Producing a hierarchy of human life .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well wikipedia isn't exactly gospel, but it is a good starting point, my point would be that there seems to be some disagreement on what makes a civilization. You seem to think it involves writing, some would seem to say it's more of a group of people who have a working society. I am a bit torn between them. Neither would seem to be 100% on point.

 

I don't think it was writing , as we think of getting out a type writer, computer or pen and paper .

My understanding of it is , that trading was possible by chisling in stone tablets , how many bags of grain, I agree with you , in exchange for herbs and spices in so many jars. So we don't forget , ( like you said 3 bags , not 5 bags ) .

 

Mike

[Moontanman]

I don't think it was writing , as we think of getting out a type writer, computer or pen and paper .

My understanding of it is , that trading was possible by chisling in stone tablets , how many bags of grain, I agree with you , in exchange for herbs and spices in so many jars. So we don't forget , ( like you said 3 bags , not 5 bags ) .

 

Mike

 

 

This interpretation suffers from the fact that other forms of writing or messaging or keeping track of these things would be unlikely to survive. Symbols on hide or reeds or notches on sticks would be unlikely to survive the ravages of time. But the concepts you are talking about could have been around for tens of thousands of years and since trade is demonstrable back to at least 50,000 years I would be careful asserting that this stuff only started 5,000 years ago due to what is effectively sample bias...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This interpretation suffers from the fact that other forms of writing or messaging or keeping track of these things would be unlikely to survive. Symbols on hide or reeds or notches on sticks would be unlikely to survive the ravages of time. But the concepts you are talking about could have been around for tens of thousands of years and since trade is demonstrable back to at least 50,000 years I would be careful asserting that this stuff only started 5,000 years ago due to what is effectively sample bias...

 

.

I can take the point you make about the medium used to write , if stone tablet lasts , whereas parchment could easily decay to nothing.

 

However the point about age of civilisation coming from the recognised sequence of nations , previously mentioned spread over 6000 years . We have a problem if you expand that to 50,000 years. We would have been over run 40,000 years ago. My reasoning being. That we have grown to the staggering coverage of the earth , in the conventional civilisations in just 6000 years . A further 45,000 years of population growth , would swamp us out of existence , surely . And if you are saying they were not breeding , much in those extra 45,000 years , they would have died out , eaten by predators or some other malady , surely .?

 

 

Ps duplication by doubling produces amazing growth in numbers .

 

Eg if you fold a 1/1000 th of an inch piece of paper or card, large enough ( , 47 times , ) it will be thick enough to reach the moon .

 

So population growth by doubling soon goes ' viral'

 

Mike

Edited June 25, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

I can take the point you make about the medium used to write , if stone tablet lasts , whereas parchment could easily decay to nothing.

 

However the point about age of civilisation coming from the recognised sequence of nations , previously mentioned spread over 6000 years . We have a problem if you expand that to 50,000 years. We would have been over run 40,000 years ago. My reasoning being. That we have grown to the staggering coverage of the earth , in the conventional civilisations in just 6000 years . A further 45,000 years of population growth , would swamp us out of existence , surely . And if you are saying they were not breeding , much in those extra 45,000 years , they would have died out , eaten by predators or some other malady , surely .?

 

Mike

 

Ps duplication by doubling produces amazing growth in numbers .

 

Eg if you fold a 1/1000 th of an inch piece of paper or card, large enough ( , 47 times , ) it will be thick enough to reach the moon .

 

So population growth by doubling soon goes ' viral'

 

Mike

 

 

I've heard this argument used by creationists (not you) but the idea of doubling population is flawed. In fact it is thought the overall population growth was quite flat for a very long time other than groups that moved out into uninhabited areas which then were quite common for human populations. There are some hints that civilizations came and went several times before populations grew to the point where there was numbers settled in the same place. I always have wondered if "savages" moving in from wild areas might not have overran small villages or settlements clustered around easily gathered resources. I imagine that such a touch and go method would have prevented seriously large cities for quite some time.

 

You can see a similar process in later populations even when the sedentary populations were arranged in powerful city states. Outsiders would sweep in and take over, often by what was termed barbarians. Sea peoples (circa 1200 to 900 BCE) have been hypothesized to be responsible for an overall decline in civilizations and have held my interest for some time. It would appear the "Sea Peoples" would sweep in on small coastal cities and or islands in the mediterranean area. These invaders evidently disrupted an over all developing civilization at the time and knocked back the advance of organised sedentary peoples significantly.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Moontanman

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I've heard this argument used by creationists (not you) but the idea of doubling population is flawed. In fact it is thought the overall population growth was quite flat for a very long time other than groups that moved out into uninhabited areas which then were quite common for human populations. There are some hints that civilizations came and went several times before populations grew to the point where there was numbers settled in the same place. I always have wondered if "savages" moving in from wild areas might not have overran small villages or settlements clustered around easily gathered resources. I imagine that such a touch and go method would have prevented seriously large cities for quite some time.

 

You can see a similar process in later populations even when the sedentary populations were arranged in powerful city states. Outsiders would sweep in and take over, often by what was termed barbarians. Sea peoples (circa 1200 to 900 BCE) have been hypothesized to be responsible for an overall decline in civilizations and have held my interest for some time. It would appear the "Sea Peoples" would sweep in on small coastal cities and or islands in the mediterranean area. These invaders evidently disrupted an over all developing civilization at the time and knocked back the advance of organised sedentary peoples significantly.

 

.

O.k. Well I must not loose sight of my objective to classify some form of HEIRACY PRINCIPLE for life around humans experience.

 

So to that end , I must pose a possibly fictitious turn of events , to see if it is possible to " get a perspective "

 

Let us for the moment try and guess what one of my goldfish speculates what is going on outside of its Poøl environment.

It is aware of its bugs on the base of the pool , and imagines there must be more of ' the feeder' creatures up there beyond the surface of the water ( it's sky ) . I wonder where they come from , a long long way away ? Do they live in water , did they build my world and put me and my fellow fishes in this pool . Did they make all these plants around me ?

 

Similarly but on a far larger scale , we look up asking , where did we come from, where we placed here on earth. Where did this vast universe come from ,? Are there creatures of some form in the constellation of Andromedor, who ventured here to Earth , thousands of years ago , transformed the Environment ( our pool ) , and made sure it grew vegetation and trees suitable to make a living environment . Then did they finally introduce Human Life ( equivalent of gold fish ) into the Earth Pond . Is that how it came about ?

Only a thought experiment ! But enough to get a handle on a Heirarcy in principle ?

 

Mike

[Moontanman]

.

O.k. Well I must not loose sight of my objective to classify some form of HEIRACY PRINCIPLE for life around humans experience.

 

So to that end , I must pose a possibly fictitious turn of events , to see if it is possible to " get a perspective "

 

Let us for the moment try and guess what one of my goldfish speculates what is going on outside of its Poøl environment.

It is aware of its bugs on the base of the pool , and imagines there must be more of ' the feeder' creatures up there beyond the surface of the water ( it's sky ) . I wonder where they come from , a long long way away ? Do they live in water , did they build my world and put me and my fellow fishes in this pool . Did they make all these plants around me ?

 

Similarly but on a far larger scale , we look up asking , where did we come from, where we placed here on earth. Where did this vast universe come from ,? Are there creatures of some form in the constellation of Andromedor, who ventured here to Earth , thousands of years ago , transformed the Environment ( our pool ) , and made sure it grew vegetation and trees suitable to make a living environment . Then did they finally introduce Human Life ( equivalent of gold fish ) into the Earth Pond . Is that how it came about ?

Only a thought experiment ! But enough to get a handle on a Heirarcy in principle ?

 

Mike

 

 

We know where we came from, we are all star dust, we know we were not placed on earth, we evolved here, we know no one placed us here thousands of years ago, We evolved here over billions of years, we know no one paced complex life here, it evolved here, we know human life evolved here.

 

Your hierarchy problem does not exist, between fish and you or between you and the universe..

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We know where we came from, we are all star dust, we know we were not placed on earth, we evolved here, we know no one placed us here thousands of years ago, We evolved here over billions of years, we know no one paced complex life here, it evolved here, we know human life evolved here.

 

Your hierarchy problem does not exist, between fish and you or between you and the universe..

 

.

 

That is all very well. But things just do not come out of thin air.

 

Genetic Algorithms, do not come from nothing . You need an originator of the parameters for the Algorithm . Boundary conditions do need to be specified . And an objective , must be identified , to allow the algorithm to measure against. To do its feedback calculations .

 

So either some other intelligent life in the constellation of Andromeda did it , or some intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe did it , or something outside the ' whole shabang ' did it ?

Then when the genetic algorithm got into full swing, down line from an origination , some form of ' care taking ' needed to give ultimate goals and direction?

 

Or you would just end up with a black soup everywhere ?

 

Mike

Edited June 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

What makes you think there is any sort of ultimate goal or direction - that is pure conceit.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What makes you think there is any sort of ultimate goal or direction - that is pure conceit.

 

Well my understanding of genetic algorithms , is that you have to have some form of goal, or the algorithm has nothing to measure its value of success, so as to incorporate some form of feedback . This enables a direction for further success. True , mutations and random number generation can add a complete spurious ( thing ) to arise, but some initial and ongoing driver is required. ( however gentle )

 

Mike

Edited June 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

Well my understanding of genetic algorithms , is that you have to have some form of goal, or the algorithm has nothing to measure its value of success, so as to incorporate some form of feedback . This enables a direction for further success. True , mutations and random number generation can add a complete spurious ( thing ) to arise, but some initial and ongoing driver is required. ( however gentle )

 

Mike

 

 

are you talking about natural selection?

.

 

That is all very well. But things just do not come out of thin air.

 

Genetic Algorithms, do not come from nothing . You need an originator of the parameters for the Algorithm . Boundary conditions do need to be specified . And an objective , must be identified , to allow the algorithm to measure against. To do its feedback calculations .

 

So either some other intelligent life in the constellation of Andromeda did it , or some intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe did it , or something outside the ' whole shabang ' did it ?

Then when the genetic algorithm got into full swing, down line from an origination , some form of ' care taking ' needed to give ultimate goals and direction?

 

Or you would just end up with a black soup everywhere ?

 

Mike

 

You are making a huge but completely unsupported assertion. No one has said things come out of thin air, physics determines how everything interacts with everything else.

 

Order can arise out of chaos, it can be demonstrated, but the chaos is not a random thing. Physical systems can only interact in certain ways, physical laws determine those interactions. No goals, no direction, Genes simply select for genes that reproduce the best, that allow physical systems to use the available resources in the most efficient way...

 

Chemicals will spontaneously increase their order due to chemistry, chemistry is determined by physics. Some think we just happen to be in a universe that allows this to happen out of a multitude of universes with random constants. I personally think it's more likely that thing are the way they are because it's the only way they can be and us exist to question them...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

are you talking about natural selection?

 

You are making a huge but completely unsupported assertion. No one has said things come out of thin air, physics determines how everything interacts with everything else.

 

Order can arise out of chaos, it can be demonstrated, but the chaos is not a random thing. Physical systems can only interact in certain ways, physical laws determine those interactions. No goals, no direction, Genes simply select for genes that reproduce the best, that allow physical systems to use the available resources in the most efficient way...

 

Chemicals will spontaneously increase their order due to chemistry, chemistry is determined by physics. Some think we just happen to be in a universe that allows this to happen out of a multitude of universes with random constants. I personally think it's more likely that thing are the way they are because it's the only way they can be and us exist to question them...

.

Yes but I am not sure that physics laws are just there. They are either derived by the way all the " stuff of the universe behaves , because of the way it is ,or the way it reacts with everything else " or

" It behaves the way it does for some other mystical reason that we do not understand " .

I understand the mechanism of natural selection , and how things that add advantage can increase the survival rate . But I still do not see how you can just start with NO GOAL,'s , or no BOUNDARIES or start with NOTHING WITHOUT INITIATIVE .

 

It's like saying I am going to build SOMETHING , yes but what ?

 

Mike n

Edited June 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

.

Yes but I am not sure that physics laws are just there. They are either derived by the way all the " stuff of the universe behaves , because of the way it is ,or the way it reacts with everything else " or

" It behaves the way it does for some other mystical reason that we do not understand " .

I understand the mechanism of natural selection , and how things that add advantage can increase the survival rate . But I still do not see how you can just start with NO GOAL,'s , or no BOUNDARIES or start with NOTHING WITHOUT INITIATIVE .

 

It's like saying I am going to build SOMETHING , yes but what ?

 

Mike n

 

 

Mike, I am not trying to be insulting but your inability to see something is not a reason to assume it cannot be. Unless you want to assert that some supernatural source is where the laws of the universe come from the laws as they now exist account for how things come into being..

 

It starts with the simple fact that under the right conditions order will arise from chaos. Chemicals combine in a limited number of ways and those ways select more complex forms due to interaction with energy sources. What I am trying to say is that the chemistry of life is simply how larger molecules radiate away waste heat more effectively than smaller ones. In the case of carbon, it's cosmic abundance and chemical properties allow a huge number of combinations. All these molecules are in competition for energy and other molecules. This allows things like catalysts to form, competition between catalysts selects for those catalysts that produce more copies of themselves. This at least is my understanding of this process. As more and more complex catalysts organise eventually you get huge molecules that reproduce with errors creeping in, these errors allow complexity to grow when sorted by natural selection.

 

If I might I would suggest that you are looking at this from the top down, like looking at a school of fish interacting in a complex way and assuming one fish is in control and the others are following. In fact it is quite the opposite, all the fish follow each other. It's called emerging complexity... This short video explains it far better than i can...

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

I don't know who is throwing -1 points around , but this LOUNGE is supposed to be a non confrontational friendly forum , for lighter discussion.

-------------------------------------------------//-///-------

 

I accept some of what you say Moontonman , particularly the points of the video and the fish . I remember hearing this explained by Richard Fynman .

 

We may be looking for different things . I am NOT trying to find a way to disprove the need for higher beings other than humans .

Why many scientists are ' hell bent ' on trying to disprove anything higher than MAN , I personally think is fool hardy .

It's like trying to disown your parents who brought you up , or your employer who gave you work and wages. NEITHER lead to a happy life .

 

I am personally quite excited with what you have prompted me to think and we have discussed.

To me it has clarified this Heirachy subject that this thread is about , and brought some interesting ideas to my mind ( if not conclusions ) .

They are the following , ( which is totally up for grabs , should anyone be inclined )

 

Within the context of this discussion there COULD EXIST 5 Heirachy, stretching UP and DOWN around us as humans in the context of this ' fish pond ' example .

 

We as humans in this example are in the middle , whereby I ( Heirachy 3 ) can look down and see the Heirachy ( 2) immediately below me . Being aware of the gold fish , count them , care for them , feed them to some extent , and in fact supplied their environment , by being responsible for the pond and water. The Gold fish can look down to a ( Heirachy 1 ) grubs and worms on the bottom of the pool , which I am aware of but not see . There may even be a further Heirachy below that ( say Heirachy 0 ) bacteria .

 

Above me there may be a ( Heirachy 4 ) superhuman beings from another world or invisible environment.

Above that there may be a ( Heirachy 5 ) God .

 

It's interesting and can be demonstrated and proved :=

 

Looking down the Heirachy chain , one step down is very visible or detectable ( humans look in the pool and see fish , and fish look down and see the grubs , possibly grubs look down and see the Bacteria. Probably superhuman beings look down and see us , as well as one step more God looks down and sees it all.

 

Looking up the Heirachy chain , the first step in each case , is possible , but hard . The fish can see us to some extent as they get spooked sometimes , or birds spook them . Humans look up and it appears difficult and ambivalent to see superhuman creatures or God like beings Angels ( although 1000's of people will testify they have) , and as regards any higher still , (well , that's a whole area for discussion in itself . )

 

So there are some very interesting conclusions here, which can go to and beyond ( " it's easier to look down the Heirachy. Chain than up ) . Maybe that's why a lot of people find it difficult to beleive in other people on other planets , Angels , or God ?

 

Mike

Edited June 27, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Airbrush]

What is next above me , looking down ?

 

What is next above us are extraterrestrials. Assuming an ET civilization has the technology that allows them to travel to Earth and watch over us. They could be here in hiding, in the deep oceans, even inside abandoned warehouses. If their technology is sophisticated enough they could evade us very well. Except maybe getting captured on camera once in a while, but nothing definitive.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What is next above us are extraterrestrials. Assuming an ET civilization has the technology that allows them to travel to Earth and watch over us. They could be here in hiding, in the deep oceans, even inside abandoned warehouses. If their technology is sophisticated enough they could evade us very well. Except maybe getting captured on camera once in a while, but nothing definitive.

I will go looking today !

 

Mike

[Moontanman]

.

I don't know who is throwing -1 points around , but this LOUNGE is supposed to be a non confrontational friendly forum , for lighter discussion.

-------------------------------------------------//-///-------

 

I accept some of what you say Moontonman , particularly the points of the video and the fish . I remember hearing this explained by Richard Fynman .

 

We may be looking for different things . I am NOT trying to find a way to disprove the need for higher beings other than humans .

Why many scientists are ' hell bent ' on trying to disprove anything higher than MAN , I personally think is fool hardy .

It's like trying to disown your parents who brought you up , or your employer who gave you work and wages. NEITHER lead to a happy life .

 

I am personally quite excited with what you have prompted me to think and we have discussed.

To me it has clarified this Heirachy subject that this thread is about , and brought some interesting ideas to my mind ( if not conclusions ) .

They are the following , ( which is totally up for grabs , should anyone be inclined )

 

Within the context of this discussion there COULD EXIST 5 Heirachy, stretching UP and DOWN around us as humans in the context of this ' fish pond ' example .

 

We as humans in this example are in the middle , whereby I ( Heirachy 3 ) can look down and see the Heirachy ( 2) immediately below me . Being aware of the gold fish , count them , care for them , feed them to some extent , and in fact supplied their environment , by being responsible for the pond and water. The Gold fish can look down to a ( Heirachy 1 ) grubs and worms on the bottom of the pool , which I am aware of but not see . There may even be a further Heirachy below that ( say Heirachy 0 ) bacteria .

 

Above me there may be a ( Heirachy 4 ) superhuman beings from another world or invisible environment.

Above that there may be a ( Heirachy 5 ) God .

 

It's interesting and can be demonstrated and proved :=

 

Looking down the Heirachy chain , one step down is very visible or detectable ( humans look in the pool and see fish , and fish look down and see the grubs , possibly grubs look down and see the Bacteria. Probably superhuman beings look down and see us , as well as one step more God looks down and sees it all.

 

Looking up the Heirachy chain , the first step in each case , is possible , but hard . The fish can see us to some extent as they get spooked sometimes , or birds spook them . Humans look up and it appears difficult and ambivalent to see superhuman creatures or God like beings Angels ( although 1000's of people will testify they have) , and as regards any higher still , (well , that's a whole area for discussion in itself . )

 

So there are some very interesting conclusions here, which can go to and beyond ( " it's easier to look down the Heirachy. Chain than up ) . Maybe that's why a lot of people find it difficult to beleive in other people on other planets , Angels , or God ?

 

Mike

 

 

Mike, I think you are going about this in a somewhat less than skeptical way. There is no evidence of something above in way that we are above goldfish. In the face of the lack of evidence logic say we should go with the null hypothesis. That being, what is in question that lacks evidence is not real.

 

I am not a big fan of the super being meme, maybe intelligent machine beings might fit the bill but even in our own species individuals are not evolving toward the super being status. In fact the size of human brains is falling and the days of one person having to be skilled enough to do multiple things just to live are gone.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, I think you are going about this in a somewhat less than skeptical way. There is no evidence of something above in way that we are above goldfish. In the face of the lack of evidence logic say we should go with the null hypothesis. That being, what! is in question that lacks evidence is not real.

 

I am not a big fan of the super being meme, maybe intelligent machine beings might fit the bill but even in our own species individuals are not evolving toward the super being status. In fact the size of human brains is falling and the days of one person having to be skilled enough to do multiple things just to live are gone.

 

.

I went to a taught Art class yesterday ( that I join in with other artists) overseen by a 90 year old artist . The subject he introduced at the beginning of the session was MAPS . He wanted us to paint an illustrated map of the town or village we lived in . I exclaimed I would find that too boreing, and asked if I could paint a map of " where I felt I was in the Universe! He said fine , !

 

So away I went with 4 sheets of art paper to paint very very quickly in acrylic paint , where I felt I was in my HEIRACHY of LIFE . Before I was through after an hour or two . He said I should write the distinctive words of :- Omar Khayyám's poems . # see end of post

 

Here is the 4 sketch paintings . Now I am sat in the park , composing my own words to put at the bottom of each painting . Like

 

" looking down on the gold fish who hardly , know or are aware of me looking at them , while I am very much aware of them and care for their well being to a certain degree , ........"

 

Picture 1 the bugs on the floor of the pool observed by gold fish , but only loosely aware of the gold fish themselves

 

Picture 2 the fish in the pool , very aware of the bugs on the floor of the pool , but only loosely aware of me as the overseer of the fish .

Picture 3 the 'me' human , very aware of the fish but not aware of the bugs , but only loosely aware of the possible overseers of us humans .

Picture 4 the occupants of the higher cosmos , very aware of us humans , but .....aware that the humans are only loosely aware / not aware of them !

 

Mike

 

# Omar Khayyám's poems . Link. :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam

Edited June 29, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

A translation of one of Omar Khayyam's quadratures' .

 

 

Some for the glories of this world; and some

Sigh for The Prophet's Paradise to come;

Ah, take the cash and let the credit go,

Nor heed the rumble of a distant drum

 

And much as Wine has played the Infidel

And robbed me of my robe of honour, well ...

I often wonder what the vintners buy

One half so precious as the stuff they sell

 

For some we loved, the loveliest and best

That from His rolling vintage Time has pressed,

Have drunk their glass a round or two before,

And one by one crept silently to rest

 

But helpless pieces in the game He plays

Upon this chequer-board of Nights and Days

He hither and thither moves, and checks ... and slays

Then one by one, back in the Closet lays

 

"The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

 

Bust ...... Omar Khayyam

 

 

Mike

Edited July 1, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

What is next above us are extraterrestrials. Assuming an ET civilization has the technology that allows them to travel to Earth and watch over us. They could be here in hiding, in the deep oceans, even inside abandoned warehouses. If their technology is sophisticated enough they could evade us very well. Except maybe getting captured on camera once in a while, but nothing definitive.

.

 

Airbrush, I am interested in your ideas as to what is ' up ' the Heirachy from our Human state. I have reflected on this subject , up through my life , in greater and lesser degrees.

 

When asked to do a painting sketch ( in an art session ) the other day of this subject , the overseeing art teacher , showed the keenest of interest . Being 90 years old , I suppose that was predictable . ( he was the one that said " look at Omar Khayyam" . However , I think many people reflect on the subject " is there more than us ? " because of the "blurred " sence when looking upward ( demonstrated by my analysis of the ' Human Heirachy ' , whatever there is , is definitely like those fish in the pool. They think they can go on quite adequately without me , but I know better , as I might change my ideas about the pool and scrap it ! What happens to the fish then ? Do I find them a new home ? Or do I ' toss them down the bank ? ' ( very unlikely ) . I would be interested in your ideas .

 

Mike

Edited July 2, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Airbrush I like your further comments about your view of the possibilities for higher up the Heirachy ..

Of course this ( if my proposition is right about up and down the hierarchy differences) is what to expect .

Namely , that the view downward is clear , the view upward is very fuzzy . How one can clarify the view upwards is an interesting subject in its own right .

 

I suppose if the gold fish wanted a better view of me , they could make an almighty leap out of the water and have a good stare at me, and get a clearer image , and go back down and express in ' fishy language ' to the other fish , what I was really like !

 

What the equivalent of that is for us trying to gauge a snatch perception of any possible higher beings .. Is up for grabs .

 

I did start to try a few years ago, in a sort of experimental way , which sort of continues to this day . Slightly convoluted.

 

Mike

 

Ps . A Philosophical friend of mine , and myself , had an elongated conversation , while listening to a very loud Rock and roll band , one night in a pub. The conclusion we came to that evening was " that there is no greater experience that one can gain in life , than to ' SURF THE UNIVERSE ' .

Edited July 4, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

Airbrush I like your further comments about your view of the possibilities for higher up the Heirachy ..

Of course this ( if my proposition is right about up and down the hierarchy differences) is what to expect .

Namely , that the view downward is clear , the view upward is very fuzzy . How one can clarify the view upwards is an interesting subject in its own right .

 

I suppose if the gold fish wanted a better view of me , they could make an almighty leap out of the water and have a good stare at me, and get a clearer image , and go back down and express in ' fishy language ' to the other fish , what I was really like !

 

What the equivalent of that is for us trying to gauge a snatch perception of any possible higher beings .. Is up for grabs .

 

I did start to try a few years ago, in a sort of experimental way , which sort of continues to this day . Slightly convoluted.

 

Mike

 

Ps . A Philosophical friend of mine , and myself , had an elongated conversation , while listening to a very loud Rock and roll band , one night in a pub. The conclusion we came to that evening was " that there is no greater experience that one can gain in life , than to ' SURF THE UNIVERSE ' .

 

I am really trying to feel you Mike, but I don't get the need you seem to have for hierarchies, it seems unnatural, contrived. Now having said that SURFING THE UNIVERSE sounds like a good time, exactly what was he doing?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am really trying to feel you Mike, but I don't get the need you seem to have for hierarchies, it seems unnatural, contrived. Now having said that SURFING THE UNIVERSE sounds like a good time, exactly what was he doing?

 

.

 

Your comment " I don't get the need you seem to have for hierarchies, "

 

Well, I am curious , as I am sure many people are , as to

 

" what is possibly above us in the ranking of ' intelligent life '. in the Universe at large ? " in other words " is there anything floating about anywhere , which at some time or other , we would get an enthralling experience, as well as gain useful knowledge of things we perhaps struggle with about " the Universe at large "

 

As the famous broadcaster John Snagg of ' letter to America fame ' once said " if you find yourself sitting next to the ' Dali Lama ' as I ' John Snagg' found myself while flying from England to America , what do you ask him? ..................

 

To attempt to answer the questions I have, ( I have not flown from England to America , let alone sat next to the ' Dali Lama' ! or been able to ask such far reaching questions , about higher intelligent beings! )

 

So while waiting around through my life for such a coincidence , I have set about asking the questions , about , ' Higher life forms ' !

For the same reason on many occasions in normal life , when you find yourself in the presence of a particular expert , does one often ask the question " what is your take on ' bla de bla ' . To find yourself ' gob struck ' to hear expert understanding given on your pet subject .

So before asking , I have sought to answer to question " Is there likely to be anyone , anything , any higher being about , anywhere, anytime , to ask ?

 

So , as I look around , or read about , or see video's about , LIFE in various shapes and sizes ,

I thought " is there any features about the " DIFFERENCES OF ACTIVITY , OR APPROACH , OR OTHER BEHAVIOUR " which help me to understand if there was any intelligent life HIGHER than US . Hense the experiment spoken of in this thread .

 

The creatures I have used , are those ' near to hand ' namely Goldfish in my pond , Bugs that I am advised are crawling about on the bottom of the pond , Me outside the pond , observing the goldfish behaviour , and the proposed Intelligent life somewhere capable of observing me , observing my goldfish !

 

The idea of Ranking or Heirachy is a fairly loose description of the obvious difference in Intelligence of the scale of Heirachy going through :-

 

BUGS - FISH - HUMAN - ( HIGHER INTELLIGENT LIFE FORM )

 

 

Bugs to fish , I can think about ,

 

Fish to human I can think about and observe very detailed and Well,

 

Human to intelligent life I can think about , experiment and predict , possibly test .

 

--------------------------------

 

If there is a linked HEIRARCHY in existence , then the main detailed link between Gold Fish and Man in this two way difference ,

,I believe could give assistance and insight into the possible descovery of a link between Man and Higher Intelligence .

 

--------------------------------

 

Mike

 

Now having said that SURFING THE UNIVERSE sounds like a good time, exactly what was he doing?

 

I have a long standing male friend , who I met during our children's open days at primary school . My children are grown up with children of there own , so that must be 25 years ago approx . We had similar interests and mind in both Science , Art , and Philosophy , and have been in touch continually fairly regularly over those 25,years.

 

We can sit and talk for hours as well as go out into the Devon - Cornwall environment ( UK ) as well as doing the occasional experiment and observation. This night we had gone to a coastal town for a walk and a drink , and ended up in a pub that was just setting up a Rock and Roll band performance - ' Man , was it loud ' , great , but we could not hear ourselves ' think ' , let alone each other comment . So we ' wrote on beer mats ' questions and answers .

 

The one question that got a hold was

" WHAT IS THE MOST ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE ONE CAN HAVE ( of an in principal sustained , continuous , basis ) , ? "

In between the time listening to this deafening yet enjoyable ' live rock band ' pub performance , we jointly came up with :-

 

To Surf the universe , ..... For a few seconds , .... For a length of time ...... For Ever ........if you can catch the Universe ( as in one of AIRBRUSH's big waves , and figuratively ' Surf the Surf ' ) .. But from a ' pick up on the Universe itself , ' and surf it . Boy , that is about 'As good as it gets '

 

Courtesy of AIRBRUSH ( fellow Science Forum Contributor )

 

 

Mike

Edited July 4, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

I see no reason why the Dalai Lama would know anymore than anyone else about something we have no evidence for. Like asking Hawking why aliens are green. I honestly have no need for anything higher than me, in fact I'm not sure I understand what "Higher than me" even means. I have grave doubts about the concept of super beings even being possible much less probable.

 

Possibly a AI might qualify but if the size and computing power is what we are talking about a sperm whale's brain is the size of a bushel basket, very complex, thought to be capable of very complex tasks, does that qualify as a higher life form or are we talking technology?

 

As for surfing the universe, I have surfed, lots of fun but nothing compared to riding a super bike naked down a deserted road at more than 130 mph but I guess that's a personal thing...

 

I still think we lack a definition of higher...

Is this close to what we are talking about?

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A new photo has come to my attention , by a fellow thinker.

 

This was in the sky , what is it ?

 

 

Mike

 

If nothing else , we appear to desire to make images in our vision of what we are looking for ?

Edited July 5, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

A new photo has come to my attention , by a fellow thinker.

 

This was in the sky , what is it ?

 

image.jpeg

 

Mike

 

If nothing else , we appear to desire to make images in our vision of what we are looking for ?

Clouds?