Posts by yo2013


log in
1) Message boards : News : More on METI (Message 1641729)
Posted 14 Feb 2015 by yo2013
I still think it's a bad idea to link this statement to the S@H project.

Bye
2) Message boards : Politics : When is a debate political? (Message 1641274)
Posted 13 Feb 2015 by yo2013

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.


I don't see anything political in that sentence.


It's a typical sentence, used in a debate.


Not all debates are political.


Debates are always politically tinted.


Nope.


Yes they are!


Show me what political issue there is in my sentence.


The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


There is nothing political in the underlined part. Again: what political issue is there?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31442952
"My personal preference is to send the internet - send it all because if you send a lot of information then there's some chance that they'll work it out".

That's would be really unwise. We try to restrict own childrens from quite big parts of that "info", now he wanna send it out... Quite foolish.
EDIT: sound like man think that "internet" is his own favorite website, maximum 2 his favorite websites. He lost quite a lot of respect in my eyes by saying such obvious rubbish.


3) Message boards : Politics : When is a debate political? (Message 1641176)
Posted 13 Feb 2015 by yo2013

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.


I don't see anything political in that sentence.


It's a typical sentence, used in a debate.


Not all debates are political.


Debates are always politically tinted.


Nope.


Yes they are!


Show me what political issue there is in my sentence.
4) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1641150)
Posted 13 Feb 2015 by yo2013
Big thing about it in the news today. I did look to see if Eric was there....

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31442952


I hope SETI Institute will be involved at last in METI. Half of the SETI scientists in the world belong to the institute but, until now, all METI activities have been done outside it.
5) Message boards : Politics : When is a debate political? (Message 1641145)
Posted 13 Feb 2015 by yo2013

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.


I don't see anything political in that sentence.


It's a typical sentence, used in a debate.


Not all debates are political.


Debates are always politically tinted.


Nope.
6) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640728)
Posted 12 Feb 2015 by yo2013

Now that you mention free speech, I do not want this topic to be trashed by people who feel 'important' and feel 'they have something to say' whilst they have sh*t to say.


Even if it (though it was direct citation of my post) not aimed to me I red-crossed this insult. All participants of this discussion expressed his views on topic, such insults, especially from mod, are completely intorelable on any thread, especially in news.


Totally agree.
7) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640714)
Posted 12 Feb 2015 by yo2013

...and quite possibly have fallen into groupthink. Evenso, while I fully respect the sciences and the scientific work accomplished by those dedicated individuals, by no means they should have the only say. Certainly they may be more informed than a laymen, the decision to engage in METI shouldn't rest on the shoulders of so few.


More people don't make a decision more intelligent, particularly when almost all the people added are layman on that field.


The topic truly is more important than specialists and scientists. It is a decision that effects the whole of the human race.


No, it doesn't. Since we can't hide, METI doesn't increase the risk. And, again, more people aren't better evaluating risk that less people, if that more people are mostly ignorant of the field.


Again, assuming they're even looking in our direction.


Again, METI also needs that they are looking in our direction. I'm getting bored of refuting the already refuted arguments.


It would be nice if you would acknowledge that many assumptions on your part have to fall into place before what say can be true.


Ok, I got bored. I'll stop here.
8) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640708)
Posted 12 Feb 2015 by yo2013

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.


The above looks like a typical politics quote in my eyes.


I don't see anything political in that sentence.
9) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640577)
Posted 12 Feb 2015 by yo2013
OzzFan wrote:


Doesn't matter what you consider very unlikely. The point is that some feel more people should have a say. I am one of those people.


My opinion is not based on feelings, but on the reasoning that: (1) scientists specialized in a topic (any topic) have more knowledge than a layman (they know the literature, they know the physics, they worked a long time on the problems, etc.) and (2) after half a century of scientific debate, there is not much to add.


There is no fallacy here, only your assumptions. You assume they are nearby us enough to detect our noise. You assume they are even listening in our direction. You assume there is even other life out there.


These aren't assumptions. I already gave the reasons. They can use spectroscopy to study our atmosphere and detect us. They can use gravitational lensing and see us. Etc. It would be nice if you discuss my arguments instead of continuously saying that it's only my opinion or my feeling or my assumptions.


Again, assuming they are even nearby, or listening in our direction.


If they aren't listening in our direction, they can't detect our METI either. I said it but again you refuse to argue about it: "they will not find our messages by chance".


Except that my percentage A) wasn't a statistic and B) wasn't made up. I gave my examples of possible scenarios to indicate to you that there is more than just "If we think it is unwise, they will think it is unwise and we'll have a Great Silence".


My sentence was only an analogy, using an often cited kind of sentence. If you want a literal one, here it's: your probabilities are made up, you assign equal probabilities to all cases without any reasoning to support your assignment.

The rest of your post is a repeat of already refuted arguments.

As a last note, it seems unwise to me that S@H project leaders make statements like this one, that can make some chrunchers leave the project, and that will not contribute anything to S@H progress. Regardless of the signataries being wrong or right, this is a bad strategy for S@H.
10) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640408)
Posted 11 Feb 2015 by yo2013
N9JFE David S wrote:
By our way of thinking, yes. Maybe they came to a different conclusion.


It's not my way of thinking, it's the reasoning of the statement. If the reasoning is right, as surely the signataries think, the ETI will reach the same conclusion, and then the scenario I wrote about follows.


You quoted me out of context. When I said "they," I was referring to ETI, not Human METI experts.

You make a good case that if we think it's a bad idea to actively send messages, other civilizations will also think that. But only if you take it as an absolute can you follow it to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of our time and effort to listen for any messages they might send. I certainly do not take it as an absolute.


I understood that you were referring to ETI. Again, if the reasoning were right, the ETI would arrive to the same conclusion (remember the I in ETI).
11) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640402)
Posted 11 Feb 2015 by yo2013

Incorrect. The cautious remain alive to build upon each other's knowledge. The foolhardy do not take proper precautions and end up dead. Can you imagine what would have happened if no caution were exercised during any scientific experiment?

I think far too many here are confusing cautious with lack of interest in new knowledge. Indeed this is the only way we've survived.


If humanity were so cautious as antiMETI proponents, you would not be living in the US. The Americas would be unpopulated.
12) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640394)
Posted 11 Feb 2015 by yo2013
OzzFan wrote:

This is the first time I've engaged in such public discourse. I would imagine it would be a first for many others as well.


Not for the SETI/METI community:


That's great, but the statement is suggesting that the larger population have a say as well, not just the METI community that obviously agree with each other, or they wouldn't be a part of that community.


I didn't say METI community, I said SETI/METI community, and no, that community doesn't agree with each other.

As for the larger population, I consider it very unlikely that they will find better arguments for/against METI than the scientists that work on SETI/METI.


...and again you miss my position entirely. Even if they are advanced enough to find us one way or the other, doesn't mean we have to go about broadcasting our position. If they happen to find us, then they happen to find us. There's little that can be done about such a scenario. That still doesn't mean we have to go about broadcasting our position simply because "they'll find us one way or the other".


You insist on your fallacy. It's much much much easier to detect us than to come here to kill us. So, if they want to find some ETI to kill, they will find us quickly and easy, no matter what we do. They don't need our METI to find us and they will not find our messages by chance. The jungle analogy is fundamentally wrong. ON THE OTHER HAND, if they are non-hostile and we don't engage in METI, they can think we don't want to be visited or don't want to talk by radio.

To sum it, we have nothing to gain from staying silent and much to lose. Without METI, we all lose (we and they).



But we can at least suppose that civilizations want and try to survive (if not, they would not exist now) and they are logical (if not, they would not have developed science an technology to travel here). So, if the statement's logic were sound, the Great Silence follows.


Not at all. You are only seeing this from a binary logical perspective (either we do it and they'll do it, or we don't do it and they won't do it). Again, you make absolutist assumptions on ETI's part based upon what I am saying we should do. Literally, the choices are:

We broadcast, they broadcast.
We don't broadcast, they broadcast.
We broadcast, they don't broadcast.
We don't broadcast, they don't broadcast.


You are supposing that all communication is broadcast. Energetically, this is very problematic. I think it was James Bendford (one of the signataries) the one that calculated that a Kardashev type I civilization can't do that. It's much more intelligent to beam messages to the stars only.


There are four possible scenarios here, and only one of them fits your Great Silence conclusion. There are still three other possible scenarios, which means you only have a 25% chance in being correct about your Great Silence. There's still a 75% chance things could happen another way.


Do you know that 83% of statistics are made up? 94% of people know that!


Indeed. But we don't have to announce it either.


What? If we can't hide why should we refrain to announce us? Another fallacy. You are proposing that we bury our head in the sand like ostriches.


Have you ever played "hide-and-go-seek"? Sometimes you give your own position away by accident, or because your legs cramped up, or whatever. Just because we can't hide absolutely, doesn't mean the only alternative choice is to give our position away, nor does it mean burying your head in the sand either.


Very bad analogy. Our situation is like someone in a party refusing to talk to anyone and even making eye contact, sitting alone in a corner looking at his glass of whiskey, waiting for someone to come and talk to him.

As several posters have said, it's very easy to find us for a civilization that can kill us. If someone wanted to and could kill us, we would be already dead.
13) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640077)
Posted 11 Feb 2015 by yo2013
A totally conservative and rational viewpoint.


Only for cowards and drones.

If they are out there, they must know we are here (if more advanced than us). If they wanted to croak us, they would have already.

(maybe that's where Leftism comes from?)

If you don't take a chance, you never have progress. ANY progress.

Let's just go back to our caves and dance around the fire some more. Yeah, that's the ticket!


Indeed.
14) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640075)
Posted 11 Feb 2015 by yo2013
OzzFan wrote:

This is the first time I've engaged in such public discourse. I would imagine it would be a first for many others as well.


Not for the SETI/METI community:

http://www.setileague.org/editor/index.html (search for "Active SETI" and "METI")

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?s=METI

Read the articles. The issue has been discussed in conferences and papers. Every time a METI transmission project is anounced, there is again discussion on the issue. A commitee of the International Academy of Astronautics discussed the issue several times, never banning or discouraging METI:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/12/08/douglas-vakoch/importance-active-seti

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meti-should-we-be-shouting-at-the-cosmos

Of course it's not a logical fallacy. I do not think that traits that cause humans to kill are unique to humans. Indeed, if we agree that an evolutionary process is common for any species to evolve and progress, that there is a possibility that some species will come out very warlike, or at least with a conquering mindset of anything they view as lesser than them.

The entire idea that an advanced civilization that can travel the cosmos wouldn't want to harm anyone seems to biggest fallacy of all.


You missed the point entirely. I was talking about the impossibility of the existence of an ETI than is dangerous (that is, "capable and willing to travel insterestellar distances to kill" other ETI) but unable to find us if we don't transmit METI. It has nothing to do with their will of killing or not killing us, but with the absurdity of a technological civilization than is able to travel interestellar distances to kill us but is unable to find us if we don't actively transmit a message to them.

But of course you can't possibly know that other civilizations aren't transmitting even though we aren't. We can't assume that every action we take will be the same action another civilization would take.


But we can at least suppose that civilizations want and try to survive (if not, they would not exist now) and they are logical (if not, they would not have developed science an technology to travel here). So, if the statement's logic were sound, the Great Silence follows.

Again, you're reading too much into it. They have not made the decision "that nobody on Earth should engage in METI" indefinitely or absolutely. They have simply stated that out of 7 billion people on the planet, how many are actually aware of these efforts? Shouldn't this be brought to more people's attention to see if this is what we all want?


I already replied to this in the reply to the other poster.

Indeed. But we don't have to announce it either.


What? If we can't hide why should we refrain to announce us? Another fallacy. You are proposing that we bury our head in the sand like ostriches.
15) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1640061)
Posted 11 Feb 2015 by yo2013
N9JFE David S wrote:

You are still reading it wrong.

The second quoted sentence above actually says that METI is a bona fide scientific endeavor that its opponents will try to scare the public into thinking is not bona fide so they will oppose funding it.


Ok, I read it wrong. Sorry. Anyway, the manifest still says that doing METI is unwise.

By our way of thinking, yes. Maybe they came to a different conclusion.


It's not my way of thinking, it's the reasoning of the statement. If the reasoning is right, as surely the signataries think, the ETI will reach the same conclusion, and then the scenario I wrote about follows.

No, the few individuals have made the decision that there should be a much larger discussion before it happens. They did not decide that it should never happen.


They said we should wait an undefinite amount of time. We already discussed the issue during half a century. The signataries don't say anything about how much discussion will be enough. If half a century of international discussion doesn't suffice, probably nothing will suffice to them.

And, until now, they haven't presented any solid argument against METI. As I said, if there is some advanced ETI out there, they probably detected Earth life long ago, and our civilization centuries ago.
16) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1639807)
Posted 10 Feb 2015 by yo2013
First of all, there were such transmissions already.
Moreover, there are Pioneer's and Voyager's disks . So I would say it's little late to make such statements.


Indeed, we Earthlings have already detected spectroscopic signatures on giant exoplanets, and surely will be able to do the same for Earth-sized planets on this century. Imagine what an allien civ capable of sending an army here could detect. Certainly they already detected our strange atmosphere, with all that free oxygen and a gas mix very far from chemical equilibrium.

Another example, one of the signataries of the statement, Claudio Maccone, is the strongest supporter of a mission called FOCAL that will send a small telescope to 550 AU from the Sun. At that distance there is the focal point of Sun's gravitational lens. A telescope there would have so high magnification, thanks to gravitational lensing, as to be capable of seeing towns and cities in Alpha Centauri Bb.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=785

We can fear alliens, but certainly we can't hide.
17) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1639755)
Posted 10 Feb 2015 by yo2013
I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't state anywhere that transmitting isn't intelligent.


It doesn't say it with that word, but in essence that is what it says. For example:

"As a newly emerging technological species, it is prudent to listen before we shout."

"Opponents of METI would vocally condemn METI transmissions, confusing the public about, and imperiling funding for, bona fide scientific endeavors related to extraterrestrial life."

So METI is "not prudent" nor "bona fide scientific endeavor" and it is "confusing the public". That seems to me a declaration that METI is a foolish, stupid and dangerous course of action.

The argument being made is that more public discourse should be taken into account before people start doing conducting such experiments and research.


We had already half a century of METI activities and debate. How much will be needed? Another 50 years? Maybe 100? Or perhaps 200? Also, the commitee of the IAA for SETI/METI voted 3 times against a ban/discouraging of METI. How much discussion is still needed? Maybe we should wait until humanity is extinct. Then surely will be no danger in METI. The anti-METI movement seems to me like the anti-GMO movement or the anti thelephony antenna movement. They allways claim more debate/testing is needed, but really they don't want any debate or testing, only an indefinite ban on that technology, since no proof or data will ever suffice to them. That's why I think the S@H scientists/institutions will never engage in METI.

Why should aliens transmit a message? Maybe they won't. Maybe they're advanced enough to know they could defend themselves from most aggressors. Maybe there's a mostly peaceful alliance of races that are looking for new races and species to join their friendly alliance by actively sending a signal. There's plenty of reasons why they would. However, none of this has anything to do with whether or not we should send a message ourselves.


Why an ETI capable and willing to travel insterestellar distances to kill the intelligent beings there, would be incapable of detecting us without METI? If you are searching for falacies this is a good one.

You are attempting to assemble a logical fallacy in that you're saying that if we don't consider it intelligent (false), that an alien species will also consider it unintelligent (unknown, probably false), so no one will send signals at all. Then you reason from there that we should indeed send a signal, and if we don't, then you disagree with the entire premise of SETI@home and you're holding your contribution hostage to the effort.


I'm only following the 'logic' of the statement. If it's unwise to send messages to civillizations millions of years older than our own, the same reasoning also applies to ETI, so ETI should wait millions of years before transmitting. But, hey, then there will be also other civillizations older than theirs, so they must still wait. The result: everybody is listening but nobody is talking. It's no surprise that SETI didn't find anything yet.

Finally, the statement says:

We feel the decision whether or not to transmit must be based upon a worldwide consensus, and not a decision based upon the wishes of a few individuals with access to powerful communications equipment.


Well, already a few individuals have made the decision that nobody on Earth should engage in METI, and they wrote an statement about that.
18) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1639727)
Posted 10 Feb 2015 by yo2013
That's very unfortunate for the project.

I'm seeing a logical disconnect here. Just because we are not sending, doesn't mean ETI isn't sending either. Since SETI@home was never about METI, why would this change your mind about crunching? Certainly they're not wasted cycles at all as you were never processing signals to be sent out.


If not transmitting is so intelligent as the manifest suggests, why should alliens transmit any message? Does SETI stand for Searching for ExtraTerrestrial Idiots?

I changed my mind about crunching because SETI@Home is not only not transmitting now, but the institutions/scientists involved in the project are stating that they will never transmit and actively encourage others not transmitting and encourage the public to oppose and retire funding to these projects. I don't want to support such a SETI@Home project.
19) Message boards : News : Statement on Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence/Active SETI (Message 1639695)
Posted 10 Feb 2015 by yo2013
In that case, no signal will be received either. I will stop computing for this project, then. What a waste of cycles.
20) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1544774)
Posted 20 Jul 2014 by yo2013
Some of my posts were deleted by admins, and I'm getting tired of these stupid arguments, so I'll not write more here.


Next 20

Copyright © 2015 University of California