disarray

Yes, science more and more is painting free will into a smaller and smaller corner with the brush of instinct, subconscious defense mechanisms, pre-conscious decison making, etc. Given that the platform of this forum is "science," I am presuming that the discussion of Satan, God, etc., is done so from an anthropological standpoint, e.g., in the same way that we might explicate Greek mythology. Otherwise, posters are truly just throwing out faith-based ideas...much as Jewish scholars are wont do do ad infinitum. However, if this is the case, I don't see how people outside of a given posters "faith" can reasonably discuss the issue at hand, given that the fundamental beliefs are not shared, nor, for that matter, shareable. So, presuming this is a philosophy of religion question, I would first ask which God are you talking about?

Do we set our own purpose or are we so naturally stupid and/or barbarian that we need to have some supernatural being tell us what our purpose is or should be? Is there a tendency to presuppose that there is only one purpose in life? Do the words "purpose" and "life" have, when used together in the question, have the sort of philosophical and/or religious connotations that would encourage posters to mention grand and ethical ideas, as opposed to more mundane ones? Would a person without some sort of purpose(s) even get out of bed in the morning...or take the next breath? On what basis do we presume that having a purpose is better or worse than having no purpose? If our purpose is to act out of common interest, what happens when the common interests of one group conflict with another group, e.g., when there is not enough food to feed everyone in the tribal areas of Africa or the Middle East. Should everyone just share what there is and starve anyway, or should some, after negotiating or just after the flip of a coin, get all there is in order to survive and fulfill their purpose in life? Or when there are too many people on the lifeboat and one or two must go? And who is to say which group is more important, e.g., if I decide that I have common interests with all those in the animal kingdom, should I become a vegetarian?

Tar: Well, yes, we can commun-icate because there are things in the world that we sense in a "commun" way. In any case, I did acknowledge in the first place that we communicate because we have things in common...I just noted that when one gets more precise, it becomes clear that the feeling that there is not a chasm between one person's consciousness and another is an illusion. The reality is that, ultimately, one persons consciousness, for whatever reason, is hermetically sealed from that of another. I guess this is an observation that might most interest philosophers and psychologists. On the other hand, it is perhaps at those moments when the party is over, or when one gets divorced, or when one has ones first argument with a loved one, that the realization that ultimately we are firmly encased and isolated in our own personal sensations and perceptions most fully strikes home...and we feel a deep sense of being alone. Indeed, the existentialists, among others, wrote quite a bit about "man's" sense of subjectivity and alienation. Thus, Tolstoy's Anna Karenina feels unable to express her existential sense of loneliness to anyone and asks near the end of the novel when she feels herself most cut off from society and her family because she has had an affair: “Is it really possible to tell someone else what one feels?” In general, snow is snow, of course, but as an aside, I recall that there are those who point out that some countries have far more words for "snow," among other things, than other countries. More to the point, we often read that some words and phrases cannot be adequately translated from one country to the next, e.g., German and French words into English...but this is, admittedly, something that has more to do with abstract emotions and ideas than with objects. In any case, the concept that varying environmental as well as biological factors impact our personality tends to discourage us from shouting from the rooftops that, underneath the skin, 'all people are pretty much the same everywhere'. Cultural differences are real, and we ignore them at our own peril. On a day-to-day level, we rarely know as much about others as we tend to assume that we do....another illusion, I suspect. This is particularly true when it comes to the "idealization" of heroes/parents/political leaders/movie stars/spiritual leader/gods, or to our infatuation of a romantic partner. The reality sinks in and the bubble bursts and we realize that the other person is not as perfect as we thought, nor as much like us as we thought....not as much that "perfect match" or 'twin spirit' or 'soul mate' that we thought they were. For married couples, for example, that daunting realization starts to set in, so we hear, when the honeymoon ends, or when they move in together, or when they have to raise a baby together, or when they have financial and political arguments, or disputes about how best to raise the kids, or when they stop making the effort to be 'so nice' all the time, or when someone leaves there clothes on the floor and dirty dishes in the sink, etc. etc. Perhaps this need to idealize certain others is a manifestation of such things as some deep-seated loneliness and fear of abandonment. Despite his intellectual foibles, I think Freud was onto something when he claimed that there were deep-seated, perhaps instinctual, desires to return to the womb, to idealize the mother, to be loved unconditionally, to return to some oceanic feeling of oneness with the universe, etc. People often seek to "chill" with, not just people with whom they have common interests, but, hopefully, with that one, special person who understands them completely, or at least far better than anyone else. One might also describe this longing as the need for security....if someone "like totally gets us" then we feel secure that they truly love us and will always be there for us...we have established a secure bond. Many people in a relationship make such a big deal to others about how much they think the other person is so fantastic and unique as well as how much they are in love with them. In some cases, they are telling everyone about how much they love each other so that it doesn't look like they are just having casual sex, but, more to the point, because they want to prevent their partner from breaking up with them...If the general consensus is that their relationship is just based on physical attraction, then it is not much of a big deal if they break up (esp. if no children are involved), but if they publicly agree that they are 'truly in love' with a very special person, then it makes it harder for both or either one of them to break up....they have no reason (or excuse) to break up because true love is (supposedly) forever. This may be one explanation for the importance of publicly announcing ones love and getting public acknowledgement of this love in a marriage ceremony. In a sense, they pretend to be less alone and less different from each other in order to cement the bond between them. I don't mean to be too cynical, as it certainly can't hurt to focus on what you have in common with a partner, and to constantly reiterate to each other and to friends and relatives that, as a couple, you are truly and deeply in love....but the bottom line is the same...people get married and ritualize their love so as to avoid being alone as long as possible. Perhaps also, the idea of forgiveness comes into this longing...if someone totally understands us and is very much like us, then we feel more secure that they will understand and forgive us when we goof up...as, for the most part, people feel like they had good intentions, even when they do something wrong....and are just misunderstood. In any case, it seems that there is a constellation of feelings involving unconditional love, feeling unique, feeling understood, feeling like someone, feeling a spiritual affinity, feeling the universe or God brought you together with someone, feeling forgiven, and feeling secure.

Tar: Perhaps you should reread my post. I repeatedly made the point that it was an illusion that what one animal is aware of is the same as another person's awareness.... it is an illusion that one creature's consciousness is not literally isolated and separate from that of other creatures. At no point did I suggest that our consciousness itself was an illusion. By the way, though, there are many psychologists and philosophers and even physicists who counter intuitively suggest that the concept of 'free will' itself is an illusion, and that, though sensations exist and we are aware of them..."we" are just along for the ride and that even our sense of self (as Hume declared long ago) is an illusion. But I don't necessarily espouse this claim. I do think that there are "levels" or degrees of conscientiousness/awareness...I am less aware while in a deep sleep than when playing tennis. I have more awareness than a frog, who in turn has more awareness than a fly, I think I can safely presume. Indeed, there are many scientists and religious devotees who claim that everything has some degree of consciousness...another controversial claim. In any case, people seem to have determined in modern times that animals indeed have a degree of consciousness; the widespread belief through the ages seems to have been that animals did not experience consciousness nor felt much, if any, pain, despite their obvious physical reaction to being cut, etc. Then there is the whole religious question (particularly in Eastern religions) as to whether our personal consciousness is linked to some greater consciousness (aka cosmic consciousness, Nirvana, state of enlightenment, etc.) And at no point did I suggest that there was not something "out there" in the noumenal world that gave us our sensations. Indeed, I, for lack of a better phrase, referred to it as a vibrational field. Even quantum physicists today speak in t terms of there being an unknown and unknowable reality behind what we can perceive....not just Plato, as I mentioned before. But I think that it is somewhat misleading to suggest that there are objects in this vibrational field that directly correspond to objects we see..it would seem more reasonable to suggest that at the subatomic level, for example, everything is one big vibrational blur. In linguistic terms, the signifier (sensations) are not as similar to the signified (thing behind the sensations) as we assume. I did not even mean to suggest that our sensations are less "real" than the reality behind our sensations....this is just the way that words such as "real" are used in everyday speech, because we all realize that people do have delusions when looking and listening to things around them, and also because people think of a car, for example, as being more real than our sensation of it....also, people realize perceptions can be mistaken. We might hear a car back fire, for example, and mistake it for a gun shot. Even putting on a pair of sunglasses reminds us that our vision can be easily modified, whereas we assume that the sun that we are protecting our eyes from is something that is real and can not be modified...it just "is what it is," so to speak. Actually, it was Schopenhauer in modern times who emphasized the concept that our sensations are just as "real" as anything else in the universe....We are made of the same stuff as the universe in terms of our body and our consciousness....we are composed of as well as driven by natural forces. It seemed to follow logically for him that we were fools to just let nature compel us to live and reproduce in order to further nature's goal for living things....which was to survive and reproduce. He did have a way out from this pessimistic outlook, however, which was that we become aware that we are just pawns of nature and we renounce or at least become cynical about our desires to live and reproduce. (No doubt...evolutionary ideas colored the beliefs of Schopenhauer, Neitzsche, Freud, Wagner, and many innovative thinkers writing in the latter part of the 19th c. and the early 20th.) Such thinking, culminating in WWI, led to the demise of Victorian spawned optimism in religion and the idea of the inevitable progress of civilization...and led to a general post-war sense of meaningless...giving rise to the 'lost' generation and then the 'beat' generation commingled with the existentialist movement (notably Camus and Sartre reiterating Nietzsche's claim that God was dead and suggesting that we were spiritually alone and estranged from the universe). Sartre stressed the concept (in "Being and Nothingness") that our consciousness had an innate desire to rejoin the rest of the universe, but that the universe was too gooey, so to speak (as he did in his book, Nausea) to mingle with human consciousness...as if they were oil and water. Sartre was thus an atheist, who, like Camus somehow tried to find meaning in such a bleak world. Heidegger, by contrast, felt that our consciousness was compatible with the rest of the universe and, in so many words, implied that we could return home to the universe by becoming less involved in the hustle and bustle (aka inauthentic existence) of everyday life...and immerse ourselves in correct silence and reception to the natural forces of the world. Thus, Heidegger, as did Schopenhauer, announced that his thinking was compatible with Buddhism later in life. Who knows whether the major Eastern religions are right in claiming that our consciousness is compatible with the rest of nature and will eventually blend with it completely after death. So our consciousness is ultimately very personal, and we are ultimately alone in terms of our own unique personal sensations....though of course this is not a huge problem in day to day living given that we can communicate in so may ways and that our sensations are of course similar to each other. And such a separation of personal consciousness gives us our sense of privacy and identity: A bit of 'alone-ness' is probably a good thing.

Tar I don't know if I follow your first point about knowing what an entire galaxy is doing by looking at the light from a few stars. From what you have told me, I can only say that, of course, what we see now on earth is not what is actually happening because of the amount of time that it takes for light to reach us. A star could be burnt out by the time we see it as burning bright in the sky...I don't know who you were disputing this fact with, but this is just common scientific knowledge. So again, I see no real controversy. Of course we live in the same universe, but the feeling that we have that our consciousness of the world is the same as everyone elses is an illusion. I certainly don't experience what my twin (much less the pet that went along on the trip) might be experiencing on the other side of the globe right now in terms of smells, sights, sounds, etc.. However, when we are standing in the same garden looking at a rose, we have the illusion that our consciousness is the same because our "analogs", as you call them, (aka qualia, aka sensations) are similar. But whether I am being conscious right now of a rose or a star, I don't experience it directly...but rather I experience what my brain reconstructs from billions of photons entering the eye and being collapsed, alchemized into electric impulses compatible with my neural network, referenced to past memories in order to give meaning to these impulses, etc..... So I don't even experience what a person standing right next to me is experiencing in his/her consciousness. The feeling that my consciousness of the rose is the same as my twin's or my pet's consciousness of the rose is as much, if not more, of an illusion than the feeling that I am seeing what a distant star is actually doing now when I look at it in the sky. Indeed, we never experience anything directly....the ground or basis of our sensations of 'things' is a ding an sich (aka unknown force field beyond our sensations), be it another person's actual pain, the actual moon that we see in the sky, or the other side of the moon. It is not that we actually experience some things directly and some not at all....rather it is all a matter of degree as to how much information and what kind of information we have about whatever area/object we are targeting. Blind people never see anything at all...they extrapolate what it might look like I suppose, but really, every person and virtually every other animal has slightly or hugely different sensory faculties than our own, and consciously experience the world in terms of its own unique capabilities. So again, we are ultimately, in a very literal sense, imprisoned or contained within our own unique sensations and memories (and even memories and ideas are just complex sensations, as Locke pointed out centuries ago). In this literal sense, we really are, as individuals, completely alone within our own consciousness. Kant merely confirmed the notion of this subjectivity by pointing out that our mind has a variety of ways to filter and organize sensations. (Like Freud, he was a pioneer in his field, and so much of Kant's schematic categories about how our mind/brain filters and processes information is no longer considered very accurate, just as we reject much of what Freud said.)

Tar Of course we have mirror neurons and smell the same rose, etc. That does not negate my claim that our consciousness is absolutely separate from another persons. Nevertheless, I can extrapolate, contrary to solipsism, that another person actually has consciousness. Of course we cannot look into a cave or crater on the other side of the moon. Nevertheless, I can extrapolate with reasonable certainty from what I can observe about craters that I can see through a telescope that the craters on the other side of the moon are similar. Of course, we cannot communicate on a daily basis with ETs thousands of light years away. Of course, the discovery of the existence of ETs thousands of light years away does not affect me personally, though it no doubt would impact my culture. I don't know that you are saying anything controversial, really.

Tar Again, I don't see what point you are trying to make about scientists, as if they somehow think that they somehow don't realize that their models of the world are just 'imaginary'. On the contrary, scientists, I think, are more aware than most that their 'imaginary' theories and models are not reality itself, but only represent the ding an sich. Indeed, Kant, himself, claimed that scientists could never really experience the ding an sich, but could understand it better and better asymptotically by refining their models....much like Kuhn's progressive paradigms....nevertheless, the rubber never actually hits the road. For example, scientists are more aware than most people that the color pink (magenta) has no actual wavelength to call its own on the color spectrum, and thus is only a 'pigment of our imaginations'. Indeed, some scientists, such as Scientific American's Michael Moyer, claim that all colors (and indeed, all our sensations) are all in our mind (as qualia) and don't exist in any similar 'way, shape, or form', outside our consciousness, as if the mind is playing a necessary trick on us in order to help us navigate our surroundings. (Psychologists in particular are aware of 'conditions' that confirm the concept that our individual minds are not really in contact with reality as much as most people think, e.g., alien hand syndrome, blindsight, and a whole range of delusions and hallucinations). Scientists realize that the symbols they scribble on a whiteboard can be used to build build bridges, rockets, nuclear power plants, airplanes, etc., but, at the same time, they are, in general, also fully aware that their symbols and models are just 'images'...they fully realize that they are unable to adequately imagine that the universe has no center, or has size but no boundaries. They are fully aware that, like everyone else, they can't begin to adequately picture in their minds what the passing of a billion years is like, or how big the universe really is, or how fast light travels, etc. etc. Psychologists tend to be more aware than most that one person's consciousness never actually "touches" the consciousness of another person's. (This applies to most if not all living things.) We all experience the world in our own special way...we never actually feel the pain or pleasure that others feel, or see the exact same colors or hear the exact same sounds. And though scientists realize that each of us is a prisoner of his or her own subjective imagination, they still like to imagine that it would be possible to overcome the widespread feeling of being ineluctably isolated and alone in the world. Like most ordinary people, they too, share John Lennon's dream of coming together: Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You,.. You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one

Of course, we can't experience other universes (should they exist) with our senses. But neither can we see the Big Bang exploding. Yet we can extrapolate from our sense experiences that it happened. There are a lot of things in science that we can't see or touch. We can't see atomic particles, for the most part, yet our entire industrial system is built around chemistry. We can't (with minor exceptions) see evolution unfolding, yet the theory explains so much and helps us understand a great deal of 'what is going on' in terms of medicine, psychology, anthropology, etc. As for Kant's noumena, many quantum physicists speculate as to what Reality is really like. But many, as you say, admit that we can never really experience what is beyond the senses so we should just be satisfied with the mathematical models that we can make of it as best we can. Indeed, one famous 'school of thought' when asked about what "is really going on" behind the scenes is to not speculate about it too much, but rather, for all practical purposes, to 'just shut up and calculate.' But i think that multiverse is a side issue. What seems to be the question of the forum is whether it is likely that ETs exist...and I think scientists are in the best position to answer that. Another aspect of the forum question is whether we have each other, and the answer to that is obvious, so not much to discuss there. Finally, there is the issue of God(s) and it is in this area where people often get a little sensitive and claim that scientists don't know so much as they think they do, etc. In any case, the issue of supernatural beings, I would suggest, is perhaps a religious/faith issue and outside the scope of the discussion. So yeh, we will, in all likelihood, never find an ET in our bedroom..... point taken. But the discovery of life of any sort on another planet, the discovery of intelligent life, and the discovery of inhabitable planets, and the (possible) discovery that it is likely that there may be other universes with planets that also might sustain life, all support the theory of evolution and the the natural view of the origin of life. In that sense, the question as to whether "we are alone" is a "valuable consideration" and gives us a deeper understanding of our universe and our place in it..

Tar You state that, "I am stuck on the thought we had earlier, that people tend to get something out of being more factually correct about the world" Hmmm...I thought we were having a serious conversation about Kant...who, by the way, was a person who tried to discuss philosophical questions in a scientific manner. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that I get "something" out of being more factually correct about the world? What exactly is this "something" you are referring to here? Hey, if you want your kids to believe in Santa, I have no problem with that. If you are going to somehow put a belief in Santa as equal to the more empirically sound belief that it is the parents and relatives who put gifts under the tree and fill stockings, then I am afraid your (sentimental?) logic eludes me. Similarly, you state that "That is my warning to scientists that have more faith in the power and complete coverage of universal laws, then they have in the judgement of the guy sitting next to them." Again, you seem to be making some sort of ad hominem here without really coming out and saying what you mean. These universal laws are derived from systematic organization of collective empirical information...so it is scientists that are the collection of people who know more than individuals. As for Kant, Einstein's Theory of Relativity has shown that his view of space and time was inadequate and misguided. In light of today's knowledge of physics, all Kant showed is that the impression that humans have about space and time is subjective and easily distorted. If anything, people such as Hawking and Einstein and Bohr, et al., showed that our "common sense" impressions about such matters as space, time, the origins of the universe, the boundaries of the universe, and (in more recent years) the possibility of other universes is woefully inadequate to grasp what is really going on. Einstein's opinion about the average individual's impression of space and time is that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one." If anything, Kant's contribution to the issue of space/time is something that Einstein was aware of, but no doubt viewed Kant's philosophy as just pointing out that people's perception of space and time was illusory....so I would hardly use Kant to somehow suggest that it disproves the hypotheses of those physicists today who suggest that the idea of a multiverse follows logically and mathematically from the collective contribution of Einstein and other 20th. c physicists. No one has seen the Big Bang or evolution in action, but the collective organization of sensations via science tells us that these things are the most valid impressions we have of what took place and is still unfolding. But giving credence to the scientific approach does not mean one becomes a cold person...both Einstein and Kant talked about the profound sense of awe that they felt when looking at the stars. And, Einstein was a great humanitarian and, if anything, thought that the main thing we should do with our lives is to help each other. Of course, science is just one aspect of gaining insight and knowledge, but again, if one is talking about the the possibility of other universes and life on other planets, it seems to me that taking a scientific approach is not such a bad idea.

@Joatman Perhaps the posts got away from the discussion of answering yes or no to the topic because 1. It may have been mutually agreed that extraterrestrial beings, if they exist, are so far away (among other factors) that it is not feasible that we interact with them, and thus not particularly relevant to the topic. 2. Similarly, it is not possible for beings from another universe to interact with us, and thus not particularly relevant to the topic. 3. What remains is a discussion as to the likelihood of finding intelligent life on other planets. No doubt one can research this and find scientific estimates, but again, it would just be pure speculation (as we all knew anyway) with the result that the answer to this forum question would be "maybe" or "who knows." Therefore, I for one, tried to approach the question from a different angle by asking such question as "What difference would it make (in terms of religion, worldviews, culture, etc.) were we to find out that there were intelligent creatures on other planets," and (similarly) "Why does anyone care in the first place." @Tar Yes, the term "universe" does include the term "uni," meaning one. But that does not mean (unless one wants to slavishly focus on semantics) that it is not possible that other universes exist elsewhere outside of our own universe, each existing within its own time/space coordinates. Indeed, the term, "universe" was perhaps first used by Greeks and Romans to refer to matter and space (but perhaps not the void that may be outside of the universe), and therefore the term was used at a time where concepts such as the Big Bang, the Higgs Boson, and a Multiverse were undreamt of. What I think is relevant is that the term "universe" refers indirectly to the fact that it is an integrated whole, that "turns" together. I think that it is essentially a scientific term in the sense that it presumes that the universe is consistent and obeys the same laws every where (as Einstein famously claimed), as opposed to those who would like to think that there are miracles that somehow take place outside of these laws. Suggesting that other universes can't exist as part of a Multiverse because the term "Universe" supposedly includes everything (including what some might call other universes) is getting all tangled up in an anachronistic, semantic Gordian knot...it's kind of like arguing that Santa must bring gifts to everyone because he is a saint and thus represents God's universal love for all human beings....then someone else points out that the term, "saint" has its roots in early Catholicism (which, ironically, is 'katholikos' in ancient Greek and refers to what is 'universal'), and so a saint such as Saint Nicholoas (aka Santa) would only give presents to Christians....So yeh, be it the exclusion of other universes or the domain of Santa's territory or the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, such linguistic merry go rounds is exactly what the outstanding philosophers of the 20th century (the logical positivists) sought to eliminate. As an aside, I am reminded of such miraculous occurrences as Santa's annual journey: Like UFOs, there is insufficient data to confirm anecdotal sightings of such a flying person, nor much valid photographic evidence that a man with a long beard gets his huge bundle down a chimney, nor (most importantly) that the idea of reindeer being able to drag a man and a sleigh with millions of presents through the air is consistent with the body of scientific knowledge we have so far about Reality (aka the laws of physics), even with the help of Rudolph. Indeed, the idea of a 'multiverse', like the concept of a Big Bang, is far more consistent with the known laws of physics than the concept of a flying sleigh will ever be....yet millions still believe. In short, words and symbols are abstractions that must be continually checked with empirical data (and/or theories already established byverifying data) if they are to have anything to do with Reality (at least as far as science is concerned)....I am reminded of the slang term that it is always a good idea to occasionally do a 'reality check' lest we get all tangled up in, as the beat poet, Lawrence Ferlinghetti called it, the "spider web" of language. But science tenaciously hangs on to ideas that might be verified...so that it was decades before ideas such as relativity and a big bang were confirmed with data and experiments. Good outline of Kant...Yes, thinking generally entails various types of judgment. More to the point, you note that Kant claims we think/judge in terms of categories. Ok, yes, our minds (via an elaborate network for organizing sensations) filter Reality in various ways in order that we, as organisms, might survive. The fact that the mind (of humans and other creatures) can interface with the universe is an astounding accomplishment, as Kant and others have noted. Such felicitous natural consilience serves to underscore my claim that the scientific approach to acquiring knowledge has shown itself to be such an effective one because it begins with the presumption that Nature is consistent and uni-form enough that we can make univers-al, shareable, and predictable observations about it(as opposed to resorting to external Creators and his/her/its adjustments e.g., miracles to describe and explain it). And again, the problem with this forum question, as with many, is that it not only comes with its own baggage of assumptions (e.g., there is only one universe... and it was created), but does not adequately describe the terms (e.g., alone) or give any indication as to what the purpose of the inquiry might be, with the result (which is common) that posters often respond in accordance with their own interpretations of the question in a criss-cross fashion...which is good if the poster just wants to get some sort of Rorschach-like set of responses to satisfy his/her sense of amusement or curiosity.

Well, obviously we have each other... so why the interest in life on other planets? Again, one could list various reasons: the need for an ersatz religion the projection of a fear of the unknown fascination with the unknown an interest in the variety of creatures in our world and possibly others an interest in what seems to be transcendental and mystical a sense of awe at what the stars might produce, etc.

The nearest habitable planet is some 14 lights years away. Not much possibility for pen pal, as for one thing, we can't assume that there would be anything whose intelligence interfaced with our, and virtually no possibility for visiting. Pen pals from another universe....forget it, So apart from the obvious response that we should enjoy each others company, I would suggest studying the nature of the human need not to be alone, and what can fulfill such a need. For example, it might be found that humans prefer to listen to real time music, rather than that recorded yesterday, because real time music seems (on a psychological level) to be more real and personal. Of course there will be individual differences. It seems that anything that reflects oneself helps. A short list of everything except actual other people being present in person might include the following, starting from least complex to most: Mirrors Paintings of animals, people Drawing of animals, people, etc. Radio and other voice recordings Phone conversations Television/Computer video Movie theaters Pets Robots (with artificial intelligence, voice, etc The desire not to be alone is in some respects an instinct. Instincts such as the need for peace, companionship, protection, etc. are based on rather primitive impulses, and, as such, are easily fooled by substitutes. So even if we are alone, we need not assume that this is an insurmountable problem.

Tar Yes, the Romans believed that some of the planets represented Gods who, like humans, were aware of others and their world. Of course, the earth seems like a living creature itself in many ways and, loosely speaking, we can "worship" and respect it by trying to watch over it, but I think that few if any people believe in some extreme Gaia theory whereby the earth is considered to be a living creature that is consciously aware of us as well as the surrounding solar system. So any duty we might think we owe the earth is ultimately a duty that we have created out of our own imaginations. Of course we owe it to ourselves and to those we care for to "watch out" for the earth. But there are different opinions as to what degree we should make an effort and for how long. I wonder, for example,how long it would take before total chaos broke out if everyone tried to reduce pollution by not using their cars? Less complicated and controversial is the idea that we should avoid bagging food in plastic bags when buying food items in a store because it can take hundreds of years for plastic materials to biodegrade. I think that we are alone, from a secular standpoint, until the day, for instance, that extraterrestrial, intelligent life is found on other planets. I don't think that the universe or even any particular planet can count as something that could keep us (humanity) from being alone. However, I think that a practical idea would be to spread the idea around that we have much in common with animals, and should treat them with more respect, for they too share our planet and its resources. In general, I don't agree that there are any absolute (non-relative) objective moral principles, though Kant (similarly to Rousseau) seemed to think that a reasonable person would respect other humans and therefore pass laws and behave in the, supposedly, one best (objective) way to help human beings live happy and prosperous lives. However, to me, morality is, in practice, much more complicated, contextual, and subjective than that. However, I do agree with those who think that natural evolution sets the example for us to survive and to live in harmony with one another as much as possible. So yes, we are all just threads in the interwoven fabric of humankind, and would do well not to forget that "no man is an island."

Tar, I gather that Kant felt that the afterlife was connected with having filled and perhaps continuing to make an effort to conform to some moral religious law. Beyond that, I gather that he felt that it was pointless to speculate. In any case, it seems that your remarks about "obligation" and "responsibility" have some sort of religious tinge to them after all, so I do not consider them part of the discussion, as far as I am concerned. Indeed, strictly speaking, I do not completely accept my own argument that we are not alone because the Universe, even though it is one big Thing, can give us clues as to how to best live our lives. I don't fully accept this attempt to capitulate with your beliefs, since I don't really think that any unconscious thing, be it a stuffed animal or the entire Universe, can cure a sense of being alone (aka loneliness).....though we can fool ourselves quite a while with objects such as a television that simulate conscious life. I am not ruling out that the Universe may be one big conscious Being, but there does not seem to be any sharable evidence to support such a claim, or any evidence that fits in with our systematic explanations of Nature so far. In any case, I can't help noticing that you seem quite comfortable stating that such things as life after death or moral obligations are true, as they not only smack of religious belief (if you are basing these on Kant) and certainly aren't verifiable with the senses, but, on the other hand, you have little time for any theories about a multiverse, however supported mathematically by many modern physicists they might be, since, you claimed earlier, they could not be verified by the senses and therefore were no better than anyone elses guess. In any case, once again, I do not criticize your comments in order to be "one up," but rather to help clarify your thought, in my own mind at least, if not in yours as well. I would agree that ants are not as important as humans...and certainly not from a human's point of view! But of course we have to eat, and something must go in order for us to survive. I think vegetarians win the day in this regard, especially those who refrain from meat because it seems unnecessarily cruel to animals. Also relevant is that some Eastern holy men refrain from stepping on ants because they don't want to unnecessarily kill any living thing, since, after all, all living creatures, they believe, are just incarnations gradually making their way to Nirvana. I kind of like this approach, because after all, it shows a tremendous respect for all living things, which is typical of the major Eastern religions, though again, I am myself not putting forth any religious doctrine. So yes, the way we state some possible moral guideline for living is the same....basically, to do no harm as much as possible while enjoying life. But such a guideline is limited, as it is not always clear what that means when it comes to the more controversial issues such as Global warming, euthanasia, abortion, killing in self-defense, etc. Indeed, there are many people around who claim that scientists have some sort of hidden agenda for claiming that global warming exist, or that, if it does exist, that it is anything to be worried about. For example, see video and comments below at http://www.infowars.com/hidden-agenda-of-global-warming-hoax-one-world-government/

Tar....I don't agree that everyone is always trying to be more right than others, but then again, maybe I'm just trying to be more right than those who say that everyone is always trying to be right and one up over others. Yes, life is one big competition where everyone is always trying to "Trump" everyone else, as you put it. But seriously, not all philosophers, scientists, researchers, etc. are agonistic egomaniacs simply because they find holes in other people's theories. Indeed, a good scientist seeks just as avidly, if not more, to find holes in his own pet theories. It is true that some scientists and philosophers are more objective than others. Some are quite biased and throw out anything that does not fit into their own pet theories...such bias is, by definition, not consonant with scientific principles. Others have a reputation for being more objective...For example Darwin was said to be more objective than usual and would quickly jettison any of his ideas that did not fit the facts. In point of fact, I do think that you are on to something when you talk about humankind's place in the universe (and of course, I agree that certain patterns and principles recur throughout nature on different levels). As I mentioned before, however, I don't agree that we "owe anything" or are "obligated" to the universe by virtue of the fact that it "created" us.Perhaps it is your wording that I find slightly objectionable, since words like "obligation," "responsibility" and "created" have religious overtones...that is, these words tend to presume, by virtue of their connotations, that the universe is like some sort of Creator or creative Mind that had some purpose for creating us. On the other hand, I think you already stated that you are not trying to convert anyone to adopt some religious viewpoint about the universe, so perhaps you were just using those terms metaphorically....as if to personify Nature. Actually, I do agree that it would make sense for people in general to try to go with the flow...that is, to try to go along with what life forms innately tend to do in accordance with their natural instincts and drives...which are basically, of course: to be healthy until able to reproduce, to adapt to ones environment, and to survive as long as possible. It would seem (and Darwin agrees), that such qualities as empathy (love), cooperation within groups, and passing along knowledge, are at least as much a part of Nature's "plan" for living creatures to adapt to their particular environment as ripping apart the back of an antelopes head on the Savannah, as lions are wont to do. Indeed, the more advanced living creatures become, the more they find time to do other things besides focusing on gathering food. So by this logic, it does make sense that our moral principles (guidelines for correct conduct) include things such as fellowship, trying to get along peacefully with neighboring tribes and nations, and, in general, following the adage of 'live and let live'. So far, so good. But the rub comes when resources become scarce, or even if people feel that resources are becoming scarce, or that there are too many foreign groups that are invading their territory (aka, "lebensraum"). Then people's mindset tends to change....often, for example, there is a shift towards militant fundamentalism (based not so much on hatred as on anxiety, as Eagleton suggests) where people start insisting that foreigners leave, that their own country secure its borders, that there be a return to traditional national morals, that the army become stronger and the country more militant, etc. In short, people's attitudes change when times are tough, much like the high school essay where you have to decide which person will be thrown out of the boat when it is found that are too many people in it. From a Darwinian perspective, it seems to me that the best lesson that we can deduce from the universe is that we try to live and let live in harmony with each other as much as is possible, and to look after the environment as much as possible for future generations. So I would agree that we are not alone, inasmuch as the universe is available to us as some 'Thing' that can provide instruction for us as to how we should conduct our lives as human beings. However, I would add that not all civilizations would draw the same conclusion as to just what lesson nature seems to be giving us....for Hitler and his cronies, the lesson they drew from the universe, and their interpretation of evolution, was that they, as a 'whole group' were innately superior to other groups and thus had the natural obligation to wipe out anyone who didn't fit into their little Aryan clique...despite the fact that Aryanism itself was by and large a concocted myth. And of course, the idea that one group is superior to another and therefore has a natural (often God-given right) to wipe out other groups (especially those that will not assimilate) seems to be the most common theme as to what is written in the stars (that is...as to what fate or nature intends for things to be) throughout human history so far. But yeh, I'll go with your claim that we are, metaphorically speaking, not alone... since the Universe does provide us with moral instructions. I would add that the interpretation of natural evolution that we 'live and let live' as much as possible is a more enlightened interpretation than the "survival of the fittest" interpretation (which Darwin only begrudgingly accepted after it was coined by Herbert Spencer), and that, hopefully, future civilizations will be....well, more civilized and embrace this more enlightened interpretation. If so, then maybe people will discard the rather wasteful interpretation of trying to be the fittest group by rapaciously wiping out everything else in sight, which, after all, is a rather near-sighted and narrow-minded way of going about things...kind of like those early hunters who wiped out all the deer in sight in a single season so that they could have one big feast....only to find that there were no deer around the following year. Now we know better...one would hope.

Tar: I knew that you were speaking about science and not god...I just was making the point that that the main options that one might have in mind when speaking of (the march of) humanity are either that one is referring to a particular "greater whole" (and its culture/gods), or else speaking of some collective consciousness of humanity as a whole (as did Jung and de Chardin). I agree that life itself might be described as a reflection of some (perhaps anti-enthropic) vital natural force (as did Dylan Thomas, Hegel, Walt Whitman, Bergson, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, etc.) and that some people might take it further by suggesting that the universe, by some stretch of the imagination, "created" us in its image (e.g., we strive to grow and survive must as the universe does). Nevertheless, it seems to me that you are taking things further and perhaps anthropomorphizing the universe, or at least hypostatizing the concept of Nature (aka the universe) as if it were some all-encompassing Being that created us. On this basis, it appears to me hat you are suggesting that we must therefore owe our creator (the universe) something and that we have some responsibility....presumably the responsibility to look after it, e.g., look after our natural environment. In short, you seem to be drawing some moral imperative from the fact that the universe "created" us, as if the universe was teleological and had some purpose in mind when it "created" the human race (aka humanity)...In short, the universe you describe certainly sounds like a sort of God. This seems like quasi-religious thinking to me, and goes against the thinking of millions who see the universe as a very cold and impersonal place, full of absurdity, pain and suffering (a la Schopenhauer) as well as the odd moments of beauty and compassion, and that life was just a lucky accident, or just the logical outcome of some impersonal life force. They do not generally suggest that we owe anything to the universe.. And indeed, even if the majority of humans agreed that we owe something to the universe and are responsible to it because it created us, each individual would have a different opinion as to just exactly what such a responsibility might entail...as again....there is not collective consciousness of humanity that thinks as if all individuals thought as one. This reminds me of Rousseau, who, imho, mistakenly, thought that those deciding on what laws to pass or veto could all meditatively tap into the same universal moral and natural principle of the what is good for the community as a whole group (the "common good"). In short, Rousseau thought that Nature knew what people's responsibilities were and that they should try to figure out what Nature (aka the universe) thought, rather than what they as individuals thought. Unless the universe is a conscious agent (as you seem to suggest), or unless there is one or more gods who created us (as religious devotees suggest), it is strictly up to human beings to make this choice as to the degree to which they are responsible for looking after their environment (aka, the universe, Nature) or each other or whatever, and we owe nothing to anyone or anything outside of ourselves....because we are alone. Darwin, for example, would agree that we evolved within the universe, but certainly did not suggest that we therefore had some sort of moral responsibility or obligation towards the universe. (The phrase "evolving within" the universe does not have the same connotations as being "created by it," as the latter term implies that some (conscious?) Being did the creating. I get the impression that you are trying to hypostatize abstractions such as "humanity" and the "universe" as if they are actual entities on their own that would qualify as Beings that are real and "personal" and/or self-aware. Are you suggesting that we are not alone because things that we are part of, i.e., the universe and/or all humans (aka humanity) or all living organisms keep us company?

Tar I presume that you are stating more than the truism that other people exist. Who would argue with this...except perhaps those die-hard solipsists who state that one cannot logically prove the existence of anybody elses mind....so that we truly are alone, imprisoned in our own consciousness. (Though Sartre argues that the gaze of others tells us that we exist, as if they too are in a similar predicament). I am guessing that you are suggesting that you think that there is some sort of emergent quality...or state....or state of collective consciousness that somehow emerges from a group of individuals who share (as Herder suggested re nationalism) a common humanity or identity glued together with the bits and pieces that make up a common culture. Well perhaps.......... Those who are keen on keeping our national identity/culture intact (be they described as fascists or neocons or just plain good citizens) often seem worried about whether some immigrants will fail to adopt (some alleged unified) American culture along with its (allegedly unified) values (e.g., our particular brand of alleged 'democracy'), as well as our 'official' language (English), with some going so far as to suggest that they should also adopt our alleged national "official" religion (i.e., Christianity), not to mention high expectations that said immigrants adjust their attire to suit our ways (e.g., not veiling women's faces, or, at the other extreme, walking around the streets topless), show an interest in our sports (e.g., baseball) and perhaps eat good ole hot dogs right after singing the national anthem. My point being that the belief that having a unified culture is a good thing is sometimes questionable, just as the belief that belonging to a similar race supposedly makes us a more unified and 'strong' nation (as, in practice, evidenced by such things as skin color). Thus, it is difficult to know just where the maxima is reached when the concept of cultural unity is taken to an extreme, so that the costs start outweighing the benefits.....e.g., as happened with Naziism, Stalinism, Maoism, and a hundred other examples. Indeed, the "vision" of many of these self-styled militant "humanitarians" was to save humanity from itself by forcing everyone to adopt the culture of the one "group whole," which just happened to be that of their own country. Indeed, the very idea of how to definitively describe or proscribe a group or nation's unifying collective culture exactly is so nebulous as to be best described as just another myth, since every individual has a slightly different opinion about what the nation's culture is, whether he or she needst subscribe to it in private as much as in public, how that culture should change or whether it ever should change, etc. Similarly, the idea of a collective consciousness based upon a collective culture is also a myth...and sometimes a dangerous one at that. Your last post about a "greater whole" (of which we are part of, but which is somehow also a separate entity or being that keeps us as individuals from being alone) reminds me of the sort of quasi-spiritual theories of Chardin and Verdasdky who talk of a noosphere that first started to develop when humans became aware of their own existence and that has progressed via the ubiquitous use (not to mention misuse) of such things as the World Wide Web to the point where the earth has developed a sort of spiritual cortex (that is as real as the atmosphere) that they refer to as the noosphere, aka "layer of global consciousness," composed of interwoven electrical signals laced with conscious awareness. Indeed, John Barlow summarizes Chardin's thought as claiming that "The point of all evolution up to this stage is the creation of a collective organism of Mind." In any case, such emergent theories about an actual collective consciousness are hardly supported by some sort of "proof," such as the one you give, but rather considered by many as just errant theories. Thus Pope John XX III rejected Chardin's version of global collective consciousness in an official decree in 1962, much as Freud rejected Jung's theory in 1909 of an archetypal collective (un)consciousness as being without substance and "unscientific." States Pope John re Chardin: "it is obvious that in philosophical and theological matters, the said works [of de Chardin] are replete with ambiguities or rather with serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine." In particular, the Church rejected Chardin's theories about his interpretation of the workings of evolution as being unscientific and inaccurate. So yes, some people may, as you say, "recognize" the actual existence of some sort of 'collective consciousness' as if its existence is as tangible as the qualities of water that emerge from the combining of hydrogen and oxygen, but I don't see anyone else except yourself claiming that this is proof, or that there is any proof for the existence of such a collective consciousness or "greater whole." Nevertheless, you could be right, but I suggest that the claim is better described as a bit of speculation on your part.....It seems that, on the one hand, you are suggesting that we can only know what our senses tell us, and then, on the other hand, you are claiming that your abstract speculations about an emergent collective consciousness (aka a "greater whole") can be proven (simply by virtue that we are aware of the existence of the "march of culture"). Again, I am neither suggesting that we are alone or not, nor am I suggesting that all theories are equally probable...rather, I am just suggesting that there are no final proofs about the matter (as you claim in your last post)....at least none that we could all "collectively" agree upon. So yes, the existence of a 'group consciousness' as an independent Being of some sort would show, as you say, that we are "therefore not alone." But ironically, I am not so sure that this alleged "group consciousness" would agree, itself, that IT exists. One person's or one group's god is often to others, just another personal or collective fantasy. Indeed, many a fundamentalist refuses to accept that there culture is not superior to all others, or the only valid culture. This is perhaps particularly true if one includes religion in ones definition of tribal or national culture. Hence, their distaste for the claims of cultural relativism, as they tend to think that this implies that all cultures and all gods are equal. Extreme fundamentalists like the idea of being part of a greater whole, but only if there idea of the "whole" is best one, with all other ones often being regarded as barbarian and pagan.

It iis amazing that the universe creates life forms that have the sensory equipment to adapt to their various and sundry surroundings. Similarly, it seems "wondrous" that the universe has created beings that can symbolically (using language) state that the universe has created them...as if nature is looking back on itself in some cosmic mirror (Kant, Hegel, et al.). The universe may be amazing, but we need not think that, therefore, this implies that someone must have stood outside it and created it, or have a purpose in mind for it or for the life forms within it. Perhaps life is a reflection of the natural tendency for things to maintain stability in an effort to resist universal entropy. If so, we can thank our lucky stars that we are here, or alternatively, curse the fact that we were ever born in the first place (as Yeats said the Ancient Greek seers said we should do, having, perhaps, Sophocles Oedipus plays mind), depending upon whether we are basically optimists or pessimists. OR, we can explain life in the terms of any number of religions that posit the existence of a Creator, one who usually has some purpose in mind for doing so (much as Pygmalion or Mister Geppetto had in mind when they lovingly created someone they wished would come alive and love them back). In short, there are several ways that the existence of (intelligent) life can be explained. But when we start expressing our intellectual and/or faith-based views as to such questions as to 'whether we are the only living (intelligent) beings in the universe' and if not, 'how these other beings came into existence', we immediately start narrowing down our options as to which view of the universe we happen to espouse. For example, the existence of life on other planets or even the existence of other universes (with or without life) are ruminations that are not compatible with many religions. But the side issue is an emotional, though not unrelated one: 'Would we prefer that there is or is not life on other planets...or do we not care, or do we think that it does't matter, perhaps because we think extraterrestrial beings could never make it to our planet, or would never set out in the first place.' So, if a stranger gives me an answer to the topic question of this thread (e.g., are we created? /are we alone?), I have a certain amount of information about that person's thinking and personality, much as I would if I had asked many other life and death questions such as "Is there life after death," "Why are we here," or information about even more "mundane" life and death questions such as whether or not the person believes in abortion, euthanasia, killing in self defense, killing in the name of religion, killing in the name of 'the survival of the fittest', etc. Everything we say, perhaps, reveals who we are to some degree or another........ Just as our bodies leave carbon footprints on the earth, so too do our words leave their mark on the cultural march of humanity.

Tar No, it is not at all a given that it is inevitable that the universe inevitably produces (intelligent life). Much evidence and many 'arguments' have been made for and against this anthropic principle. Many books are available on Amazon, for example, re this debate. Again, given the lack of the sensory data that you seem to put so much stake on, I am surprised that you find it so easy to answer this question one way or the other in a single sentence! I am aware of emergent theories....I am not aware of why you think this relates to the topic. If one moves away from the dictionary, one can see that terms such as alone, at-one, at-man, unique, special, and chosen overlap in a cultural and religious overview of history...basic ethnocentric theory Perhaps you could contact Krauss if you want to debate physics....good luck. My point, however, wasn't that he was right about everything he said, but rather that his suggestion that this universe (and perhaps other universes) could create life without the help of a divine Being (aka, a God) has been so controversial because so many people like to think that they are special, unique, or chosen in the eyes of God (e.g., according to scripture), much as there was similar controversy over, as I said, the Copernican and Darwinian 'revolutions' which, it seemed, similarly dethroned people's special place in the eyes of God as being totally different and thus unique and alone amongst all the animals in the kingdom on the basis that only humans have, among other things, a soul (one of the special benefits of being made in the image of God, I guess!). I was not suggesting that history is one big controversy between religion and science, though. Both had similar origins and up until the more secular outlook of modern science, many if not most scientists often blended the two, e.g., Newton. The points of controversy arose where science suggested that humans were not created (alone) by God or that God was not even the Creator. The concept of humans being alone (in the sense of being unique) is related to the idea that humans are superior (and significantly different) from other living things anywhere else in the universe. This concept of being alone and superior is similar to the concept and drive that leads nations to think that they alone are blessed by God, while their enemies are not, or that their "race" alone is superior to all others. Seems there are no bounds to human hubris. This drive to be alone at the top of the hill is a childish game that still goes on in modern times. Shucks, the Mormons didn't even begin to recognize "Blacks" as equal (in the eyes of God, e.g., becoming priests) until 1978. Because of this ethnocentric instinct, it seems that virtually every group wants to be the chosen people, or at the top of the totem pole, or the superior race, etc. It is in this sense that I suggested that a group's desire to be alone is fairly synonymous with their desire to be chosen, special, and unique.

Tar, Well experts in what is physically likely, e.g., Lawrence Krauss, tend to dismiss out of hand the likelihood of UFOs and the like, though putting a high probability on the notion of life on other planets. Sure, from the point of view of a philosopher's armchair or an alcoholic's bar stool, we can speculate that galaxies could be the mucous in the eye of a creature....Anything is possible, at least in terms of what can be said....even Hume said we cannot technically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. But hey, let's keep things "real,".....there's a reason that science (not to mention our legal system) makes judgments based on various set of evidential criteria. Saying anything could happen, so anyone's guess is as good as another is not, imho, a serious approach to a discussion. And sorry, I don't find stories about curious or hungry, visiting aliens very convincing. As far as what difference it makes, I have repeatedly noted that evidence for other universes, like evidence for life on other planets (and perhaps intelligent life) would make a huge difference as to the way millions of people think with regards to the monumental questions at stake...e.g., where did we come from, what is the origin of life, is there a creator, etc. Indeed, quite a lot of thinking is being done now by scientists to determine just how the universe might arise from nothing on its own....Krauss concludes that there is really not that much difference between nothing and something, so that something could easily arise on its own from nothing. Indeed, the solidness of objects around us is an illusion, and the protons, electrons, quarks, etc. that make up these supposedly solid things are quite rarefied and ethereal...to the point where some physicists say there are only abstract, rather mathematical-like "qualities" in the universe. My point in this post is that it does matter whether we are alone...my example this time is that Lawrence Krauss's ideas that the universe created itself (and that no God is needed to explain the origins of the universe) are hugely controversial. Again, scientific evidence and arguments for a Godless and/or purposeless universe tend to be incendiary, and, as I mentioned before, reminiscent of the Scopes trial decades ago. Evidence for life on other planets, for example, would be a blow to mainstream Creationist claims, and the conflict between Creationism/Intelligent Design crusaders and evolutionists has been a hot topic for decades now.... in terms of politics, our school system, the court system, ethical viewpoints, the so-called Culture wars, the legislature, etc. So yeh, the question as to whether we are alone or not is a big deal. The million dollar question in this regard is whether it is inevitable that this universe (if not others) will produce intelligent life forms. If we can ever answer this one way or another, it would be as paradigm-shifting an achievement as the related ideas set forth by Copernicus, Darwin or Freud.

Tar Um, people such as Hawking and Penrose probably have more advanced scientific knowledge in their brains a 1000 average high school students combined. So not sure what the point is when you suggest that no model in a single mind (as opposed to the collective knowledge of many minds) is superior "fit" to reality than reality on its own provides..I don't see that the number of minds supporting a particular model or thesis has a great deal to do with its validity. (By validity, I refer to such things as systematically assimilating data and predicting events)?) I'm glad you are acknowledging that not all version of reality are equally valid....to think that this is the case represents pragmatism (whatever works must be true) gone overboard. So, no, not everyone's opinion about whether it is likely that there are other universes or other planets that sustain life are equally supported by sound thinking, or likely to be 'realistic'. Unified theories, based upon experiments, is the best process humankind has come up with when it comes to accumulating knowledge, imho. But the sensory information (on itself) that you seem to say is our only valid contact with reality is misleading, For example, the size of the moon appears to our senses to vary depending upon just where and when it is near the horizon (moon illusion), not to mention that the earth seems flat. The line between sensory-based empirical data and theoretical information that precedes and follows from it is not as clear-cut as many claim. For example, the picture that we have in our minds of the night sky full of stars is a sort of sensory model of reality....many of the stars we can see in the sky tonight actually would have been burnt out thousands of years ago...so in this respect, our sensory models can often be misleading or just plain wrong....as many a criminal lawyer will attest from examining eye witnesses. Truth be told, everything we know, including sensory data, is just a model of an "alleged" Reality (aka noumena) that supposedly exists in some way independent of our models. But what exactly this means is up for grabs....hence, Bohr and Einstein disagreed as to whether the moon exists when we are not looking at it...back to philosophy.. The consensus seems to be that there is a sound in the forest and there is a moon, though sounds and images as we experience them do not exist "out there" in some Reality external to our minds....e.g., there is no such things as the color "pink" in the natural world (our minds just create that color to fill in the gap between other colors). But to get back to the topic of this thread, I don't think that the question (apart from the misleading assumption that Reality was "created") of this thread is a waste of time on the basis, supposedly, that scientists have no better clue than anyone else does whether we are "alone." Indeed, I think that the growing consensus (based at this point on theoretical extrapolation) among scientists, is that it is probable that life (and probably some intelligent life) exists on planets elsewhere, at least in this universe, if not others. Also, the question is not an empty one because, as I have outlined before, the confirmation of life on other planets would have a huge impact on the religious and philosophical outlook of millions of people....or should I say, earthlings. Of course, if you, as an individual don't think that it matters to you for various reasons, that is fine. Indeed, I would agree that, even if there were intelligent life on some planet on some distant star, the likelihood of their visiting earth (aka as UFOs) is so unlikely as to be logically dismissed as....well, silly. But again, there are a few people around who think that it is certain that they do exist and do routinely visit. Shucks, one famous boxer in the throes of late-life dementia used to smear mayonnaise on windows in order to prevent the FBI and/or extraterrestrial beings from checking up on him. Indeed, feeling that UFOs are following one or reading ones mind is a common symptom of a psychosis derived from paranoid schizophrenia....but hey, everyone's opinion is as good as anyone elses, it is said, when it comes to what is possible just around the corner in this, sometimes strange, universe of ours.

Tar Einstein did not believe in any sort of personal God, e.g., a God that saw everything from all directions at once. Nor did he put forth any quasi-religious argument that it might be possible for there to be some sort of Mind link between all possible observers or observational points in the universe. I do recall reading that he mused that seeing things from one perspective (which is all we ever seem able to do) is always incomplete.... but, like the Cubists, he did wonder just what it might be like to see everything from every every possible perspective....something which he found to be so counter-intuitive that he admitted that he could not picture in his mind what that would be like (though picturing things in his mind, by his own words, was his forte). But he thought that being able to see everything from all perspectives would put us more in tune with Reality, than seeing things from one perspective. But how, he pondered, could Reality ever be fully known (completely and accurately understood) unless it could be seen from multiple perspectives at once....and indeed, how can Reality even exist unless it exists in a state in which there is one all-inclusive Absolute "perspective" (or perhaps it is more accurate to say 'non-perspective') but only relative perspectives???.....He simply concluded that something very strange was going on. Similarly, quantum theory in general, tends to suggest that the Reality beyond our senses (e.g., the position or state of an electron) is in some sort of rarefied ontological state of limbo...having no perspective at all....at least not until 'concretized' by some sort of observation (or to be more precise, some sort of 'measurement'). And as Bohr said, in so many words,....anyone who thinks he understand this state of affairs is delusional. In any case, given your emphasis that we should not rule out or rule in the existence of things to which we do not have direct sensory access to, I don't see how you can categorically state that it is impossible for some Being, such as God, to see all things from all directions and perspectives....Indeed, such an idea is pretty much what Divine omniscience might be said to entail. My point is not that such omniscience is possible or is not. Nor is it my point that there is or is not such a God that has such omniscience. My point is that you can not, given your own criteria as to what is knowable, make any claims about it one way or another yourself...unless you want to switch tack and sail off into some glassy-eyed guru's sea of faith or intuition, which apparently you do not. As for such questions as to how the universe began, or what is on the other side of the observable universe or any other area that is beyond the scope of our immediate senses, I will side with the scientists rather than the seers when it comes to the question as to whom has the better description. As Terry Eagleton points out, science does have its own assumptions, regardless of how objective it claims to be. In particular, he points out, science tends to exclude things that are not "natural." By natural, Eagleton means that science tends to only ac-knowledge those things that seem to fit in to the present paradigms that seem to best unite the sensory data that has been accumulated and systematized throughout history (e.g.,, empiricism + scientific theories) in an attempt to deal with Nature. If science comes across something that doesn't fit the present paradigms, it will immediately set about, like a goat, to try to consume and assimilate what it can from the apparently worthless and haphazard things it sees....whether it be something as irrational as the first awareness of a Black Hole or some giant Jack in the Bean Stalk striding amongst the galaxies. But I am willing to dispense with further discussion about your claim that science is never any better than any other way of viewing the more abstruse aspects of reality that one might mention (those aspects that are not readily at hand or visible to the naked eye), by simply saying that, as is sometimes said of the conflict between faith and reason, it is a matter of apples and oranges...so lets not compare the two. As a Parthian shot, however,I would note that I would give greater credence to the scientific description of an apple as something that exists because of a natural tendency for living things to find means to spread their seed (in this case, being eaten by animals), rather than as something a Creator made to test the loyalty of his "children." But, as you say, a scientist's opinion about things that we moderns weren't around to see is never any better than anyone elses opinion.

Tar Well at this point, it's just a matter of emphasis with regards to the best way to frame the role of "specialness." .. Clearly from the point of view of history, the need to feel special and superior has raised its ugly head time and time again, e.g., the dozens of major issues and points in time where religion has clashed with science (e.g., forcing Newton to recant re his theory of heliocentrism), largely with regards to humankind's need to feel special in the eyes of God. Similarly, there are thousands of violent examples of societies clashing with each other, in large part, over issues of religious and national identity based largely on the need to feel special, unique, and superior. Terry Eagleton sums this up neatly when he states in "Reason, Faith, and Revolution," that "Civilizations kill to protect their matierial interests, whereas cultures kill to protect their identity" (p. 156) But if you choose to focus on the mundane, rather Sartrean, role that the Other (person) has in bestowing upon oneself a sense of identity, that is fine with me...But, it doesn't discount the role that the search for identity and the need to feel special (e.g., ethnocentrism) has played throughout history, often with violent consequences. I don't understand why you continue to use the word "interpolate" however, instead of "extrapolate," as, judging from the context in which you are using the word, the former does not seem to make sense to me. I do follow the reasoning in your last post, up until the point where you back track and suggest that the fact that our identity is confirmed or substantiated in some way in the minds of others somehow (as if in some figurative, Hegelian leap from the individual to the universal) provides evidence that "the universe is aware of us." It is total speculation on your part that objective reality (aka the World or the Universe) is somehow synonymous with God because it is aware us. It is at this point that you seem to leave the realm of science (or even basic logic) and venture off into speculative metaphysics. That's fine if you want to do that, but keep in mind that, unlike multiverse theories, there is no evidence (idle speculation doesn't count) that the universe is aware of us simply on the basis that other human beings are. I don't see that as a reasonable extrapolation. Sure, people are perhaps a product of the universe and they are in the universe, but suggesting that therefore the entire universe must or is probably aware of us (as if it were a god) makes no sense to me. But again, if you are trying to say that other people are "godlike" in that they seem to give you a sense of identity and therefore existence, that is a nice metaphorical analogy. But in no way can I see that you have shown that our awareness of each other provides any evidence or reasoning whatsoever that therefore the universe is aware of us. In short, your use of the word "god" in describing the universe is, imho, rather misleading, even if you acknowledge that you are just making a figurative claim.

Tar I am not sure who you mean when you say that "we already know the story [of Genesis] is a story"...and this story is a "figurative" or non-literal story. But 37% of Americans believe that God created the World (i..e., the Universe) in six 24-hour days (as per a literal interpretation of Genesis). * I see you take my point that a significant thread in religious thought is that humans are special in the eyes of one or more Gods in terms, usually, of being "his" only offspring. Indeed, your thoughts, I suspect, seem to echo the need to feel special, in some grand sense, that is ubiquitously found in the scriptures of various religions. You state, for example, that "You and I are still special." (You also mention that our universe is special to us.) You then seem to point out that, though we may be 'related' to spiders (via evolution), we (e.g., our DNA) is distinctly different from that of a spider's, and therefore humans are unique and special. By the same token, though, a spider's DNA, etc., is unique and special as well, when compared with other living things. (Moreover, there is minor genotypical variation between various humans as well as major phenotypical variations). Humans, as a species, are not dramatically distinct from other life forms, even on this planet...particularly, as you say, if we keep in mind that living creatures are all "related," despite their apparent uniqueness and specialness. So again, for me, the focus of the discussion becomes not so much a question as to whether we are alone, but rather the question becomes what might be the religious, cultural, scientific, and philosophical ramifications were we to find out that we are not alone? I suspect that many people wish to feel that they are special, whether it be as individuals, as members of a particular nation (and sometimes "race" or at least ethnic group), as a species, and as a being in their universe. Indeed, one notes the similarity between the words "species" and "special." There is nothing wrong with wanting to feel unique and special, but who can say whether the desire to feel special is entirely an exalted philosophical and spiritual one. Certainly an evolutionary psychologist might claim that the desire to feel special is just another example of our survival instinct.... in the sense that our need to feel special is, for example, an aspect of the process of individuation, a process that helps us to develop a sense of self-identity and thus to understand our place in the world and to deserve to be treated by our partners and close friends as someone who is different from others, etc. It is by virtue of 'specialness' that tribal cohesion develops, that an animal identifies its prey, and that mothers identify their own. As for religion, I would suggest that a belief in a Creator also seems to increase the likelihood that humans are special, as I mentioned before. Ultimately, given that we have so little evidence one way or another to answer the question as to whether there are other intelligent beings in this or other universes, it seems more fruitful, as often is the case in philosophical discussions, to examine the question itself about whether we are alone, by asking such things as: Why do we ask whether we are alone? Why do humans tend to assume that they and their universe were created (and, typically,by some supernatural being, and one that is similar to themselves)? How would the discovery of intelligent beings on other planets (especially ones with a DNA very, very similar to our own) affect our sense of specialness and uniqueness?....There is no particular reason to think that extraterrestrial creatures and their intelligence would be significantly different from ours.....after all, humans share, according to a common estimate, 98.8 % of their DNA with chimps? (No doubt this discovery would have a huge impact, much like the evolutionary claim that we were related to apes in one way or another was a huge blow to thousands of people, as exemplified by the Scopes trial.) In what different ways can we explain the virtually universal human need to feel special in one way or another? To what extent have and are various religions an expression of some innate human desire to feel special? How would the discovery of intelligent beings on other planets (in our own universe, if not other universes) affect contemporary debates between science and religion re such things as the existence of God (a Creator), the claims of literal Creationists (vs. evolutionists), etc.? I am not suggesting that we, and/or other posters tackle the related questions in my bulleted list. Rather, i"m just attempting to address the main question of this thread as to whether we were created alone by using lateral thinking...tackling it from the side, and not head on. *http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

Yes, I am, for similar reasons, very skeptical about any talk about UFOs. Personally, I think the whole mission vision of spending billions of dollars to get a moon rock, to find a speck of life on Mars, to search for extra terrestrial life is a waste of money. (Sure, there have been lots of spin-off discoveries in the process, but we could have made lots of other discoveries/inventions had we spend all that money seeking to find ways, for example, to develop food sources from the sea.) I guess the only point I have left is that the main monotheistic religions today would have to adjust their thinking, given that they are based on the idea that God only created intelligent life forms on earth and no where else. This suggests that many people in the world are quite happy thinking that they are, in a sense, God's only children....as if they were Chosen or special. Again, finding life on other planets, for many, would make them feel less special. Indeed, it would encourage even more people to give up the idea that the world was created by some personal God, as outlined in Genesis, for example, and give more credence to scientific explanations for the existence of life in the universe. Again, not speaking about how you would feel...but just talking about the ramifications of finding life forms, especially intelligent ones, elsewhere in our galaxy.