[extropy-chat] When did intelligence first emerge in the universe?

[Robert Bradbury]

On 6/25/06, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
> You look like a kook dissing a whole scientific field and decades of
> scientific endevour, without giving references.


First, most people who disagree with the conventional wisdom are perceived
as kooks.  Those who are wrong are generally forgotten.  Those who are right
aren't.  Since MBrains are already the subject of several SciFi stories
thanks to Charlie and Damien they are unlikely to be forgotten.  The ideas
are a thorn in the side of the traditional SETI community.  Those who are
aware of the ideas prefer to sweep them under the rug because they would
tend to argue against their current agenda.

I've already spoken out at a couple of Microlensing confrences in such a way
as to be discounted by a significant number of people whom might have the
resources to think seriously about the ideas and reframe the available
data.  Those bridges are burned.  I am not 'dissing' an 'whole scientific
field'.  The observations are valid (unless you want into the "we are being
manipulated" discussion).  What I'm doing is reframing the data in light of
the last several decades of data (astrobiology, exoplanets, Moore's Law, AI,
nanotechnology, etc.).

Writing scientific papers is a slow, and potentially obsolete, process.  I
think at this time that blogs and perhaps Wikipedia are potentially more in
line with accelerating the rate of progress.

(As a side note to Amara -- if you or you associates are planning a mission
to Jupiter -- how do you plan on insuring that the "aliens" aren't messing
with the data which is returned?  semi-:-))

And for what you are claiming you had better give _deep_ pointers to the
> scientific literature.


If I were writing one of my own papers or an actual scientific paper I would
do that.  On the ExiChat list I do not consider it to be a mandatory
requirement.  I would hope people know me well enough here to know that I
don't go making outside-of-the-box claims without having thought them
through.

If I have a lower pain threshold involved in setting aside the "conventional
wisdom" than many people that isn't my problem.  (Isn't a high Aperger's
Quotient wonderful? :-))  I am to some extent hoping that people will point
out flaws in the logic and not simply point out the "conventional wisdom".
Though there are uses for that as well.  I wouldn't have come up with a
plausible reason for the H/D/He ratio being 'rigged' if John hadn't brought
it into the conversation.

These same astrophysicists who you claim are focused on
> "getting tenure"  are the same folks who could be sympathetic to your
> ideas and have access to large telescopes and spacecraft that you don't
> have.


Actually, I've tried several times  this past week to reach John Carrigan at
FNL to speak with him about the Dyson Sphere search work he has been doing.
He is still working from a Dyson perspective rather than an MBrain
perspective but at least he is looking at the problem.  As did Jugagu and a
few others.

I should confine most of my displeasure to the classical SETI community and
not the astrophysical community as a whole.  (For example one of those
"large" telescopes you mention was recently dedicated to OSETI searches --
when it could be better used for occultation/variability surveys.)  The data
that I would like to have will fall out of the large scale surveys (in fact
much of it is probably available in current databases if I had time to
analyze it).

BTW: I think you're way wrong with your ongoing opinion about
> astrophysicists' open-mindedness, and I've said this more than once
> during the last eight years.


Amara, do not hesitate to remind me of this.  Please keep in mind two
things.  First, I enjoy being wrong almost as much as I enjoy being right --
you just have to prove it to me.  Second, I do/am forgetting things.  I
don't know if this is a consequence of simple aging or a consequence of my
hopping between fields.  When I dip deeply into astrophysics I have to put
down molecular biology.  When I dip back into molecular biology I have to
put down astrophysics.  When I'm dealing with Nano at Home I have to put down
molecular biology and astrophysics. I've spent a significant part of the
last 6 months or so trying to recover my ability to deal with huge amounts
of "alien" program source (Firefox in this case).  This major task switching
is interesting but I'm not sure I would call it fun. The topics that are
pushed further down on the stack are more likely to suffer from a lack of
references, flaws in arguments, or "shortness" on my part.

You can start here. I can send to you these papers, if you want.


Thank you (!).  I will not get to these immediately as there are some more
pressing matters related to aging research that require attention.  I should
be able to access to the papers from the libraries in Boston.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060625/9e42a4cf/attachment.html>