It's a jungle out there

Mark Torres14 said:Interesting. Which theories are we talking about, bohemia?

Well, I guess what comes to mind as a possibility here is evolutionary theory.
🤷

First off—you simply cannot conflate the idea that "man is the measure of all things" with the notion that "the Earth is a flat plane." They aren't even in the same ballpark. If we were to, hypothetically speaking, come face-to-face with an extraterrestrial intelligence—one that is clearly superior to us—then sure, a human might still be the measure of things pertaining strictly to themselves; you know, their own survival, their own existence, their own evolutionary path... but once you stop viewing that alien entity as just another "thing" to be measured and instead recognize them as a "someone"—an entity that could serve as the true measure of all things in place of humanity—then the whole concept of man being the ultimate yardstick starts to fall apart entirely.

wiredsailor10 said:Well, I guess what comes to mind as a possibility here is evolutionary theory.
🤷

Obviously, in a hypothetical scenario like this, evolutionary theory would take the biggest hit.
We'd have to rethink what "life" even means in any form. Just the idea that two separate evolutionary paths exist in the universe would trigger massive questions:
Is there just one single evolution spanning the entire cosmos where we’re just a tiny fraction, or are there multiple, distinct evolutions? If it's the former, it gives massive ammunition to anyone claiming life didn't start on Earth but came from deep space.
On the flip side, if there are separate evolutions, comparing them would be fascinating. Do they share common elements—universal laws that hold true regardless of the planet or star system they emerge in?
Even if nothing else, we'd know our own evolution isn't just some isolated quirk of complex matter, but something non-local that relates to the whole universe.

Plus, this would absolutely wreck any philosophical theories built around humans—basically, anthropocentrism. Creationism would definitely be called into question, and there's a huge chance we'd approach religious concepts from a completely different angle.
God, who would now have to account for another intelligence, wouldn't be served by traditional rituals and prayers anymore, nor would those things feel like an obligation for a "true believer."
The same goes for fundamental philosophical problems like existence, being, ethics, or the source of morality (looking at you, Kant). We’d likely pivot toward totally unexpected perspectives. I can't even imagine what happens when you mix our way of thinking with the culture of a consciousness that developed entirely apart from us.
Then there's the question of whether such a being—one capable of interstellar travel and advanced tech—must have its own versions of law, morality, politics, and economics, or if those concepts are strictly human constructs.
And of course, there's the physical form of alien life. I'm not talking about looks, since we don't know that, but rather their social structure. They might exist as a collective instead of individuals like us, or maybe they aren't social beings at all and live as solitary units. Something along the lines of the creatures described in Vernor Vinge's "fire above the depths," where a single individual actually consists of four to six physically separate entities.
Just throwing ideas out there. We could dive deeper into any of these if you guys are interested.

Mark Torres14 said:Obviously, in a hypothetical scenario like this, evolutionary theory would take the biggest hit.
We'd have to rethink what "life" even means in any form. Just the idea that two separate evolutionary paths exist in the universe would trigger massive questions:
Is there just one single evolution spanning the entire cosmos where we’re just a tiny fraction, or are there multiple, distinct evolutions? If it's the former, it gives massive ammunition to anyone claiming life didn't start on Earth but came from deep space.
On the flip side, if there are separate evolutions, comparing them would be fascinating. Do they share common elements—universal laws that hold true regardless of the planet or star system they emerge in?
Even if nothing else, we'd know our own evolution isn't just some isolated quirk of complex matter, but something non-local that relates to the whole universe.

Plus, this would absolutely wreck any philosophical theories built around humans—basically, anthropocentrism. Creationism would definitely be called into question, and there's a huge chance we'd approach religious concepts from a completely different angle.
God, who would now have to account for another intelligence, wouldn't be served by traditional rituals and prayers anymore, nor would those things feel like an obligation for a "true believer."
The same goes for fundamental philosophical problems like existence, being, ethics, or the source of morality (looking at you, Kant). We’d likely pivot toward totally unexpected perspectives. I can't even imagine what happens when you mix our way of thinking with the culture of a consciousness that developed entirely apart from us.
Then there's the question of whether such a being—one capable of interstellar travel and advanced tech—must have its own versions of law, morality, politics, and economics, or if those concepts are strictly human constructs.
And of course, there's the physical form of alien life. I'm not talking about looks, since we don't know that, but rather their social structure. They might exist as a collective instead of individuals like us, or maybe they aren't social beings at all and live as solitary units. Something along the lines of the creatures described in Vernor Vinge's "fire above the depths," where a single individual actually consists of four to six physically separate entities.
Just throwing ideas out there. We could dive deeper into any of these if you guys are interested.

Even though evolutionary theory is built into everything, it still feels pretty absolutist—like there’s this assumption that everything can eventually be explained through its lens (even if we don't realize it yet, it's theoretically possible).

And honestly, if aliens actually exist, they might operate on a dimension that is totally alien to our own.

Our human theories are just too linear. 😉

I suppose, therefore, I exist😉

A flawed premise, if you ask me... because there is also everything we fail to consider—the very things capable of altering our entire perspective—which ultimately defines us

So, this "us" we think we understand? It is nothing more than a deliberate coincidence

Mark Torres14 said:Obviously, in a hypothetical scenario like this, evolutionary theory would take the biggest hit.
We'd have to rethink what "life" even means in any form. Just the idea that two separate evolutionary paths exist in the universe would trigger massive questions:
Is there just one single evolution spanning the entire cosmos where we’re just a tiny fraction, or are there multiple, distinct evolutions? If it's the former, it gives massive ammunition to anyone claiming life didn't start on Earth but came from deep space.
On the flip side, if there are separate evolutions, comparing them would be fascinating. Do they share common elements—universal laws that hold true regardless of the planet or star system they emerge in?
Even if nothing else, we'd know our own evolution isn't just some isolated quirk of complex matter, but something non-local that relates to the whole universe.

Plus, this would absolutely wreck any philosophical theories built around humans—basically, anthropocentrism. Creationism would definitely be called into question, and there's a huge chance we'd approach religious concepts from a completely different angle.
God, who would now have to account for another intelligence, wouldn't be served by traditional rituals and prayers anymore, nor would those things feel like an obligation for a "true believer."
The same goes for fundamental philosophical problems like existence, being, ethics, or the source of morality (looking at you, Kant). We’d likely pivot toward totally unexpected perspectives. I can't even imagine what happens when you mix our way of thinking with the culture of a consciousness that developed entirely apart from us.
Then there's the question of whether such a being—one capable of interstellar travel and advanced tech—must have its own versions of law, morality, politics, and economics, or if those concepts are strictly human constructs.
And of course, there's the physical form of alien life. I'm not talking about looks, since we don't know that, but rather their social structure. They might exist as a collective instead of individuals like us, or maybe they aren't social beings at all and live as solitary units. Something along the lines of the creatures described in Vernor Vinge's "fire above the depths," where a single individual actually consists of four to six physically separate entities.
Just throwing ideas out there. We could dive deeper into any of these if you guys are interested.

I agree with the first point. Religion and evolution aren't actually as different as people claim (that's just my theory 😉), because they actually share something in common—absolutism.

As for the second part, hmm, I think that's possible to explain. Since anything is possible for God, that includes both what we know and what we don't. 😕

coastalskipper92 said:I suppose, therefore, I exist😉

A flawed premise, if you ask me... because there is also everything we fail to consider—the very things capable of altering our entire perspective—which ultimately defines us

So, this "us" we think we understand? It is nothing more than a deliberate coincidence

My bad, coastalskipper92. I didn't catch what you meant. 🤷Can you actually expand on that point? Give us some more detail.

wiredsailor10 said:I agree with the first point. Religion and evolution aren't actually as different as people claim (that's just my theory 😉), because they actually share something in common—absolutism.

As for the second part, hmm, I think that's possible to explain. Since anything is possible for God, that includes both what we know and what we don't. 😕

I wasn't even talking about religion. I was talking about mandated rituals. Prayer, kneeling, confession, bowing... all that stuff.
First off, if an alien intelligence actually existed, it would call the whole concept of organized religion—and especially the idea that you *have* to follow specific religious rituals—straight into question.

Mark Torres14 said:My bad, coastalskipper92. I didn't catch what you meant. 🤷Can you actually expand on that point? Give us some more detail.

We convince ourselves we exist because we think—because we possess the certainty of perception...
Yet everything we perceive through that limited lens of what can be "known"... is merely a tiny fragment of a much larger reality that remains impossible to truly grasp or put into words.....

Aliens would likely be part of that vast unknown... whereas what we call "the world" is just that narrow slice they might point us toward.... so, one could say we exist "incorrectly" until we finally realize the truth.
p.s. They probably wouldn't look like the aliens from some Hollywood blockbuster, with the giant eyes and all that.
It’s strange how even when we try to contemplate something abstract, like an extraterrestrial, our minds immediately serve up a pre-packaged image.
And there are levels of understanding that require more than mere intellect; they aren't reached simply by thinking.
So, a person doesn't ascend through thought alone, nor do they simply stand there existing—is. One doesn't rise by peddling hollow clichés like "I think, therefore I am" just to sound profound to someone else. ☕
After all, everyone is just looking for someone to blame.

Mark Torres14 said:Let’s say humanity runs into an alien intelligence in the near future—something that evolved completely separately from us. That reality would absolutely wreck the scientific establishment. We'd be forced to tear up almost everything we think we know and rebuild our entire worldview from scratch.
The real question is: in this hypothetical scenario, which philosophical stances, theories, and methods become totally obsolete?
For instance, the idea that "man is the measure of all things" would become just as useless as claiming the Earth is a flat disc.

I suspect religions would be the first institutions to lose their relevance.
It seems unlikely that such an alien intelligence would subscribe to the concept of religion as we understand it within our civilization.
In my view, if the human race were to encounter a civilization far more advanced than our own, we might find that we aren't even worth their interest.

Sam Miller82 said:I suspect religions would be the first institutions to lose their relevance.
It seems unlikely that such an alien intelligence would subscribe to the concept of religion as we understand it within our civilization.
In my view, if the human race were to encounter a civilization far more advanced than our own, we might find that we aren't even worth their interest.

This is a fascinating question, and I wouldn't be so quick to rule things out.

The real question is whether an intelligence capable of interstellar travel follows a developmental path similar to ours.
Are there fundamental milestones any species must hit to reach that level of advancement, regardless of their origin?
Basically, do social laws—political, sociological, philosophical—function as universal constants in this universe?
For instance:
- social structures (groups vs. individuals or some mix)
- the historical evolution of socio-economics
- technological application
- culture
- and eventually, religion... etc.

I might not be articulating this perfectly, but you get my point.

coastalskipper92 said:We convince ourselves we exist because we think—because we possess the certainty of perception...
Yet everything we perceive through that limited lens of what can be "known"... is merely a tiny fragment of a much larger reality that remains impossible to truly grasp or put into words.....

Aliens would likely be part of that vast unknown... whereas what we call "the world" is just that narrow slice they might point us toward.... so, one could say we exist "incorrectly" until we finally realize the truth.
p.s. They probably wouldn't look like the aliens from some Hollywood blockbuster, with the giant eyes and all that.
It’s strange how even when we try to contemplate something abstract, like an extraterrestrial, our minds immediately serve up a pre-packaged image.
And there are levels of understanding that require more than mere intellect; they aren't reached simply by thinking.
So, a person doesn't ascend through thought alone, nor do they simply stand there existing—is. One doesn't rise by peddling hollow clichés like "I think, therefore I am" just to sound profound to someone else. ☕
After all, everyone is just looking for someone to blame.

Does consciousness, regardless of where it comes from, need to have similar or identical characteristics to even qualify as consciousness?
If so, then the whole "I think, therefore I am" thing still holds water.🤷
☕

If there’s some civilization out there we haven't bumped into yet, they probably followed the same path we did—no reason to think otherwise. History shows us that certain conditions just "produce" specific reactions... Human groups in totally disconnected spots—think the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, or the Nile—all took a similar developmental route. There's no reason those rules wouldn't apply to any other planet where self-aware life kicks in. I don't think it would cause all this drama (unless we manufacture it ourselves)... it'd actually be pretty cool to see if their philosophy mirrors ours, but obviously, that's all assuming 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Does consciousness, regardless of where it comes from, need to have similar or identical characteristics to even qualify as consciousness?
If so, then the whole "I think, therefore I am" thing still holds water.🤷
☕

I am not suggesting that having an opinion isn't a hallmark of a conscious, living being... but rather, that thought is what gives rise to these rigid CATEGORIES. Categories that exist only in our perception. Is it not more real—more fundamentally true—to focus on the sensation of what I am chewing or the scent in the air than on the act of thinking? In terms of rationalization, I mean. Thought is often just a layer we add over reality.

I’ve actually started re-reading this short book by Ursula Le Guin, and I have to say, I'm feeling pretty conflicted—half impressed, half annoyed
impressed by the world she built and her prose, but disappointed by the "cheat" of letting creatures like that participate in space exploration in the first place
I mean, honestly, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that after discovering something traveling at near light-speed, a bunch of softies would be sent out as "missionaries" to another planet
A version featuring some politically correct types who wouldn't even squash an ant—maybe something more like UN peacekeepers getting caught up in messes over in Africa—would be way more believable to me

Mark Torres14 said:Let’s say humanity runs into an alien intelligence in the near future—something that evolved completely separately from us. That reality would absolutely wreck the scientific establishment. We'd be forced to tear up almost everything we think we know and rebuild our entire worldview from scratch.
The real question is: in this hypothetical scenario, which philosophical stances, theories, and methods become totally obsolete?
For instance, the idea that "man is the measure of all things" would become just as useless as claiming the Earth is a flat disc.

I feel like this is way too much of a "what if" scenario to even bother debating... it's kind of like saying a small-town high school team from rural Nebraska is going to win the Champions League... I mean, sure, anything is possible, but it's never actually happening.
I don't really see why we'd need to change any perspectives in the end.
The whole "flat earth" thing is already wrong.
And the idea that man is the measure of all things still holds up within our own solar system... regardless of whether some other civilization exists out there or not.

Lawrence Booth2 said:I’ve actually started re-reading this short book by Ursula Le Guin, and I have to say, I'm feeling pretty conflicted—half impressed, half annoyed
impressed by the world she built and her prose, but disappointed by the "cheat" of letting creatures like that participate in space exploration in the first place
I mean, honestly, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that after discovering something traveling at near light-speed, a bunch of softies would be sent out as "missionaries" to another planet
A version featuring some politically correct types who wouldn't even squash an ant—maybe something more like UN peacekeepers getting caught up in messes over in Africa—would be way more believable to me

So, you're talking about the Kirk crew being told by the Prime Directive not to meddle in the business of other planets? 😁

Lawrence Booth2 said:I feel like this is way too much of a "what if" scenario to even bother debating... it's kind of like saying a small-town high school team from rural Nebraska is going to win the Champions League... I mean, sure, anything is possible, but it's never actually happening.
I don't really see why we'd need to change any perspectives in the end.
The whole "flat earth" thing is already wrong.
And the idea that man is the measure of all things still holds up within our own solar system... regardless of whether some other civilization exists out there or not.

But why on earth should humanity be the yardstick for everything in this solar system?

The solar system has been around for ages longer than we have. It makes you wonder what the standard was before we ever showed up on the scene.

Given how things are going, humans will likely blink out of existence quite soon—in cosmic terms, anyway. Once we're gone, we won't be in any position to act as the universal measure for anything.

If anything, we might just end up being the gold standard for stupidity. Though, I suppose that depends entirely on how one chooses to define "stupidity."

Lawrence Booth2 said:I’ve actually started re-reading this short book by Ursula Le Guin, and I have to say, I'm feeling pretty conflicted—half impressed, half annoyed
impressed by the world she built and her prose, but disappointed by the "cheat" of letting creatures like that participate in space exploration in the first place
I mean, honestly, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that after discovering something traveling at near light-speed, a bunch of softies would be sent out as "missionaries" to another planet
A version featuring some politically correct types who wouldn't even squash an ant—maybe something more like UN peacekeepers getting caught up in messes over in Africa—would be way more believable to me

It’s becomes increasingly obvious that technology alone doesn't make us human. There has to be some other ingredient at play here—something more profound than just the tools we use.

Sam Martinez9 said:But why on earth should humanity be the yardstick for everything in this solar system?

The solar system has been around for ages longer than we have. It makes you wonder what the standard was before we ever showed up on the scene.

Given how things are going, humans will likely blink out of existence quite soon—in cosmic terms, anyway. Once we're gone, we won't be in any position to act as the universal measure for anything.

If anything, we might just end up being the gold standard for stupidity. Though, I suppose that depends entirely on how one chooses to define "stupidity."

If I recall correctly, the idea of man being the "measure of all things" popped up back during the Renaissance. (Before that, apparently, the standard was some imaginary alien being). In the meantime, astrophysics has progressed quite a bit, so now we use much more precise "rulers" to measure stars (like the sun) and planets (like our earth) and how they interact.