|
| Personal background |
|---|
I am.
The previous is the shortest complete sentence in the English language,
(together with "I do" or "I go"). It is the simplest sentence that conveys an
undeniable, uncontrovertable, undoubtable truth: the fact that it has been
asserted that I am, requires that there is someone or something that asserted
it. Any attempt to deny that "I am" requires that there is something or
someone that denies.
There cannot be doubt about my own existence, as any such doubt would require
that there's something or somebody that doubts. My own existence is thus
beyond questioning, beyond argument, beyond doubt: I can but quietly accept,
acknowledge and enjoy it.
I note that this is not "I think, therefore I am" or something related: as
soon as you have the first word of that sentence ("I ..."), you can skip the
whole middle part about thinking and immediately conclude the last word: "I
... am." For if there is an "I" to be considered at all, then it must
necessarily "am".
There are enough times in the day when you don't think -- but do you cease
being at these times?
The very fact that I formulated the notion of "I am" makes it true - a claim
that proves its own truth: It couldn't have been formulated without something
or somebody that formulated it.
Note that I make no claims (here, yet) 'what' I am or 'who' I am or 'where' I
am or similar things -- but THAT I am is known to me with absolute, 100%
certainty.
This piece of absolute knowledge is shared amongst all self-aware beings --
for it is this knowledge that makes someone a self-aware being: The knowledge
of your own existence. Knowing that you exist is exactly what the word
"self-aware" means.
Self-awareness is all it takes to achieve certainty.
And it is rare enough and precious enough to make it sufficient as the only
thing necessary to present about myself in 2000 characters.
|
| Thoughts about SETI and SETI@home |
|---|
Does an ant have the capacity to recognize the intelligence of a human being?
Or would it have to be a human to do so?
Look at the problems we have defining the term "intelligence" when it comes to
dolphins or chimpanzees. Dolphins will never tame the fire, but does that mean
they're not "intelligent"? If we're having such trouble defining what we
actually mean with the word "intelligent", are we actually equipped to
recognize it in another being?
Seti@Home is not the search for extraterrestrial intelligence -- it is the
search for extraterrestrial technological civilizations like ours. What forms
or shapes intelligence may take and how one would find (and much less
recognize) it is entirely outside its scope.
How can you search for something that you cannot even define? How can you
claim to be looking for something when you aren't even sure that it might not
exist right here under your nose in your oceans? Why not be honest for once
and call it the "search for deliberate extraterrestrial radio signals"? Change
"extraterrestrial" to "alien" and you'll even get the nice acronym "stars" out
of it.
Does it make sense to seek something just because it is similar to us? Would
it make sense to seek it just because it was different from us?
Should we look for ants just because we're ants ourselves? But what can an ant
do with another ant? Could there be anything other but competition for the
same resources and thus immediate conflict?
Wouldn't it be much more beneficial for an ant to seek out contact with beings
that do not inhabit the exact same niche as them? To find foxes and convince
them to leave the remains of their prey close to the anthill, for example? It
shouldn't make much difference to the fox and would greatly benefit the
ants.
|
| Your feedback on this profile |
|---|
| Recommend this profile for User of the Day: |
I like this profile |
| Alert administrators to an offensive profile: |
I do not like this profile |
|
|
