusion
to cover up their black ops.most of the info out thier
is disinformation projects.if thier is aliens out thier
its not the ones we are being told about ./
also i do belive miliatry are close or have anti gravity tecnhnolgy in use
.also mercury ion engines /sorry about the spelling also look
up what von brown said abot the alein illiusion an the future
plan they want to use the treat for
/

nerbot

Keylogger
I was a believer, now skeptic. Believers are wrong.

I am a skeptic, but telling believers they are "wrong" is just plain ignorant.

You "know" nothing, and your frustration in not finding truth has driven you to that ignorance and a brick wall opposition.

There is no PROOF either way regarding the existance of aliens, UFOs exist, that's a fact.

All the eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings must however be taken with a pinch of salt regardless of the source because we are human, and fallable.

Only personal experience counts for something but it is for the individual and should never be taken as truth by others. Possibility, but not truth.

edit on 28/12/2013 by nerbot because: (no reason given)

I am a believer because I have had first hand experience ... and I agree 100% with what you said in your post.

I am inclined to think that the OP has not actually had any first hand experience ... if he had he would not be able to make such a turn around and his claim that all believers are 'wrong' shows his naivety ... and his own ignorance.

Woody )O(

reply to post by tanka418


All anyone has to do is google "poker" and you will be provided with several thousand links on mathematical probability.

Discussion of mathmatical probability can include a discussion of poker and it makes understanding the larger problems easier.

One big difference is that when applying the math to something like poker, you have an exact math that is provable. With the way you are applying this, there is nothing provable, just fantasy based assumptions.

You are misunderstanding my meaning. Perhaps you are too literal, and/or I not enough

I don't think so.

"poker has little to do with mathematical probability"

Can only be interprited one way and Is an incorrect statement as evidenced by the entire Internet.

Can you provide a link to back up your comment?

There are billions of creatures on earth that have never seen humans.

woodwytch
I am a believer because I have had first hand experience ... and I agree 100% with what you said in your post.

Ironically (for some), so have I.

Something very unexplainable right in front of my eyes with a witness present who saw the same.

I'm still a skeptic though....because I know I am human and cannot understand everything or explain everything.

ZetaRediculian
One big difference is that when applying the math to something like poker, you have an exact math that is provable. With the way you are applying this, there is nothing provable, just fantasy based assumptions.

The math involved with / in poker is the very same probability that is applied to the cosmos; you are very mistaken here. There is nothing "more provable" about poker as opposed to the Cosmos.

Why must you be so obtuse? Your insistence on an inappropriate example is quite puzzling. And only serves to demonstrate my hypothesis about you; that your only intent is to obfuscate.

Again, IF you know something I don't please enlighten. I've asked you this several times; all I get is some BS about a game that can be described by probability, but, isn't probability itself.

ETA: if you can't show me where I'm "wrong", and I don't mean that "poker BS" either; then you logically have no argument. Show us how my "application" is wrong.

tanka418
The math involved with / in poker is the very same probability that is applied to the cosmos; you are very mistaken here. There is nothing "more provable" about poker as opposed to the Cosmos.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

"Poker" involves 52 cards, 4 suits etc, etc... A finite number of possibilities.

The cosmos as we currently know it is INFINITE so any calculations done regarding it can only ever be seen as "speculation".

reply to post by tanka418

Mathematics, and especially probability, had little, if anything, to do in the invention of the game, or its design.

so the cosmos was designed specifically for math problems?

The fact that it can be described by probability should be of no surprise or significant consequence; it should be a "given".

same as the cosmos?

So if we take the 52 cards and turned them into 52 billion stars does that help illustrate the point?

Forget poker it's confusing you. Say you have a standard deck of 52 cards and we are trying to determine the probability of the first card being drawn will be an ace. We can express that with an exact number because we know how many aces are in the deck.

Now take away that we know how many aces are in the deck or even if there are aces in the deck and the problem is much harder. There is no way to get an exact number since the aces are unknown. Now if we only ever seen one ace ever...

Now we turn those cards into 52 billion stars and you are telling me you can calculate an exact probability?

All you can do is guess and BS people.

reply to post by tanka418

The math involved with / in poker is the very same probability that is applied to the cosmos; you are very mistaken here. There is nothing "more provable" about poker as opposed to the Cosmos.

If you trying to Come off as credible, it's not working. This is an incorrect statement and also contradicts your earlier statement. Math is math.

There are 4 aces in a deck of cards. Exact math can be applied when playing a game like poker or simpler games like war. Blackjack is also good. It is also why card counting is not allowed.

How many aces are in the cosmos? Sounds silly doesn't it?

southbeach
reply to post by sled735

 

There is a lot of mind control involved,my friend was on a busy high street with her 3 kids in the daytime and saw a metallic ball like structure hovering above a shop,the people around her started to panic when she pointed it out. The people scurried off staring at the floor and covering their faces from it shouting "don't look at it!"like they were in some fear induced trance.
The whole thing is so complex,no video can ever do it justice.

Great read.

When we had our 2003 sighting it was broad daylight and the street should have been very busy. The school around the corner had just emptied too, but when I ran in my back door to get out the front of the house and into the street there was nobody there, no cars or buses either. Silence, except for my panting and his nibs asking "where the fk have you been?" because I took so long finding my camera. Only when the thing we saw drifted upwards and off did life seem to go back to normal.
And then there was our neighbour with his binos saying "it was just a kid's balloon, I saw the string."
Altogether very strange.