[extropy-chat] Robert believes in god

Wed Feb 15 13:38:26 UTC 2006

Robert, I have re-thought my position.  I agreed with you out of fear that I
would be moderated off the list by the force of your highly respected
position.  I was also star struck that you responded to me directly.

Here is the summary of my very carefully reasoned argument that you
challenged me to yesterday:  

I do not believe that there are any advanced civilizations playing god with
solar systems. I believe that we must believe that we are alone in the
universe until proven otherwise.  I also do not believe in the singularity
concept of AI.  I don’t believe that a magic computer will spontaneously
come along and save/destroy us.  Both of these “concepts” are well disguised
myths that are at the base of many religions.  They are the fuzzy “truths”
taught by cults.  As long as Transhumanism associates itself with these
“concepts” it will remain a fringe meme/memeplex and not worthy of
acceptance by humanity.

As I do with every alien abduction story I hear, I will debunk the “story”
Robert wrote me this morning. 

I’ll take Robert’s own words (in black) and try to understand what is really
going on in his mind:

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit reality is incomplete due
to the “missing mass” in the universe.  A is A.  Until I can probe it,
measure it and repeat it and get others to probe it, measure it and repeat
it, with the same results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is
wishful thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning
out of randomness There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.   If there is a 30% chance that if you
open a box it will explode then by your logic you would open the box; I
don’t like those odds.  Even if 100% of the earths in our galaxy are
billions of years older than Earth that does not mean there is life on them.
We cannot create life out of matter in our own labs under intelligent
control here on Earth.  Why must we think that there is any statistical
possibility that life can randomly happen again if it has only happened once
within our scope of knowledge?  If an event occurs once under lab conditions
and doesn’t repeat itself ever again no statistical model can be created.  I
don't have any axe to grind with regard to whether our specific solar system
(or we in it) might or might not have been created by aliens.  What do you
really mean in this sentence?  It seems to say that you do believe aliens
created our species .  I can make quite valid arguments
 then make your
arguments.  But what is your premise?  for (1) why more advanced
civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not be "here" (the
Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of the galaxy [1];
and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or influence the
development of solar systems and/or life within them as inexpensive sources
of experimental information.  What you state in (3) seems to be your premise
to a “valid argument” that you would make.  Is it what you believe?  Are we
the creation of an advanced civilization?  Why don’t you just say that?  

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives. All cults/religions/myths have underpinnings in
reality.  It was my understanding that cults/religions/myths were debunked
by Transhumanists.  Or do you think that the Raelian perspective is valid
and needs to have its scientific underpinnings pointed out.  The debate
regarding those underpinnings is *still* ongoing -- though I will admit that
right now the "Big Bang"ers have significantly greater throw weight relative
to the "Steady State"ers.  I do not feel feel that discussions related to
that debate should be off-list topics because they relate, in part, to "What
are the limits of extropic capabilities?" .    As Question #6 in the
Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now almost a decade old does age make it better
or more right? The bible is very old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains
'think' about?"  An immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go
about optimizing such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play
"god" with solar systems.  I FEEL that I have proven my point.  If I replace
“question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper” with “as said in Genesis Chapter
7” it doesn’t change the syntax of the last several sentences.  It is one
man saying believe me because I say it is true.   

If you believe  that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.   Don’t bully me.  If I take a fine
sounding and good feeling belief as truth and that belief is wrong then what
are we left with?  If I cannot prove a belief then what good is it?  It is
OK for one man to believe whatever one man wants.  But if that belief cannot
be proven then it is a myth.  A myth can be a very thing dangerous to build
a rational structure around.  Myths make Gods.  In your last sentence you
made a “god.” It is very easy for a “god” to drop the punctuation and become
God.    

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

QED

Robert

Pete 

  _____  

From: spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:17 PM
To: 'Peter K. Bertine, Jr'
Subject: RE: My rant

Not that I know of.  We have had rants in the past, we generally let

them pass.  spike

  _____  

From: Peter K. Bertine, Jr [mailto:pkbertine at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:30 PM
To: 'spike'
Subject: My rant

Spike,

Did I get kicked off the list for my rant?

Robert really pissed me off.

Peter K.  Bertine, Jr

www.petebertine.com

"You are to live and to learn to laugh. You are to learn to listen to the
cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to
laugh at its distortions. So there you are. More will not be asked of you." 
Mozart in Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!

On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go 
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
> 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.  I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.  I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information. 

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.  The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.  I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".  As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"  An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems. 

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
> cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>  005astro.ph..6110C
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html
<http://www.aeiveos.com/%7Ebradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.h
tml> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/687e42de/attachment.html>