Ancient Astronauts.

[iquestor]

Originally Posted by iquestor

Even if we hit the limit of what we can know, I don't think that limits us to how we can exploit the knowledge. And I think machine intelligence is something we will reach before we hit that limit. I think maybe 300 years from now it's possible we will be able to download our consciousness to a machine, or upload it to a new body.

Whimsey: That seems an anthropomorphic view to me.

anthropomorphic: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
-- how is that statement about human technological progress in any way anthromorphic? could you please explain?

[cjameshuff]

I don't think technology has a limit because technology begats technology. Invent the wheel and soon you need wheel nuts, wheel balancing machines and those little lead weights they put on the rim. Similarly if science is merely knowledge I do not believe it is possible to know everything that can be known. For example, however large your telescopes there will always be an unimaged planet somewhere. Fundamental physics may have a limit.

There can be a limit to technology without progress suddenly halting at some point. It may slow so that we asymptotically approach a certain level, or perhaps more realistically, it may reach a point where technologies are lost/abandoned as often as they are rediscovered/redeveloped.

It seems to me that machine intelligences just make the Fermi Paradox worse, not better. It's much more plausible for MIs to exploit the galaxy's resources than it is for animals to do so. Animals have short life spans and are made of delicate squishy stuff. In principle machines could last for a very long time and they can travel through space without carrying massive supporting environments along with them, which implies they can go much faster for a given energy budget.

But since they don't have those short life spans driving them to expend vast amounts of energy and material to shorten the trip, why would they?

[whimsyfree]

Originally Posted by iquestor


Whimsey: That seems an anthropomorphic view to me.

anthropomorphic: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
-- how is that statement about human technological progress in any way anthromorphic? could you please explain?

Perhaps anthropocentric would be more accurate. You assume that entities vastly more intelligent than ourselves would have some need for human consciousness, and would be somehow human once they had been blessed with this gift. I think that exaggerates the importance of human beings and human consciousness, and neglects the vast difference between meat based intelligence and machine based intelligence. It's easy to be seduced by the idea of oneself vastly more knowledgable, seeing everything, thinking at incredible speed, a being of pure thought liberated from the body. Of course, one assumes, you would still be you despite this fantastic enlargement of your mind. You might process information a million times faster and be vastly more intelligent, but you would still be human. I believe taking LSD and similar drugs gives this feeling, as does reading books such as True Names and Neuromancer.

I certainly found this attractive. I'd love to have enormous intellect blah blah. It might be sad to leave those I care about behind, such as my beagle. No problem, I can upload his consciousness too. Here the wheels start to fall off the fantasy. Uploading my beagle would also enormously increase his intelligence, probably to a level far higher than my present intelligence. I find it impossible to imagine a being much more intelligent than me still being my familiar, loyal, obedient (when observed) furry companion.

[eburacum45]

Interesting. Is the companionship you feel with your dog dependent on him retaining his current level of sentience? I would expect that an uploaded dog could be artificially constrained to operate at any required intelligence level if necessary.

On the other hand it should, in theory, be possible to upload the intelligence of any given thinking creature and boost their mentality until it becomes superhuman. Do we really want artificial superhuman minds based on amplified dog brains, or ant brains, or whatever passes for a whelk brain? (Actually the mental abilities of certain molluscs might be promising material for such amplification).

I'm not sure I would be entirely comfortable with such amplified animal intelligences, but it seems quite likely that advances in neurotechnology won't take much notice of my personal comfort zone.

[MaDeR]

I doubt such amplified (transcended?) intelligences could be considered same beings anymore. Uplifted dog is no more dog. Same with humans or basically anything.

[whimsyfree]

I doubt such amplified (transcended?) intelligences could be considered same beings anymore. Uplifted dog is no more dog. Same with humans or basically anything.

That was kind of my point. I don't think we can predict what an "amplified" human being would be like or how it would behave. Yet people often seem to assume they would be just like humans (even looking forward to their own "uplift") just more capable and immortal. I'm not sure what human identity is, but I don't think it can be assumed to survive such a transformation.

[eburacum45]

I feel that this sort of augmentation/amplification/transmogrification will one day be possible, but (unlike some futurists) I'm not entirely enthusiastic about the possibility.

For instance it should be possible for an amplified, transmogrified human mentality to 'model' its own previous, unaugmented state, so that anyone who knew the person before heir transmogrification could talk to the 'model' as if they were the original unaugmented personality. This might encourage un-augmented humans to recognise their former associates as still existing within the new, superhuman intelligence. You could talk to such an augmented person almost as if nothing about them had changed.

Except- well, that would only be a simulation. It might remember everything about the former, preaugmented person, but the new superhuman mind might have negative feelings towards its former personality. And to be convincing, the simulation would probably need to have a separate consciousness if its own; what would it be like to know that you were just a simulation of your former self, embedded inside a much larger consciousness which knows everything about you, and may have feelings of disdain, contempt or indifference towards you?

Hmm; I think there's a story in there somewhere...

[MaDeR]

Except- well, that would only be a simulation.

What is difference between sufficiently good simulation and something "real"? I dare say - none.
Of course, presented solution (even if we consider "simulation" as geniue separate existence with their own rights etc) does not solve basic issue: you will be talking with submind (interface for contacting with the likes of us), not directly with transcendended former human, after all.

Anyway, uplift does not have to be bad, even if you are not same being after it. When you were 7 year old, you were completely different person in comparison with now. While uplift would make orders of magnitude larger difference, it would not be more death than lack of 7-year old mind is death.

[HenrikOlsen]

What is difference between sufficiently good simulation and something "real"? I dare say - none.

"Real" is the bit that doesn't go away when someone trips over the power cable.

[cjameshuff]

"Real" is the bit that doesn't go away when someone trips over the power cable.

If blood flow to your brain is interrupted or its oxygenation prevented, you'll go away pretty quickly. And if engineered to do so, a simulation could easily weather a power outage without harm...wouldn't that make it more real than you, using the above criteria?

[MaDeR]

"Real" is the bit that doesn't go away when someone trips over the power cable.

You are one that assumes "power cable" is needed for something that have controversy of being (non)simulated.

So you miss badly, especially considering context: simulated submind within larger mind of transsapient being (the latter is assumed to be undoubtedly real for purposes of this discussion).

[Gomar]

Ok. Erich Von Daniken was prone to wild speculation and telling fairy tales but stories of visitors from the sky go back thousands of years.

Ask Mr. Daniken as to why none of those ancient visitors have returned in modern times? Why arent they here now?
Why not someone else from another world? Hasnt the message gotten around that Earth has life, water, coal, gold, oil,
trees, animals, natural resources, hot chickas, sheep, or whatever LGMs are into?

If my neighbor goes to Hawaii and has a good time, on my vacation I will go as well. There are no alien tourists or colonies
on Earth, thus, there were no alien visitors then nor now.

[Colin Robinson]

Ask Mr. Daniken as to why none of those ancient visitors have returned in modern times? Why arent they here now?
Why not someone else from another world? Hasnt the message gotten around that Earth has life, water, coal, gold, oil,
trees, animals, natural resources, hot chickas, sheep, or whatever LGMs are into?

If my neighbor goes to Hawaii and has a good time, on my vacation I will go as well.

What if they didn't have a good time here? Maybe they can't stand sheep. If you were searching the galaxy for the ideal holiday spot, and you had billions of worlds to choose between, why would you go to the same stinking sheep farm twice?

[Paul Beardsley]

What if they didn't have a good time here? Maybe they can't stand sheep. If you were searching the galaxy for the ideal holiday spot, and you had billions of worlds to choose between, why would you go to the same stinking sheep farm twice?

Agreed. I don't think we have been visited by aliens, at all, but their failure to return is not evidence for this.

Heck, men haven't been back on the moon after nearly 40 years.

[tnjrp]

I'm mildy curious as to how common the stories about "visitors from the sky" that "go back thousands of years" in fact are. I offhandedly studied mythology in the mid-1980's but can't frankly recall such myths being exceedingly typical. Gods by and large don't so much "visit" as hang around, sticking their noses (only sometimes figuratively) in all sorts of human business, while fairy type creatures much more commonly appear from the ground, the waters etc. than from the sky, never mind the stars.

[A.DIM]

I'm mildy curious as to how common the stories about "visitors from the sky" that "go back thousands of years" in fact are. I offhandedly studied mythology in the mid-1980's but can't frankly recall such myths being exceedingly typical. Gods by and large don't so much "visit" as hang around, sticking their noses (only sometimes figuratively) in all sorts of human business, while fairy type creatures much more commonly appear from the ground, the waters etc. than from the sky, never mind the stars.

The earliest known civilizations - Mesopotamian, Indus, Egyptian - all attest to their "gods" having come from the heavens. I think even a cursory study of ancient mythologies reveals this.

[Paul Beardsley]

The earliest known civilizations - Mesopotamian, Indus, Egyptian - all attest to their "gods" having come from the heavens. I think even a cursory study of ancient mythologies reveals this.

And I don't think you've ever acknowledged my reply to this - that the earlier (mostly) Spanish explorers of America were described by the natives as having come from the heavens.

[Daffy]

And I don't think you've ever acknowledged my reply to this - that the earlier (mostly) Spanish explorers of America were described by the natives as having come from the heavens.

"Corn! Now we can make tortillas---we've been waiting hundreds of years for this!"---Firesign Theatre

[A.DIM]

And I don't think you've ever acknowledged my reply to this - that the earlier (mostly) Spanish explorers of America were described by the natives as having come from the heavens.

Sorry Paul, I don't recall this reply of yours; acknowledged.
As I understand it though, the spanish explorers (Pizarro and his conquistadors) were described as "Virocochas" when they arrived. Virococha, according to legend, arose from Lake Titicaca, not the heavens. Also, he was said to have disappeared across the Pacific, promising to return. From where do you gather they were described as coming from the heavens?

[tnjrp]

The earliest known civilizations - Mesopotamian, Indus, Egyptian - all attest to their "gods" having come from the heavens. I think even a cursory study of ancient mythologies reveals this.

I do remember about their sky gods and the like, but not about their gods having specifically descended from heavens or stars. Also, since the most cursory study possible (skimming the 'net for a few minutes) on Egyptians didn't remind this fact to me, I'm sure you can provide suitable and credible sources to refresh my memory. Also, while you are at it please explain how they can be taken to be "visitors" which, after all, was rather the point of my post. Furthermore, please also explain how large a part of world mythology the "earliest known civilizations" actually covers and why the implied knowledge of the "gods" (your quotes) "having come from the heavens" (my quotes) is only preserved in their myths in exclusion of the others.

[R.A.F.]

I'm sure you can provide suitable and credible sources to refresh my memory.

Well, that depends almost entirely on what you consider credible.

[tnjrp]

The typical "mainstream conformist studies" of course - what else

You are welcome to help A.DIM I'm sure, if you think you can provide any. We could start with the Egyptians and the creation myth of Heliopolis. I only have The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology in my bookshelf - it's dated admittedly but so is my personal knowledge of the subject matter in general. Newer studies would be interesting.

Whatya got?

[A.DIM]

I’m sorry, tnjrp, I’m not really interested in this discussion. For some reason I thought it’d be a good distraction from other issues I’m presently dealing with. I was a wrong.
What I’ll say, echoing J. Campbell, is that it all started in a mud puddle in Sumer, where we find the earliest “gods of heaven and earth.” Anunnaki , as I guess you know (check the Sumerian lexicon) is translated as “those from heaven to earth came.” The Egyptian, Indus, Greco-Roman etc. all seem derived from the Sumerian/Akkadian pantheon, and all attest to a heavenly abode from which they descended and could ascend to; the home of the gods. It seems clear these gods of heaven were not from earth.

[transreality]

The Nazca Lines seem to occur in three distinct phases. The earliest depicts a stylised human figure; possibly the venerating the great ancestor, or founding father. The second phase corresponding with increasing aridity, depict a series of animals that don't occur locally, but are associated with rainforests (eg monkeys, hummingbirds) or the climate change anticipating rain (clams), this indicates the use of sympathetic magic to attract rain. The third phase is large processional ways, where a large number of people can form torch lit processions that maybe visible from afar (including the heavens) demonstrating tribute and supplication (basically the Nazca are begging for rain to fall). Similarly, the earliest british stone age structures venerate the ancestors (barrows), the next phase include large processional ways (cursors) and later structures anticipate astronomical cycles that influence agriculture. The transition from venerating ancestors, to imagining the ancestors are watching over the society seems more natural, than depicting arbitrary outsider entities. Just about all gods in later polytheistic religions are personifications represent mysterious but natural forces that man are dependent on but do not have direct power (eg the sun, the ocean, etc) rather than visitors or invaders etc.

[tnjrp]

While the above is, IIRC, the mainstream view of the developement of the Egyptian mythology as well, it needs to be remembered when referencing the Nazca petroglyphs that they are by and large visible from the surrounding terrain as well... A fact that is quite often "forgotten" by AA proponents.

---

I’m sorry, tnjrp, I’m not really interested in this discussion. For some reason I thought it’d be a good distraction from other issues I’m presently dealing with. I was a wrong.

Well and good... But you still keep continuing the discussion by making claims such as...

The Egyptian, Indus, Greco-Roman etc. all seem derived from the Sumerian/Akkadian pantheon, and all attest to a heavenly abode from which they descended and could ascend to; the home of the gods. It seems clear these gods of heaven were not from earth

Interesting. Will it or will it not be worth my while to address this?

[transreality]

While the above is, IIRC, the mainstream view of the developement of the Egyptian mythology as well, it needs to be remembered when referencing the Nazca petroglyphs that they are by and large visible from the surrounding terrain as well... A fact that is quite often "forgotten" by AA proponents.

I guess that at least, that may be a requirement for their construction, the project architect needed to be able to view the work, But more, it indicates that they serve a purpose for the viewer. All religion really, is a human social technology. It evolves from a simple prototype that serves a fundamental need; assuaging the grief at loss of relatives or ancestors, and providing an answer to a pressing urge; to be reunited with our ancestors or otherwise commorated after our death. There are other purposes such as uniting the community, providing a traditional link to the land, or explaining otherwise mysterious phenomena. Presumed spacefarers, aren't the only thing possible to depend from the sky, Rainfall and Sunlight are other much more relevant phenomena that an explanation for is desireable, and also for which a mechanism by which people may be able to manipulate the manifestation of would be highly compelling to primitive agricultural societies. Control over such mechanisms would also empower a priestly ruling class. That so many mythologies have similar elements, and that many arose in a close chronological order, is testament that early societies were linked in trade, and that the technology spread like other useful ideas, such as flint-knapping, brewing beer or metal-working.

[tnjrp]

I guess that at least, that may be a requirement for their construction, the project architect needed to be able to view the work, But more, it indicates that they serve a purpose for the viewer

Yes, they weren't apparently solely meant for the benefit of "the sky gods" nor yet were such entities were absoloutely needed to aid in their construction.

That so many mythologies have similar elements, and that many arose in a close chronological order, is testament that early societies were linked in trade, and that the technology spread like other useful ideas, such as flint-knapping, brewing beer or metal-working.

We don't really know when the earliest seeds of the common motifs found in various myth cycles were sown but possibly they were carried out of the very first cultures in Africa.

[neilzero]

This thread only appears to have been hyjacked. ET may be living among us as covert agents and/or tourests = unlikely, but possible. We may soon be able to meld human brains with computer brains = perhaps not. If yes, results will likely range from good to horible, just as has happened to previous technical advances.
We need brain augmenting, so we can perceive the ET who out number us on this planet, perhaps. Neil

[Gomar]

What if they didn't have a good time here? Maybe they can't stand sheep. If you were searching the galaxy for the ideal holiday spot, and you had billions of worlds to choose between, why would you go to the same stinking sheep farm twice?

Well, some people love NYC, some hate it. Some people go back to Paris or Vegas over and over again, while others cant stand the place. Just read reviews of Vegas on Tripadviser or some other tour review sites. Is it possible aliens were here, hated the place, never to
return? Yes. It's also possible oxygen is deadly to them; Sheep is their devil; elephants are the messengers of the apocalypse in their bible, etc.

Or, having landed 5000 years ago, they were thought to be devils, attacked, killed, cooked, and eaten. Then the word spread that humans consider them a delicassy... Warning, stay away from Earth!

[transreality]

We don't really know when the earliest seeds of the common motifs found in various myth cycles were sown but possibly they were carried out of the very first cultures in Africa.

The practise of drawing animal paintings on cave walls for mystic reasons would seem to have come from africa, and spread around the world with hunter gatherer cultures. At Catalhoyuk, one of the first agricultural settlements, something new is appearing. Ancestors are now buried in the settlements rather than cremation, and goddess figurines are appearring perhaps for either fertility rites or maybe a role protecting the harvest. Soon after the cave paintings stop. This same transition occurs in neolithic Britian, at least. So there seems to be a change in beliefs that corresponds with agriculture and more settled populations. This looks like a new innovation that is spread widely, rather than an ancient inheritance from a common source. Later with the development of metal technology, copper and bronze, the scarcity of the metals drives a widespread trade, and this trade produces an elite class that has exclusive access to the new technology. Perhaps it is among this group that the sky father type god becomes a prevalent idea.