Opinions on Cosmological Pluralism

[Socrates]

I fear that i may need educating on the feasibility of the existence of celestial keen i.e inhabitants other than ourselves accupying the cosmos's resources. Do not get me wrong, I have an associates in mathematics, philosophy and xenosociobiology....therefore, I have acquired insight into the anatomy or morphology of the conception, but I lack outstanding-revolutionary evidence of there existence. And if man opposes, to what right dose he have to make overt assertions on covert i.e unexplored cosmic areas?

[Socrates]

One could conclued from my pervious composition, that I did little to support my title for the forum. Well to logically justify my intentions-I wish to acquire adaquate knowledge on the conception of cosmological pluralism, before I conclued beyond reason a likely or unlikely reality in respect to the existence of life-not circumscribed by Earth's resourceful environment.

[Mokele]

What the hell are you jabbering about?

 

Here's a news flash: you don't make yourself look smarter by using the most big words and the longest sentences. You make yourself look smart by communicating your question or idea simply and effectively.

 

Mokele

[GutZ]

Cosmological Pluralism as in what...more than ... I don't see how your ideas connect.

[Socrates]

Cosmological pluralism is the feasibility of extraterrestrial life or more than one life existing in the cosmos i.e universe.

[Socrates]

What the hell are you jabbering about?

 

Here's a news flash: you don't make yourself look smarter by using the most big words and the longest sentences. You make yourself look smart by communicating your question or idea simply and effectively.

 

Mokele

 

How is this relevant to the topic at hand? If you wish do discuss the philosophy of semantics, you should post your assertions on another forum.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What he's saying, through insults, is that your manner of using the largest available words can be irritating.

[Socrates]

What he's saying, through insults, is that your manner of using the largest available words can be irritating.

 

I agree, and apologize. I appreciate that you, a man of few words, has made a polite comment, in regards to technical jargon....I am however a poet, therefore- I feel obligating to express my emotions artistically. I hope you share my poetic view.

[Socrates]

Artistically, in a sense of the manipulation of words i.e materialistic communication of abstract thoughts. I simply am challenging the traditional approach to communication.

 

P.s I do believe that all scientists practice my current method of communication. It is not a means to confuse, it is a means to make a conception, synoptic.

[Glider]

Artistically, in a sense of the manipulation of words i.e materialistic communication of abstract thoughts. I simply am challenging the traditional approach to communication.

Then you won't mind if we challange the traditional approach to understanding and fail to understand anything you say?

 

Of course, if you wish to be understood, it might be wise to use traditional forms of communication.

 

P.s I do believe that all scientists practice my current method of communication. It is not a means to confuse, it is a means to make a conception, synoptic.

Most of the scientists I know are clear, concise and precice in their use of language.

 

It comes with the job as they know that the onus is always on the author to make to their meaning clear and never on the reader to attempt to divine meaning from garbled text. If the reader fails to understand what is written, it is always the fault of the author.

[Spyman]

I fear that i may need educating on the feasibility of the existence of celestial keen i.e inhabitants other than ourselves accupying the cosmos's resources.

Start here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[Socrates]

Then you won't mind if we challange the traditional approach to understanding and fail to understand anything you say?

 

Of course, if you wish to be understood, it might be wise to use traditional forms of communication.

 

Most of the scientists I know are clear, concise and precice in their use of language.

 

It comes with the job as they know that the onus is always on the author to make to their meaning clear and never on the reader to attempt to divine meaning from garbled text. If the reader fails to understand what is written, it is always the fault of the author.

 

This is understood...Thank You......

You should read my first two books I ever got published, You would enjoy them....Paramedium and Philosophia....Unfortunately they attack your point of view on communication.

[insane_alien]

poetry and flowery language are all well and good outside the fields of science and engineering but as long as your here and trying to convey an idea , you'll be clear and precise.

 

anyway, about 'cosmological pluralism' or 'ALIENS!' as we would say. i would genuinely be shocked if our planet was the only inhabited world in the universe. even the galaxy.

 

i would imagine that there are quadrillions of worlds with microbial life, trillions with macroscopic life, billions with technology and millions of space faring races out there. this is a low low estimate though. the universe is astoundngly large.

[psiji]

This is understood...Thank You......

You should read my first two books I ever got published, You would enjoy them....Paramedium and Philosophia....Unfortunately they attack your point of view on communication.

 

Where are these two books? I can't find any references to them anywhere on the internet...

 

If no one here understands what you are talking about than the fault probably doesn't lie in readers, but in your writing style.

 

Using irrelevant jargon does not help convey ideas (something we've probably all learned here as we've developed larger than normal vocabularies filled with scientific terminology). This has been a problem for many philosophers and scientists alike (i.e. Try reading Heidegger's Being and Time, or Godel, Escher, and Bach by Douglas Hofstader to see what I'm getting at).

 

You want to be able to convey your ideas to a large general audience (especially if you are both a poet and a writer). By using sentence structures and phrasing that we can barely make sense of we can't really understand what you are getting at.

 

Simple. Concise. To the point.

[Socrates]

This is understood, but to whom do I owe the misunderstanding to? Which of you-if not all of you, are too unintelligent to understand my simple particular- communication. Particular-as in-measures of-(denoted by plato). Well I see now, it would be pointless to converse with individuals who, at any level of competence, lack the manifestation of superior competence itself.

 

Philosophy and poetry denote science-to object only suggest that your measures(mathematics) is materialistic with out abstract tendencies.

Now, scince all of you are sooooooo-intelligent- tell me what is it that I have said-for an intelligent man can take the complex and make it simple-it is your job not mine.

[Sisyphus]

Ignatius Reilly lives!

 

Seriously, though, your ineloquence is staggering. Luckily for you, I'm fluent in pretentious twit. Obviously, extraterrestrial life is still entirely hypothetical. There have been numerous attempts to estimate the plausibility of such (see the Drake Equation), but ultimately it boils down to something like, "It happened here, and the universe is more vast than we can possibly conceive (and may be infinite), so it must be staggeringly unlikely that we are alone." Obviously, that's a very intuitive statement, but it kind of has to be. For one thing, "life" is not a clearly defined phenomenon. "Self-replicating pockets of localized negative entropy" might be one such definition, albeit a rather unsatisfying one. More intuitively, life might be a lot like pornography: we can't define it, but we'll know it when we see it. How? Because it reminds us of ourselves, I suppose.

[insane_alien]

Which of you-if not all of you, are too unintelligent to understand my simple particular- communication.

 

its nothing to do with a lack of intelligence. and your 'communicatons' are not simple, they are not exact and they are not what we usually deal with.

 

Well I see now, it would be pointless to converse with individuals who, at any level of competence, lack the manifestation of superior competence itself.

 

nice, you insult us for wanting plain cut language. i see you competence must be larger than your head.

 

Philosophy and poetry denote science-to object only suggest that your measures(mathematics) is materialistic with out abstract tendencies.

 

you've never done maths have you? its ALL abstract. none of it has any physical meaning. it just contains a few tricks for describing the way the universe works. in essence its a language. the one we speak best.

 

Now, scince all of you are sooooooo-intelligent- tell me what is it that I have said-for an intelligent man can take the complex and make it simple-it is your job not mine.

 

not a lot. most of it was too fuzzy to derive any real meaning out of it. i can only assume that its sole purpose was to waste time. but i have took the time to disect it and study it as we scientists and engineers are prone to do.

[Glider]

...to whom do I owe the misunderstanding to?

Horrible grammar!

 

Philosophy and poetry denote science-to object only suggest that your measures(mathematics) is materialistic with out abstract tendencies.

Now, scince all of you are sooooooo-intelligent- tell me what is it that I have said-for an intelligent man can take the complex and make it simple

Then why didn't you?

-it is your job not mine.

No, it is not. As I have said, if you wish to be understood, or at least to avoid misunderstanding, it is for you to make yourself clear and not for others to compensate for your bad writing.

[Xenobiology]

Socrates, long have I analyzed the use of pure reasoning-and you in a single forum-responce, has created a superhelical domain, where words are a means of experimentation. I respect you for this. On the other hand you are a pessimist and would be better off ignored. But I, the contrary of you will lend only an ear to your poetry-for you lack a scientific psyche needed for the advancement of human knowledge.

 

In conclusion-stick with poetry and avoid turning xenosociobiology into a joke.

[Xenobiology]

Furthermore, refrain if you will-from creating a negative image for Socrates. He has acquired knowledge by means of questioning, not by producing negative assertions to oppose his own feelings of inferiority to everyone around him.

[Airmid]

Let's do a little statistical analysis - after all, this is a science forum.

 

What do you think the chance is that two people, who are both interested in xenobiology and poetry, who both use the same kind of language, who both are prone to the same kind of spelling and grammatical errors, and who both are fond of using hyphens, show up within 10 days on a science forum?

 

Airmid.

[Xenobiology]

Let's do a little statistical analysis - after all, this is a science forum.

 

What do you think the chance is that two people, who are both interested in xenobiology and poetry, who both use the same kind of language, who both are prone to the same kind of spelling and grammatical errors, and who both are fond of using hyphens, show up within 10 days on a science forum?

 

Airmid.

 

I am confused, this is a astrobiology forum and therefore would have people interested in xenobiology....right? Furthermore, are you interested in poetry? If so then how is it that your "statistical analysis" is justified.

[insane_alien]

he's saying that you and socrates are the same person. i'm sure a little admin wizardry will prove him either right or wrong. my money is on right.

 

i honestly thought you were socrates before i read the user name.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You are Socrates.

 

Please stick with one account. If you need a puppet to support yourself, you know you're doing something wrong.

[Spyman]

Is this thread about possible aliens or ways of communication between humans ?