We are the only conscious living in universe because we do not reach the accurate technology to demonstrate the contrary yet. I think saying humanity is the only evidence life in Universe is somehow flat and it should be better considering it more general/open to debate deeply or at least as a theory like Big Bang and the born of Universe.
This reminds me about Drake's equation written back in 1961 theorising which are the possibilities of other lives in the Universe apart from ours.

The Drake equation is:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

It is interesting this theory which makes us questioning if it is worthy or not discover if we are alone or not in this vast universe.

"Ontological Principle" that "no argument is valid if it overdetermine a cause that affects only external factors without having any kind of internal consequence", — Gus Lamarch

When you say "overdetermine a cause" does that mean there are other possible causes of the phenomenon in question?

Can you give an example of an argument that doesn't affect external factors but has an internal consequence?

So, if I correctly comprehend your argument, we ought to chuck-out the unreasonably effective mediocrity principle on the grounds of this – just another – appeal to ignorance? :meh:

If humanity is the centre of consciousness in the universe, it raise the question of what is our role in it.? It would almost seem to make us like gods. Also, we could ask did it happen randomly? Is there any purpose underlying evolution?Of course, it is so difficult to know for sure and even if we are at this point, it doesn't mean that there have never been other beings, perhaps much more advanced and sophisticated than us. Part of the problem is that we see through the human perspective, which does appear to be the ultimate one, but it is not possible for us to go beyond being human beings in order to see from another position. Of course, there have been religious teachers but they still were living as humans too.

When you say "overdetermine a cause" does that mean there are other possible causes of the phenomenon in question? — T Clark

Indeed, the existence of other causes is not an impossibility within this reasoning. The point in question is the unnecessary attention that humanity overlaps with those causes that exclude it from the equation. In the scientific community, the question being asked should be:

- Is there extraterrestrial life? And if it exists, why should it be different than the one found on Earth?

And not:

- Is there extraterrestrial life different than the one on Earth?

Can you give an example of an argument that doesn't affect external factors but has an internal consequence? — T Clark

"Humanity is the only sentient life on the Universe"

If, in fact, my ontological proposition is correct, this is an example of an argument with internal consequence, without affecting any external factor:

- All intelligent extraterrestrial life is hypothetical; - External Factor -
- Humanity is evidently intelligent; - Valid ontological argument -
- Therefore, Humanity is the only intelligent life. - Internal consequence -

The Drake equation is:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

It is interesting this theory which makes us questioning if it is worthy or not discover if we are alone or not in this vast universe. — javi2541997

You clearly did not understand my proposition, given that you are using an ontologically invalid argument - Drake's Equation - to defend your view.

My criticism is directly related to this type of theoretical argument that builds conclusions that affect external factors without any kind of concern with the internal consequences - the human experience itself -.

If life outside of Earth exists, we should look for it as if we were looking for Earth and Humanity, because the probability of inteligent life being identical to ours is greater than it being formed from - for example - minerals - lithoids - or other chemical elements - Methane, Helium, Plasma, etc... based life -.

If humanity is the centre of consciousness in the universe, it raise the question of what is our role in it.? It would almost seem to make us like gods. Also, we could ask did it happen randomly? Is there any purpose underlying evolution?Of course, it is so difficult to know for sure and even if we are at this point, it doesn't mean that there have never been other beings, perhaps much more advanced and sophisticated than us. Part of the problem is that we see through the human perspective, which does appear to be the ultimate one, but it is not possible for us to go beyond being human beings in order to see from another position. Of course, there have been religious teachers but they still were living as humans too. — Jack Cummins

My reasoning is not being based on some metaphysical idea of "sacred destiny" or "cosmic purpose" for humanity, but on the ontological interpretation of existence, which, until now, shows that humanity is the only point in the Universe with self-awareness, and not because that is a purpose, but by chance.

As I said, if evidence is found that intelligent life exists, this discussion and argument can be dismissed, but until then, it remains valid.

Hasty generalization fallacy. The only thing that validly follows from your first two propositions, Gus, is

'Therefore, evidence of, or ruling out, Humanity's "intelligent extraterrestrial" hypothesis is still lacking.'

Hasty generalization fallacy. — 180 Proof

As I always say, someone who refuses to try to understand the argument, and is blinded by contradictory bias, will not present an answer worth discussing.

:joke:

One book which I have read which is relevant to the discussion which you have raised is, 'The Corpernicus Complex:The Quest for Our Cosmic (In)Significance,' by Caleb Scharf, (2014). In this, the author argues,
'our specific human biology, its evolutionary history, and its connections to our planetary circumstances could well be unique_ if measured with a fine pair of calipers. But this does not have to imply that life_even complex life_ can't reach similar states by following other pathways. We could be special yet be surrounded by a universe of other complex, equally special life-forms that just took a different trajectory.'

However, I am not sure that I find his argument fully convincing and I was a bit disappointed by the book because it seems to focus on bacteria as life. He does not look at the issue of human consciousness. I suppose it just calls for us to question our significance. I have interacted with you enough to be aware that you don't have any sense of us having a 'sacred destiny', but in thinking about what you have said and Scharf's ideas, I do think it just important for us not to read too much into our place in the universe. We could become too inflated about being our evolutionary status. However, I do believe that the evolution of our consciousness is a territory for exploration in its own right, but that is probably outside of your thread discussion.

Therefore, Earth is the "center of the conscious experience of the Universe", and the Ontological Point - Humanity. — Gus Lamarch

Point of view is necessarily from a single vantage point -- not many.
Multiple points of view can exist, but not in a single vantage point. This is a one to one relation.
Absence of evidence that there is another intelligent life existing in the universe, doesn't mean absence of multiple vantage points. The error here is, the impossibility of accessing or being in multiple vantage points is not being considered.

Point of view is necessarily from a single vantage point -- not many.
Multiple points of view can exist, but not in a single vantage point. This is a one to one relation.
Absence of evidence that there is another intelligent life existing in the universe, doesn't mean absence of multiple vantage points. The error here is, the impossibility of accessing or being in multiple vantage points is not being considered. — Caldwell

What it seems to me that you are not understanding is that I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of intelligent life outside the Earth. I'm just making it clear that all the theories and hypotheses about the possibility of this life are just that, theories and hypotheses about a "probability", the same ones that are supported by an erroneous interpretation of existence, which suggests that life on Earth is unique and intrinsically biological to Earth's ecosystem.

Theories and hypotheses about possibilities sustained on a false basis, are fallacious, and therefore, unable to refute the argument that I present:

"Until proven otherwise, Humanity is the only evidential intelligent life in the Universe, and by direct consequence, the Ontological Point of existence."

So far, I only read responses that try to strength the theories and hypothesis agains the argument, but that do not refute it.

But this does not have to imply that life_even complex life_ can't reach similar states by following other pathways. — Jack Cummins

This is the point I want to focus on in this discussion. We developed a cosmological rationalization of extraterrestrial life completely independent and distant from that which exists on Earth - us -, and in this movement, we ended up transforming this search into a quasi-metaphysical objective to be achieved: - To prove that intelligent life completely different from ours exist.

The "Ontological Principle" shows that this type of conclusion is erroneous, and if it is erroneous, the search is being in vain. One of the following two scenarios below are more plausible than a life based on magma - for example -:

Or (1) extraterrestrial intelligent life is identical or very similar to that presented on our planet;
Or (2) Humanity is the only intelligent life in the Universe.

If both scenarios are analyzed, it is visible that, evidently, the second staement is correct, therefore, the Ontological Point necessarily remains as being of Humanity.

What it seems to me that you are not understanding is that I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of intelligent life outside the Earth. — Gus Lamarch

I do not assume that you rule out the possibility of the existence of intelligent life. I read from your argument that it is

However, if applied the "Ontological Principle" that "no argument is valid if it overdetermine a cause that affects only external factors without having any kind of internal consequence", we are able to reach the following conclusion: — Gus Lamarch

Instead of arguing from that angle, which is futile, as you've already argued the above, talk about vantage point -- and why it is valid to argue that there are other intelligent lifeforms.

Do you see this point? Arguing by invoking the inaccessibility of a vantage point. "Because we can't do crap, we also can't say crap". You're not entitled yet to claim that there can be no valid argument to be made.

Perhaps, we can go as far as saying that it appears that humanity is the most intelligent form of life in the universe, based on our present state of knowledge.

You're not entitled yet to claim that there can be no valid argument to be made. — Caldwell

Ironically, your statement fits comfortably with the theories and hypotheses that affirm extraterrestrial life different from Humanity, which are also supported by the inaccessibility of the evidence, and the overdetermining of the cause - the necessity of inteligent life being different than the one on Earth -.

If your point with this sentence was to refute my argument, I am sorry to inform you, but that argument is a double-edged knife. If it is logically valid against the proposition of this discussion, it is also possible to be applied in the theories and hypotheses made explicit as erroneous.

You can see the point, yes? If analysed ontologically - the scientific argument -, it is evidentially proven that the argument in favor of life different than that found on Earth is erroneous, as it overdetermine the cause in expense of the internal consequences:

Life must be - overdetermining of the cause - different than the found on Earth - exclusion of the internal consequence - even though we ourselves are life - internal consequence -.

The OP amounts to nothing more than an appeal to the Earth's being the only place we know of that has an example of consciousness.

Not so profound a point, hey.

Perhaps, we can go as far as saying that it appears that humanity is the most intelligent form of life in the universe, based on our present state of knowledge. — Jack Cummins

A more correct sentence would be:

- Humanity, according to the ontological principle, is substantially evident, as being the only intelligent life form in the Universe until proven otherwise.

I find it exceedingly difficult intellectually to accept that sapience in this universe is unique to Human Beings.

[ ... ]

I'm less & less persuaded as the decades pass and we learn more about the universe and refine our physical theories (to the extent the gist of them is intelligible to a laymen like me by the good graces of popularizing scientists) that we are alone -- that both biological phenomena (i.e. "natural selection" & ontogenic sentience) and sapience (i.e. "intelligence", whether biological or not) are unique to this planet. It's the height of blinkered, atavistic chauvanism for Human Beings to hold on to this last shred of unwarranted self-importance after all the decentering blows delivered to our superstitions down the recent centuries by the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Spinoza, Newton, Hume, Darwin, Boltzmann, Einstein, Goedel/Turing/Von Neumann/Chaitin, Shannon, Saussure/Levi-Strauss/Chomsky et al.

[ ... ] — 180 Proof

(An excerpt from old thread about "Fermi's Paradox" which, like most paradoxes, doesn't hold up to scrutiny ... like the OP.)

(excerpts from old thread about "Fermi's Paradox" which, like most paradoxes, doesn't hold up to scrutiny ... like the OP) — 180 Proof

Your Ctrl + C Ctrl + V of the thoughts of a true intellectual do not refute or belittle my staments in any way, because at no time did I try to refute figures like Copernicus - for example -. My point with this discussion is explicitly visible in the first two sentences of the OP.

Honestly, the "inteligencia" of this forum is just that, "the inteligencia". People content with the exacerbation of their mediocricities.

People content with the exacerbation of their mediocricities. — Gus Lamarch

How smug of you to so blithely confess ... :lol:

How smug of you to so blithely confess ... — 180 Proof

With sincerity and egoism, withdraw from this discussion that is producing a prosperous debate. Good day/Good night.

I am inclined to think that the worthwhile discussion may be reflection upon the ontological point. If we are the only form of consciousness, what does that mean for us? Some may think it is of no importance while others may interpret it as having deep significance for how we view ourselves. Personally, while I do believe in respect for other life forms, I see the implication as one for seeing the value in each human being, in a world in which people are being seen as mere numbers.

I am inclined to think that the worthwhile discussion may be reflection upon the ontological point. If we are the only form of consciousness, what does that mean for us? Some may think it is of no importance while others may interpret it as having deep significance for how we view ourselves. Personally, while I do believe in respect for other life forms, I see the implication as one for seeing the value in each human being, in a world in which people are being seen as mere numbers. — Jack Cummins

My "Ontological Point" theory is based on the anthropological and philosophical interpretation that Man, as a Being in and during Existence, is aware not only of his surroundings and his biological needs - instincts - but also conscious of his own conscience. And because it is the only one capable of such a feat, so far, evidential, the only "point" of the Universe where such an experience can be witnessed is through humanity.

It is a link between my egoistic interpretation of human nature and the ontological-anthropological perception of the individual's "oneness" - and in this case, of all individuals - humanity - -.

I think that your thread discussion may be clearer with that point made. But, of course, it may be that others see the implications differently. Many may see humans as the only conscious life forms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would interpret it to the conclusion which you come to.

I think that your point may be clearer with that point made. But, of course, it may be that others see the implications differently. Many may see humans as the only conscious life forms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would interpret it to the conclusion which you come to. — Jack Cummins

It is great if they disagree with my statements; that they seek to refute them with concise and detailed ideas.

The problem is when such people decide to try to refute my argument using the very argument that my statements proves to be erroneous.

If the only evidential life in the Universe so far is "Humanity", by direct consequence, Man is also the "Ontological Point", that is, the "existential center of awareness of the Universe", since he is the only one evidently aware of its own sapience.

Therefore, Earth is the "center of the conscious experience of the Universe", and the Ontological Point - Humanity. — Gus Lamarch

I can see several logical problems with your statement.

Firstly: Humanity is not the only evidential life in the universe! We are only one of a myriad of life forms on earth. Perhaps you should rephrase this.

Secondly. Humanity is ontologically dependent upon elements of the Earth for its existence ( since it is entirely created from these elements ). The Earth is ontologically dependent upon universal elements for its existence. So fundamentally we are a being of the universe. We are one of the ways that the universe expresses itself, or to put it another way - we are a function of universal self organization.

Thirdly: For your statement that the Earth is the center of the conscious experience of the universe to be meaningful, you would have to define consciousness? You would have to keep in mind that it is a unique property in every individual ( no two are exactly the same ), and that it is an evolving process, thus open ended. If you accept this, then you will see that it is not the same experience for everyone, and so the statement is logically invalid. As it stands it is a singular statement with a myriad of experiential manifestations. It makes no sense to assume self awareness and sapience for all forms of consciousness, as many are contradictory. Where some see God, others see physical causes.

I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. This definition fits human consciousness as every conscious moment is a moment of self organization. But this definition does not exclude anything, at all! Every point in the universe is part of a self organizing system, in the sense that the system in some way differentiates itself from the whole, and the whole itself - the universe - is a self organizing system. So in this sense consciousness is ubiquitous, which is contrary to your assertion.

Firstly: Humanity is not the only evidential life in the universe! We are only one of a myriad of life forms on earth. Perhaps you should rephrase this.

Secondly. Humanity is ontologically dependent upon elements of the Earth for its existence ( since it is entirely created from these elements ). The Earth is ontologically dependent upon universal elements for its existence. So fundamentally we are a being of the universe. We are one of the ways that the universe expresses itself, or to put it another way - we are a function of universal self organization.

Thirdly: For your statement that the Earth is the center of the conscious experience of the universe to be meaningful, you would have to define consciousness? You would have to keep in mind that it is a unique property in every individual ( no two are exactly the same ), and that it is an evolving process, thus open ended. If you accept this, then you will see that it is not the same experience for everyone, and so the statement is logically invalid. As it stands it is a singular statement with a myriad of experiential manifestations. It makes no sense to assume self awareness and sapience for all forms of consciousness, as many are contradictory. Where some see God, others see physical causes.

I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. This definition fits human consciousness as every conscious moment is a moment of self organization. But this definition does not exclude anything, at all! Every point in the universe is part of a self organizing system, in the sense that the system in some way differentiates itself from the whole, and the whole itself - the universe - is a self organizing system. So in this sense consciousness is ubiquitous, which is contrary to your assertion. — Pop

Honestly, it is ridiculous when someone comes up with a beautiful argument as this, so that it is completely refuted by a mediocre error such as not reading the first two statements of the discussion.

Humanity is not the only evidential life in the universe! We are only one of a myriad of life forms on earth. — Pop

[This topic only touches on the question of "intelligent life" without considering "unconscious-primitive" life.] — Gus Lamarch

I can see several logical problems with your statement. — Pop

Indeed, I see them too...

Indeed, I see them too... — Gus Lamarch

However, I find your historical writing very interesting and look forward to reading it. :smile: