I — Pop

You didn't understand me.

I find your historical writing very interesting and look forward to reading it. — Pop

Don't worry, I don't intend to stop writing for the foreseeable future.

↪Gus Lamarch Hasty generalization fallacy. The only thing that validly follows from your first two propositions, Gus, is

'Therefore, evidence of, or ruling out, Humanity's "intelligent extraterrestrial" hypothesis is still lacking.' — 180 Proof

Hmm. Yes, this was exactly my first impression of the logic as well. I think this is accurate.

:up:

Ironically, your statement fits comfortably with the theories and hypotheses that affirm extraterrestrial life different from Humanity, which are also supported by the inaccessibility of the evidence, and the overdetermining of the cause - the necessity of inteligent life being different than the one on Earth -. — Gus Lamarch

I believe you are mistaken. My argument is that you cannot arrive at your conclusion cause there's something missing still that you have not put an effort to.

Again, I ask, please try to explain why we cannot access other vantage point to support an argument that there are other beings besides us, there are other point of view besides ours. Oh yeah, I forgot, you just assume this. And hope that other readers, too.

What I see here is this format -- we are humans, so anthropomorphically, we are allowed to make claims about human point of view and nothing else; we can't rationally argue that there are other points of view cause we need to take into account we are humans. Circle completed!

I think you provide a very good argument. "Life" as we use the word, is defined by what we find here on earth. I've heard it said before that terrestrial life is carbon based, and there is speculation of the possibility of non-carbon life. But I don't think that this would qualify as "life" as we know life, and use the term.

The conclusion I think should be that the word "life" has a specific usage by us, to refer to certain forms of existence on this planet. And, if we hypothesize realistically about forms of existence in other parts of the universe, and desire to call them "life", then there must be something to indicate that such forms would be consistent in their physical constitution with the forms of life on earth, and this would indicate some sort of continuity in the form of a relation between here and there to account for that consistency. This is what we find here on earth, consistency and continuity between all life forms. When we find a form of existence, like a rock, which does not bear that continuity we do not call it "life". This principle ought to hold for discovery in other parts of the universe. If there is no continuity between the forms of existence on earth which we call "life", and the forms of existence discovered far away, there is no reason to call them "life", they need a different name.

So for example. when we speculate about physical existence in other parts of the universe, we establish a relationship between there and here through laws of physics, and we assume certain continuities to exist between there and here, such as electromagnetic activity, and fundamental atoms. Without this continuity of principles, forming a relationship between here and there, such speculation would be completely random and useless. Likewise, if we are to speculate about a specific type of existence which we find here on earth, as existing elsewhere in the universe, "life", it is completely useless and nonsensical to make such speculations without the assumption of some sort of relationship to establish a continuity between what is her and what is there, or else we are not really talking about "life" out there.

I think you provide a very good argument. "Life" as we use the word, is defined by what we find here on earth. I've heard it said before that terrestrial life is carbon based, and there is speculation of the possibility of non-carbon life. But I don't think that this would qualify as "life" as we know life, and use the term.

The conclusion I think should be that the word "life" has a specific usage by us, to refer to certain forms of existence on this planet. And, if we hypothesize realistically about forms of existence in other parts of the universe, and desire to call them "life", then there must be something to indicate that such forms would be consistent in their physical constitution with the forms of life on earth, and this would indicate some sort of continuity in the form of a relation between here and there to account for that consistency. This is what we find here on earth, consistency and continuity between all life forms. When we find a form of existence, like a rock, which does not bear that continuity we do not call it "life". This principle ought to hold for discovery in other parts of the universe. If there is no continuity between the forms of existence on earth which we call "life", and the forms of existence discovered far away, there is no reason to call them "life", they need a different name.

So for example. when we speculate about physical existence in other parts of the universe, we establish a relationship between there and here through laws of physics, and we assume certain continuities to exist between there and here, such as electromagnetic activity, and fundamental atoms. Without this continuity of principles, forming a relationship between here and there, such speculation would be completely random and useless. Likewise, if we are to speculate about a specific type of existence which we find here on earth, as existing elsewhere in the universe, "life", it is completely useless and nonsensical to make such speculations without the assumption of some sort of relationship to establish a continuity between what is her and what is there, or else we are not really talking about "life" out there. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is really gratifying to know that there are still people in this forum, capable of the necessary understanding for a philosophical discussion...