Starship Asterisk*

craterchains wrote:Zero

makc wrote:but, at the same time when Galileo claimed the Earth not being the center of the solar system, alchemists were trying to make some gold out of piss. so why on Earth out of these two types of people you chose to compare yourself to Galileo?

craterchains wrote:*coughs*

FieryIce wrote:bystander, I was just going to post something similar myself.

Asstricks God your questions don't warrant an answer or you attention!

aaACHEW!...

bystander wrote:What makes you think that a megalomaniac who postures himself as "god" and never gives a direct answer to questions posed deserves the courtesy of having his questions answered?

BMAONE23 wrote:Since it is all part of your plan, and you are all powerful and all knowing, and since you posess the blueprint for all of creation/destruction:
What will the weather be like on 12-21-2012?
What will man be doing in the world on 12-22-2012?

GOD wrote:
1. What do you think the possibility is that sometime in the future, human beings might learn to genetically engineer animals in a manner that makes them more intelligent and dexterous?

2. What do you think the possibility is that sometime in the future humans will learn how to travel fast enough to be able to reach other star system planets?

3. What do you think the possibility is that some of these bear life? How about intelligent life? …humanoid life? …on-par with say... the intelligence of Neanderthal man? Now what do you think the possibility is that sometime in the future humans might try to genetically enhance these "aliens"?

4. Given these ideas, what do you think the possibility is that humans were genetically enhanced in said manner?

craterchains wrote:this little god should read what the bible says.

Orca wrote:

GOD wrote:
1. What do you think the possibility is that sometime in the future, human beings might learn to genetically engineer animals in a manner that makes them more intelligent and dexterous?

2. What do you think the possibility is that sometime in the future humans will learn how to travel fast enough to be able to reach other star system planets?

3. What do you think the possibility is that some of these bear life? How about intelligent life? …humanoid life? …on-par with say... the intelligence of Neanderthal man? Now what do you think the possibility is that sometime in the future humans might try to genetically enhance these "aliens"?

4. Given these ideas, what do you think the possibility is that humans were genetically enhanced in said manner?

While I find your "persona" to be rather odd for this board, I'll throw my two cents at your questions.

1. Humans have been genetically altering animals for various purposes for thousands of years; only recently do we have the ability to partake in this manipulation more "directly" than breeding. Scientists are already doing exactly what you have described. I think that we should tread lightly with this new technology as the long-term effects of large-scale genetic manipulation are largely unknown. Unfortunately the motivation is generally driven by profit and thus caution is being thrown to the wind.

As for increasing intelligence, I don't think we truly understand what intelligence is or where it comes from, so no, I don't think this is a concern in the near future. This goes for both living things and AI.

2. With out current understanding of physics, I don't believe other star systems are in any danger of human contact.

Heh.

Even if we could one day produce a vessel that could travel at a significant portion of the speed of light, it would require a "sleeper crew" or even a generational crew to have any survivors once it reached most of the nearest stars. Due to the strange effects of near-light speed, this voyage would also require that any such group of humans must lose contact with the rest of us forever.

Right now, I don't believe we have the technology to keep a human crew alive on a trip to Mars and back. One day we may overcome the challenges of keeping our fragile bodies alive for long periods of time in the harshness outside the Earth; however, I believe that we must learn to accept the fact that C is the cosmological tether that permanently ties humanity to our particular corner of the universe.

3 and 4. We're all fully aware of the argument that based on the huge number of stars - supported by ever-increasing discoveries of extra solar planetary systems - it is entirely possible that life has developed elsewhere in the universe. One could then suggest that it's possible that perhaps some of that life has developed intelligence (again, what the heck is that stuff?) species. Next, if all this has occurred, it's at least possible that some of these intelligent species at some point develop civilization. With civilization comes the ability to pass knowledge from generation to the next - to accumulate experience and thus one day become technologically proficient.

If we can use our own existence as a model (which seems a logical place to start) it takes billions of years to go from amino acids to iPods. True, there might be a million such species in the universe...but we must remember to think "four-dimensionally" (shameless Back To The Future reference).

I don't think the odds are against the existence of life, even intelligent life. However, the odds are stacked highly against - to an astonishing degree - the possibility that another species would develop intelligence, civilization, and technology within a window of opportunity to communicate with us. The further away such a civilization develops, the higher the odds, because the larger the window would have to be. If a near by civilization rose and fell just 10,000 years before or after ours did, their radio transmissions would pass by silently and we'd never know of their existence.

There are millions of galaxies...what if there were only one or two civilizations in each? That's a lot of intelligent critters. But what if each formed on opposite ends of the galaxy? What if they matured just two or three million of years apart?

I think it is highly probable that most civilizations will live and die in the cosmological bat of an eye without ever being aware of the existence of any one else.

Orca wrote:...long-term effects of large-scale genetic manipulation are largely unknown. Unfortunately the motivation is generally driven by profit and thus caution is being thrown to the wind.

GOD wrote:Orca: Very good, namaste. However, you must open your mind more to the infinite possibilities and try harder to use your imagination. Until you do, study the logical progression of humanity's increasing knowledge (and ability to travel) the past several hundred years. What has the past told you about humanity's understanding of physics during that time compared to what can be done today? Perhaps things those old physicists would have deemed "impossible", you say...?

makc wrote:Because fear has no place neither in science nor in business. Paranoia should be treated medically, but instead it is pushed onto our heads in the form of legislation, "thou shalt not clone sheep coz it scares the crap out of me".

orin stepanek wrote:Why should we talk to this guy that calls himself God? If he were really God he would make himself known to us without the use of the internet.
Orin

Orca wrote: Can there be "infinite possibilities" if the universe turns out to be finite, as current theory suggests?

Imagination can be a good tool. Imagination helped Einstein visualize curved space-time; imagination led Newton to connect the behavior of a falling body to the orbit of the moon.

However, understanding the universe requires quantitative analysis; after all, you can imagine anything you like, and thus imagination should be used only in concert with observation and experiment.

I have often heard the argument: there are many feats that humans in the past believed to be impossible but are commonplace today; so any challenge we now face can be thought of as "temporary."

Unlike an ant crawling this way and that, scientific advance is accumulative. We get a clearer picture of the universe as we go by refining theories with observation. The process is not unlike solving a huge jigsaw puzzle. There are pieces that are large and easily placed; but towards the end many of the pieces are small and homogeneous in color. In other words, there are points in history where we make large strides; as we uncover the universe, the problems become increasingly difficult to solve. We can't assume that scientific progress will be either linear or exponential.

I will admit that there have been times that mainstream science has found itself "barking up the wrong tree." The fact that we have yet to find a unified theory of gravity suggests there are pieces of the puzzle yet to be found. However, I find it hard to believe we are "too far off the mark." If we are, so be it; in such a circumstance current theory would have to be thrown out in favor of more accurate models. One way or another, I have no doubt that scientific method will uncover the nature of the universe. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that this will not occur in my lifetime.