What if? (religious reaction to extraterrestrial life)

Are you thinking that *because* there is only "one" form (of life) that that is how and why you thought and think life off Earth is possibly probable?I have no confidence in projecting my understanding of life from here to somewhere else. The general scientific literature led me to THINK that when I got beyond the Heart of Darkness in Congo etc ( I went to Africa in '86)that my intution of life on Earth would 'expand'. The spectral color incorporation in soma was all I noticed but this is not even easily significant intraspecifically but rather "looks" only like behahvior differemces. So OUTSIDE my own ideas of this ONE LIFE I was misled by scienitific discussion infered or induced by others as to the additions to any life. May I note that if you really try to understand Agassiz's Essay on Classification,
Questia
one can see that the creationist in him finds life divided essentially so that IF LIFE is found on another alien planent then it might simply expand our understanding of life on Earth and not indicate that we have then (if) another version (aka Silicon, Mercury, Boron etc) of life to study. And more modernly I ASKED ERNST MAYR to just attach a NUMBER UNIQUELY to each sample of Musuem specimens with a suggestion on how this might be done but he, himself took that in this sense of MORE THAN ONE LIFE.Peter had noted the physical environment in a way that makes THIS THINKING to be not amenable to notions of say Sagan on likelyhoods of other planet life. I will describe the difficulites - in thought - later. I did not follow Razd's response.So if you thought

quote:

---

I think there is a high probability that we will find life in the solar system.
I think it is near certain that we will someday find life outside our solar system.

---

regardless of 'the rules' here, did you have any feeling that you could re-express this by other than saying that while I might not feel this way- you do and did?? I have given time and time again reason to think that life might thermally operate by different rules, rules that if true would likely (in this sense of rules here on Earth)show that Wolfram was mistaken about irreducible complexity (eg once one has one basic set of equilvalent sophistication it is set for any or all in every materialism).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2004 10:24 AM

Modern science is making remarkable progress in may areas. The question is what would be the reaction
I gave Mayr's reaction in terms of the question of progress to my own sense.of the religious community
I cited Agassiz to ostensibly indicate such a community (so that we could have something to talk about).
if any of the following were to happen :
1) Contact was made with an extraterrestial civilization?
I noticed you thought it was possible in terms of actually observing this event sometime in the future
2) A life form was discovered on Mars? You also seemed to indicate life somewhere off Earth.
3) Science is able to create a crude form of life in the laboratory? you noted what you thought by "basic laws" but I have always on this board showed an alternative that I have developed further by using Russian biology.
4) Medical science discovers a means of extending hman life
indefinitely? I thought this in the use of numbers "one" or "two" and I asked you if you only felt this way or if you had something other than a "gut feeling" on the rejection, implict, in my own hypothesis of extending the c/e nexus via thermal properties, as for me but I worded it interms of YOUR experience so you could simply respond for instance, "No, Brad- that is just how I feel about it!"I take it the question was what would be the relgious reaction "if" or without 'if' so by answering, "Yes, that is how I feel", I take it would have answered the question. So I FOR ONE, dont know how or why you cant find a or the question inhere.

OK-
Was it a "problem" in WRITING a religIous response?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2004 11:59 AM

1)my whole next post was dedicated to this part. I will try to abbreviate the contenxt since you asked in particular. There is an idea of "insight" in nature study that can be documented against Kant but by the time I was born my Grandfather had noticed that there was a "super-imposed" specutrum when the culture of scientists as well as the science was considered. But WhAT? would it have been said in the 60s to have been superimosed on, if that was more than a mere figurative saying. Well, Sheppard in the book Natural Selection and Genetics" spoke of BIRDS having an "eye-in" for a predator but my Grandfather a decade later had applied this to gregarious humans noting that NOT ALL SCIENTISTS agreed with the trend to disembody this 'eye'. This is nothing other today than opening a websight and postiig a response. But then it applied to ecosystems in the biological sense NOT the information technology sense of our way so say...Well in 1986 I went to Africa and I SAW that butterfies, fish birds and some reptiles had MORE diffraction caused color extensions than what I had seen previously (in NORTH AMERICA) but I did not find more plants and animals as a tangled bush as Darwin said and was popularized in Natural History books about the upper reaches of the Orinoco etc. The job I was doing at the time was to Differentiate *ANY* morphological differences in Fishermen's ELECTRIC FISH and after a couple of months I could not use shape differences in the phenotype to divide what I was clearly collecting from different fishermen&locations in Lac Tumba so I decided to try to use the distibution of the diffraction caused color enhancments soma locations coupled with collection locality geography and "ecology" to try to divide the fish population cosistently . The graduage student from Cornell THEN tested these divisions to see if the electric waveforms were different. I was able to VISUALLY MORPHOLOGICALLY CONTINUE TO FIND MORE DIVERSE FISH BASED ON spectral color differences than the social context the research was done in and that is what I meant by "significant intraspecifically" but this was restricted to the Family Mormyridae and DID NOT APPLY TO ALL THE CREATURES IN THE AFRICAN JUNGLE.Ernst Mayr is an ornithologist who corresponded with my Grandfather, is the brunt of much of Croizat's notions on New Guinea, a convert from Lamarkainsm, someone I spoke with in 87, one of Gould's teachers and a professor at Harvard who recently was celebrated. If you didnt know this and or bother to find ou
Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia
t then I am afraid even Jar would have suspected as much.I already MADE my point>........... I just wanted Jar to try to re-express himself or simply keeping this door a jar to say indeed that is JUST how he felt.PS I am not mad at you nor the ~millionaire my brother Greg is finanically compared to me in my Father's "contrary" eye he said was applied to me. The inbetween generation is mistaken. It's hard to believe but causes me to come on a bit stronger than I was gratified by which is really only satisfy but try to tell this parents this and you get sent to your room.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-06-2004 12:37 PM

Duplicate- soory I am on a MAC and probably missed a page or so.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-06-2004 12:47 PM

Go ask me that on my namesake th
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
read- there was no extraterrestrials there but I heard a radio report from the BBC about Geller bendings spoons as a colorful bird flew ^through^ into the summer house of the prior King of Belgium which was then but a mere research part of the country beyond said heart.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-06-2004 12:45 PM

The diversity of means of versioning in life (hydrogen, helium, L,b...) does not mean as far as the coincidence goes that goals of relieving mental discomfort need necessarily be the same in the same chance theory that any lump of particles might format phenomenologically (see Campbell p197 Foundations of Science, Probability and Knowledge "But the apparent difference may arise only from the fact that it is quite impossible to contemplate equally a large number of alternatives, I cannot avoid dividing them subconsciously into groups; the alternatives of which I am thinking before the trial occurs are these groups and not the individual results of the trials. What I am prepared to assert in such cases is that, if I name beforehand any one of the alternative events, that event will not occur as a result of a trial. The mere fact that I have thought it distinguishes it in my mind from the rest; the alternatives that I am considering are, on the one hand, this particular event and, on the other, the group consisting of all the remainder. This group, taken as a whole, has a very great probability and if this highly probable event occurs, I shall expereince no suprise; but my suprise will be great indeed if the specially distinguished event occurs."See Also Two places IN Kant's Critique of Judgement "
"The being of this kind is man, but man considered as noumenon, the only natural being in which we can recognize, on the side of its peculiar constitution, a supersensible faculty (freedom) and also the law of causality..."
&
"The formal condition under which nature can alone attain this its final design is that arrangement of men's relations to one another by which lawful authority in a whole, which we call a civil community, is opposed to the abuse of their conflicting freedoms; only in this can the greatest development of natural capacities take place. For this also there would be requisite - if men were clever enough to find it out and wise enough to submit themselves voluntarily to its constraint - a cosmopolitan whole, i.e. a system of all states that are in danger of acting injuriously upon one another. Zum ewigen Frieden (1795). Failing this...to the highest possible pitch." at METHODOLOGY OF THE TELEOLOGICAL JUDGEMENT.all states that are in danger of acting injuriously upon one another. {These views are set forth by Kant more fully in the essay Zum ewigen Frieden (1795).} Failing this...to the highest possible pitch." at METHODOLOGY OF THE TELEOLOGICAL JUDGEMENT.Please note that by forgeting the bracketed italic "i" and using a COPY of the text which contained braces"" what is inside this quote disappeared as seen in the raw text. There are braces between the quotes. You can not see them.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-10-2004 08:53 AM