One of the most ironical movies ever
-
Remember the movie CONTACT with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's book? Well, we were watching it the other night and a thought occurred to me... Jodie's character Ellie bases her SETI research entirely on the premise that if she can detect some kind of meaningful "pattern" in a radio transmission, it would indicate the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence (that created the message). And yet, as an atheist, her character consistently denies that all of the meaningful patterns that fill the known universe - including not only biological life but the laws of nature and logic themselves - do not indicate the existence of some other (creating) intelligence. Now that's irony at it's best - and here I thought Sagan didn't believe in God!
The Grand Negus wrote:
the existence of some other (creating) intelligence
(My emphasis.) That's where your argument falls down. There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
the existence of some other (creating) intelligence
(My emphasis.) That's where your argument falls down. There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
Steve_Harris wrote:
There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
True. But the irony is simpler than that. Here's Ellie's argument: (1) A non-random pattern in a radio transmission indicates an intelligent source. (2) A non-random pattern anywhere else does not. And here's mine: (1) A non-random pattern in a radio transmission indicates an intelligent source. (2) A non-random pattern anywhere else also indicates an intelligence source. Take your pick. The part I find really funny is that the patterns she is looking for as evidence of intelligence are trivial compared to the patterns she rejects as evidence of intelligence.
-
Remember the movie CONTACT with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's book? Well, we were watching it the other night and a thought occurred to me... Jodie's character Ellie bases her SETI research entirely on the premise that if she can detect some kind of meaningful "pattern" in a radio transmission, it would indicate the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence (that created the message). And yet, as an atheist, her character consistently denies that all of the meaningful patterns that fill the known universe - including not only biological life but the laws of nature and logic themselves - do not indicate the existence of some other (creating) intelligence. Now that's irony at it's best - and here I thought Sagan didn't believe in God!
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
the existence of some other (creating) intelligence
(My emphasis.) That's where your argument falls down. There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
Steve_Harris wrote:
There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
How so? Both are irrational belief systems - i.e., based on beliefs for which there are no demonstrable facts.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
This belongs in the soapbox.
I was working from this description: The Lounge is a place where you can discuss anything that takes your fancy... If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. Do not post programming questions (use the programming forums for that) and please don't post ads. It took my fancy, it's kid sister safe, it's not a programming question, and it's not an ad. Besides, people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox!
The Grand Negus wrote:
people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox
true, because no one have the same opinions on the topics discussed there. The soapbox is dedicated not only to nasty discussions, but also the politics and religions; and that's what Colin meant in his post
[VisualCalc][Flags Beginner's Guide] | [Forums Guidelines][My Best Advice]
-
digital man wrote:
BTW what was the book that postulated a pattern/message hidden in pi?
Contact. Alternatively, the Simpsons must have had Homer discover a message hidden in pie.:-D
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
Steve_Harris wrote:
There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
How so? Both are irrational belief systems - i.e., based on beliefs for which there are no demonstrable facts.
Hans Dietrich wrote:
Both are irrational belief systems - i.e., based on beliefs for which there are no demonstrable facts.
Actually, Ellie and her friends are still looking for a pattern in the radio spectrum. My friends and I have found so many patterns of such elegance and complexity that no man can even enumerate them. Think about it. If some SETI enthusiast detects a handful of prime numbers from an unexpected source tomorrow, the entire scientific community will be proclaiming "Life! Life! Intelligent life!". And yet, surrounded by patterns infinitely more complex and inexplicable - including that SETI enthusiast himself, and all of his thoughts - all they can say is "Dust! Dust! It's all just dust!". One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox
true, because no one have the same opinions on the topics discussed there. The soapbox is dedicated not only to nasty discussions, but also the politics and religions; and that's what Colin meant in his post
[VisualCalc][Flags Beginner's Guide] | [Forums Guidelines][My Best Advice]
toxcct wrote:
true [people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox], because no one have the same opinions on the topics discussed there.
And a difference of opinion is grounds for nastiness?
toxcct wrote:
The soapbox is dedicated not only to nasty discussions, but also the politics and religions; and that's what Colin meant in his post
Then the description of the Lounge should include, besides the "kid sister rule" and the request not to post programming questions and ads, something like "and please don't discuss politics or religion here". And the description of the Soapbox should say, "If you want to discuss politics or religion, do it here." How else would one know? Some people have said to move the thing (at least one privately); but others have indicated that I should leave it.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
This belongs in the soapbox.
I was working from this description: The Lounge is a place where you can discuss anything that takes your fancy... If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. Do not post programming questions (use the programming forums for that) and please don't post ads. It took my fancy, it's kid sister safe, it's not a programming question, and it's not an ad. Besides, people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox!
The Grand Negus wrote:
Besides, people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox!
Exactly - that's why the topic belongs there. I wouldn't want my kid sister to see all that nasty stuff.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
toxcct wrote:
true [people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox], because no one have the same opinions on the topics discussed there.
And a difference of opinion is grounds for nastiness?
toxcct wrote:
The soapbox is dedicated not only to nasty discussions, but also the politics and religions; and that's what Colin meant in his post
Then the description of the Lounge should include, besides the "kid sister rule" and the request not to post programming questions and ads, something like "and please don't discuss politics or religion here". And the description of the Soapbox should say, "If you want to discuss politics or religion, do it here." How else would one know? Some people have said to move the thing (at least one privately); but others have indicated that I should leave it.
The Grand Negus wrote:
And a difference of opinion is grounds for nastiness?
No, but people get offended that others might disagree with them. So they get nasty. Something as controvertial as religion therefore goes in the soapbox.
The Grand Negus wrote:
How else would one know?
You've been here long enough to know the difference. So, don't claim ignorance.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
True. But the irony is simpler than that. Here's Ellie's argument: (1) A non-random pattern in a radio transmission indicates an intelligent source. (2) A non-random pattern anywhere else does not. And here's mine: (1) A non-random pattern in a radio transmission indicates an intelligent source. (2) A non-random pattern anywhere else also indicates an intelligence source. Take your pick. The part I find really funny is that the patterns she is looking for as evidence of intelligence are trivial compared to the patterns she rejects as evidence of intelligence.
I have an answer, but it belongs in the soapbox. (And, not it isn't nasty - it just discusses religion)
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Besides, people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox!
Exactly - that's why the topic belongs there. I wouldn't want my kid sister to see all that nasty stuff.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Exactly - that's why the topic belongs there. I wouldn't want my kid sister to see all that nasty stuff.
But they won't get nasty here because this isn't the Soapbox! And they shouldn't get nasty anyway - there's nothing offensive in what I said. In any case, there's a higher probability that a reasonable discussion of the issue will take place here rather than there. I didn't post the thing to get attacked or to generate nasty remarks; I wanted to see if anyone could see a flaw in the logic. So far, I've got two people suggesting a logic problem, which I've answered; one guy posted a smiley; three more went off on different topic, avoiding the issue altogether; and seven of the posts - more than half - are regarding whether or not this is the right place to pose the question. I think I'll put those in with the "avoiding the issue" group.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Exactly - that's why the topic belongs there. I wouldn't want my kid sister to see all that nasty stuff.
But they won't get nasty here because this isn't the Soapbox! And they shouldn't get nasty anyway - there's nothing offensive in what I said. In any case, there's a higher probability that a reasonable discussion of the issue will take place here rather than there. I didn't post the thing to get attacked or to generate nasty remarks; I wanted to see if anyone could see a flaw in the logic. So far, I've got two people suggesting a logic problem, which I've answered; one guy posted a smiley; three more went off on different topic, avoiding the issue altogether; and seven of the posts - more than half - are regarding whether or not this is the right place to pose the question. I think I'll put those in with the "avoiding the issue" group.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But they won't get nasty here because this isn't the Soapbox!
Don't you believe it.
The Grand Negus wrote:
And they shouldn't get nasty anyway
People shouldn't murder each other either - but it happens.
The Grand Negus wrote:
there's nothing offensive in what I said
But it could (and that subject often does) incite people to make offensive remarks.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I didn't post the thing to get attacked or to generate nasty remarks; I wanted to see if anyone could see a flaw in the logic.
I can, but I won't discuss it here. It belongs in the soapbox.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I think I'll put those in with the "avoiding the issue" group.
I'm not avoiding the issue - I just want to see it put in the right place.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
digital man wrote:
BTW what was the book that postulated a pattern/message hidden in pi?
Contact. Alternatively, the Simpsons must have had Homer discover a message hidden in pie.:-D
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
This belongs in the soapbox.
I was working from this description: The Lounge is a place where you can discuss anything that takes your fancy... If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. Do not post programming questions (use the programming forums for that) and please don't post ads. It took my fancy, it's kid sister safe, it's not a programming question, and it's not an ad. Besides, people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox!
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
How so? Both are irrational belief systems - i.e., based on beliefs for which there are no demonstrable facts.
How is believing in aliens irrational?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
Sadly true. I watched the film first and really enjoyed it. A few years later I read the book and thought it was damn fine. I then watched the film shortly after and realised what a poor adaptation it was. They made a significant change in the story in the movie which just irritated the heck out of me.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
How so? Both are irrational belief systems - i.e., based on beliefs for which there are no demonstrable facts.
One involves belief in fairy tales, in the irrational. The other involves belief in life on other planets, which is quite rational.
-
Remember the movie CONTACT with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's book? Well, we were watching it the other night and a thought occurred to me... Jodie's character Ellie bases her SETI research entirely on the premise that if she can detect some kind of meaningful "pattern" in a radio transmission, it would indicate the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence (that created the message). And yet, as an atheist, her character consistently denies that all of the meaningful patterns that fill the known universe - including not only biological life but the laws of nature and logic themselves - do not indicate the existence of some other (creating) intelligence. Now that's irony at it's best - and here I thought Sagan didn't believe in God!
or maybe Sagan was a better writer than you think he was. maybe you're supposed to feel that tension. you don't think it's a coincidence that Ellie is reduced to asking for the authorities to accept her story on her word, her faith, without any evidence at all, do you? (a parallel to something i've seen recently - if i could just remember...) maybe Sagan was well aware of all the creationist arguments and thought it'd make an interesting story if he made his characters deal with them in interesting ways. maybe he decided against trying to give clear dogmatic answers for all of life's mysteries in a novel. nah, couldn't be.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Remember the movie CONTACT with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's book? Well, we were watching it the other night and a thought occurred to me... Jodie's character Ellie bases her SETI research entirely on the premise that if she can detect some kind of meaningful "pattern" in a radio transmission, it would indicate the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence (that created the message). And yet, as an atheist, her character consistently denies that all of the meaningful patterns that fill the known universe - including not only biological life but the laws of nature and logic themselves - do not indicate the existence of some other (creating) intelligence. Now that's irony at it's best - and here I thought Sagan didn't believe in God!
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now that's irony at it's best
No... that is misunderstanding the premise at best. Patterns are easy to find in nature, if anything what you are looking for in Seti is randomness a non-repeating pattern that does not match a known pattern. The first LGM pattern (named LGM unappropriately for "little green men" -- jumping the gun a bit), was a pulsar orbiting another body. This produced a series of pulses in perfect cycle, then the cycle broke, then repeated again. When observing a body for a short period of time, two overlapping elliptical orbits combined with a cyclical rotation (creating the pulses), looks more random than it is. After careful observation for an extended period of time, it was evaluated as an elliptical pattern with a rotation and an eclipse, all known "patterns." What she is looking for is an unknown pattern, any pattern is easy. Purely random and absolutely perfect, non-oscillating, sequences would be equally rare. The universe is a bell curve of patterns, with perfectly random being negligible and perfectly cyclical being at the other low side. In between a lot appear random or near cyclical but have subharmonic events measured over time. As mentioned before, our own sun has sub-harmonics that we measure, just as we measure from other suns in other solar system. The primary cycle is the well-known and well-measured 11 year sunspot cycle. But combined with that is a 22 year variation and a 66 year variation each of which has been measured. It is reasonable to assume, as nature doesn't produce either random or perfect cycles, that subharmonics will continue to be measured for quite some time. The limiting factor is volume of the sun. A single stable atom is cyclical, but that would be the smallest measured subharmonic variation since suns are composed of many elements and their gravitational effects add additional properties, add energy through fusion and you have a recipe of learning subharmonic variations for ages to come.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)