before we blow it all up...

[m1thr0s]

article:

Is there anybody out there?

Probably not, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia. A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of Earth.

Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and it has already been suggested that this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring in relation to the life span of Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.

According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.

“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.

link: (http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/services/units/mac/comm/media/press/2008/apr/homepagenews/Is%2Bthere%2Banybody%2Bout%2Bthere%253F)

mind you, this model doesn't factor in the possibility of life evolving right off the planet itself, which would seem to be the whole point from a purely existential point of view. Life will ultimately try to go where the going is good and if terrestrial existence is a dead-ended proposition, then it will try to advance the celestial...and this is where Man fits into the picture in my view...the ultimate *flying monkey*...

and in a sense, according to this article, it doesn't much matter from an ecological standpoint if Man should fail as an experiment anyway...which is to say...Mankind is a *hail-mary* sort of pass from the get, since the Earth is already fundamentally out of time by the time he hits the ground running...

m1

[Ci Celli Ddu]

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

That's as maybe, but we now know that A there's a significant percentage of exoplanets (or their satellites) that orbit within habitable zones; B water is a commonly occuring chemical substance and C the Universe is, like, fucking big

[m1thr0s]

yeah...I don't get this whole picture really, but what I found interesting is the idea that higher order intelligence - if it appears at all in a planet - may only appear late in the evolutionary cycle, following a fairly strict order of contingencies that have to happen first...

Life in general is not so much the question here as higher order intelligence. We've gone from one extreme to the next with assessing our own place in things...from being an extremely rare phenomena, created by god and all of that...to finally deciding it was largely nature's doing so may not be all that unusual. This is the prevailing science attitude and it's usually backed up by saying that with trillions of galaxies out there containing billions of stars, what with water, oxygen and carbon being the most abundant elements in the universe, the odds are actually pretty good there has to be more going on than just us...

which makes good sense on the face of it but it hasn't been challenged in a very long time except with religious throwback arguments etc... this may be the first logical argument I've heard suggesting that it may be a lot more difficult to do what this world has done than it looks.

m1

[frater luciferi]

i have a friend who theorizes that humanity is a virus that has "infected" earth to destroy it..of course im not sure if thats the case why maia has'nt put us into another ice age to purge herself of said infection. either way i hope to the gods that we are not the most intelligent lifeform in the universe, for one we are'nt that friggin smart and for two...i have always fantasized in one sense or another that aliens exist and that they are far more enlightened then the sheep that inhabits our collective concious.

i know it might be semi-delusional, but I really don't know if we will reach a high enough level of conciousness soon enough to undo the damage we have been rapidly inflicting on a quickly escalating scale.

[m1thr0s]

Life is completely contemptuous of numbers when it comes to the production of new life, and even moreso when the matter turns to evolved life. So it doesn't phase me that 99.9% of the human race may be a write-off in some way. Look at the example of male sperm cells for instance...how many perfectly viable sperm cells do you suppose get spent before the average male produces a single offspring...trillions? quadrillions? maybe more...

m1

[Naomi]

And just think, one sperm's soul is equal to the life of a human so maybe that's a good sort of penance to perform so you don't get thrown in the lake of fire...population control as well...they can't burrow through the stomache lining yet to go on and produce their new universe

(aka babies)

of course, Taco Bell is nice, too....

[frater luciferi]

meh..that whole analogy makes me think of sea turtles, thousands of them are born every year and very few survive their "childhood" much less to their adulthood. why is it that we humans think we are any more special?

[Naomi]

Well, we're special in certain ways that pertain to stars, that's what Abrahadabra is sort of trying to tell us....turtles are confined to the ocean and they probably won't divine the meaning of everything except fromt heir very shallow perspective of life on earth, as a turtle, trying to survive in the ocean.

We're all special but we're not the same and it's important for humans to recognize their own uniqueness so they stop trying to act like some other kind of animal. (gorillas, dogs, ,cats, whatever)

[frater luciferi]

Well, we're special in certain ways that pertain to stars, that's what Abrahadabra is sort of trying to tell us....turtles are confined to the ocean and they probably won't divine the meaning of everything except fromt heir very shallow perspective of life on earth, as a turtle, trying to survive in the ocean.

We're all special but we're not the same and it's important for humans to recognize their own uniqueness so they stop trying to act like some other kind of animal. (gorillas, dogs, ,cats, whatever)

in retrospect i have been slipping back in my old bad nhilistic mindstate as of late..which of course is followed by a abeit darkness. so yeah i guess i can see the humans "mutated super intelligent monkeys" as having more value in some aspect persae..but the trick of teh intelligence is teh trick of our genetic mutation beyond our initial state..i mean thoth did have a pet monkey...whos to say we dont fit that mold? i dont know if that makes any sense , but i wont give humanity any more weight of worth then nature..if we do that we will forget what birthed us. nature doesn'nt owe us jackshit, its we who are in debt to nature..

magick and the occult are merely tools to understand our gift..and i think that we as a species are heavily abusing it.

[Amur]

The Constants of Nature - John Barrow is an interesting book by a doctor in physics. There he comes to the conclusion that all the constants of nature have been tailored in a degree which allows life to exist, which I find quite interesting. He showed it in different graphs and what would happen if the constants were different and so forth.

I think that there's alot more life than most know of around the places of the universe. Besides I think that most advanced species have already mastered astral travel and how to make physical objects vibrate closer to astral levels which makes it possible to break the speed of light quite fluently. But I suppose it will take a while before humans advance to that level.

[Ci Celli Ddu]

i know it might be semi-delusional, but I really don't know if we will reach a high enough level of conciousness soon enough to undo the damage we have been rapidly inflicting on a quickly escalating scale.

I'm not entirely convinced that consciousness or intelligence -higher or not- is all it's cracked up to be...

[Naomi]

Well, try it before you discard it...

[m1thr0s]

I'm not entirely convinced that consciousness or intelligence -higher or not- is all it's cracked up to be...that's an interesting perspective...now for my part, I'm not at all convinced we've *cracked* any of it to any remarkable extent...

same result, different explanations...

edit: the human nervous system isn't really designed to handle much more energy than it already does...it's a 5-watt battery and that's where it wants to reside for the most part, at the physical level I mean. Up till now, attempts to push the envelope further than this have resulted in a kind of win-lose scenario that almost certainly pushes 1000 people into the gutter for every 1 it vaguely redeems. The reasons are anatomical. The human form simply isn't well adapted to channeling vast amounts of energy.

So I really don't believe it, despite what people may claim. We've only just mastered flight in the last 100 years, so I don't see where it's all that radical to suggest that we haven't really even come close to realizing anything even remotely equivalent to universal consciousness...

glimpses of the ineffable...irrepressible bouncing off of roof and walls as a consequence of our own neurological instability...not much more than this so far.

m1

[Ci Celli Ddu]

that's an interesting perspective...now for my part, I'm not at all convinced we've *cracked* any of it to any remarkable extent...

I'd go along with that.

[Naomi]

No, we achieved it at various points in history, what remains is the foundation for the rest of the work of elevating the entirety of the species. You cannot argue with me that the achievments of zen buddhism or the content of the Vedas was not intelligent, and it was remarkable enough to catch the attention of very great intelligences, intelligences in every sense of the word.

So take of that what you will, for myself I will say that we are not trying to be like animals, however, and intelligence and evolution along the lines of fully expanding consciousness is the only way to go.

One look at the Amish for instance is enough to prove my point.

[Ci Celli Ddu]

No, we achieved it at various points in history, what remains is the foundation for the rest of the work of elevating the entirety of the species. You cannot argue with me that the achievments of zen buddhism or the content of the Vedas was not intelligent, and it was remarkable enough to catch the attention of very great intelligences, intelligences in every sense of the word.

So take of that what you will, for myself I will say that we are not trying to be like animals, however, and intelligence and evolution along the lines of fully expanding consciousness is the only way to go.

One look at the Amish for instance is enough to prove my point.

Not really. Ultimately it fails to answer the basic question what the fuck is it good for?

[Naomi]

Well it's not surprising to me that you would appreciate the Amish, but I don't. I think they're rediculous mockeries of humanity and they drink goat semen. So possibly it's good for pulling your head out of your own asshole to look at the real world around you and figure out a way to reach the stars. I think that you can probably start by concentrating fully on the ancient collections of real intelligence instead of looking where it is not. Maybe you can start with the Emerald Tablet or something. If you don't like that then the Book of Five Rings is also well written for those with a persistant martial stance towards esoterica.

Application is a matter of taste, I preferred vengeance, now after acquiring more I think I like to use it to have better orgasms and defeating my foes.

[Ci Celli Ddu]

Well it's not surprising to me that you would appreciate the Amish

Eh?

I think that you can probably start by concentrating fully on the ancient collections of real intelligence instead of looking where it is not. Maybe you can start with the Emerald Tablet or something. If you don't like that then the Book of Five Rings is also well written for those with a persistant martial stance towards esoterica.

Er, as it happens I'm not seeking guidance. But thanks anyway, I'm sure.

[m1thr0s]

Ultimately it fails to answer the basic question what the fuck is it good for?does it *fail*? I'm not so sure that this is a foregone conclusion just yet...but I do love these hardass questions...

The problem with the hard questions is that we also have to scrutinize the questions themselves...what is *it* for instance? and how do we want this answer wrapped, because it may not come wrapped in a tidy sparkling packaging, ribbons, bows, etc...

If we are talking about *higher consciousness*, the oldest take on what it's good for is inevitably linked to the notion of dharma so the idea goes that higher consciousness is primarily an organizational force (?) in things that both expedites and nurtures dharma itself...a better light to read by in simple terms...so that our reading will produce greater understanding, promote *right thinking* and thus lead us to *right action* with enhanced facility...

So that's the historical angle, in a nutshell. And if you don't give a rats ass about dharma, then it may have no bearing on your life at all...well...not this life anyway...maybe the next one.

But this is only one way to attack the problem and I admit that we do have something of a problem going on here when people would seem to be valuing something very highly that they have (very often) not sorted out what the hell it is...

edit: I do not believe that the people who are the most successful at harnessing anything that we might call *higher consciousness* are typically of a mindset that is in any way looking to what it can do for them in any material sort of way...so this complicates things a little. I think that they are very often just people attempting to get the most out of their natural abilities, sometimes by taking on nearly impossible challenges, sometimes pioneering new directions in the arts or sciences, but more often focused more on the accomplishment of certain immediate tasks than resolving that *edge* that may help them to do so. And this leads us into a second angle of approach in general...that *higher consciousness* is historically useful in terms of creative endeavors of all kinds...

m1

[Ci Celli Ddu]

But this is only one way to attack the problem and I admit that we do have something of a problem going on here when people would seem to be valuing something very highly that they have (very often) not sorted out what the hell it is...

Absolutely. Even with the dharma example we don't have any incontravertable answer to the WTFIIGF? question. I don't think consciousness can be qualified as ultimately a plus in the grand scheme of things without first applying this question to existence itself.

[Naomi]

no good or bad...ultimately...no plus, no minus...

simply inevitable distraction baby

attachment via attraction

you're not conscious, you just think you are...:tyes:

[m1thr0s]

I think about all of this periodically but I have to admit, I've never really been terribly concerned about it...which I guess means that consciousness, per se, just isn't my target. There is no perfect degree of consciousness I am looking for...never been interested in *god consciousness* or any other...even *universal consciousness* is not a specific goal or ambition...

I'm after *anatomical wholeness*, as near as I can get it...and that's just a very different sort of focus. It certainly includes consciousness since it pretty well assumes one cannot be effectively *whole* without also being conscious...but consciousness itself is not my goal...

I get the feeling that everything with consciousness goes down on a theoretical level mainly and I've always been more tactile than that...I deal in ideas a lot but ideas don't actually get my juices flowing...they are just a means to an end really...when something excites me it isn't because of its idea but because of a certain physicality associated to that idea...it's the physicality that gets me all excited...the idea is really almost a shadow of that physicality...like a language or something through which the underlying experience may eventually be communicated, assuming the idea doesn't kill off the more acute awareness which does, unfortunately, occur quite often.

anyway...this topic is suddenly giving me a chance to review that whole relationship. I don't mind it...I haven't lost anything I can think of not being focused on consciousness and it hasn't rendered me any less conscious that I just don't emphasize it...I sort of assume it I think and let it go after that...seems to work just fine.

*wholeness* is something you can attack like an engineer or a physician or something...and it has its theoretical aspects as well but these all come down in more concrete terms and can be analyzed in proofs and experimented upon directly...it's a lot more like trying to build the perfect violin or something without focusing that much on its *voice*. You already know...it's already a given...if you perfect the body the *voice* will be superior in all respects. I suspect one could get really seriously lost chasing after that voice instead of focusing on the body which can be shaped and shaved and laquered and so on...

m1

[Ci Celli Ddu]

You know, I think Watson lacks a Holmes (couldn't resist that pun). His whole premise is utterly geocentric ie "this is how it happened here so this is how it has to happen elsewhere". Thinking it over it's surprising that a so called academic could come up with such shite.

Astronomers similarly assumed that gas giants in other star sysyems would be found orbiting roughly at the same distance from their parent star as do those of the Solar System. We now know that they can orbit just about anywhere, as close up as the Earth or even Mercury. This discovery naturally caused astronomers to revise the details of their theories concerning the process of planet formation in any given stellar system.

It would seem more reasonable to me to assume that conditions on any other planet where life could begin would be different from those on Earth, and that the timeframe whereby "intelligent" life could emerge could be wholly different as a result.

Having said that, when an actual "scientist" starts to make assumptions that can (at present) in no way be corroborated then it's time that scientist considered a change of career. A fantasy novelist for example.

[Amur]

edit: the human nervous system isn't really designed to handle much more energy than it already does...it's a 5-watt battery and that's where it wants to reside for the most part, at the physical level I mean. Up till now, attempts to push the envelope further than this have resulted in a kind of win-lose scenario that almost certainly pushes 1000 people into the gutter for every 1 it vaguely redeems. The reasons are anatomical. The human form simply isn't well adapted to channeling vast amounts of energy.


Hmm, that's very interesting. I was starting to think that depression is somekind of state where that electrical energy in the body gets depleted to some extent and was thinking of testing the theory by putting a little current going through the body. Should help alot. One can also help this by putting magnets on some places of the body, which increases the flow of electricity in the body, but not yet sure if it is because of that or some other factors.