Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

supercluster.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#101

Post by stevenhuang »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #94
swalsh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they found nothing? https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-re...

Kean and Blumenthal have been pushing these stories for a half decade now. They are the same people behind the 2017 F-18 story.

It's turning out these may be more than just stories.

Whisteblowers just last week testified under oath to Congress and the Inspector General of recovered ET craft.

So either they're lying and going straight to jail, or there's truth to these accounts.

We can only wait and see.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#102

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

stevenhuang wrote: post #101
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kean and Blumenthal have been pushing these stories for a half decade now. They are the same people behind the 2017 F-18 story.

It's turning out these may be more than just stories. Whisteblowers just last week testified under oath to Congress and the Inspector General of recovered ET craft. So either they're lying and going straight to jail, or there's truth to these accounts. We can only wait and see.

As far as I'm aware Grusch makes no claims to having any sort of first hand account or evidence. Though it does seem to be acting like catnip for the conspiratorially minded in congress.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#103

Post by GTP »

p-e-w wrote: post #41
pavlov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s science. It’s not in preparation for some kind of imminent encounter whose likelihood is weighed against some other event, but simply trying to understand our universe. Maybe AI can do much better at interpreting signals than humans do, and we should build this lunar station so that the post-human AGI can listen to calls from other distant AGIs. It would certainly have more patience for interstellar communicatio…

Science is a human endeavor, and like all human endeavors, it is subject to human limitations and resource constraints. Humanity surviving is a prerequisite for doing SETI, and that means preferentially allocating resources to projects that work on mitigating existential threats, everything else being equal. Now, I'm not asking that carpenters be reassigned to work on AI extinction scenarios. That wouldn't make sense…

Then we could argue that as a species, well before thinking about cutting the budget for space related studies we should cut the military budget. From the perspective of survival of the human species, it is quite stupid to spend money to find more effective ways of killing each other, while any scientific endeavor would be more valuable as long as the primary goal isn't "how to better kill the enemy".

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#104

Post by burnished »

stephenhuey wrote: post #98
burnished wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heads up; that isnt an even remotely accurate reduction of religion or deities as a concept. I could see the misunderstanding if your only exposure to religion was via christian sermons - they are real big on describing their god as the perfect being that is all powerful and blah de blah - but even their creation myths don't portray an omnipotent being, and much of their bible depicts a deity that strives and mistake…

Not sure what Christian creation story you read, but omnipotence is commonly believed to be a core trait of God. And there's a difference between God allowing bad things to happen and making a mistake. Even when having a dialogue with a human in which it sounds like God is changing his mind, the implication is that God is letting the human work out what, if anything, he needs to change in his heart, and also letting…

The book of Genesis specifically - took a really neat class that was a deep dive on that part of the bible specifically.

That implication you mention is not present in the text at all, and if you think about what it says and what that means it paints a very different picture. I mean, the very process of creation is the shaping of a chaotic potential over a period of time that ends in a rest - that doesn't depict an all powerful god.

Specifically I'd suggest that you are uncritically repeating this perspective that lacks a basis in the text, and its justifications replaces persuasion with insistence and repetition . But it does not make sense and its sole reason for existing is to try and harmonize 'god is perfect' with the actual text.

Edit: To your second paragraph I'm uninterested in how a specific culture views the relationship between men and spirits, I'm referring to how they are human creations that are inherently anthropocentric - they are stories told by humans for humans to explain human things and so their stories are centered around human things.

So the difference between 'people that know other life exists because they believe in spiritual life', and 'people that know other life exists because they recorded a signal that was demonstrably extra terrestrial' is that the former group believes other life is centered on them/us and the latter group does not - I presume we'd ascribe to them similar internal life as to our own, but at the very least we wouldn't assume that their core purpose or sense of place would intersect with us in any way.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#105

Post by stevenhuang »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #102
stevenhuang wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's turning out these may be more than just stories. Whisteblowers just last week testified under oath to Congress and the Inspector General of recovered ET craft. So either they're lying and going straight to jail, or there's truth to these accounts. We can only wait and see.

As far as I'm aware Grusch makes no claims to having any sort of first hand account or evidence. Though it does seem to be acting like catnip for the conspiratorially minded in congress.

That's right, Grusch has no first hand accounts. But apparently personnel from the crash retrieval teams have come forward and testified to congress. Crazy, I know.

It's a developing situation; we need wait and see before jumping to conclusions.

That said having discerningly followed this topic for years, I believe what we're seeing is a momentous shift in the status quo and that the revelations from these proceedings will be paradigm shifting.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#106

Post by digbybk »

Lolaccount wrote: post #100
digbybk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking for aliens is worthwhile because discovering alien life would transform how we see the universe and ourselves, not because it’s easy. That’s like saying the more one looks for fundamental physics the less worthwhile it is. We would never have built a particle accelerator with that attitude. You can extend it to all of science. Why look for anything hard?

I've heard that line a hundred times. But would it? I value SETI and ideas behind it and even the line you just wrote. But would it? The whole thing will just descend into a twisted conspiracy pit of nonsense within 48 hours. _______ How long did governments know about it? Have aliens been interbreeding with humans all this time? Is Joe Biden a lizard crossbreed alien? When do we get to nuke them? ________ This is th…

I think this comes down to how we're using the words "we". Galileo transformed how "we" see the world, but not a whole lot of people at the time appreciated the implications of what he was saying. I think we need to keep looking for ways to answer the big questions because it elevates us. But it's often unevenly distributed in space and time, unfortunately.

Basically, I'm saying that the search for alien life is just science, and if you believe in curiosity-motivated science, there's no reason to single that out. Unless you're worried about alien malware, which isn't a crazy thing to be worried about https://youtu.be/st9EJg_t6yc

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#107

Post by GTP »

burnished wrote: post #72
localplume wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does it seem more likely? from an objective standpoint, why is there a higher likelihood for that? I would actually disagree. Extraterrestrial life is essentially guaranteed (statistically) but conlusive evidence is exceptionally difficult and who knows how far away any life would be. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest AGI is possible, let alone ASI. At best they are both equally unlikely in that people a…

Nitpick: Our own intelligence suggests that an artificial general intelligence is possible. First time seeing ASI but, any quality you can attribute to a human has the potential to be replicated by dint of the mechanical nature of our bodies. I'm not saying we'll get there - I don't think 'we' as a culture even really understands what is meant by intelligence - but we know its possible because we exist.

I'm open to the possibility of achieving an artificial intelligence, but for other reasons.

Most of the people talking about AGI now are assuming it is possible to achieve that with today's computer architectures, maybe just more powerful than what we have now. But to be fair, the fact that our body is intelligent says very little about the possibility that also a PC could be intelligent, as their inner workings are extremely different. To be sure that a computer can be intelligent, you have either to build a computer AGI and show that it is intelligent or you have to prove that intelligence is computable.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#108

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

stevenhuang wrote: post #105
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm aware Grusch makes no claims to having any sort of first hand account or evidence. Though it does seem to be acting like catnip for the conspiratorially minded in congress.

That's right, Grusch has no first hand accounts. But apparently personnel from the crash retrieval teams have come forward and testified to congress. Crazy, I know. It's a developing situation; we need wait and see before jumping to conclusions. That said having discerningly followed this topic for years, I believe what we're seeing is a momentous shift in the status quo and that the revelations from these proceeding…

> But apparently personnel from the crash retrieval teams have come forward and testified to congress. Crazy, I know.

Who? Do you have an article for this? Because all I see are claims that people say the retrieval accounting could be possibly credible, but absolutely no first hand accounts.

> That said having discerningly followed this topic for years, I believe what we're seeing is a momentous shift in the status quo and that the revelations from these proceedings will be paradigm shifting.

It's also possible that leadership is becoming less discerning and more than happy to follow whatever makes the biggest headlines.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#109

Post by stevenhuang »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #108
stevenhuang wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right, Grusch has no first hand accounts. But apparently personnel from the crash retrieval teams have come forward and testified to congress. Crazy, I know. It's a developing situation; we need wait and see before jumping to conclusions. That said having discerningly followed this topic for years, I believe what we're seeing is a momentous shift in the status quo and that the revelations from these proceeding…

> But apparently personnel from the crash retrieval teams have come forward and testified to congress. Crazy, I know. Who? Do you have an article for this? Because all I see are claims that people say the retrieval accounting could be possibly credible, but absolutely no first hand accounts. > That said having discerningly followed this topic for years, I believe what we're seeing is a momentous shift in the status q…

It's in the linked article

https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-re...

> Several current members of the recovery program spoke to the Inspector General’s office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint.

If we believe the claims, it's looking more the case that leadership is completely in the blind regarding these activities. These UAP programs have operated without congressional oversight, and so are illegal. Leadership is now forced to address these claims seriously, for the first time since the 70s.

Re: SETI scientists to devise plan for lunar listening station

#110

Post by burnished »

GTP wrote: post #107
burnished wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: Our own intelligence suggests that an artificial general intelligence is possible. First time seeing ASI but, any quality you can attribute to a human has the potential to be replicated by dint of the mechanical nature of our bodies. I'm not saying we'll get there - I don't think 'we' as a culture even really understands what is meant by intelligence - but we know its possible because we exist.

I'm open to the possibility of achieving an artificial intelligence, but for other reasons. Most of the people talking about AGI now are assuming it is possible to achieve that with today's computer architectures, maybe just more powerful than what we have now. But to be fair, the fact that our body is intelligent says very little about the possibility that also a PC could be intelligent, as their inner workings are…

I make no claims about the hardware it would run on, simply that our bodies are evidence that intelligence can be evoked from a system that fits largely inside the human skull, certainly no larger than the human body. That alone is sufficient evidence that the goal of creating a recognizably similar intelligence is not impossible.

Also, most of the people talking about AI and intelligence don't know jack from shit. Other people have wondered if the differences between computer hardware traits and brain traits (one has relatively few but highly reliable and completely integrated units, the other is the inverse) is crucial and have been working on neuromorphic hardware. Other groups have focused on modeling and simulating at various levels with the goal of creating medically relevant models (one day), with stunning results in modeling specific neuron's firing behavior, and interesting if not at all medically plausible simulations of the behavior of groups of neurons interacting and performing tasks.

Talking about how smart a computer chip can be is irrelevant when the hardware is instead designed to function like neurons do. A simulation of intelligence that performs by doing what a brain does in the way that a brain does it has a strong argument for being akin to intelligence - especially if you construct the simulation such that it must deal with human experiences, such as persistent embodiment in a stimulating environment with multiple competing needs.

Post reply on HN